section 96(2) application statement of … · proposal: section 96(2) ... x single storey dwellings...

NUPD Pty Ltd | Nino Urban Planning + Development |

Section 96(2) Application

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Proposal: Section 96(2) alterations and additions to approved development application DA2014/114, comprising amendments to select apartments

and the addition of two apartments

Site: Key Site 19: 135-137 Parramatta Road and 83-87 Park Road Homebush NSW 2140

Submitted to: Strathfield Council

Prepared by:

www.nupd.com.au

0411 299 865

[email protected]

Studio 1/88 Liverpool Road Summer Hill NSW 2130

September 2015

Project no. 0435 - S96

0435 – 135-137 Parramatta Road and 83-87 Park Road Homebush 2

CONTENTS PAGE

1. Introduction 3

2. Site Description 4

3. Proposed Development 6

4. Planning Assessment 11

- Strathfield LEP 2012 12

- SEPP (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development) 65 20

5. Conclusion 23

APPENDIX A – Clause 4.6 Exception, Height of Building 24

APPENDIX B – SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide 36

Revision Status

Revision Date Status Written Approved

0435 S96 – Rev 3 Rev 2 Rev 1

30.09.15 10.05.15 28.04.15

Final Final Draft Draft

W.N W.N W.N

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

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

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


1. INTRODUCTION

Nino Urban Planning + Development have been engaged to prepare this Section 96(2) Report to accompany a Section 96(2) Modification Application to Strathfield Council for the following amendments to DA 2014/114 at 135-137 Parramatta Road and 83-87 Park Road Homebush:

Alterations to select apartments, comprising the reduction in floor area by 300 to 600mm.

Addition of two apartments to level seven, fronting Park Road.

The amendment results in an increase to the total number of apartments to 71 apartments. In our opinion, the proposed Section 96 Modification results in substantially the same development as the approved development, and constitutes a Section 96(2) Modification in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. All other components of the existing approval, such as Floor Space Ratio, landscaping, car parking, and roof terrace have been retained as approved. However, the proposal results in a variation to the building height control. The variation to the height is considered acceptable, as the proposal provides a suitable transition between the adjoining development to the west, and the recently approved development to the east. Further, the proposed Section 96(2) amendment retains a compliant FSR and retains the same approved land use in the form of a mixed use development. The proposal is assessed under the following Planning Legislation:

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies/Instruments.

The proposal shall result in an amendment to the conditions that reference the architectural plans. Accordingly, given the scope of the amendments, the application is considered as a Section 96(2) Modification Application.


2. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is formed by the consolidation of five lots and is known as 135-137 Parramatta Road and 83-87 Park Road Homebush. The subject Section 96 relates to the building at 83-87 Park Road. The site is located on the northern side of Parramatta Road, and has a combined site area of 2,194.2 m2 with a frontage of 18.865 metres to Parramatta Road, average depth of 60.885 metres and a secondary frontage of 44.885 metres to Park Road. The Park road portion of the site faces north and the Parramatta Road portion faces south. The site is irregular in shape. The site has a cross-fall of approximately 1500mm from south-west to north-east. The Parramatta Road lots accommodate a motor showroom with single storey office and workshop that is associated with the use of the site as a car sales yard. The Park Road lots comprise of two x single storey dwellings and a vacant lot that is associated with the motor showroom that is located on Parramatta Road. The long-term use of the site as a car yard is limited given the highest and best use is a mixed use development in accordance with the planning controls available under the Strathfield LEP 2012. The five lots are legally known as:

Lot 21 Section B DP 7876, known as 137 Parramatta Road (411 m2)

Lot 22 Section B DP 7876, known as 135 Parramatta Road (398.4 m2)

Lot 27 Section B DP 7876, known as 83 Park Road (493.2 m2)

Lot 28 Section B DP 7876, known as 85 Park Road (471.6 m2)

Lot 29 Section B DP 7876, known as 87 Park Road (411 m2)

The site is zoned ‘B4 Mixed Use’ under the Strathfield LEP 2012. The site is not identified as a heritage item and not within a heritage conservation area. An aerial photo is provided below.

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

Subject site

Rail corridor

Park Road

Parramatta Road


Image 2: Subject site (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)


3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed Section 96(2) application seeks to modify the approved development at 135-137 Parramatta Road and 83-87 Park Road Homebush as follows:

Alterations to select apartments, comprising the reduction in floor area by 300 to 600mm.

Addition of two apartments to level seven, fronting Park Road.

The 71 apartments comprise the following mix:

14 x One bedroom apartments.

55 x Two bedroom apartments.

2 x Three bedroom apartments.

