Land & Environment Court 11039/2015 SUPPLEMENTARY ... · and the Apartment Design Guide and is worthy of approval. ... conservation area. Accordingly, the proposal complies with

NUPD Pty Ltd | Nino Urban Planning + Development |

Land & Environment Court 11039/2015

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse and the construction of a five storey residential flat building comprising 10 residential apartments, basement car park and

associated landscaping

Site: 559 Liverpool Road Strathfield South NSW 2136

Prepared by:

www.nupd.com.au

(02) 8033 1458 or 0411 299 865

[email protected]

Studio 1/88 Liverpool Road Summer Hill NSW 2130

April 2016

Project no. 0655

0655 – 559 Liverpool Road Strathfield South 2

CONTENTS PAGE

1. Introduction 3

2. Planning Assessment 20

2.1 Strathfield LEP 2012 22

2.2 Strathfield DCP 2005 28

2.3 SEPP (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development) 65 36

3. Conclusion 40

APPENDIX A – Clause 4.6 Exception – Minimum Lot size 41

APPENDIX B – Clause 4.6 Exception – Height of Building 41

APPENDIX C – SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide 48

APPENDIX D – Expert’s Qualifications 51

Revision Status

Revision Date Status Written Approved

0655 – Rev 1

26.04.16

Final - LEC

W.N

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

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

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

to be accessed by any third party.


1. INTRODUCTION

This is a Supplementary Statement of Environmental Effects in support of the amended architectural plans prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, dated 21/04/2016 as part of a Class 1 Appeal for a Development Application at 559 Liverpool Road Strathfield South, reference Land & Environment Court No. 111039 of 2015. The application has been amended to address the Contentions raised by Strathfield Council as part of the Class 1 Appeal. A schedule of amendments has been provided by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, dated 21 April 2016. This report provides a planning assessment of the amended plans against the applicable Planning Instrument, and is supplementary to the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by this office, dated 01/09/15. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct (Schedule 7) of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005. The Expert’s qualifications are provided at Appendix D of this report. As part of the amended plans, the following additional consultant reports are provided:

Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Alliance Geotechnical.

Flood Impact Assessment prepared by SGC Engineering.

Parking and Waste Report prepared by TTM Group.

The proposed development is a considered design response that generally complies the development standards and objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012, Strathfield DCP 2005 and the Apartment Design Guide. Where a departure exists, it has been adequately justified and there is sufficient planning merit to support the departure. On balance, the application results in a good planning outcome for the site, that replaces a prohibited use (vehicle body repair workshop) with an architecturally designed residential development that is permissible with consent and generally compliant with the applicable planning controls. The proposal has been amended from 11 apartments to 10 apartments and is compliant with the FSR standard. An amended Clause 4.6 Exception in relation the minimum lot size and height of building standard is provided at Appendix A and B. The proposed apartments exhibit a good level of residential amenity that complies with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide. An assessment under the Apartment Design Guide is provided at Appendix C. The site is an isolated site, being wedged between an existing 3/4 storey building at 20 Fitzgerald Crescent Strathfield and a recently approved 5 storey building at 549-557 Liverpool Road Strathfield. Its redevelopment will fill the missing gap along the Liverpool Road streetscape, providing an appropriate streetscape presentation and an overall suitable planning outcome. The redevelopment of the site and the proposed built form is of a form that would be reasonably contemplated for the site, given the applicable planning controls. In support of the above, reference is made to the Council’s Assessment report that recommended approval of the adjoining development application at 549-557 Liverpool Road Strathfield South, dated November 2014. The approval of that application resulted in the subject site’s isolation. In Council’s assessment, it concludes that the subject site can be redeveloped for a residential flat building comprising 12 apartments (refer to page 1.23 of Council Assessment report for DA 2014/078) and that 559 Liverpool Road is ‘not limited to develop in the future’. Accordingly, the Council has acknowledged that it would reasonably expect that the subject site would be redeveloped for the purposes of a residential flat building of up to 12 apartments. On balance, the proposal is considered an appropriate redevelopment of the site that attains compliance with the objectives and standards of the Strathfield LEP 2012, Strathfield DCP 2005 and the Apartment Design Guide and is worthy of approval.


2. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

2.1 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 The following maps apply to the site:

Image 1: Land Zoning map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Image 2: Floor Space Ratio map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Subject site

Subject site


Image 3: Height of Buildings map (Source: Strathfield Council)

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

Strathfield LEP 2012

Standard and Objectives Proposed Compliance

1.2 Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed residential flat building is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012.

The proposal will provide new housing opportunities within close proximity to existing services, public transport and the Strathfield town centre.

The development will provide employment opportunities during the construction stage.

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

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

Yes

Subject site




vehicle use,

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

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

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

Part 2

2.3 Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

Zone B2 Local Centre

1 Objectives of zone

• To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. • To facilitate mixed use urban growth around railway stations and transport nodes and corridors, commercial centres and open space. • To provide local and regional employment and live and work opportunities.

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre.

The proposal seeks consent for a residential flat building that provides 10 residential apartments.

The proposal includes a mix of studio and 2 bedroom dwellings, providing a variety of housing choice for the community.

The proposed development is permissible in the B2 Local Centre zone, and complies with the objectives of the zone.

Yes

2.6 Subdivision

The proposed does not seek consent for strata subdivision of the development.

N/A

4.1A Minimum Lot Sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings

(1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones.

Minimum lot size for a residential flat building in the B2 zone is 1000sqm

The site is an isolated site and it cannot be consolidated with any adjoining site.

Therefore, it is not possible for the site to comply with the minimum site area requirement.

The site has an area of 417 sqm.

Notwithstanding, a Clause 4.6 Exception is provided in support of this variation at Appendix A.

No, however

considered

satisfactory

Refer to

Appendix A

4.3 Height of buildings

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

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

(b) to encourage a consolidation pattern that

The proposed building is 5 storeys in height. The proposed height of the development is 15 metres, measured to the highest point.

Therefore, the proposal results in a

Compliant

with the

objectives of

the

standard,




leads to the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area,

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

Height:

- 13 metres

departure from the 13 metre height control by 2 metres.

