Source: https://innerwestarchive.infocouncil.biz/Open/2014/07/ACM_08072014_AGN_AT.HTM
Timestamp: 2019-03-21 11:48:25
Document Index: 100791524

Matched Legal Cases: ['application no. 10', 'Application No. 10', 'art 1', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 6', 'art 11', 'art 4', 'art 15']

Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 8 July 2014
You are invited to attend an ORDINARY MEETING of Ashfield Council, to be held in the Council Chambers, Level 6, Civic Centre, 260 Liverpool Road, Ashfield on TUESDAY
8 JULY 2014 at 6:30 PM.
Ordinary Meeting - 8 July 2014
· Lee Wong, Chairperson of the Internal Audit Committee, will make a presentation to Council on the Internal Audit Committee’s activities
Ordinary Meeting - 24/06/2014
Aboriginal Cultural Committee – 19/06/2014
Ashfield Access Committee - 12/05/2014
Ashfield Youth Committee – 05/05/2014
MM16/2014 2014 INNER WEST LOCAL BUSINESS AWARDS
MM17/2014 2014 CIVIC CHURCH SERVICE
NM18/2014 SECURITY
NR6/2014 PARRAMATTA ROAD RENEWAL PROGRAM MOU
10.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2006.039.6 113-119 PROSPECT ROAD SUMMER HILL
10.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 10.2012.269.2 -
380-382 Liverpool Road, 36 & 38 Milton Street, Ashfield
10.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.274.1
69 MILTON STREET ASHFIELD
10.4 2 - 32 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL
CONCEPT PLAN APPLICATION AMENDMENT
10.5 DRAFT ARTS, COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT GRANTS POLICY
10.6 DRAFT NOTIFICATIONS POLICY
NR4/2014 GENERAL MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW
NR5/2014 GENERAL MANAGER'S CONTRACT RENEWAL
Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of these items, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that personnel matters concerning particular individuals.
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 MM16/2014
I attended the 2014 Inner West Local Business Awards Presentation Dinner, along with The Deputy Mayor Councillor Caroline Stott and Councillor Morris Mansour, on Wednesday 25 June 2014 at Burwood RSL Club, and presented two Awards in our capacity as Award Sponsors. From an audience of 500 people a total of 36 Awards were presented.
Ashfield LGA’s businesses were very well represented with 30 Finalists and Award Winners.
Ashfield LGA’s businesses deliver great service to our community. Council expresses congratulations to all the businesses who made the finals and particularly to the following Category Winners:
Excelsior Jones Café- New Business of the Year
OZ Hair, Ashfield Mall- Hairdresser of the Year
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 MM17/2014
2014 CIVIC CHURCH SERVICE
I attended the Civic Church Service at St James Anglican Church on Sunday 22 June 2014.
I was joined by Councillors Drury, Mansour, Lofts, and Wang, the Hon Linda Burney MP, Member for Canterbury, Mr Charles Casuscelli Member for Strathfield, Local Area Commander David Johnson, Ashfield Police, Father Ray Sommers from St Christophorus German Catholic Church at Croydon, along with representatives from Ashfield Uniting Church, Ashfield/Leichhardt State Emergency Services, St. John Ambulance Cadets –Western Suburbs Division, Ashfield Seniors Committee, Ashfield Access Committee, Ashfield Aboriginal Consultative Committee, Ashfield Charitable Team, St. Vincent De Paul Conference Summer Hill, Recreation Centre of the Third Age, Haberfield Liberi Association, Haberfield Red Cross, and Ashfield-Burwood Meals on Wheels.
Reverend Lukabyo & Reverend John Geyer paid tribute to all the volunteers and civic leaders in our Municipality who gave their time to assist those in need of support.
The Church organised refreshments for the morning tea which was held outside in the grounds.
2/3 That the Mayor approach Reverend David Balzer at Ashfield
Presbyterian Church to hold the Civic Church Service for 2015.
3/3 That Council assist in the provision of morning tea at the conclusion of
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 NM18/2014
COUNCILLORS Julie Passas, Vittoria Raciti, Max Raiola and Adriano Raiola
To move Notice of Motion No. NM18/2014
It has come to our attention that Council is experiencing problems with security at the Civic Centre.
Ratepayers property has been stolen and Council reimbursed a Hire Company when leased equipment was stolen.
This occurred in business hours on the ground floor. We believe there was also an incident when police were called in the vicinity of the Customer Service Counter.
We were also contacted by a resident who was denied access to a Council Meeting due to the door being locked.
There seems to be strict rules in place regarding Councillors and the Level 6, yet it is clear security is lacking on the Ground floor.
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 NR6/2014
COUNCILLORS Monica Wangmann, Caroline Stott and Alex Lofts
That Council rescind the previous resolution in relation to CM10.4 – Parramatta Road Renewal Program MOU, passed at the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 24 June 2014, namely:
1/2 That the Mayor and General Manager be granted delegation to enter into the MoU on Council’s behalf.
2/2 That Attachment 3 to the report be included as the relevant Inputs/Outputs of Ashfield Council in Attachment 3.2 to the MoU.
That item CM10.4 - Parramatta Road Renewal Program MOU, be rescinded.
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 CM10.1
Subject DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2006.039.6 113-119 PROSPECT ROAD SUMMER HILL
File Ref DA 10.2006.039
Prepared by Philip North - Specialist Planner
An application pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, seeks Council’s approval to modify the approved development as follows:
The application proposes to modify the existing consent to increase the maximum enrolment number of students at the school by 200 from 1500 to 1700 by amending condition no. 5 of the consent from:
The number of students at the Summer Hill campus shall not exceed 1700.
This application was referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 for determination with a recommendation for approval. The Council, however, resolved as follows:
That the matter be deferred to ask the proponents to furnish the following information:
1. How many students are actually now attending the school?
2. Are junior i.e. non high school students now attending school on the Summer Hill School site?
4. How many students of driving age are there in Years 11 and 12?
5. The total number of staff?
6. The Master Plan to which the school is working for future development?
The applicant has replied as follows in an email dated 26 May 2014:
1. 1.Number of students now attending the School (stated in our Traffic Report – page 2 section 2.1 Existing School Population table 1)
2. Whether junior (i.e. non high school) students are now attending school on the Summer Hill School site and if so how many? (stated in our Traffic Report – page 2 section 2.1 Existing School Population table 1)
3. Number of students of driving age in Years 11 and 12 (Council’s own parking requirements from the current 2007 DCP are stated on page 17 of our Traffic Report – section 4.3.1 and table 20)
4. The total number of staff (stated in our Traffic Report – page 2 section 2.1 Existing School Population table 1)
5. The Master Plan to which the school is working for future development (the School is working to complete the current Master Plan which was the subject of 10.2006.039.6 and has not got a current Master Plan formulated.)
Reference to the materials noted in the applicant’s reply yields the following specific information:
1. There are a total of 1,466 students now attending the school.
2. Junior i.e. non high school students DO attend the Summer Hill School site.
3. A total of 313 junior students (i.e. under Year 7) currently attend the school.
4. There are 387 Year 11 and 12 Students, 62 of which drive themselves to school.
5. There are 302 staff, of which 218 are full time and 84 are part time.
6. The Master Plan is described in Development Application 10.2006.39 and its various amendment applications up to and including the current proposed amendment described in this application.
It should be noted that on 10 June 2014, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal of the application. The matter is listed for a directions hearing on 8 July 2014.