The proposed Section 96(2) retains substantially the same development, and results in amendments to select apartments and the addition of two apartments to level seven, fronting Park Road. As noted in the following calculations, the approved development on both the Parramatta Road and Park Road frontage is less than the maximum permissible FSR that can be achieved on the site. The proposal consists of the following preliminary development calculations:

Site Area (combined): 2194.2 m2

Site Area Park Rd: 1384.8 m2

Site Area Parramatta Rd: 809.4 m2

FSR standard on Park Rd: 2.5:1

Permissible GFA on Park Rd: 3462 m2

FSR standard on Parramatta Rd: 2.95:1

Permissible GFA on Parramatta Rd: 2388 m2

Total allowable GFA: 5850 m2

Proposed total GFA: 5850 m2

Height Standard on Park Rd: 22 metres or 7 storeys

Approved Height on Park Rd: 21.5 metres or 7 storeys

Proposed Height on Park Rd: 25-25.4 metres or 8 storeys

Height Standard on Parramatta Rd: 29 metres or 9 storeys

Approved Height on Parramatta Rd: 28.5 metres or 9 storeys

Proposed Height on Parramatta Rd: As per approved D.A / No change


Total Common Area: As per approved D.A / No change

Deep Soil Area: As per approved D.A / No change

Apartments: 71 apartments

Car parking: 91 car parking spaces

Residential spaces: 71 spaces

Commercial Spaces: 5 spaces

Visitor spaces: 14 spaces including 1 car wash bay

Bicycle parking: No change

Adaptable apartments: 8 apartments

Solar Access: 100% apartments

Cross-ventilated: 86% apartments

Reference should be made to the architectural plans prepared by Ross Howieson Architects. Extract of the plans provided below.

Image 3: Photomontage on Park Road (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

Image 4: Ground floor plan (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)


Image 5: First floor plan (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

Image 6: Level 2 floor plan (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)




Image 12: Park Road elevation plan (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

Image 13: Mass model (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)


4. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The amendment seeks consent to modify the Notice of Determination of Development Application No 2014/114. Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act stipulates the following: (2) Other modifications A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if: (a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and The proposed amendment seeks to alter Condition (1) which relates to the approved architectural plans. The proposed amendments will retain the same approved land use/type of development and will result in minor amendments to select apartments and results in the addition of two apartments. The proposed amendments are considered to have no discernible impact on the site, adjoining properties and the locality. Accordingly, the proposed modification has no environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed Section 96 will retain substantially the same development. Reference should be made to the architectural plans prepared by Ross Howieson Architects.

(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and (c) it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

The proposed amendments require notification.


(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be. Any submission shall be addressed as required by Council. (3) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 as amended specifies the matters which a consent authority must consider when determining a development application. s.79C(1)(a)(i)- the provisions of any environmental planning instrument (EPI) The subject application results in internal and external modifications to the approved development. However, the proposal retains substantially the same approved development. An assessment under the two applicable EPI’s being the Strathfield LEP 2012 and SEPP 65, Apartment Design Guide is provided below: - Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 The following maps apply to the site: Applicable Maps

Image 14: Land Zone map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Subject site


Image 15: Key Sites map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Image 16: Floor Space Ratio map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Subject site

Subject site


Image 17: Height of Buildings map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Strathfield LEP 2012

Standard and Objectives Proposed Compliance

1.2 Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal is a Section 96, to an approved mixed use development.

The proposed mixed use development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012. In Council’s assessment of the Development Application, it has concluded that the proposal is compliant with the aims of the LEP.

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

The development will provide employment opportunities during the construction stage.

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

Yes

Subject site




(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 B4 Mixed Use

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.

Zone R4 High Density Residential

Objectives of zone

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposal comprises the consolidation of Key Site 19.

The Parramatta Road portion of the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use. The Park Road portion of the site is zoned R4 High Density Residential.

The proposed mixed use building is permissible in the B4 Mixed Use zone and the proposed residential flat building is permissible in the R4 High Density Residential zone, and complies with the objectives of the zone.

The Section 96 retains compliance 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

Minimum lot size for a mixed use residential flat building in the B4 zone/R4 zone is 1000sqm

The subject site has a total site area of approximately 2194.2 sqm.

Yes




4.3 Height of buildings

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

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

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

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

Height:

- 22 metres along Parramatta Road

- 22 metres along Park Road

Note, Key Site bonus under Clause 4.3: 29 metres along Parramatta Road and Park Road, being:

Key Site No.: 19

Height:

- 29 metres to Parramatta Road

- 22 metres to Park Road

The proposal involves the consolidation of Key Site 19 and the site benefits from the bonus height under Clause 4.3A.