However, the proposed height is consistent with the height of the adjoining approved development to the east.

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

Refer to Appendix B.

however

departs from

the

numerical

control

Refer to

Appendix B

4.4 Floor space ratio

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

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

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

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

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

(e) in relation to Strathfield Town Centre:

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

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

(f) in relation to —to encourage a sustainable consolidation pattern that optimises floor space capacity in the corridor.

Control:

- 2:1

The site has a base FSR of 2:1.

The proposal seeks consent for an FSR of 1.82:1, or a GFA of 760.61sqm.

Therefore the proposal complies with the 2:1 control.

A breakdown calculation sheet has been submitted with the application.

The internal corridors are designed as naturally ventilated breeze-way corridors and have been excluded from the FSR calculation.

Yes

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

The proposal results in a departure from the minimum lot size and height standard.

Accordingly, a Clause 4.6 exception is submitted.

Refer to Appendix A and B.

Refer to Appendix A and B

6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

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

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

Yes




environmental damage.

Class 5

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

6.2 Earthworks

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

(3) Before granting development consent for earthworks (or for development involving ancillary earthworks), the consent authority must consider the following matters:

(a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

(b) the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

(c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

(d) the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

(e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics,

(g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

(h) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

The proposal involves the excavation of the site to create a two level basement car park.

Council can impose any relevant conditions of consent to regulate this matter during construction.

Yes

6.3 Flood planning

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land, (b) to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change, (c) to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment.

Council has advised that the site is flood affected.

A Flood Impact Assessment has been prepared by SGC Engineering. A condition shall need to be imposed requiring that the proposal complies with the relevant Flood Planning Levels (FPL) including the 500mm freeboard.

Yes

6.4 Essential Services

(1) Development consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority is

The site is currently serviced by water, electricity and associated services.

Yes




satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) the disposal and recycling of waste,

(e) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(f) suitable vehicular access.

The proposal will integrate relevant services into the development to provide essential services for all future occupants.

In addition, suitable vehicle access and car parking is provided.

2.2 Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005 The Strathfield DCP 2005 has not been updated to take into account the changes in planning controls introduced by the Strathfield LEP 2012 Notwithstanding, the following table demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with Council’s Development Control Plan. Clauses which are not applicable to the proposal have not been included.

Part C – Multiple-Unit Housing

Requirements Proposed Compliance

Part 1 - 1.2 Objectives of Part C

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

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre zone.

The proposed development will compliment the Liverpool Road streetscape and is of a form that is compatible with the adjoining residential flat buildings to the east and west of the site.

Yes

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

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

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

Yes

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

The proposed residential flat building has been architecturally designed and encompasses high quality materials and finishes.

Yes




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

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

The submitted shadow diagrams illustrate that the proposal will retain an appropriate level of solar access to the private open space areas of the adjoining dwellings.

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

There is no vegetation on the site. N/A

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

12 car spaces have been provided within the basement. Certification from a traffic engineer has been provided under separate cover.

Considered acceptable given site constraints

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

Landscaped open space has been provided on the ground floor level.

Yes

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

The proposal will vastly improve the existing streetscape quality by providing an architecturally designed building in lieu of a prohibited use (vehicle body repair workshop), which is an existing use.

Yes

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

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

N/A

Part 2 – Site Planning and Design Provisions

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

Yes

2.2 – Density, Bulk and Scale

Site requirements

Minimum allotment area is 1000sqm and 30m in width.

The subject site has a total area of 417 sqm and a frontage to Liverpool Road of 12.29 metres.

As detailed in this report, the site is an isolated site and therefore cannot be consolidated with

Yes




Minimum frontage along arterial roads is 25m

any other site.

A Clause 4.6 Exception is provided in relation to the departure.

Building Envelope

Building height and scale

1. Density sub-zones.

Front setbacks:

1. 9 metres

2. Notwithstanding requirement 1, developments may be setback less than 9 metres where the predominant setback in the street block is less than 9 metres or the setback would not conflict with the existing streetscape.

Side and rear setbacks:

Within the building envelope, developments are required to comply with the following side and rear setback controls:

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

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

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

The proposal is 5 storeys. The proposal departs from the 13 metre height standard, and in support a Clause 4.6 Exception is provided.

The envelope controls in the DCP have not been updated to reflect the LEP standards.

The proposed front setback is consistent with the setback of the two adjoining residential flat buildings. Therefore, the proposal responds to the prevailing setback and is a suitable design response.

The proposal is designed with two apartments per floor and a central core that provides a ground floor common area and void above with an open style lobby. The built form is configured with a nil eastern side setback and a 2.6 to 3 metre western side setback. Aalto type windows are proposed on the western setback to provide solar access and cross ventilation, whilst maintain privacy to adjoining properties.

The site is an isolated site and greater flexibility is warranted in this instance in terms of side setbacks in order to facilitate the sites redevelopment.

It is also noted that the adjoining development at 549-557 Liverpool Road was approved with reduced western side setbacks and windows facing the side boundary. To address this issue, the proposal incorporates a nil eastern side setback with no openings and apartments orientated in north/south direction.

The south facing apartments receive solar access via the Aalto windows on the western setback.

The architect has employed innovative design solutions to achieve apartments that exhibit a compliant level of residential amenity and given the sites constraints posed by the sites isolation and the approval of the adjoining eastern development, it is reasonable that the side setbacks controls be varied on this instance. Furthermore, privacy impacts are addressed via the use of highlight windows and aalto windows.

Therefore, the reduced setbacks do not generate an adverse privacy or amenity impact.

Yes

Considered acceptable

2.3 – Dwelling Unit and Building Design




Building Design

1. Minimum 15% shall be adaptable

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

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

6. Access to common areas shall be unobstructed.

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

8. Disabled parking shall be provided

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

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

2 apartments are provided as adaptable.

One main entry has been provided into the building.

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

Access to common areas are unobstructed.

There is opportunity for seating and amenities for the disabled.

2 disabled car spaces are provided.