Additionally, on the day that this report was finalised, 6 submissions were received in the form of a petition opposing the proposal along with other recent development proposed by the school but unrelated to this particular application. These submissions, received well outside of the notification period, raise the same concerns considered and addressed in the first report to Council on this application and therefore do not need to be revisited.
3.0 Summary Recommendation
The applicant’s response reinforces the information provided by the applicant in its application which was considered in the initial assessment. This information is considered satisfactory and it is recommended that Council adopt the original recommendation for approval.
Report to Council Meeting 13 May 2014
Development application no. 10.2006.39.6 to increase the maximum number of students at the campus from 1500 to 1700 at 113-119 Prospect Road, Summer Hill, be modified in accordance with section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 CM10.2
Subject DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 10.2012.269.2 -
File Ref 10.2012.269.2
· Increase the height from 6 to 7 storeys;
· Increase the gross floor area and provide an additional 10 dwellings;
· Change the dwelling mix and layout; facade and basement layout;
· Decrease the setback towards Milton Lane;
· Deletion of south facing balconies to levels 1-4 addressing Milton Lane;
· Delete conditions of consent G(6), (7) & (8) and B(19) relating to dedication of land which is the subject of the widening of Milton Lane;
· Modifications required to satisfy the deferred commencement consent; and
· Other minor modifications described in the applicant’s SEE and submitted plans.
The originally approved scheme was as follows:
· Demolition of the existing structures on the site;
· Ancillary development including landscaping, garbage and common areas;
· Construction of a 6 storey mixed use building consisting of:
o Level 1: A retail premises fronting Liverpool Road and Milton Street, Residential lobbies, basement car park access, ancillary facilities, storage, plant rooms and landscaping (including to the RMS reserve).
o Levels 2-6: 45 dwellings (22 x one bedroom dwellings, 22 x two bedroom dwellings & 1 x three bedroom dwelling).
o 2 level underground car park consisting of:
Resident car parking spaces
Visitor (disabled)
Retail car parking spaces
Retail Disabled
Loading/reversing space
The resultant scheme is as follows (amendments in bold italics):
· Construction of a 7 storey mixed use building consisting of:
o Levels 2-7: 55 dwellings (20 x one bedroom dwellings, 28 x two bedroom dwellings, 6 x three bedroom dwellings and 1 x four bedroom dwelling).
It is considered that the proposed amendment substantially alters the nature of the original proposal and its compliance with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the applicable Interim Development Assessment Policy.
The proposal is excessive in height and floor space and is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. In addition, the proposal to remove the dedication of the land comprising the widened Milton Lane is not acceptable.
Consequently, the development is recommended for refusal.
Applicant : Vranas Properties
Address : C/O- Dickson Rothschild 6 Argyle Place Millers Point 2000
Owner : Vranas Prosperities Pty Ltd
Lot/DP : Lot 100, DP 1016118, Lot 8, DP 244344, Lots A & B,
DP 393265
Date lodged : 10/04/2014
Building classification : 2, 6 & 7a
Not altered by proposal.
5.0 APPLICATION HISTORY
Development application 10.2012.269.1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six storey commercial and residential flat building with ground floor retail, two levels of basement car parking, lane widening and landscaping was granted deferred commencement consent on 24 September 2013.
The following table summarises the milestones of the current application:
Deferred commencement consent granted for:
Demolition of existing structures, the construction of a 6 storey commercial and residential flat building with ground floor retail, two levels of basement parking, lane widening and landscaping.
10.2012.269.1
S96(2) application lodged with Council without proceeding through the Provisional Development Application process.
10.2012.269.2
Request that applicant withdraw application due to the following:
· application sufficiently different from that which was approved to render it no longer substantially the same development and therefore outside the scope of section 96.
· the proposed modifications unsupportable due to the significant and unwarranted variations to the height and FSR standards under Ashfield LEP 2013.
7.0 SECTION 79C and 96(2) ASSESSMENT
The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C and 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
7.1 Section 96(2) Other Modifications
A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:
S96(2) clause
it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all),
The proposal is not considered to be substantially the same development due to:
· The addition of an entire additional floor;
· Substantial increase in FSR; and
· Addition of 10 units.
it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent
The application has been forwarded to Roads and Maritime Services for consultation but no response has been received to date.
Nevertheless, the recommendation is for refusal and the lack of RMS reply would only hinder the granting of consent.
it has notified the application in accordance with:
(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent
The proposal has been notified as required.
it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.
Submissions have been considered as required.
As noted in the table above, it is considered that the proposal is sufficiently different in that it proposes a seven storey, rather than a six storey building, is not substantially the same development and cannot be considered under section 96.
7.2 The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument
7.2.1 Local Environmental Plans
Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013
Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 (ALEP 2013) was gazetted on 23 December 2013 and is a matter for consideration. The following table summarises the compliance of the application with ALEP 2013.
Zone objectives and land use table
Residential flat building & retail premises
Part SP2 Infrastructure – Classified Road
Landscaping, footpath & allowance for road widening
4.3(2A)
Any part of the roof top structure of a building located within 3m below the highest point of the building shall not include floor space area.
Top 3m contains floor space
Written requests submitted for variations to cl. 4.3(2), 4.3(2A) & cl. 4.4.
4.6(3)(a)
4.6(3)(b)
That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:
4.6(4)(a)
The consent authority is satisfied that:
4.6(4)(a)(ii)
The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub-clause (3), and
4.6(4)(a)(iii)
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
The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the standard or of the zone.
4.6(4)(b)
The concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.
As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development deviates substantially from the provisions of ALEP 2013 as follows:
· Cl. 4.3(2), Height of Buildings: The proposal significantly exceeds the maximum height limit for the site by 1.2m;
· Cl. 4.3(2A), Height of Buildings: The top 3m of the proposal contains habitable floor space in contravention of this clause;
· Cl. 4.4, Floor Space Ratio: the FSR exceeds the maximum by 0.76:1.
· Cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards: The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the variations proposed to the development standards are acceptable under the terms of this clause.
7.2.2 Regional Environmental Plans
7.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policies
The proposal does not alter compliance with the relevant SEPPs.
7.3 The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.
7.4 The provisions of any Development Control Plan.
The proposal alters compliance with Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013, (Ashfield IDAP 2013) specifically to the following Parts:
Either complies or can readily comply by way of condition.
ASHFIELD WEST AREA
The proposal does not comply with the content of this part.
Cl 2.6(a) Height: max 23m
Proposed height of 24.2m
Exceeds maximum height by 1.2m
Cl 2.6(b) Ceiling Height: max 20m
Proposed height of 24.0m
Exceeds maximum height by 4m
Cl 2.23 Landscape
The proposal includes satisfactory landscape upgrading, including street tree planting, of the land zoned for road widening. Nevertheless, the clause states:
Council will consider the merits of a floor space ratio variation pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Ashfield LEP 2013 which equates with the value of carrying out of this work.
It should be noted that the original consent (DA 10.2012.269.1) allowed the applicant a total FSR of 2.1:1 (0.6:1 over the maximum ALEP 1985 FSR at the time) for the following reasons:
· 2:1 was permitted subject to a SEPP 1 Objection and consideration of the then Draft ALEP 2013 maximum FSR for the site of 2:1;
· An additional 0.1:1 was permitted in consideration specifically to provide an FSR bonus in recognition of the basic landscaping work provided on the RMS verge. It should be noted that the landscaping to the RMS verge is relatively simple and consists primarily of turf. The tree planting and pavement immediately in front of the development, however, would be required as a matter of course in any development on a similar site.