The proposed height of the development is as follows:

- Parramatta Road – 28.5 metres (no change proposed)

- Park Road – 25.4 metres

Section 96 seeks consent for 9 storeys along Parramatta Road and 8 storeys along Park Road.

The proposal does not alter the approved height on Parramatta Road, however seeks consent for a minor departure along Park Road by 3.4 metres due to sloping topography of the site.

Notwithstanding the numerical departure, the proposed height does not generate adverse shadow impacts to adjoining properties, or generate any discernible streetscape impacts.

The proposal is considered to retain compliance with the objectives of the standard.

Notwithstanding this nominal departure, a Clause 4.6 Exception is submitted in support of the application.

Refer to Appendix A.

No

Compliant

with the

objectives of

the standard

A Clause

4.6 has

been

submitted

with the

application

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

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

Key Site No.: 19

Height:

- 29 metres to Parramatta Road

- 22 metres to Park Road

The site benefits from the bonus height control, being 29 metres on Parramatta Road and 22 metres on Par Road.

The Section 96 results in a minor departure of approximately 3.4 metres along Park Road.

A Clause 4.6 Exception has been submitted. Refer to Appendix A.

Compliant

with the

objectives of

the

standard,

however

departs from

the

numerical

control

Clause 4.6

has been

submitted.

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






4.4 Floor space ratio


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

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

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

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

(e) in relation to Strathfield Town Centre:

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

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

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

Control:

- 1.8 on Parramatta Road

- 1.5 on Park Road

Key Site bonus under Clause 4.4:

- 2.95:1 on Parramatta Road

- 2.5:1 on Park Road

The Section 96 is compliant with the FSR standard.

A breakdown calculation sheet has been submitted with the application.

Yes

4.4A Exceptions to floor space ratio (Parramatta Road Corridor)

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

Key Site FSR:

- 2.95:1 on Parramatta Road

- 2.5:1 on Park Road

The proposal is compliant with the total FSR standard.

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 height standard along Park Road.

Accordingly, a Clause 4.6 exception is submitted.

Refer to Appendix A for Clause 4.6 for Height Departure.

Refer to Appendix A

5.6 Architectural roof features

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to ensure that architectural roof features to which this clause applies are decorative elements only, (b) to ensure that the majority of the roof features are contained within the prescribed building height. (2) Development that includes an architectural roof feature that exceeds, or causes a building to exceed, the height limits set by clause 4.3 may be carried out, but only with development consent. (3) Development consent must not be granted to any such development unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the architectural roof feature: (i) comprises a decorative element on the uppermost portion of a building, and (ii) is not an advertising structure, and (iii) does not include floor space area and is not reasonably capable of modification to include floor space area, and (iv) will cause minimal overshadowing, and (b) any building identification signage or equipment for servicing the building (such as plant, lift motor rooms, fire stairs and the like) contained in or supported by the roof feature is fully integrated into the design of the roof feature.

The Section 96 retains the roof top communal garden/terrace that will provide private recreation space for all residents and a green roof. The green roof has incorporated planting to provide visual interest from the streetscape and relief for occupants.

The green roof is located within the Park Road lot, which is the portion of the site that departs from the Height control.

However, the green roof structure is classified as an architectural roof top feature as per Clause 5.6.

Notwithstanding, a Clause 4.6 Exception has been also submitted under Note 1 in relation to the height departure.

Yes

6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

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

Class 5

This has been addressed in the approved Development Application.

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

Yes

6.2 Earthworks

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


The proposal involves the excavation of the site to create a 2 level basement

Yes




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.

car park.

A Geotechnical report has been submitted with the application.

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

6.4 Essential Services

(1) Development consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) the disposal and recycling of waste,

(e) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(f) suitable vehicular access.


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

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

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

Yes

6.9 Additional provisions for development in Parramatta Road Corridor


(a) to encourage a mix of commercial and residential land uses,

(b) to encourage the integration of developments that require large floor areas


The site has been consolidated in accordance with the requirements of the Key Site Map.

The consolidated site is identified as Key Site 19.

Yes




with other land uses.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Key Sites Area” on the Key Sites Map.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development will contribute to:

(a) the general mix of residential and non residential land uses in the area, and

(b) the vertical and horizontal integration of land uses in the area.

The consolidation and proposed development will facilitate residential uses on the site and will provide a building that responds to the relevant Urban Design Study that underpins the statutory controls within the Strathfield LEP 2012.

In designing the current proposal, consideration has been given to establishing the suitable design relationship between the subject site and the adjoining Key Sites.