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

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

Yes


Unit Sizes and Layout

14. The minimum unit sizes are:

1 Bed = 70sqm

2 Bed = 85sqm

3 Bed = 100sqm

All apartments comply with the minimum unit sizes under SEPP 65 and the ADG, which prevail over the DCP unit sizes.

Yes

2.4 – Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation

2.4.1 Energy Efficiency

2.4.2 Solar Access

1. The site layout and design shall ensure

Reasonable solar access to the

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

The proposed layout and design allows for compliant levels of solar access to the units

Yes




site

Protection of solar access to neighbouring properties

Maximise solar access

Adequate natural light to living areas

Orientate living rooms and bedrooms to the north

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

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

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

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

4. Shadow diagrams shall be submitted

and communal open space areas.

The main living areas and private open space areas shall achieve approximately 2 hours solar access.

There will be minimal impacts upon adjoining neighbouring solar collectors

Shadow diagrams have been submitted with the Development Application.

2.4.3 – Natural Space Heating and Cooling

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

5. Single orientated apartments are discouraged.

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

80% of the apartments are cross ventilated.

Yes

2.4.4 – Natural Lighting

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

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

Yes

2.4.5 – Building Materials

High quality building materials shall be incorporated into the construction of the

Yes




development that will assist in achieving insulation and acceptable thermal conditions.

2.4.6 – Water Management

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

Yes

2.4.7 – Energy Smart Appliances

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

Yes

2.5 – Streetscape and Building Orientation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Front Fences

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

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

Side and Rear Fences

As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed residential flat building is consistent with the desired future character of the area.

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

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

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

An acoustic report has previously been submitted with the application.

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

The fences and gates will compliment the design of the residential flat building and be in keeping with the character of the streetscape.

Side and rear fences shall be a maximum

Yes




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

1.8m in height.

2.6 – Heritage and Conservation

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

N/A

2.7 – Open Space and Landscaping

1. 50% landscaped area shall be provided at ground level for residential units

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

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

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

3. Common open space:

Residential Flat Developments

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

2 Bed = 12sqm

3 Bed or more = 15sqm

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

General

10. A Landscape Concept Plan shall be submitted.

Given the site constraints associated with the lot size and isolation, it is difficult to accommodate 50% landscaped area on the ground floor. A total of 27.14sqm is provided as deep soil (6.5%) and 49.99 sqm is provided as communal open space (12%).

In lieu, each dwelling has a balcony.

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

A landscape plan has been submitted with the original application.


2.8 – Privacy and Security

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

2. Suitable screening shall be used to avoid direct overlooking

Windows have been appropriately sited to avoid overlooking and amenity impacts.

The design incorporates highlight windows and aalto windows to mitigate any perceived privacy impact.

Yes




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

4 – 6. Appropriate security measures shall be implemented.

2.9 – Parking

1 Bed = 1 space

2 Bed = 1.5 spaces

3 Bed or more = 2 spaces

Visitor = 1 space for every 5 dwellings

Car wash bay = 1 space

Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided

1 x studio x 1 = 1 spaces

9 x 2 Bed x 1.5 = 13.5 spaces

Visitor 10/5 = 2 spaces

Car Wash bay = 1 space (shown as visitor)

Total: 16.5 spaces required

Proposed: 14 spaces

As detailed in this report, given the site constraints, the proposed car parking is considered acceptable.

No


2.10 – Site Facilities and Water Management

2.10.1 – Site Drainage and Water Management

2.10.2 – Garbage Facilities

2.10.3 – Electricity and Telecommunications Supply

2.10.4 – Letterboxes

2.10.5 – TV Antennas

2.10.6 – Clothes Drying Facilities

2.10.11 –Section 94 Contributions

2.10.12 – Excavation of Sites

A Stormwater Management Plan has been previously submitted with the application.

A garbage room has been provided on the ground floor level.

The subject site has access to existing services.

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

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

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

Section 94 Contributions is applicable to the proposed dwelling.

The proposed basement car park encroaches within the building setbacks however, the basement will not protrude above ground level

Yes




at the site boundaries and will not have any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.


2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (Amendment No 3) An amendment to SEPP No. 65 was gazetted on 19 June 2015, and came into force on 17 July 2015. The new SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide are applicable to the application. SEPP 65 seeks to improve the design quality of residential apartment development across the State, through policy direction and the application of nine design quality principles. The Residential Flat Design Code has been superseded by the Apartment Design Guide. The New SEPP 65 makes reference to parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide, to address the design principles. The Apartment Design Guide provides detail in Parts 3 and 4, through objectives, design criteria and design guidance for the sitting, design and amenity of residential apartment development. A Design Verification Statement prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect has been submitted. An assessment under the Apartment Design Guide is provided at Appendix C. 2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land Under Clause 7 of SEPP 55, Council must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated. A Contamination Report is required in order to address the provisions of SEPP 55.

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


3. CONCLUSION The proposal, as amended, addresses the Contentions raised by the Council. The proposal is considered a suitable redevelopment of the site that generally complies with the standards and objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012, Strathfield DCP 2005, relevant State Environmental Planning Policies and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. Whilst the application departs from the minimum lot size and height of building standard, it has been justified and on balance, retains compliance with the objectives of the standard, objectives of the zone and generates no environmental impact. Justification for the departure has been provided via the Clause 4.6 Exception. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. Prepared by:

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


APPENDIX A – Clause 4.6 Exception, Minimum Lot Size In accordance with the Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, a request for an exception to the development standard under ‘Clause 4.1A Minimum Lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings’ is submitted in support of the subject application. The site is an isolated site located between an existing residential flat building to the west and an approved (under construction) residential flat building to the east. The site does not comply with the minimum lot size under Clause 4.1A and therefore departs from the development standard. However, it is not possible for the site to consolidate with an adjoining lot, given it is an isolated site. A Clause 4.6 is submitted which allows the Consent Authority to grant consent to the development. The provisions of Clause 4.6 are addressed as follows: (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. Comment: An extract of Clause 4.1A of the Strathfield LEP 2012 is provided below:

4.1A Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings

(1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones. (2) Development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the Table

to this clause for a purpose shown in Column 1 of the Table opposite that zone, only if the area of the lot is equal to or greater than the area specified for that purpose and shown opposite in Column 3 of the Table.