Therefore, because the FSR of 2:1 in the draft was already a consideration in the acceptance of the approved FSR, the gazettal of ALEP 2013 and the higher FSR does not alter the rationale for maintenance of an FSR of 2.1:1 for the site.
Consequently, the proposal to increase the FSR to 2.76:1 is not supported.
Satisfactory subject to conditions:
Parking rates for residential flat buildings in B4 zones are as follows:
· 1 space per dwelling (incl. 1 space for each adaptable unit);
· 1 visitor space for every 4 dwellings;
· 1 bicycle space per 10 dwellings;
· 1 visitor bicycle space per 10 dwellings;
· 1 motorcycle space per 25 car parking spaces; and
· 1 car washing space.
Parking rates for commercial/retail development are as follows:
· 1 space per 40m2;
· 1 delivery space;
· 1 bicycle space per 20 staff;
· 1 visitor bicycle space per 250m2;
The resultant car parking requirement for the site is:
· 55 resident spaces (incl. 6 disabled spaces);
· 14 visitor spaces (incl. 1 disabled);
· 6 bicycle spaces;
· 6 visitor bicycle spaces;
· 1 residential car wash bay ;
· 9 Commercial/retail spaces (incl. 1 disabled);
· 2 retail bicycle spaces;
· 2 retail visitor bicycle spaces;
· 1 delivery/loading space.
TOTAL SPACES: 78 Spaces + car wash + delivery
The proposal provides:
· 60 resident spaces (incl. 6 disabled spaces);
· 11 Commercial/retail spaces (incl. 1 disabled);
TOTAL SPACES: 85 Car spaces
The proposal provides 7 spaces in excess of the 85 car parking spaces required and more than complies with the parking requirements of this part.
The proposal was notified in accordance with this Part.
It is considered the application does not comply with a number of provisions as indicated and ultimately does not achieve the aims and objectives of the Ashfield IDAP 2013.
7.5 Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.
7.6 The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.
These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. The additional building height will increase the visual impact of the building upon surrounding lower rise residential and commercial development to an unacceptable degree.
7.7 The suitability of the site for the development
These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development.
7.8 Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations.
The proposal was not notified in accordance with the relevant DCP.
The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, and Councillors from 16 April 2014 until 14 May 2014. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable.
7.8.1 Summary of submissions
2 submissions (Attachment 3) were received during the notification of the development application:
Submissions: First Notification Period
K. Totos
4/44-48 Milton Street, Ashfield NSW 2131
Assessing Officer’s Comment
Excessive bulk and scale – building should remain at 6 storeys (not 7).
Increase in resident numbers from FSR and more units will negatively impact upon local residents and increase traffic.
Additional adverse impacts on local residents are likely although it is unlikely that the increase would be beyond the capacity of the local roads.
Decrease of setback to Milton Lane would further increase vehicle accessibility problems.
The application does not appear to propose a change to the setback from Milton Lane but does propose deletion of conditions requiring the dedication of land to Council. This modification is opposed by Council for reasons of administrative functionality.
Increase in dwellings will increase competition for parking in Norton Street.
The proposal provides the minimum number of on-site resident and visitor parking spaces required by Council’s controls and as such, parking congestion on surrounding streets should not be a problem.
Access to Milton Lane from Norton Street will have adverse impacts.
The s96 modification does not vary the approved traffic circulation arrangements. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Milton Lane is currently accessible from Norton Street, however, the development has been designed so that it cannot be accessed from Norton Street and can only be accessed from Milton Street. Furthermore, vehicles exiting the development can only exit onto Milton Street (turning left into Milton Street) and cannot exit into Norton Street.
Illegal parking on footpaths in front of nearby developments.
This issue is outside the scope of the assessment of this application and must be addressed by other means.
Cumulative impact of this development with other large residential developments in Ashfield.
All residential developments are required to comply with Council’s minimum number of on-site car parking spaces.
Access from Norton Street to Milton Street should be blocked off.
The s96 modification does not vary the approved traffic circulation arrangements. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this development cannot be accessed from Norton Street. Despite this, there has been a desire expressed by local residents with access to Milton Lane to continue to be able to access Milton Street.
Council’s proposed resident parking scheme.
The s96 modification does not vary the approved traffic circulation arrangements. This issue is outside the scope of the assessment of this application.
7.9 The public interest
Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposed variation is considered excessive and should not be supported.
The proposed changes do not alter compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) and Section 96(2) have been taken into consideration. The proposal, in particular, is excessive in height and floor space and is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, it is unacceptable and therefore recommended for refusal.
That the section 96(2) application to modify Development Application No. 10.2012.269.2 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a seven storey commercial and residential flat building with ground floor retail, two levels of basement car parking, lane widening and landscaping on part Lot 100, DP 1016118, Lot 8, DP 244344, part Lot A, DP 393265 and part Lot B, DP 393265, known as 380-384 Liverpool Road, Ashfield and 36-38 Milton Street, Ashfield be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site and is excessive in bulk, scale and height.
2. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, cl. 4.3(2), Height of Buildings, in that proposal exceeds the maximum height limit for the site by 1.2m.
3. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, cl. 4.3(2A), Height of Buildings, in that the top 3m of the proposal contains habitable floor space.
4. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, cl. 4.4, Floor space ratio, in that the top 3m of the proposal contains habitable floor space in that the FSR significantly exceeds the maximum by 0.76:1.
5. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards, in that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the variations proposed to the development standards are acceptable under the terms of this clause.
6. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013, Part C4, cl. 2.6(a), Height, in that the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit of 23m by 1.2m.
7. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013, Part C4, cl. 2.6(b), Ceiling Height, in that the proposal exceeds the maximum ceiling height limit of 20m by 4m.
8. The deletion of conditions of consent G(6), (7) & (8) and B(19) relating to dedication of land which is the subject of the widening of Milton Lane is not supported due to its impact on associated functional and maintenance issues.
9. The deletion of the south facing balconies facing towards Milton Lane is considered to result in a less desirable urban design outcome and will reduce activation and passive surveillance of the laneway.
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 CM10.3
Subject DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.274.1
File Ref DA 10.2013.274.1
Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent to carry out the following works:
1. Alterations and addition to the existing main heritage listed dwelling located at the front of the site;
0.416:1
Proposed Landscaping area
615.57 m2
- Rear addition to existing
- Building 2 (south)
- Building 3 (north)
- Approximately 2.7m
- Approximately 5.7m
- Approximately 3.19 from northern boundary & 6.3 from the southern boundary.
- Approximately 2.28m from rear boundary and 1.27m from southern boundary.
- Approximately 1.9m from rear boundary & 1.24 from northern boundary.
· The application was lodged on 03 December 2013. A series of meetings were held with the application to discuss and resolve the design issues.
· An appeal has been lodged with the NSW Land and Environment Court on 02nd June 2014 against Council’s deemed refusal of the application. Council has been informed that “these proceedings are listed for the first directions hearing on Tuesday – 1 July 2014”.
· The application has been lodged prior to the gazettal of Ashfield LEP 2013 on 23 December 2013 and therefore has been assessed under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985. The relevant controls of Ashfield DCP 2007, where applicable, are also considered in the assessment of the application. Further comments are provided under Clause No. 6.0 of this report.
2.0 Summary Assessment and Recommendation
The subject land is zoned 2(a) Residential pursuant to the zoning table of Ashfield LEP 1985. The proposed development will result in three separate dwellings on one allotment. Considering a comparative analysis, Council is of the view that the development is for a form similar to multi-dwelling housing which is prohibited in the zone.