The proposal is compliant with this control.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (Amendment No 3)

An amendment to SEPP No. 65 was gazetted on 19 June 2015, and came into force on 17 July 2015. However, the SEPP includes savings provisions for application lodged prior to 19 June 2015, whereby the previous version of the SEPP and the RFDC applies. Given the Section 96 application is being lodged after 19 June 2015, the new SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide are applicable. 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 Ross Howieson Architect has been submitted. An assessment under the Apartment Design Guide is provided at Appendix B. - State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 The Section 96 application does not raise any new issues in relation to the Infrastructure SEPP 2007. - State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the application to ensure that the proposal complies with the requirements of BASIX and incorporates ecologically sustainable design features in the building. The original submitted BASIX matches the Section 96 application.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+115+2013+pt.6-cl.6.9+0+N?tocnav=y


- State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land The site has an existing approval for a mixed use development. As part of that application, a Phase 1 Site Environmental Assessment was provided, which confirms that the site can be made suitable for the proposed use. Accordingly, the Section 96 does not raise any new matters in relation to SEPP 55. s.79C(1)(a)(ii)- the provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument There are no draft instruments that are applicable to the subject application. s.79C(a)(iii)- any development control plan The Strathfield DCP No 20 – Parramatta Road Corridor has been superseded by the statutory controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Design Study. Notwithstanding this, the DCP has not been repealed and remains an applicable DCP for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment act 1979. Therefore, an assessment is provided below. The key aim and objective of DCP No 20 is:

The aim of this Development Control Plan (DCP) is to achieve development within the Parramatta Road Corridor Area which is sympathetic and appropriate for the natural and built environment, optimises opportunities for utilising public transport, acceptable to the community and economically feasible.

The application raises no new matters in relation to the Stratified DCP 20. The DCP has previously been addressed and the application retains compliance with the Policy. s.79C(a)(iiia)- any planning agreement

There are no voluntary planning agreements that apply to the proposal. s.79C(a)(iv)- any matters prescribed by the regulations There are no matters prescribed by the regulations that are relevant to the proposed development. s.79C(1)(b)- the likely impacts of that development It is considered that the proposed amendments shall have no adverse impacts on any adjoining properties, the streetscape or the locality in general. An assessment of the two additional apartments has been provided within this report, and it is concluded that the proposed amendments will generate no adverse impact.


s.79C(1)(c)- the suitability of the site for the development The site has been approved to accommodate a residential flat building and the proposed amendment shall retain this use on the site. Therefore, the Section 96 shall not alter the approved use of the site. s.79C(1)(d)- any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations Not applicable. s.79C(1)(e)- the public interest It is considered that the proposed development will be in the public interest in that it:

- Retains consistency with the original development approval/substantially the same as the original approval.

- Provides a necessary amendment that will facilitate the economic and orderly development of the site.

- The height departure has been addressed in a Clause 4.6 Exception.

- The height variation allows the subject development to achieve the maximum available FSR under the Strathfield LEP 2012.

- The proposed height results in a better transition in height between the adjoining development to the west, and the approved development to the east, providing a suitable streetscape presentation.

- The proposal results in the delivery of 71 residential apartments for the locality.

- Has no environmental impacts on the site or surrounds.

(4) The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified. The requested Section 96(2) modification includes a reference to a development consent being DA 2014/114, by amending Condition 1 with reference to the architectural plans.


5. CONCLUSION This report has demonstrated that the proposed amendments are in keeping with the original approval. The Section 96 modification retains compliance with the core planning controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and SEPP 65. Where a departure exists, it has been adequately justified. Specifically, the proposed height variation allows the subject development to achieve the maximum available FSR under the Strathfield LEP 2012. In addition, it provides a better transition in height between the adjoining development to the west, and the approved development to the east. Therefore, it provides a suitable streetscape presentation and generate no discernible adverse impact. The proposed Section 96(2) shall facilitate the economic and orderly development of the site and allow the apartment mix to respond to the local market demand. This is a necessary amendment to allow for the viable redevelopment of the site. The proposed Section 96(2) application is permissible with Council consent and it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012, relevant DCP’s and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. Accordingly, the proposal is submitted to Strathfield Council for approval. Prepared by:

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


APPENDIX A – CLAUSE 4.6 HEIGHT OF BUILDING In accordance with the Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, this request for an exception to Clause 4.3 Height of Building development standard is submitted to Strathfield Council in support of the subject Section 96(2) Application. The proposal seeks consent for the addition of two apartments to level 7 along Park Road, resulting a minor height departure of approximately 3.4 metres. However, the proposal retains a compliant FSR. It should be noted that the approved development on both the Parramatta Road and Park Road lots is less than the maximum permissible FSR that can be achieved on each lot. In considering the proposed non-compliance, it is necessary to consider the objectives of the standard, the objectives of the zone, the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and to consider the impact of the departure and what public benefit, if any, there shall be from the development. This consideration will determine whether or not it is unreasonable or unnecessary for the proposed development to comply with the relevant standard, and whether a compliant development would result in a better planning outcome. The objectives 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 4.3A of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Height of Building standard for Key Site 19 (subject site) is 29 metres along Parramatta Road and 22 metres along Park Road. The proposal seeks consent an 8 storey building that ranges between 25.4 metres due to the slope of the land. This results in a departure of the height by 3.4 metres along Park Road. The height along Parramatta Road remains compliant, as per the approved Development Application. The portion of the building that is above the height control is illustrated in the following extract of the architectural plans.