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Dual occupancy Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

560 square metres

Multi dwelling housing Zone R3 Medium Density Residential or Zone R4 High Density Residential

1,000 square metres

Residential flat building Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, Zone R4 High Density Residential, Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core or Zone B2 Local Centre

1,000 square metres

The proposal seeks consent for a residential flat building within the B2 Local Centre zone. In accordance with Column 3 of Clause 4.1A(2), the minimum lot size standard is 1000 sqm. The site has an area of 417 sqm and therefore, falls short of the minimum lot size by 583 sqm. This Clause 4.6 establishes that in the circumstances of this case, the departure can be supported as the application satisfies the five principles of the ‘Wehbe’ test and additionally, satisfies the test


established under Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009, in that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, with the environmental planning grounds being particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, as opposed to grounds that would apply to any similar development in the vicinity of the subject site. (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. Comment: The applicable minimum lot size control for the site is 1000 sqm. The site has a lot size of 417 sqm, representing a short-fall of 583 sqm. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply the minimum lot size standard, however by virtue of this clause, consent authority can grant consent to such a numerical departure. (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Comment: Assessment under Clause 4.6(3)(a) The proposed variation to the minimum lot size standard is assessed with consideration to the principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Wehbe V Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 82. His Honour Preston CJ set out 5 ways of establishing that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. The 5 parameters were further tested in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 where Justice Pain upholding a decision of Pearson C, held that the principles in Wehbe remained relevant to the provisions of Clause 4.6(3)(a). The findings of Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council NSWLEC 1009 requires the identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, as opposed to grounds that would apply to any similar development in the vicinity of the site. His Honour Preston CJ set out five alternative ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the preparation of a SEPP 1 objection in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, albeit only one of these 5 ways needs to apply in order for the objection to be well founded. The same approach has been held by the Land and Environment Court to be appropriate in assessing a Clause 4.6 request. His Honour Preston CJ sets out the following 5 alternative criteria:

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

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


the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

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

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

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

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


The objective of the Minimum Lot size standard under Clause 4.1A of the Strathfield LEP 2012 are:

(1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones.

An assessment in relation to this objective is provided: Objective (1) The objective relates to achieving a planned residential density in a certain zone. The planned density for the site is established by the FSR standard of 2:1 which generates a GFA of 834 sqm. The proposal entirely complies with this FSR standard, being 1.82:1 or 760.61 sqm. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the planned density for the site, or is entirely reflective of the desired planned density for the site. Therefore, the proposal complies with the objective of the minimum lot size standard. In summary, compliance with the minimum lot size standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary, given the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard, and therefore the proposal is equivalent to or, the same as a development that would strictly comply with the numerical minimum lot size standard. Furthermore, given the site’s isolation, the site cannot be amalgamated with an adjoining lot and it is therefore unreasonable or unnecessary or require the site to comply with the minimum lot standard. Therefore, strict compliance with the minimum lot size standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance and satisfies the requirements of test (a) in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007)


Wehbe Criterion (b)

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

The underlying objective and purpose remain relevant to the proposal and the proposal complies with the underlying objective of the standard. Notwithstanding, compliance is unnecessary given that the site is an isolated site and it cannot be amalgamated with an adjoining lot. Wehbe Criterion (c)


The underlying objective, which is to achieve the planned density, would be thwarted if compliance was required, given compliance would not permit a redevelopment of the site to achieve the permitted density of 2:1 or a GFA of 834 sqm. The proposal in its current form achieves the underlying objective and therefore, the variation supports the objectives. Accordingly, the underlying purpose of Clause 4.1A would be defeated and thwarted, if compliance was required. Wehbe Criterion (d)


The Council has not abandoned or destroyed the standard, however, by the Council’s action, the site has become isolated and therefore cannot comply with the minimum lot size. Accordingly, compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Wehbe Criterion (e)


The B2 Local Centre zoning of the land is appropriate for the site. The objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone are:

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.


• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations. • To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

The proposed ‘residential flat building’ is permissible with consent in the zone and provides for people to live within proximity to local services. The proposal provides employment opportunities during the construction phase. The proposal maximises public transport use, given it is in proximity to bus services along Liverpool Road. Therefore, the proposal satisfies the first objective and second objective. In conclusion, the proposal complies with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone. This Clause 4.6 Exception has addressed the five criteria under Wehbe and the conclusion is that the proposal criterion (a) of Wehbe and this demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Accordingly, the application satisfies Clause 4.6(3)(a). Additionally, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify contravening the standard, as outlined below. Assessment under Clause 4.6(3)(b) The following summarises the environmental planning grounds that justify the contravention of the standard:

i. The site is unique in that it is an isolated site located between an existing 3 storey residential flat building to the west at 563 Liverpool Road Strathfield South and an approved (under construction) 5 storey residential flat building to the east at 549-557 Liverpool Road Strathfield South.

ii. Given that the site is an existing isolated site, it cannot amalgamate with an adjoining lot and therefore, it is not physically capable for the site to increase in site area to achieve a lot size of 1000 sqm. Therefore, compliance with the minimum lot size development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case, as it cannot physically occur.

iii. The isolation of the subject site should not sterilise the development potential of the

subject site. Under the Strathfield LEP 2012, the subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre, has an FSR of 2:1 and a height control of 13 metres. The planning controls contemplate a residential flat building or mixed use development with a height of up to 4/5 storeys and a density of 834 sqm. This establishes that the desired future character for the site and surrounding context along Liverpool Road is of a built form of 4 to 5 storeys and is reflected by the approved development at 549-557 Liverpool Road, which is 5 storeys.

iv. The site is a ‘missing tooth’, wedged between the existing development and soon to be

constructed development. Further, it is an existing use, being a mechanic and panel beater warehouse (defined as vehicle repair station and vehicle body repair workshop), which is a prohibited use in the B2 Local Centre zone. It is a detracting and undesirable use that sits at odds with the surrounding residential land-uses. Its redevelopment will improve amenity and environmental outcomes. The existing use is unlikely to remain in perpetuity and given the available planning control it should be redeveloped. Its redevelopment will in-fill the ‘missing tooth’ between the adjoining buildings and will compliment the streetscape presentation along this portion of Liverpool Road.

v. Council approved the adjoining development application at 549-557 Liverpool Road Strathfield South in November 2014 resulting in the sites isolation. In Council’s assessment, it concludes that the subject site can be redeveloped for a residential flat building comprising 12 apartments (refer to page 1.23 of Council Assessment report for


DA 2014/078). Accordingly, Council has acknowledged that, despite the subject site not complying with the minimum lot size, the site can be redeveloped for the purposes of a residential flat building.