Given the significance of the existing building, being a heritage item displaying a high degree of intactness which significantly contributes to its heritage value, the application is relying on Clause No 37A(1) of Ashfield LEP 1985 (conservation incentives).
Council’s heritage adviser has concurred with the use of Clause 37A(1). This Clause allows Council to grant consent to the use, for any purpose, of a building that is a heritage item, or of the land on which the building is erected, even though the use would otherwise be prohibited by Ashfield LEP 1985, if it is satisfied that:
(a) the proposed use would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the item or heritage conservation area, or the amenity of any surrounding or adjacent residential area, and
(b) the conservation of the building depends on the granting of the consent.
Council’s heritage adviser has raised no issues with the proposed development subject to conditions requiring the conservation of the existing building.
As some matters relating to stormwater management, safety/security and the accessibility have not been adequately demonstrated or satisfied, the proposed development is recommended for deferred commencement consent subject to the following deferred commencement conditions:
1. A plan and long section of the proposed 375mm concrete stormwater pipe to be laid across Milton Street in order to join the site’s stormwater into Council’s existing pipe network in Milton Street. This section shall show pipe grade, pipe depth, pipe chainages (10m intervals) and also include any possible obstructions;
2. Amended plans showing a security gate installed within its northern setback between the proposed rear addition and the northern property boundary to create an appropriate physical barrier that confines its private open space.
3. Amended plans, demonstrating compliance of the two new rear dwellings within the development with the Universal Accessible Design Principles of Part C1 of Ashfield DCP 2007.
Applicant : Ms O Shih & Lena Chang
Owner : Mr D Chang
Value of work : $850,000
Lot/DP : LOT: 11 DP: 730876
Date lodged : 03/12/2013
Date of last amendment : 25/02/2014
Section 94 Levy : Yes
The subject site is located on the western side of Milton Street, bounded by Norton Street to the north and Arthur Street to the south. The site area is approximately 1471 square metres. An existing single storey dwelling house and two separate out buildings are located on the site. Surrounding development comprises residential establishments. Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.
Previous building and development applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:
10.2010.77
The replacement of existing Welsh Slate roof tiles with new Welsh Slate roof tiles.
10.2007.49
Convert an existing building into a single dwelling house and convert outbuilding to a storage room by removing unauthorised building works.
10.2006.256
Restoration of existing verandas, awnings and construction of front fence.
10.2002.41
Subdivision of land into three Torrens Title lots.
10.2001.3
Rear addition and restoration to the heritage item. Construction of two detached two-storey residential dwellings at rear of property. Subdivision of proposal land into three allotments.
10.1998.720
Demolition of Existing Brick Storeroom
The approval granted by Council in 2001 for a similar scheme to that proposed with this application was not taken up. This former application also relied upon the use of Clause 37A of Council’s LEP.
No conditions have been imposed on previous consents to restrict, in any form, the redevelopment of the subject site.
· The site is zoned R2-Low Density Residential under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013.
· The property is a heritage item and is located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items at 61, 63 & 63a, 65 & 65a, 67 & 67a Milton Street Ashfield and backs onto a heritage item located at 18 Cromwell Street, Ashfield.
As outlined previously, this application is being assessed under the Council’s former LEP.
Under the repealed instrument, the subject site is identified as follows:
· The site is zoned 2(a) - Residential.
· The property is a heritage item and is located within the vicinity of a number of proposed heritage items at 61, 63 & 63a, 65 & 65a, 67 & 67a Milton Street Ashfield and backs onto a heritage item located at 18 Cromwell Street, Ashfield.
The proposed development is prohibited pursuant to the site use zone. However, the application is relying on Clause No. 37A(1) of Ashfield LEP 1985, as amended, (heritage incentives) which allows Council to consider a prohibited use for heritage properties. Refer to Clause 7.1 of this report for further development.
The following compliance table demonstrate the proposal’s performance against the relevant clauses of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended).
Compliance table - Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)
Clause No. 17 allows a maximum floor space ratio of 50% in2 (a) zone and where within a heritage conservation area.
This Clause applies to a building or buildings comprising 2 dwellings only on the same allotment and hence it does not apply to the proposed development which is similar to a multi-dwelling housing.
Clause 32(3) requires Council, when determining a development application to assess the heritage significance of a heritage item or a property located in a heritage conservation area, to take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.
The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser who has raised no issues with the proposed development.
In addition, Clause 37 of Ashfield LEP 1985 requires Council to assess and take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of a heritage item, heritage conservation area, archaeological site or potential archaeological site, and on its setting, when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in its vicinity.
The impact of the proposal upon the existing heritage item in acceptable.
Clause No. 37A(1) of Ashfield LEP 1985 (Conservation incentives) allows Council to grant consent to the use, for any purpose, of a building that is a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area, or of the land on which the building is erected, even though the use would otherwise be prohibited by Ashfield LEP 1985, if it is satisfied that:
In the interest of conserving the heritage item located on the subject site it is considered that the use of this clause is appropriate. The application includes detailed heritage specifications & a schedule of conservation works (conservation plan). A condition is included in the recommendation requiring these works to be completed prior to the issue of any occupation certificate.
Clause No. 37A(2) of Ashfield LEP 1985 allows Council, when considering an application for consent to erect a building on land on which a heritage item is located or on land within a heritage conservation area, for the purpose of determining:
(a) the floor space ratio, and
(b) the number of parking spaces to be provided on the site,
to exclude the floor space of the building from its calculation of the floor space of the buildings erected on the land but only if the consent authority is satisfied that the conservation of the building depends on it making the exclusion.
There is no specified FSR control for the type of development as proposed. Since the proposal is comparable to a multi-dwelling housing, the FSR control in Part C5 of Ashfield DCP 2007 has been used as a guide. The proposed FSR is 0.416:1 which is within the maximum 0.6:1 FSR allowed for the development.
Therefore, the exclusion of the floor space of the existing building from the calculation of the total proposed floor space on site will have no effect on compliance with this control.
The number of car parking spaces provided on site is acceptable in this instance and therefore the application of this clause is not relevant.
Two certificates have been submitted as part of this application, one for alterations and addition to the existing dwelling house and the other is for multi-dwelling development for two dwellings. A condition will be imposed on development consent requiring the proposed development to comply with the commitments undertaken within Basix Certificates obtained from the Department of Planning in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of schedule1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
7.3 The provisions of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.
ACCESS ADAPTABILITY AND MOBILITY
This part applies to development on land zoned 2(B) and 2(C) Residential. Although the subject land is zoned 2(a) Residential, the provisions of this part have been used as a guide. Refer to comments below this table.
MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT ZONES
The controls in this part have been used as a guide given that the overall use is for three dwellings on the subject site. Refer to comments below this table.
Refer to Clause No. 2.0 of this report for comments.
The proposal is comparable to small scale multi-dwelling housing and therefore the provisions of this part have been used as a guide in determining car parking requirements.
This part requires car parking spaces to be provided on site in accordance with the following:
1 car space per unit plus 1 additional space for every two 3 bedroom units plus 1 visitor space required per 5 units plus 1 car wash bay.
3 + 1.5 + 0.6 + 1 = 6.1 spaces (to be rounded to the nearest whole number)
As a minimum, the total number of car parking spaces required for the proposed development = 6 spaces
The amended proposal provides for 5 car parking spaces including one space for each dwelling, one space for visitors and a car wash bay. This does not comply with the car parking requirements of this part. However, the proposed car parking is considered acceptable as any additional car parking spaces would impact on the availability of landscaped area and garden setting for the heritage item.