Image 18: Park Road frontage – 22 metre height shown in red (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

The above image demonstrates that the subject proposal at 8 storeys or 25.4 metres, provides an acceptable transition between the built development at 75-81 Park Road (Key Site 17) which is 9 storeys or 28.5 metres, and the approved development at 89 Park Road (Key Site 20) which is 8 storeys or 23.5 metres.

Image 19: Section – 22 metre height shown in red (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

It is considered that an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying the Height of Building standard is warranted in this instance as the departure is limited to one additional storey, complies with the FSR standard. Further, the proposal achieves an exceptionally high landscape amenity factor of 78% and retains compliance with the objectives of the height standard. In addition, the proposal results in the delivery of 71 new dwellings within the Homebush locality. This outcome promotes compliance with the aims of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and achieves the objectives of the Parramatta Corridor Urban Design Study Council. This Clause 4.6 Exception establishes that while the proposal departs from the numerical development standard, the proposal is considered to be compliant with the non-numerical objectives of the standard and therefore establishes that there is planning merit in permitting the numerical departure. Furthermore, there are no discernible impacts attributed to the additional height.

8 storeys 22 metre height control shown in red

22 metre height control shown in red

Approved/built development 71-83 Park Road 9 storeys or 28.5 metres

Approved development 89 Park Road 7 storeys or 23.5 metres


Accordingly, it is submitted that there is merit in applying a degree of flexibility to the Height of Building control to the subject proposal, given it will achieve a better outcome for the 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 Section 96(2) application seeks consent for a Height of Building of 25.4 metres, due to the sloping topography of the land. On this basis the proposed departure equates to 3.4 metres. The additional Height of Building is contained to Park Road. The height along Parramatta Road remains compliant with the height control. 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: Compliance with the Height of Building development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as compliance with the standard would not necessarily result in a better planning outcome and the proposed departure does not result in any discernible impacts to the site, streetscape or adjoining properties. In accordance with the Strathfield LEP 2012, the maximum Height of Building along Park Road is 22 metres. The Section 96(2) results in a height of 25.4 metres, equivalent to a departure of 3.4 metres above the height standard, due to the sloping topography of the land. It is noted that Ross Howieson Architects designed the approved/built development at 75-81 Park Road (Key Site 17) and has also designed the approved development at 89 Park Road (Key Site 20). Both sites are located immediately to either side of the subject application, and have an approval of 9 and 7 storeys respectively. Therefore, the proposed 8 storey height provides a suitable transition between the 8 storey building to the west, and the 7 storey building to the east. The proposed height in comparison to adjoining approved built form is illustrated in the following 3D building envelope analysis. As illustrated, the proposed height along Park Road is comparable and sits harmoniously with adjoining built form. The additional height that departs from the standard results in no discernible visible impact and rather facilitates the delivery of a well-thought out design that gels with the surrounding context. In particular, the proposal is of a compatible height when compared with the adjoining approved key site 17. The two buildings present as two separate elements within a continuous built form of a high density development. This is illustrated in the following images.


Image 20: Building envelope illustrating adjoining approved and future built form, as viewed from Park Road (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

Image 21: Building envelope illustrating approved and future built form, as viewed from Parramatta Road (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

In establishing the merit for this Clause 4.6 Exception, consideration is given to applicable case law. 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 (see for example Geeves V Marrickville Council (2013) NSW LEC 1117 per Commissioner O’Neill). 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

Proposed development Approved 75-81 Park Road

Adjoining future key sites

Approved adjoining 145 Parramatta Rd

Proposed development

Approved adjoining key site18

Approved 75-81 Park Road

Adjoining future key sites


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...