Holistically, for the reasons above, permitting flexibility in the minimum lot size development standard will result in the development achieving a suitable urban outcome for the site that is consistent with the desired future character of the area. This clause 4.6 submission establishes that while the proposal departs from the standard, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, with the grounds being particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and demonstrates that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case. Accordingly, the application satisfies Clause 4.6(3)(b). (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that: (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. Comment: This request has adequately addressed the matters required under sub-clause (3) and adequately satisfies the relevant test to establish that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Additionally, the development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development within the B2 Local Centre zone, as detailed within this Clause 4.6. Further, the proposed numerical departure retains compliance with the relevant objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, being the objects set down in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii):

(a) to encourage:

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

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

The proposal facilitates the orderly and economic use and development of the site and the numerical non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of State or Regional planning significance. Concurrence from the Director-General has been given to Council to permit a departure to a development standard where there is sufficient planning merit.


(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider: (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. Comment: The proposed variation to the development standards does not raise any matters of significance for state or regional planning. The variation is also not contrary to any state policy of ministerial directive. It is therefore considered acceptable that an exception to the Minimum Lot size development standard is granted in this instance for the following reasons:

The purpose of the standard is being achieved and the development complies with the non-numerical objectives of minimum lot size standard under the Strathfield LEP 2012.

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

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

The non-compliance enables compliance with the objects and purpose of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

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

significance.

Conclusion The proposed variation to the Minimum Lot size development standard is considered to have sufficient planning merit and sufficient environmental planning grounds that are particular to the application that justify the contravention. Therefore, the departure can be supported.


APPENDIX B – Clause 4.6 Exception, Height of Building In accordance with the Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, a request for an exception to the development standard under Clause 4.3 Height of Building development standard is submitted to the consent authority. The provisions of Clause 4.6 are addressed as follows: (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. Comment: In accordance with clause 4.3 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Height of Building standard is 13 metres. The proposal seeks consent for a 5 storey building that is 15 metres at its highest point. The proposal results in a departure from the Height of Building standard by 2 metres. The following image illustrates the proposed height variation.

Image 4: Section – red line indicates 13 metre height control (Source: Ghazi Al Ali Architect)

This clause 4.6 submission establishes that in the circumstances of this case, the departure can be supported as the application satisfies the five principles of the ‘Wehbe’ test and additionally, satisfies the test established under Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009, in that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, with the environmental planning grounds being particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, as opposed to grounds that would apply to any similar development in the vicinity of the subject site. (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any


other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. Comment: The proposal seeks consent for a Height of Building 15 metres. Therefore, the height variation is 2 metres. The design rationale, is that this provides a consistent 5 storey built form along Liverpool Road that is commensurate with the adjoining approved development at 549-557 Liverpool Road. This clause allows Council to grant consent to such a numerical departure. (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Comment: Assessment under Clause 4.6(3)(a) The proposed variation to the Height of Building standard is assessed with consideration to the principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Wehbe V Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 82. His Honour Preston CJ set out 5 ways of establishing that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. The 5 parameters were further tested in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 where Justice Pain upholding a decision of Pearson C, held that the principles in Wehbe remained relevant to the provisions of Clause 4.6(3)(a). The findings of Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council NSWLEC 1009 requires the identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, as opposed to grounds that would apply to any similar development in the vicinity of the site. His Honour Preston CJ set out five alternative ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the preparation of a SEPP 1 objection in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, albeit only one of these 5 ways needs to apply in order for the objection to be well founded. The same approach has been held by the Land and Environment Court to be appropriate in assessing a Clause 4.6 submission. The five alternative ways are:




d. Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by


the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.


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


The objectives of the Height standard are:

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

Therefore, strict compliance with the height of building standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance and satisfies the requirements of test (a) in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) Objective (a). The development is of a height that is compatible with the desired future character of the area, which is that of a medium density residential area. The proposal will deliver a residential flat building that is of a height that is compatible with the height of adjoining development. The additional built form would not affect the compatibility of the proposal with the immediate area, but rather retains a consistent streetscape presentation. The proposal will deliver an architecturally designed boutique flat building that will facilitate the provision of new dwellings. The additional height on Liverpool Road shall not affect the compatibility of the proposal with the immediate area, but rather shall facilitate a development that is able to sit harmoniously with future development. The proposal is considered to improve the appearance of the area. The building mass is considered contextually appropriate when considering that adjoining sites have been developed/approved to a similar height building. Therefore, the additional height will improve the appearance of the area and provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies objective (a). Objective (b) refers to the need to encourage a ‘consolidated pattern’ to deliver a ‘sustainable capacity height for the area’. The site is an isolated site. It cannot be consolidated with any adjoining lot. As such, the consolidation pattern is reasonable. The proposal is not inconsistent with the desired consolidation pattern and can deliver the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area. In this regard, the proposal satisfies objective (b). In relation to objective (c), the proposal will deliver a medium density development option for the site that is consistent with the zone provisions. The proposal complies with the FSR standard, being under the applicable standard. Therefore, it is of a built form that would be reasonably contemplated for the site.


Therefore, the proposal achieves compliance with objective (c) of the standard. Wehbe Criterion (b)


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


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


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


The objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone are:

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.


• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. The proposed ‘residential flat building’ is permissible with consent in the zone and provides for people to live within proximity to local services. The proposal provides employment opportunities during the construction phase. The proposal maximises public transport use, given it is in proximity to bus services along Liverpool Road. Therefore, the proposal satisfies the first objective and second objective. The proposal encourages public transport use, including walking and cycling, by providing reduced car parking and given its proximity to public transport, it will encourage a mode-shift toward public transport use. In conclusion, the proposal complies with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone. This Clause 4.6 Exception has addressed the five criteria under Wehbe and the conclusion is that the proposal satisfies two of the criteria of Wehbe, being criterion (a) and (c). Therefore, two of the criterion apply and this demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Accordingly, the application satisfies Clause 4.6(3)(a). Additionally, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify contravening the standard, as outlined below. Assessment under Clause 4.6(3)(b) The following summarises the environmental planning grounds that justify the contravention of the standard:

i. The site is unique in that it is an isolated site located between an existing 3 storey residential flat building to the west at 563 Liverpool Road Strathfield South and an approved (under construction) 5 storey residential flat building to the east at 549-557 Liverpool Road Strathfield South. The proposal seeks to balance a height transition between the two adjoining buildings, whilst providing an infill development that better responds to the site constraints via increased side setbacks and improve articulation of the side elevations. This results in a better planning outcome for the site and creates better amenity through increased setbacks on a narrow site. The resulting height shall transition the adjoining structures as the proposed height is akin to an average between the two adjoining heights.

ii. The proposed residential flat building results in a height that is consistent with the desired future character for the site. This is established by the site having a permissible height of 13 metres and the approval of the adjacent building at five storeys.

iii. The height variation results in the rationalisation of the height and FSR standard. Given the site constraints associated with the site being isolated and being of a narrow frontage and smaller site area, it is difficult for any development to achieve the anticipated density as prescribed by the FSR standard, without some flexibility to the height standard. In this instance, the amended scheme does not fully realise the total permissible FSR standard, which is 2:1. The amended scheme seeks consent for an FSR of 1.823:1, which is compliant, but importantly is also below the FSR standard.

If strict compliance with the height were to be required, then the resultant FSR would be less, meaning that the site would not be able to be developed to achieve its anticipated density and would result in a development that is not reflective of the orderly and


economic development of land, as required by the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Therefore, the height departure results in a better realisation and rationalisation of the FSR standard and enables the orderly and economic development of land.

iv. The site is a ‘missing tooth’, wedged between the existing development and soon to be

constructed development. Further, it is an existing use, being a mechanic and panel beater warehouse (defined as vehicle repair station and vehicle body repair workshop), which is a prohibited use in the B2 Local Centre zone. It is a detracting and undesirable use that sits at odds with the surrounding residential land-uses. Its redevelopment will improve amenity and environmental outcomes. The existing use is unlikely to remain in perpetuity and given the available planning control it should be redeveloped. Its redevelopment will in-fill the ‘missing tooth’ between the adjoining buildings and will complement the streetscape presentation along this portion of Liverpool Road.

Holistically, for the reasons above, permitting flexibility in the height of building standard will result in the development achieving a suitable urban outcome for the site that is consistent with the desired future character of the area. This clause 4.6 submission establishes that while the proposal departs from the height of building standard, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, with the grounds being particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and demonstrates that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case. In this case there is planning merit in permitting the numerical departure. Accordingly, the application satisfies Clause 4.6(3)(b). Therefore, on balance, the variation to the height is reasonable given the resultant development is compliant with the objective of the standard and zone under the SLEP 2012. (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that: (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. Comment: This request has addressed the matters required under sub-clause (3) and satisfies the relevant test to establish that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Additionally, the development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development within the B2 Local Centre zone, as detailed within this Clause 4.6. Further, the proposed numerical departure retains compliance with the relevant objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, being the objects set down in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii):

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial


resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

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

The proposal facilitates the orderly and economic use and development of the site and the numerical non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of State or Regional planning significance. Concurrence from the Director-General has been given to Council to permit a departure to a development standard where there is sufficient planning merit. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider: (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. Comment: The proposed variation to the development standards does not raise any matters of significance for state or regional planning. The variation is also not contrary to any state policy of ministerial directive. There is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance as the site represents an opportunity to redeveloped an isolated lot with an infill development that addresses the orientation of the site and improves the streetscape whilst delivering additional housing opportunities in the locality. The design exhibits a high quality design response which is a public benefit and provides a good level of residential amenity for the occupants, whilst maintaining a reasonable level of residential amenity to the adjoining dwellings. It is therefore considered acceptable that an exception to the maximum Height of Building development standard is granted in this instance for the following reasons:

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

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

The development maintains compliance with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone.

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

was required.

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

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

significance.

Delivers a height and bulk that has a good contextual fit that sits harmoniously with

adjoining approved development and future development, resulting in a uniform streetscape presentation.


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

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

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

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

The Clause 4.6 submission has addressed the matters under sub-clause (3) of Clause 4.6

and demonstrates that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary. To this effect the Clause 4.6 is well founded.

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


APPENDIX C – Apartment Design Guide The following table provides an assessment under the guidelines of the Apartment Design Guide:

Objective Design Criteria/Guidance Consideration Compliance

Part 3A: Site Analysis

Objective 3A-1

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

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be addressed.

A site analysis provided by architect.

Yes

Part 3B: Orientation

Objective 3B-1

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

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

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

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

The proposed development provides a residential flat building with a primary street frontage to Liverpool Road. The orientation of the building allows for 90% of the apartments to receive a minimum of 2 hours of solar access in mid-winter.

The amenity of each apartment is compliant.

Yes

Objective 3B-2

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid winter.

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

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

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

. If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours,

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

A shadow analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate that the shadow impacts are not unreasonable.

Yes


building separation should be increased beyond minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy.

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

Part 3C: Public Domain Interface

Objective 3C-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• architectural detailing

• changes in materials

• plant species

• colours

. Opportunities for people to be concealed should be minimised.

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

The proposed development provides adequate safety and security.

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

Proposed balconies and windows allow for casual surveillance.