See Clause No. 7.7
Comments on Part C1 (Access Adaptability and Mobility)
The Universal Accessible Design requirements apply to Villas and Townhouses (multi-unit development) which are defined under Clause 2.3 of Section 2 in part C1 of Ashfield DCP 2007 as being “dwellings which are one, two or three storeys, within Residential 2(b) and 2(c) Zones, with each dwelling having its own ground level entry and private open space”. This Clause requires all such dwellings to comply with universal accessible design principles.
None of the proposed dwellings achieve compliance with the above requirements. Clause 5.2 of this part provides room for variation to the requirements of Clause 2.6 for buildings of heritage significance. The main dwelling is therefore exempt from the requirements of this part.
However, a deferred commencement condition has been included in the deferred commencement consent recommending that amended plans, demonstrating compliance of the two new rear dwellings within the development with the Universal Accessible Design Principles of Part C1 of Ashfield DCP 2007, are submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of an operational consent.
Officer’s comments on Part C5 (Multi-Unit Development in Residential Flat Zones)
The following comments are provided in response to the controls of the various sections of this part:
· Comments on Section 3 - Preferred Development
Clause 3.3 of this part requires proposals for new housing in the residential neighbourhoods of Ashfield to have architectural style that is suitable for the site and that has the potential to contribute to Ashfield’s housing heritage.
Further, clause 3.5 requires building design, roof form, detailing and materials visible from public areas and adjoining properties not to be in strong visual contrast with any positive and characteristic features of neighbouring properties. It requires materials and finishes of the building to be similar to the traditional finishes predominating in Ashfield.
· Comments on Section 4 - Housing Density
The FSR is 0.416:1 (approximately 612m² of GFA). The proposed development complies with the maximum FSR of 0.6:1 allowed under Clause 4.7 of Section 4 – Part C5 of Ashfield DCP 2007.
The proposed Gross Floor Area for the two proposed rear dwellings is 135m2 and 202m2 which exceeds the maximum dwelling size of 125m2 requirements under Clause 4.13 of Section 4 – Part C5 of Ashfield DCP 2007.
Despite this non-compliance, the proposed development does not result in any adverse impact on heritage significance of the property, streetscape character or amenity of established residential neighbourhoods. The proposed development achieves the objectives of the control and as such it is supported.
· Comments on Section 5 - Siting, Building Height And Solar Access
With the exception of the provision of one car parking space within the front setback, the proposed development does not result in any modifications to the front setback.
Clause 5.6 of Section 5 in Part C5 requires buildings to be sited and orientated to minimise adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and achieve compatibility in terms of urban character. It requires new development not to significantly affect adjoining property or resident amenity by: -
a) increased overshadowing,
b) reduction in the level of privacy,
c) obstruction of views,
d) reduction in levels of daylight and ventilation.
The proposed development will not result in an adverse impact on the solar access of the adjoining properties. Given the single storey scale of the rear addition to the main dwelling and the use of the first floor rooms of the proposed rear dwellings, the proposed development does not result in any adverse impact on the privacy of the adjoining properties.
Clause 5.15 of Section 5 in Part C5 requires new developments to achieve 80% of units having at least one living room window with a northerly aspect.
It is noted that all three dwellings have living room window with a northerly aspect.
Clause 5.16 of Section 5 in Part C5 requires a development to achieve compliance with the following requirements:
a) Sunlight to at least 50% (or 35m² with minimum dimension 2.5m, whichever is the lesser area) of the principal private area of ground level private open space (see definition at Section 8.2) of adjacent properties is not reduced to less than three (3) hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Where existing overshadowing by buildings and fences is greater than this, sunlight is not further reduced by more than 20% at any one time.
The subject site is located to the north of an existing residential flat building that has a driveway running along the common property boundary located between the two properties.
The shadow cast by the proposed development at midday and in the afternoon on 21 June will only fall on the above-mentioned driveway and not on any private open space of any adjoining property. There will be some overshadowing of the rear yard of the adjoining properties located at 122 Norton Street and 18 Cromwell Street. However, at least 35m² of the private open space of these two adjoining properties will receive sunlight for at least three (3) hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposed development complies with the solar access requirements of this part.
b) Any private courtyard within a development should also achieve 3 hours of sunlight over 50% of its area, between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.
Sunlight is also received by the private open space of all three dwellings for at least three hours on 21 June between 9am and 3pm.
c) Existing solar access should be maintained to at least 40% of the glazed areas of any neighbouring north facing living room/dining room windows, for a period of at least three (3) hours between 9am and 3pm in mid winter (on 21 June). If existing solar access is already less than this standard, it should not be further reduced by more than 20% at any one time.
The proposed development will not impact on any neighbouring north facing living room/dining room windows.
· Comments on Section 6 - Privacy, Views And Outlook
The proposed design provides adequate privacy for residents within the development while protecting the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours. There are no direct facing windows within the development or across boundaries that will give rise to privacy issues and no bedrooms within the development share a wall with a living room or garages of another dwelling and thus maintaining acoustic privacy.
This section requires a 3m separation between the windows and the driveway within the development. Whilst bedroom windows of the rear two new dwellings are located at least 3 metres from shared driveway and parking areas of other dwellings, the main dwelling has two bedrooms with windows/door that are only 2m from the common driveway and approximately 5.3m from the car parking spaces of other dwellings. Despite this non-compliance, the proposed development is acceptable in this instance given the small size of the development.
All dwellings within the development have an open outlook to a private open space. In addition, given the single storey scale of the rear addition, the height of the proposed rear two dwellings and their separating distance from adjoining properties, the proposed development maintain views available from neighbouring properties.
· Comments on Section 7 - On-Site Car Parking and Access
A total of 5 on-site car parking spaces are provided. Further comments are provided in Table 3 under clause 7.3 of this report.
· Comments on Section 8 - Open Space And Landscaping
Each dwelling within the proposed development is provided with a private outdoor area which does not encroach upon the front setback, is directly related to the main living areas, is private and protected from overlooking by neighbouring units or properties by means of landscaping and meets the solar access standards as indicated above.
These private open areas also comply with the minimum area and dimension requirements of Clause No. 8.7 being a minimum of 35m² with a minimum dimension of 3.0 metres at any point.
The Proposed development provides landscaped area of approximately 682.57m² (46.4% of total site area) which fails to comply with the minimum landscaped area requirements of Clause No 8.11 of Part C5 of Ashfield DCP 2007. The non-compliance is mainly due to the long driveway required to service the new dwellings.
Given the circumstance necessitating the granting of incentives for the purpose of conserving the existing heritage item, and that the proposal will have minimal impact on the adjoining neighbour amenity it is considered that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the control and hence is supported in this instance.
· Comments on Section 9 - Safety And Security
The existing front fence provides an opportunity for the entire site to be locked. However, no appropriate physical barrier has been put in place for the main dwelling to confine its rear private open space. A deferred commencement condition has been included in the development consent requiring the installation of a gate within its northern setback between the proposed rear addition and the north property boundary to create an appropriate physical barrier that confines its private open space.
The proposed development provides adequate surveillance from the two habitable room windows with an outlook to Milton Street and three windows/door with an outlook to the communal driveway.
Given the above, the proposed development achieves the objectives of this section.