In the circumstances of this application, strict numerical compliance with the Height control would be unnecessary and unreasonable under criterion (a) in Wehbe. This is discussed below. Wehbe Criterion (a)

Test in relation to item (a):

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

The objectives of the Height standard are:

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

The development is of a height that is compatible with the desired future character of the area, which is that of a medium to high density residential area. The proposal will deliver a residential flat building that is of a height that is compatible with the future height in the area. The addition of one storey that contains two apartments, would not affect the compatibility of the proposal with the immediate area. Further, the two apartments have been setback and recessed on the top storey, and they have a balcony with a landscape planter as a balustrade that reduces their visibility from the street level. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the area, as it is of a form, style and design that is consistent and complimentary with adjoining medium to high density residential development. The building mass is considered contextually appropriate when considering the adjoining structures within the immediate vicinity of the site. Further, the additional height is softened in appearance by the green roof, which venerates visual interest and relief. 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 applicant has consolidated five lots to form ‘Key Site 19’ in accordance with the Key Site provisions in the Strathfield LEP 2012. The consolidation of five lots is a difficult process, and the landowner has taken the time and initiative to deliver a development that is consistent with the overall vision and objective of the Strathfield LEP for the Parramatta Road corridor.


Furthermore, the proposal delivers a development that achieves an exceptionally high landscape amenity factor, being 78%. This is considered a superior outcome for the site and such sustainable initiatives are considered to outweigh the nominal height departure. As such, the proposal is consistent with the desired consolidation pattern that 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 high density development option for the site that is consistent with the zone provisions. The site faces north, and therefore, the additional height does not result in privacy or amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The two buildings have been positioned to maximise solar access and ventilation and to mitigate impacts to adjoining properties. Therefore, the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of the standard. Additionally, consideration is given the objectives of the zone. The height departure occurs within the R4 High Density Residential zone portion of the site. The objectives of this zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposal provides 71 new dwellings for the community within a high density residential locality. This delivers on the requirements of the first objective. The development includes a mix of apartments that includes 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. This provides a variety of housing types and housing choice to meet the needs of the community. This delivers on the requirements of the second objective. The proposed residential flat building is permissible in the zone. It does not propose any other permissible use. Notwithstanding, the site is in proximity to local services and facilities, such as Homebush shops and public transport services that can meet the needs of residents. Therefore, the proposal complies with the objectives of the zone. Additionally, 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. In addition, in establishing the justification for the numerical departure, consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposal in terms of bulk, scale, height and amenity impact. An assessment against the Land and Environment Court planning principles on the assessment of height, bulk and scale (Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428) and (Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472) are as follows:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2007nswlec.nsf/c45212a2bef99be4ca256736001f37bd/ca287f32f3b3f233ca2573160012ee01?OpenDocument


Are the impacts consistent with impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls?

How does the proposal’s height and bulk relate to the height and bulk desired under the relevant controls?

Does the area have a predominant existing character and are the planning controls likely to maintain it?

Does the proposal fit into the existing character of the area? Is the proposal consistent with the bulk and character intended by the planning controls? Does the proposal look appropriate in its context?

The numerical non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance as the component of height that is above the standard is not adjacent to low density dwellings and is wholly located within a high density precinct. Therefore, the additional height sits comfortably within the surrounding context. The proposed additional height does not result in privacy or amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The orientation of the site and the positioning of the additional storey to the northern portion of the building allows for any impact to be mitigated. As outlined in images 18 to 21, the desired character and built form for the immediate context is that of a high density mixed use and residential precinct as reflected through the planning controls. The proposed height and bulk of the proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the area and is reflective of the character intended by the planning controls. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal sits harmoniously with the surrounding built form and represents a contextually good fit that is consistent with the desired future character of the area. The proposal has been designed by Ross Howieson Architects, whom is also the architect for the two adjoining developments. This allows for a uniform design approach where the proposal responds to the design of the adjoining development and provides an enhanced streetscape presentation. The enhancement of the streetscape is as a result of the bulk, scale and height of the development, and therefore the non-compliance with the height results in an enhancement, rather than a detraction for the streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the planning principles on the assessment of height, bulk and scale as detailed in Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428) and (Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472. An assessment in relation to solar impact is provided below. Reference should be made to the shadow diagrams prepared by Ross Howieson Architects, an extract is provided overleaf. Clause 2.1 of the Strathfield DCP No. 20 states that shadowing is not to “adversely affect the amenity of any existing residential development in terms of overshadowing…”. It is also standard planning practice that a building should retain solar access to the living rooms and private open space areas of adjoining properties. The shadow analysis undertaken by Ross Howieson Architects demonstrates that the proposal will cause some shadowing to adjoining buildings and the building facing Parramatta Road, however the level of shadowing retains compliant solar access to adjoining buildings. Further the site is located within a high density precinct and there is a reasonable expectation that solar access will be more difficult to retain.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2007nswlec.nsf/c45212a2bef99be4ca256736001f37bd/ca287f32f3b3f233ca2573160012ee01?OpenDocument


Image 22: Shadow diagrams (Source: Ross Howieson Architects)

An assessment is provided against the Planning Principle Land and Environment Court on the impact on solar access of neighbours (Parsonage V Ku-ring-gai (2004) NSWLEC 347) and (The Benevolent Society V Waverly Council (2010) NSWLEC 1082) as follows: The ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density

of development. At low densities, there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its open space will retain its existing sunlight. (However, even at low densities there are sites and buildings that are highly vulnerable to being overshadowed). At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect and the claim to retain it is not as strong.