Balconies facing Liverpool Road incorporate louvres to provide acoustic protection.

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

Yes


Objective 3C-2

. Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced.

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

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

Yes

Part 3D: Communal and public open space

Objective 3D-1

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

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

. Developments achieve a

minimum of 50% direct

sunlight to the principal

usable part of the communal

open space for a minimum of

2 hours between 9 am and 3

pm on 21 June (mid winter).

The application proposes 12% communal open space in the form of a courtyard on the ground floor. Given the sites boutique nature and proximity to the town centre, parks and services, it is considered acceptable. In addition, each apartment has a balcony.


Objective 3D-2

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

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

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

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

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

As above.

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

Accordingly, the private open space is considered compliant.


Part 3E: Deep soil zones

Objective 3E-1

. Deep soil zones provide areas on the site that allow for and support healthy plant and tree growth. They improve

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

Due to the sites urban location, it is difficult to provide 7% deep soil.

In lieu, the application includes a communal area and each apartment has a balcony.



residential amenity and promote management of water and air quality.

Site area Minimum dimensi

ons

Deep soil zone (% of site area)

less than 650m2

- 7%

650m2 - 1,500m2

3m

greater than 1,500m2

6m

greater than 1,500m2 with significant existing tree cover

6m

Part 3F: Visual Privacy

Objective 3F-1

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

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

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m(4stys)

6m 3m

Up to 25m(5-8stys)

9m 4.5m

Over 25m(9+ stys)

12m 6m

Note:

Separation distances between

buildings on the same site

should combine required

building separations

depending on the type of room

(see figure 3F.2).

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

The built form is configured with a nil eastern side setback and a 2.6 to 3 metre western side setback. Aalto type windows are proposed on the western setback to provide solar access and cross ventilation, whilst maintain privacy to adjoining properties.

The site is an isolated site and greater flexibility is warranted in terms of separation in order to facilitate the sites redevelopment. Privacy impacts are addressed via the use of highlight and aalto windows. This allows for the setbacks to be reduced and mitigate privacy impacts.

There is no direct overlooking of adjoining apartments.

In addition, the adjoining development at 549-557 Liverpool Road was approved with a side setback of 3 metres, that reduces to 1.9 metres at certain intervals with window openings facing the side boundary.

The proposed setbacks are considered reasonable, given the site constraints.



Part 3G: Pedestrian access and entries

Objective 3G-1

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

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

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

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

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

Pedestrian access is provided via the primary residential lobby entry.

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

Yes

Ground Objective 3G-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

Objective 3G-3

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

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

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

N/A to the site. N/A


Part 3H- Vehicle Access

Objective 3H-1

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

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

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

The proposal provides vehicular access via a right of way access from Fitzgerald Lane.

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

Car parking has been accommodate the maximum potential that can be provided within the site boundaries.

N/A

Part 3J: Bicycle and car parking

Objective 3J-1

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

. For development in the following locations:

• on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or • on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B2 Local Centre or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

the minimum car parking

requirement for residents and

visitors is set out in the Guide

to Traffic Generating

Developments, or the car

parking requirement

prescribed by the relevant

council, whichever is less

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

As above.

Yes

Objective 3J-2

. Parking and

facilities are

provided for

other modes of

transport

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

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

. Conveniently located charging stations are provided for electric vehicles, where desirable.

As above. Yes


Objective 3J-3

. Car park design

and access is

safe and secure.

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

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

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

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

The car park provides adequate security and facilities. Additional service areas for garbage room and building services are provided on the ground floor level.

Yes

Objective 3J-4

. Visual and

environmental

impacts of

underground car

parking are

minimised.

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal incorporates a 2 level basement that provides car parking to service the development.

Yes

Objective 3J-5

. Visual and

environmental

impacts of on-

grade car

parking are

minimised.

. On-grade car parking should be avoided.

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

• parking is located on the side or rear of the lot away from the primary street frontage; • cars are screened from view of streets, buildings, communal and private open space areas; • safe and direct access to

No at-grade parking is provided.

Yes


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

Objective 3J-6

. Visual and

environmental

impacts of above

ground enclosed

car parking are

minimised.

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

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

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

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

N/A N/A

Part 4A: Solar and Daylight access

Objective 4A-1

. To optimise the

number of

apartments

receiving sunlight

to habitable

rooms, primary

windows and

private open

space.

. Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas

. In all other areas, living

A minimum of 90% or 9/10 of the apartments receive 2 hours of direct sun light in mid-winter.

1 apartment or 10% do not receive direct sunlight.

The proposed apartments will have a good level of residential amenity.

Yes


rooms and private open

spaces of at least 70% of

apartments in a building

receive a minimum of 3 hours

direct sunlight between 9 am

and 3 pm at mid winter.

. A maximum of 15% of

apartments in a building

receive no direct sunlight

between 9 am and 3 pm at

mid winter.

Objective 4A-2

. Daylight access

is maximised

where sunlight is

limited.

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

.Where courtyards are used :

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

. Opportunities for reflected light into apartments are optimised through:

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

The proposal includes a 49.99 sqm or 12% as communal area on the ground floor level.

In addition, each apartment has a balcony.

Yes

Objective 4A-3

. Design

incorporates

shading and

glare control,

A number of the following

design features are used:

• balconies or sun shading

Balconies have been positioned to face the north to allow for solar access.

Yes


particularly for

warmer months.

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

Part 4B: Natural Ventilation

Objective 4B-1

. All habitable

rooms are

naturally

ventilated.

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

. Depths of habitable rooms support natural ventilation.

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

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

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

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

80% or 8/10 of the apartment are cross ventilated. Cross ventilation is provided via openings and articulated side façades.

All habitable living rooms experience some form of natural ventilation.

The void areas provide for additional ventilation.

Yes


Objective 4B-2

. The layout and

design of single

aspect

apartments

maximises

natural

ventilation.

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

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

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

The apartment depths range between 9 to 11.2 metres which provides good exposure to sun light and ventilation.

Yes

Objective 4B-3

. The number of

apartments with

natural cross

ventilation is

maximised to

create a

comfortable

indoor

environment for

residents.