· Comments on Section 10 - Design For Climate
2 Basix certificates have been submitted to Council as part of this application. A condition has been included in the recommendation requiring the proposed development to be constructed to comply with the commitments undertaken in the submitted Basix Certificates.
· Comments on Section 11 - Stormwater Drainage
The proposed stormwater drainage design was considered unsatisfactory by Council’s hydraulic engineer and further information was required to be submitted. Further comments are provided under Clause No. 8.0 of this report.
No fire safety issues have been raised in the assessment of this application.
It is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts upon the locality. Further comments are provided under Clause 2.0 and clause 7.3 of this report
The proposed development requires the removal of a number of trees, however, no issues have been raised by Council’s tree officer in relation to the removal of these trees. There are no other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development. The proposed development is considered suitable in the context of the locality.
The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 06th December 2014 until 10 January 2014.
Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application.
Given that the proposal satisfies adjoining neighbours’ amenity with respect of solar access and privacy and will have minimal impact on the streetscape it warrants Council support.
The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser who is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the property, the use of Clause 37A of Ashfield LEP 1985 is supportable in this instance to facilitate the development which will contribute to the conservation of the heritage item.
Being aware of the planning issues, Council’s heritage adviser has also suggested that the merits of the proposal and the heritage significance of the property warrant an effort, by the applicant, to take appropriate measures to ameliorate the impact of any planning shortfalls. The heritage adviser’s comments and recommendations are included in Attachment 3.
The application was referred to Council's building surveyor who indicated that insufficient information has been provided to enable proper assessment of the proposed development against the relevant BCA provisions. However, Council’s building surveyor is satisfied that the technical aspects of compliance with the BCA are the responsibility of the PCA at the CC stage and hence the relevant conditions of consent have been provided.
The proposed stormwater drainage system was referred to Council’s hydraulic engineer for assessment. It was found unsatisfactory and as such it was recommended that a deferred commencement condition be included in the development consent requiring the submission of a stormwater drainage system, designed in accordance with Council’s stormwater policies, to Council prior to issuing an operational consent. The exact wording of the condition is included in Part “A” of the deferred commencement consent.
The proposed development involves the removal of a number of trees. It was referred to Council’s tree officer and no objections have been raised to the removal of the specified trees.
The proposed development was notified to Ausgrid, no issues have been raised to the proposed development subject to conditions of consent. These condition/s have been incorporated into the development consent (Ausgrid comments/conditions are included in Attachment 5).
Road and Maritime Services (RMS)
The proposed development was referred to the RMS in accordance with the requirements of S138(2) of the Roads Act 1993 No 33 seeking their concurrence in accordance with Clause 59(1) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
RMS has granted concurrence to the proposed development subject to conditions of consent which are included in the recommendation of this report. RMS comments/conditions are included in Attachment 6.
9.0 Building Code of Australia (BCA)
The proposed development will attract contribution under S94 of the Act, the following condition has been incorporated in the development consent. A condition has been included in the recommendation.
The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for a deferred commencement approval.
Ausgrid comments/conditions
Attachment 6View
RMS comments/conditions
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 CM10.4
Subject 2 - 32 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL
File Ref SC684
Reasons Respond to State Department of Planning & Environment
Objective Response to Proposed Amendment to 2012 Concept Plan Approval
An application to amend the Concept Plan approval for a mixed use residential, retail and commercial development on the former Allied Mills site in Summer Hill has been lodged with the State Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) – refer to Attachment 1. DPE will assess the application and if Council objects to the proposal, the Department report will be forwarded to the Planning Assessment Commission for determination.
The amendment was on public exhibition for four weeks ending on 20 June 2014. DPE have advised that they sent notification letters to local residents, and to date approx 14 submissions have been received. DPE has granted Council an extension of time for providing comments until Wednesday 9 July 2014.
The main changes being sought are for an increase in the maximum number of apartments from 300 to 380, and for this to be included within increased building heights, and for reduction in the maximum amount of Retail Gross Floor Area. The purpose of this report is to describe the latest proposed amendments, make recommendations to the Department of Planning and Environment.
A Concept Plan approval has a similar function to that of an amendment to a local environmental plan, with the difference being that it may specify a larger range of matters to be permitted on a site and include these matters on architectural and landscape plans.
A Concept Plan approval will allow the land uses and concept development designs in the locations shown on the approved documents, including:
- land use type (e.g. flats, commercial, retail, etc)
- maximum amount of floor space
- maximum building height
- locational elements such the location of streets/roads, buildings, car parking
- buildings to be retained
A Concept Plan approval will also include a ‘Statement of Commitments’ which include a list of works the developer will undertake as part of the project. This can include payment of monies such as Section 94 contributions, or the construction of specific infrastructure works. A Concept Plan approval also has a similar function to a Development Control Plan, in that its documentation provides design guidelines for a future development application.
The Concept Plan approval for the site at 2-32 Smith Street, Summer Hill was granted on 7 December 2012, and irrespective of the contents of the Ashfield LEP 2013 permits the uses specified on that approval. Attachment 2 contains the approval, which includes a written description together with various conditions and the Statement of Commitments, and the key approved drawings. The approval is described in approval Condition A1 as follows:
The aerial perspective in Figure 1 gives a visual explanation of the approved proposal.
The development is proposed to be staged into 4 parts, shown on the staging plan in Figure 2. Stages 1, 2 & 3 are within the Ashfield LGA, which is the major component of the site. Stage 4, near the corner of Longport Street and Smith Street, is within the Marrickville LGA, but for vehicular access relies on entry through Smith Street in the Ashfield LGA.
Figure 1 follows - Aerial perspective of Proposal
Figure 2 follows - Approved Indicative Staging Plan
Figure 1- Aerial perspective of Proposal. Boundary of site is shown in red outline.
Figure 2 Concept Plan - Approved 2012 Indicative Staging Plan
3.0 Proposed 2014 changes to the 2012 Concept Plan Approval.
The proposed amendments are explained in detail in the applicant’s Environmental Assessment Report in Attachment 1.
Noting that it will be the Department of Planning and Environment who will assess the application to amend the 2012 approval, the following is an evaluation of the key proposed amendments.
The key changes proposed for the Concept Plan approval are:
3.1 Changes affecting the entire site (including both Ashfield and Marrickville parts)
3.1.1 Increase in the maximum number of apartments from 300 to 380, together with an increase in the maximum Residential Gross Floor Area from 33,500 sqm to 34,500 sqm, in order to provide a greater dwelling mix and to better equate with the maximum FSR of 1.6:1 over the site.
With regard to the revised dwelling mix, the numerical increase in the number of apartments, provided it is within the 2012 approved building envelopes (building volumes), is not considered problematic. It will provide an opportunity for a greater housing mix, and so more opportunity for smaller dwellings and therefore relatively more affordable dwellings due to their smaller size.
However, the increase in the number apartments does affect the consideration of traffic impacts, given the context of an obviously already highly congested area at peak hour (as confirmed by various previous traffic reports), and this consideration is commented on by Council’s engineers in part 4 of the report below who recommend that Council should object on traffic grounds.
With regard to building bulk and height, the applicant argues that there should be additional apartments placed in locations which create taller building envelopes and also more building bulk, for various locations on the site (see Figure 3), in order to achieve the numerical maximum standard of FSR of 1.6:1. However, the increase in building height and bulk leads to greater visual impact and affectation on the character of nearby low rise residential areas, and this is commented on in more detail below in Part 3.2, where it is argued that Council should object to this change.