Comment: The site is located along the Parramatta Road corridor which has been zoned as a high density area and accordingly, it is unreasonable to expect that adjoining properties will retain existing sunlight given the changing nature of the locality. It is clear that the immediate area is undergoing a shift towards high density as part of Council’s Strategic vision for the renewal of Parramatta Road. The Parramatta Road Corridor includes building height, FSR and green zone requirements, which cater for solar access penetration to adjoining buildings. The additional height does not generate a discernible increase in shadowing, and is considered consistent with the vision for the precinct. Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical

guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.


Comment: The proposal is of a high quality design and is appropriate in context given the existing built form surrounding the subject site. The proposal exhibits good urban design and is of a high architectural standard. For a window, door or glass wall to be assessed as being in sunlight, regard should be had

not only to the proportion of the glazed area in sunlight but also to the size of the glazed area itself. Strict mathematical formulae are not always an appropriate measure of solar amenity. For larger glazed areas, adequate solar amenity in the built space behind may be achieved by the sun falling on comparatively modest portions of the glazed area.

Comment: The shadow plans prepared by Ross Howieson Architects demonstrate that the proposal will result in the private open space areas of the adjoining apartments to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access between 9am to 3pm. The level of solar access to these areas is considered proportionate to the level of glazed area. For private open space to be assessed as receiving adequate sunlight, regard should be had

of the size of the open space and the amount of it receiving sunlight. Self-evidently, the smaller the open space, the greater the proportion of it requiring sunlight for it to have adequate solar amenity. A useable strip adjoining the living area in sunlight usually provides better solar amenity, depending on the size of the space. The amount of sunlight on private open space should ordinarily be measured at ground level but regard should be had to the size of the space as, in a smaller private open space, sunlight falling on seated residents may be adequate.

Comment: The overshadowing generated by the proposal will retain an acceptable level of solar access to adjoining apartments within a high density context. Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into

consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

Comment: Overshadowing from fencing, roof overhang, and vegetation have been taken into consideration. Given the high density residential zone and the nature of the development, impacts from fencing and the like are minimal. In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should

be considered as well as existing development. Comment: In accordance with the ‘R4 High Density Residential’ zoning under the Strathfield LEP 2012, residential flat buildings are permissible in the zone. The area is undergoing redevelopment. As detailed earlier in this report, there is a mixture of residential flat buildings in the immediate locality. Accordingly, it is considered that the amended proposal satisfies the solar access planning principles. In summary, compliance with the height standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary, given the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard, and therefore the proposal is equivalent to or, put simply, the same as a development that would strictly comply with the numerical height standard. Therefore, strict compliance with the height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance and the proposal meets the requirements of test (a) in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827. Therefore, in balancing the extent of the departure, with the impacts it shall generate and the benefit from the new streetscape presentation, it is considered that the development is superior


and the impact from the proposal, as outlined in this report, is minimal and acceptable. Further, the proposed height departure retains compliance with the objectives of the building height standard, and can be supported. (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: The proposed development is in the public’s interest as it results in a development that is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Building development standard. This Clause 4.6 is in the public interest as it results in a development that is consistent with the objectives of the height development standard. The development is of a height that is compatible with the future appearance of the area or better described as the desired future appearance of the area, which is that of a high density mixed use and residential area. The proposal will deliver a residential flat building that is of a height consistent with the height controls, apart from a 3.4 metre departure along the Park Road. Further, the proposal will deliver a residential flat building that shall improve the streetscape presentation of the site. This Clause 4.6 Exception has established that the proposal retains compliance with the objectives of the height standard and compliance with the numerical standard is considered unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the area, as it is of a form, style and design that is consistent and complimentary with the future built form, and when considered contextually the proposal is reasonably contemplated from the planning controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012. The proposal includes measures to ensure that the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties is retained and the proposal has been designed to be compatible with the bulk and scale of the future character of the locality. The proposal provides an appropriate streetscape impact and results in positive public domain presentation that will generate visual interest and aesthetic façade presentation. This Clause 4.6 Exception has considered relevant Planning Principles of the Land & Environment Court in adequately addressing the matters required under sub-clause (3). Concurrence from the Director-General is not required in this instance. The subject clause 4.6 is considered to be well founded. (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 of maintaining the development standard in this instance as the site represents an opportunity to provide an accentuated building form that addresses the orientation of the site and improves the streetscape whilst delivering additional housing opportunities for the locality. The design exhibits a high quality design response which is a public benefit and provides high levels of residential amenity for the occupants and maintaining residential amenity to the adjoining dwellings. The design exhibits a high quality design response and provides high levels 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 being achieved and the development complies with the non-numerical objectives of Height of Building controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012.