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

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

80% of the apartment are cross ventilated.

All habitable living rooms experience some form of natural ventilation.

The void areas provide for additional ventilation.

Yes

Part 4C: Ceiling Heights

Objective 4c-1

. Ceiling height

achieves

sufficient natural

ventilation and

daylight access.

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

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

For 2 storey apartments

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

Attic spaces

1.8m at edge of room with a 30 degree minimum

The top of slab to top of slab dimension is 3 metres for each level, which provides a ceiling height of 2.7 metres per floor level.

The proposed ceiling heights are compliant.

Yes


These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

ceiling slope If located in mixed used areas

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

Objective 4C-2

. Ceiling height

increases the

sense of space

in apartments

and provides for

well proportioned

rooms.

A number of the following

design solutions can be used:

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

As above. Yes

Objective 4C-3

. Ceiling heights

contribute to the

flexibility of

building use over

the life of the

building.

. Ceiling heights of lower level

apartments in centres should

be greater than the minimum

required by the design criteria

allowing flexibility and

conversion to non-residential

uses (see figure 4C.1).

As above. Yes

Part 4D: Apartment size and layout

Objective 4D-1

. The layout of

rooms within an

apartment is

functional, well

organised and

provides a high

standard of

amenity.

. Apartments are required to

have the following minimum

internal areas:

Note:

The minimum internal areas

include only one bathroom.

Additional bathrooms

increase the minimum

internal area by 5m2 each.

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m2 each.

The apartments comply with the minimum area under the ADG.

Every habitable room has a window in an external wall.

Yes


Apartment type

Minimum internal area

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

. Every habitable room must

have a window in an external

wall with a total minimum

glass area of not less than

10% of the floor area of the

room. Daylight and air may

not be borrowed from other

rooms.

Objective 4D-2

. Environmental

performance of

the apartment is

maximised.

. Habitable room depths are

limited to a maximum of 2.5 x

the ceiling height.

. In open plan layouts (where

the living, dining and kitchen

are combined) the maximum

habitable room depth is 8m

from a window.

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

Yes

Objective 4D-3

. Apartment

layouts are

designed to

accommodate a

variety of

household

activities and

needs.

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

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

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

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

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

Main bedrooms have an area of 10sqm and a minimum dimension of 3 metres.

Yes

Part 4E: Private open space and balconies

Objective 4E-1

. Apartments

provide

appropriately

sized private

open space and

balconies to

enhance

residential

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

Dwelling type

Minimum area

Minimum depth

Studio apartments

4m2 -

Each apartment has a balcony.

The areas of each balcony are compliant with the requirements of the ADG.

Yes


amenity.

1 bedroom apartment

8m2 2m

2 bedroom apartment

10m2 2m

3+ bedroom apartment

12m2 2.4m

The minimum balcony depth

to be counted as contributing

to the balcony area is 1m.

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

Objective 4E-2

. Primary private

open space and

balconies are

appropriately

located to

enhance

liveability for

residents.

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

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

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

Balconies have been positioned adjacent to living room areas.

Yes

Objective 4E-3

. Private open

space and

balcony design is

integrated into

and contributes

to the overall

architectural form

and detail of the

building.

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

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

The balconies have a transparent type balustrade.

Yes


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

Objective 4E-4

. Private open

space and

balcony design

maximises

safety.

. Changes in ground levels or landscaping are minimised.

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

The design of the balcony respond to the site constraints.

Yes

Part 4F: Common circulation spaces

Objective 4F-1

. Common

circulation

spaces achieve

good amenity

and properly

service the

number of

apartments.

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

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

There are 2 apartments off the main corridor.

Each apartment has access to the elevator and fire stair.

Yes

Objective 4F-2

. Common

circulation

spaces promote

safety and

provide for social

interaction

between

residents.

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

. Tight corners and spaces are avoided

. Circulation spaces should be well lit at night

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

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

Yes


general wayfinding

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

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

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


APPENDIX D – Expert’s Qualifications Wilfred Nino - Curriculum Vitae Academic Qualifications 2008 - Bachelor of Planning (University of New South Wales) 2015 - Master of Construction Project Management (University of New South Wales) Professional Experience - April 2011 – present

Nino Urban Planning + Development – Director

Principal town planning consultant responsible for providing expert town planning advice to a diverse range of clients including private and public sector.

Statutory and strategic projects within numerous Council areas, including City of Sydney, Marrickville, Bankstown, Canterbury, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Randwick, Rockdale and Sutherland.

Consultant town planner to Botany Bay Council in the assessment of JRPP Applications.

Provision of expert witness evidence for appeals within the Land and Environment Court.

- January 2011 – May 2011

Department of Planning & Infrastructure – Consultant Senior Planner

Assessment of Part 3A and State Significant Development applications.

- July 2012 – January 2011 State Property Authority – Senior Property Officer

Coordination of Government acquisitions, divestments and disposal of Government

Assets. Provision of Town Planning expertise on Government sites.

- March 2008 – June 2010

Department of Planning & Infrastructure – Senior Planner/Planner

Assessment of Part 3A and State Significant Development applications. Projects include Barangaroo Concept Plan; Carlton United Brewery Site; Hospitals

throughout NSW; Redfern RSL development; and various other Part 3A applications.

- July 2007 to March 2008

Bankstown Council – Planner

Assessment of a range of Development Applications and Pre-Development Applications in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


- June 2006 to July 2007 Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority – Planner

Assessment of Development Applications and Heritage Applications within State Government land at The Rocks, Circular Quay and Darling Harbour.

- April 2005 to June 2006

Leichhardt Council – Planner

Assessment of a range of Development Applications and Pre-Development Applications in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Professional Membership

- Member of the Planning Institute of Australia

- Member of the Urban Development Institute of Australia Award

- Planning Institute of Australia – Young Town Planner of the Year (NSW) 2012

Documents

Land & Environment Court 11039/2015 SUPPLEMENTARY ... · and the Apartment Design Guide and is worthy of approval. ... conservation area. Accordingly, the proposal complies with