3.1.2 Decrease in the maximum allowable Retail Gross Floor Area from 2,500 sqm to 1,500 sqm
No significant issues arise from the reduction of the maximum FSR for a retail component from 2,500 sqm to 1,500 sqm. To date, in the Stage 1 Project Application approval there has been approx 250 sqm of retail space approved, and in the current Stage 2 development application there is approx 200 sqm proposed.
It is also not clear whether there is any intention to construct any substantial amounts of retail space within Stage 3 or Stage 4 (within Marrickville LGA). For example much of the ground floor level in Stage 3, intended to have retail or commercial space, is affected by flooding.
3.1.3 Proposed Reduction in the amount of affordable dwellings
Schedule 4 Statement of Commitments, in Clause 15 requires:
The amendment proposes to replace the text in Column 2 of Clause 15, with the following:
The dedication to Marrickville Council of three(3) 1 or 2 bedroom dwellings to be owned and managed by or on behalf of Marrickville Council in perpetuity as affordable rental accommodation.
The Department should note that 3 affordable rental housing dwellings constitutes a very small 1% of dwelling yield for the 2012 approved maximum 300 dwellings on the site. A typical minimum ‘industry’ accepted standard is 3 percent, i.e. approx 10 dwellings. This standard is normally applied irrespective of whether the dwellings are available for a short 10 year period, or in perpetuity. Nevertheless, given the ‘upzoning’ of the site and the approved yield of 300 dwellings, ideally there should be a higher affordable housing yield requirement.
Council should advise the Department that it objects to a reduction in the number of affordable housing dwellings.
Figure 3 follows: Proposed 2014 changes to the 2012 Concept Plan approval regarding building heights in relation to number of storeys.
Figure 3 –Proposed 2014 changes to the 2012 Concept Plan Approval regarding building heights in relation to number of storeys.
3.2 Proposed changes in building bulk and height for particular parts of the site
The proposed changes to the building bulk and height for particular parts of the site are explained below.
3.2.1 Amendments within Marrickville LGA
The major change in building bulk and height occurs within Stage 4 in the Marrickville LGA and this also has a major impact for nearby residential areas in Summer Hill.
It is proposed to increase the building envelopes in bulk and height for Building 1 A on the Stage 4 part of the site, from part 6, 9 &10 storeys, to part 11 and 6 storeys. The justification for this given in the applicant’s Environmental Assessment Report is that the increase is required in order to accommodate the maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1.6:1 applied to the site by the Department of Planning and Environment.
The Concept Plan approval provided a maximum FSR range of 1.4:1 to 1.6:1 for the entire site, not a blanket maximum 1.6:1. Presumably, the Department provided this ‘flexible’ FSR maximum because the applicant had not submitted sufficiently detailed floor plans to show how the FSR was arrived at. This is one reason why the Department capped the maximum number of apartments for the whole site (Stages 1, 2, 3 & 4) at 300 dwellings (also see the comments on traffic impact consideration below in part 4.1 below).
The Marrickville part of the development, containing Building 1A accounts for the major part of the building bulk increase being sought. Once again, the applicant’s Environmental Assessment Report does not detail for Building 1 A, how much Gross Floor Area results (which determines FSR) and how many apartments are proposed within the proposed larger building envelopes. Normally, this is a straightforward exercise demonstrated by submitting indicative floor plans, and this should have been submitted for the Department to measure and assess.
Previously, when approval of the Concept Plan was being considered in 2012, it was argued by the applicant that Building 1 A was modelled to have a differentiated lower building part of 6 storeys and two widely separate tower portions above that up to 9 and 10 storeys. The wide building separation of the main towers would be sufficient to ameliorate the visual impact of those two towers, i.e. so as to not make them one large monolithic block. Council objected to the height of the 2012 proposed building heights.
The current justification for the increase in Building Envelopes, from page 6/21 of the Environmental Assessment report, states that:
“the revisions to the building envelopes in Stages 3 and 4 are of a nature that does not dramatically alter the development silhouette or result in adverse impacts to future or existing development.”
Some additional commentary is provided on page 18/21 to explain the visual impacts of the so called ‘development silhouettes’ on surrounding dormitory areas in Summer Hill. In relation to this consideration, despite the Director General requirements, there has not been any detailed ‘Visual Impact Assessment’ equal to that which would entail the use of modelling such as that used by Council to assess impacts of taller building heights (i.e. SIMURBAN model). Such an analysis would mean the evaluation is carried out objectively and scientifically.
Attachment 3 and an extract shown at Figure 4 below (produced by Council officers) uses some ‘base level’ SIMURBAN modelling of the approved Building Envelopes, and juxtaposes over these the proposed building envelope increase. This shows that there is clearly a significant affectation for nearby residential areas. There is therefore a clear need for careful and detailed assessment of the visual impact of the proposed changes to the building envelopes by the Department of Planning and Environment.
Given the above the Department should:
- require the applicant to submit drawings which show how many apartments can be accommodated within the 2012 approved Building 1A building envelopes in Stage 4.
- require the applicant to explain the Gross Floor Area that can be contained within the 2012 approved Building 1A building Envelopes in Stage 4.
- evaluate the increase in bulk and height for Building 1 A and to report this impact in a detailed manner as required by the Director General requirements using modelling equal to SIMURBAN.
- stipulate a maximum FSR to apply for the site boundaries within Stage 4 within the Marrickville site, in order to provide certainty, and avoid any future request for variations seeking to clarify the approval conditions.
Council’s position should be that it objects to any increase in building bulk and height for Building 1A given the adverse impacts for nearby residential areas in Summer Hill, including those in Chapman Street and Fleet Street.
Figure 4 –indicative 3 dimensional SIMURBAN snapshot of approved Concept Plan Envelopes and proposed increases in Building Heights.
3.2. 2 Increased Building Envelope heights with Ashfield LGA
The location of proposed increases in building height for particular buildings is marked up in Figure 3.
Again, the applicant is arguing that because the Department applied a maximum FSR of 1.6:1 over the entire site, it is reasonable to vary the approved building envelopes to reflect this, and is proposing an increase in building height and bulk.
As shown in Attachment 3 and its extract in Figure 5 below (produced by Council officers), the increase in building height for Building 5B from 6 storeys to 7 storeys will have visual impacts for dwellings along Edward Street, including from their rear gardens, and also for houses in Carrington Street from their rear gardens. Increase in height within Stage 3 for Buildings 3A, 3C & 3D (to the rear of Building 5B) will also have a similar affectation.
Given the above, and in order to provide certainty, the Department should:
- require the applicant to submit drawings which show how many apartments can be accommodated within the approved 2012 Building Envelopes for Stages 1, 2, 3 within the Ashfield LGA.
- require the applicant to explain the Gross Floor Area that can be contained within the approved 2012 Building Envelopes for Stages 1, 2, 3 within the Ashfield LGA.
- carry out a detailed evaluation of the impact of the increase in building bulk and heights on surrounding residential areas in Edward Street and Carrington Street, and to report these impacts in a manner as required by the Director General requirements using modelling equal to SIMURBAN.
- stipulate a maximum FSR to apply for the site boundaries within Stages 1, 2, & 3 of the site within the Ashfield LGA site in order to provide certainty and avoid any future request for variations seeking to clarify the approval conditions.
Council’s position should be that it objects to any increase in building bulk and height for Buildings 5B, and Buildings 3A and 3D, given the adverse visual impacts for nearby residential areas in Summer Hill.
Figure 5 - View from rear garden of house in Edward Street. Proposed building height increase is shown in yellow for Building 5B. Green shows the roof level approved in the 2012 Concept Plan approval.