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

was required.

The development maintains compliance with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.

Provides a suitable transition between the built development to the west at 75-81 Park

Road (Key Site 17) and the approved development to the east at 89 Park Road (Key Site 20).

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.

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.

Facilitates a development with a significantly high landscape amenity factor of 78%, which

is above and beyond the requirement that is encourage by Council.

Enhances the streetscape presentation and public domain of along Parramatta Road and

Park 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 the responds to the

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


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 result in any adverse impacts. Therefore, the additional 3.4 metre height does not unduly increase the bulk or scale of the building and retains a built form that is envisaged for the site. The proposed departure shall facilitate the delivery of housing opportunities that complies with the objectives of the development standards in addition to the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and State Planning Instruments. On this basis, it is considered appropriate and acceptable to vary the numerical Height of Building standard.


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

Objective Design Criteria/Guidance Consideration Compliance

Part 3A: Site Analysis

Objective 3A-1

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

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be addressed.

A site analysis has been provided by architect.

Yes

Part 3B: Orientation

Objective 3B-1

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

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

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

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

The development has a primary street frontage to Park Road.

The application does not alter the approved frontage.

The amenity of each apartment is acceptable.

Yes

Objective 3B-2

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid winter.

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

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

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

. If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar

The Section 96 does not alter the approved layout of the apartments, however, proposes a minor reduction in floor area to each apartment, to provide for the two additional apartments on level 7.

The proposal maintains suitable 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


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

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

Part 3C: Public Domain Interface

Objective 3C-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• architectural detailing

• changes in materials

• plant species

• colours

. Opportunities for people to be concealed should be minimised.

The Section 96 does not alter the entry from Park Road.

The proposed development provides adequate safety and security.

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

The balconies and windows allow for casual surveillance.

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 Section 96 application does not alter the approved common open space.

In addition, each apartment has a balcony with balconies along Park Road designed as winter-gardens.

Yes

Objective 3D-2

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

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

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

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

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

As above.

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

Accordingly, the private open space is considered compliant.

Yes

Part 3E: Deep soil zones

Objective 3E-1

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

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

The Section 96 application does not alter the approved deep soil area.

Yes


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 Section 96 application proposes does not alter the approved building separation.

The application retains the nil side setbacks, which allows for adjoining buildings to be built to the boundary.

Yes


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 Section 96 application does not alter the approved vehicular access from Park Road.

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, R3 Medium Density Residential 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.

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 Section 96 application does not alter the approved basement.

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.

N/A


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

The addition of two north facing apartments will increase the number of apartments that have a northern orientation, as approved under the Development Application.

In addition, the two new apartments are cross ventilated.

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 Section 96 application does not alter the approved communal open space.

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

The balconies of the two apartments have been positioned to face 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.

The two new apartments are cross ventilated via openings and doorways.

The habitable living rooms of the two new apartments will are naturally 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.


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.


All habitable living rooms experience some form of natural ventilation.

Yes

Part 4C: Ceiling Heights

Objective 4c-1

. Ceiling height

achieves

sufficient natural

ventilation and

daylight access.

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

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

For 2 storey apartments

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

Attic spaces

1.8m at edge of room with a 30 degree minimum

The ceiling height of two new residential floor level is 2.7 metres.

The proposed ceiling heights is acceptable.

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 two new apartments are 2 bedroom and comply with the minimum floor area requirement, each being 84.5 sqm and 87 sqm. The apartments which have been reduced in size, comply with the minimum floor area requirement.

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

amenity.

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

Dwelling type

Minimum area

Minimum depth

Studio apartments

4m2 -

1 bedroom

8m2 2m

The two new apartments have a balcony each.

The area of each balcony is compliant with the requirements of the ADG.

Yes


apartment

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 from the building or balcony edge where overlooking or safety is an issue.

The balconies have a landscape planter as a balustrade which reduces their visibility from the street level. Further, the two apartments are setback and recessed within the top storey.

Yes


. 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 corridor on the level 7.

Both apartments have 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 general wayfinding

. Incidental spaces, for example space for seating in

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

Yes


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

section 96(2) application statement of … · proposal: section 96(2) ... x single storey dwellings...

Documents