4.0 Key Engineering Issues
4.1 Traffic Impacts
It is well known that the area around the former Allied Mills site and adjacent development zone in the Marrickville LGA is heavily congested by traffic during peak hours, and this has been confirmed in terms of traffic evidence by various past reports. The final report on the Concept Plan application, produced by DPE, included an independent traffic report commissioned by the Department. This report explained that at peak times there was an existing high level of local roadway traffic congestion, and that to a degree the Allied Mills site in combination with the Lewisham West development area in Marrickville, would make this scenario worse. The Department’s reaction to this was that this scenario is acceptable because the higher residential densities are in close proximity to various public transport nodes, including the now completed Light Rail corridor and existing heavy rail line.
The applicant states that the increase in approximately 80 apartments will be offset by a reduction in retail floor space, and so there will not be any increase above the traffic impacts as approved under the 2012 Concept Plan approval. However, the Concept Plan approval provides the maximum parameters for new retail development. It does not follow that the applicant is obligated to construct any of the proposed retail space. For example, to date, approximately 20 percent of the maximum 2500 sq m allowed has been allocated. Therefore, an increase in the number of apartments (27% above current approval), in terms of peak hour impacts, cannot be dismissed as insignificant. Council engineer’s comments are contained in Attachment 4 - an extract is outlined below. The applicant should be required to provide a revised car parking plan which shows where the additional car parking spaces for the additional 80 apartments will be accommodated.
Council’s engineers have advised:
“ In summary, modifications to the Concept Plan are not supported for the following reasons:
The modifications will further increase traffic, in particular during the morning peaks and hence will worsen the existing poor operation, extensive delays and queues in the surrounding road network. The NSW Government has not provided a commitment to program the removal of the ‘pinch point’ at New Canterbury Road and Gordon Street, Petersham, which the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure has acknowledged is the cause of the existing congestion.
The likelihood of further road network congestion from the proposed WestConnex project has not been adequately addressed.
The modifications will increase the likelihood of motorists using the local street networks to avoid the existing congestion areas, such as Longport Street. The proponent has not provided any commitment to investigate, design, consult and implement changes to the existing traffic calming devices to accommodate cyclists.
The modifications further increase the likelihood of motorists parking their vehicles on the surrounding local streets and hence will reduce the on-street car parking availability for residents. The proponent has not provided any commitment to support Ashfield Council introducing a Resident Parking Scheme to address this potential situation caused by their development.
The modifications further increases traffic, the potential for speeding and road safety risks for road users along Edward Street. The proponent has not provided any commitment to investigate, design, consult and implement traffic calming devices to address this situation.”
4.2 Stormwater & Flooding
Council previously expressed concern to the Department that due to the site being flood prone that the proposal’s assessment needed to scrutinise carefully what the ‘freeboard’ habitable floor levels needed to be, and to account for any freeboard levels for entries into basement car parks. Given the latest information in the current exhibition of the Hawthorne Canal Flood Study, Council’s engineers have noted that for some parts of the development there might have to be changes to the building design, resulting in an increase in ground floor levels and overall building heights. This matter is relevant for this amendment application because of the availability of recent flood mapping data.
Council’s engineers comments are contained in Attachment 4 and they have concluded that:
“The modifications further increase the potential number of residents and business tenants impacted during a flooding event. The proponent has not adopted the 100 year ARI design flood levels for the site in accordance with Ashfield Council’s flood study to address this situation”.
The main changes being sought for the 2014 amendment to the Concept Plan approval are for an increase in the maximum number of apartments 300 to 380 with the additional apartments being included within increased building heights, and for a reduction in the maximum amount of retail Gross Floor Area.
Council’s engineers have evaluated the traffic impacts and recommend that Council should object to an increase in the amount of apartments on traffic grounds due to the likelihood of further increases in traffic congestion in the immediate area. Council should also object to the increased building bulk and height, for the reasons stated in the report.
It is recommended that this planning report and recommendations be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration in the assessment of the proposed amendment to the current Concept Plan approval.
Environmental Assessment Report Application to amend 2012 Concept Plan Approval
Approved Concept Plan documents
Ashfield Council SIMURBAN model of proposed building envelope increases.
Council Engineer’s comments
3) The number of affordable housing dwellings should remain at a minimum of 10 dwellings as stated in part 15 of the approved Statement of Commitments.
6) The additional 80 apartments will result in further traffic congestion to local streets during peak times.
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 CM10.5
Subject DRAFT ARTS, COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT GRANTS POLICY
File Ref Policy
Reasons To seek Council’s approval for the draft policy following completion of the public exhibition period.
Objective To seek Council’s concurrence to publish the Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy.
To seek Council’s approval for the adoption of the draft Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy following completion of the public exhibition period from Thursday 29 May to Friday 20 June 2014.
The draft Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy was presented to Council on Tuesday 27 May 2014 to seek concurrence to undertake a public exhibition period for the revised Community and Environment Grants Policy.
The revised policy introduces an Arts component which will provide grant funding for Arts and Cultural projects that strengthen Ashfield Council’s standing in supporting Arts and Cultural projects. This will enhance and nurture Arts and Cultural projects in the Ashfield Local Government Area.
Provisions have been made within the existing budget of approximately $50,000 for Arts, Community and Environment Grants. Budget allocations for each component under the Arts, Community and Environment Grants Scheme are as follows:
- $5,000 for Arts and Cultural projects;
- $40,000 for Community projects; and
- $5,000 for Environmental projects
Community Programs and Corporate Governance staff have been consulted and involved in the development of the revised policy.
The public exhibition period for the draft Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy was completed on Friday 20 June 2014. No Submissions were received.
The public exhibition period for the draft Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy has provided the local community with an opportunity to comment on the policy.
It is expected the Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy will enable improved communication, greater transparency in procedures and improved accountability with potential grant recipients and organisations. The 2014 round of grants will open in August.
Arts, Community and Environment Grants Policy
Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 08 July 2014 CM10.6
Subject DRAFT NOTIFICATIONS POLICY
File Ref Governance
Prepared by Charles Latimer - Governance Project Officer
Objective To provide Council with a procedure for notifying the Ashfield community of matters of public importance.
The Draft Notifications Policy is intended to provide a process whereby the local Ashfield community can be notified and engaged by Council on matters of public interest which are not covered under the Development Application or land management proposals. Examples of recent public interest issues include WestConnex, Local Government Reviews and a resident parking scheme.
The attached draft policy is specifically focussed on a notification process for issues of public importance to the Ashfield community such as State Government proposals affecting the Ashfield LGA (examples include changes to local government processes or structures, major transport infrastructure developments or legislative reforms with a wide impact) or Council policies/programs which have effect across the LGA (such as a resident parking scheme or other major Council service changes).
The draft policy is complimentary to the process used for the notification of development applications and land management proposals outlined in the Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 (Part C12 Public Notification in the Planning Process and all aspects of Land Management). This policy does not apply to Development Applications which are submitted to Council for determination and approval.
The draft policy provides:
· Guidance on the types of issues for notification.
· Methods of notification.
· Timeframes to follow.
· Principles for notification.
· A checklist to assist staff in managing notifications.
The draft policy was circulated to senior staff and communications for comment.
The draft policy is proposed for public exhibition.
The draft Notifications Policy provides a process for Council to follow for notifications on matters of public importance which are not within the normal development application or land management process and which may require urgent action.
Draft Notifications Policy
2/2 That Council approve the draft policy being placed on public exhibition for a