Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 21 April 2021

AGENDA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

21 April 2021, 5pm

 

LC_WebBanner

 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers on Wednesday 21 April 2021 commencing at 5pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

Craig - GM

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting Procedures

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) meeting is chaired by The Hon David Lloyd QC. The meetings and other procedures of the Panel will be undertaken in accordance with the Lane Cove Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Charter and any guidelines issued by the General Manager.

The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless the Panel resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

Members of the public may address the Panel for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons wishing to address the Panel must register prior to the meeting by contacting Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611. Speakers must address the Chair and speakers and Panel Members will not enter into general debate or ask questions during this forum. Where there are a large number of objectors with a common interest, the Panel may, in its absolute discretion, hear a representative of those persons.

Following the conclusion of the public forum the Panel will convene in closed session to conduct deliberations and make decisions. The Panel will announce each decision separately after deliberations on that item have concluded. Furthermore the Panel may close part of a meeting to the public in order to protect commercial information of a confidential nature.

Minutes of LCLPP meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Friday following the meeting. If you have any enquiries or wish to obtain information in relation to LCLPP, please contact Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611.

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are Webcast. Webcasting allows the community to view proceedings from a computer without the need to attend the meeting. The webcast will include vision and audio of members of the public that speak during the Public Forum. Please ensure while speaking to the Panel that you are respectful to other people and use appropriate language. Lane Cove Council accepts no liability for any defamatory or offensive remarks made during the course of these meetings.

The audio from these meetings is also recorded for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of the minutes and the recordings are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.      47A Penrose Street, LANE COVE WEST.................................. 4

 

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 21 April 2021

47A Penrose Street, LANE COVE WEST

 

 

Subject:          47A Penrose Street, LANE COVE WEST    

Record No:    DA21/1-01 - 13522/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Henry Burnett 

 

 

 

Property:

47A Penrose Street, LANE COVE WEST

DA No:

DA1/2021

Date Lodged:

5 January 2021

Cost of Work:

$6,572,615.00

Owner:

Urbanland Pty Ltd

Applicant:                       

Urbanland Pty Ltd

 

Description of the Proposal

Demolition of an existing building and construction of a boarding house and commercial tenancy

Zone

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

Permissibility

Yes, pursuant to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Notification

Notified as per Council policy and 76 submissions received.                               

Recommendation

Refusal

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The Development Application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as the proposal has received more than 10 unique submissions by way of objection.

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Development Application is for the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a boarding house pursuant to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposed three storey boarding house contains 37 boarding rooms, a manager dwelling, a commercial tenancy and parking for 24 vehicles.

 

The Development Application has been assessed against the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and is considered unsatisfactory with respect to density and scale (FSR), landscaping, residential uses at the ground floor of a commercial zone and compatibility with the local character of the area.

 

The Development Application was not accompanied by a contamination report despite a request being made and the site being adjacent to a service station. The consent authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal would meet the provisions of SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land.

 

The Development Application was accompanied by a Clause 4.6 written request seeking to vary the building height and floor space ratio standard of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The Clause 4.6 written request in relation to floor space ratio is not well-founded as outlined in this report being predicated on an incorrect calculation of gross floor area without specific environmental planning grounds.

 

The Development Application has been assessed against the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010. The proposal does not comply with the maximum building length, building setbacks contributing to an unacceptable local character impact. Further Council’s referral officers have reviewed the proposal and raise a number of concerns including, but not limited to, waste management, vehicle access, impact on street trees, landscaping, internal amenity for occupants and amenity for adjoining properties.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and 76 submissions were received. The submissions generally align with Council’s assessment of the proposal as well as a number of other matters which cannot be used as grounds for refusal under the SEPP (for example, parking). The submissions are summarised and addressed in this report.

 

The Development Application is reported to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel with a recommendation for refusal.

 

2.         SITE

 

2.1       Subject Site

 

The site of the proposed development is known as 47A Penrose Street, Lane Cove West. The key site characteristics are summarised in Table 1 below.

 

Table 1 – Site Characteristics of 47A Penrose Street, Lane Cove West

Site Characteristic

Subject Site

Title Particulars

Lot 10 DP 574013

Site Area

1,121m2

Site Dimensions

Frontage to Penrose Street: 19.95m

Frontage to Johnston Lane: 55.93m

Topography

The site is generally level with retaining walls to the north-western corner of the site on Johnston Lane retaining fill, and on the adjoining service station retaining cut to provide the existing site levels.

Zoning

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

Existing Structures

The site contains an existing two (2) storey brick building and an open at-grade car park.

Existing Use

The building is being used for commercial purposes including recreation (dance) and health and fitness services (yoga). 

Vehicular Access

Vehicular access is currently from Johnston Lane (two-way).

 

The site of the proposed development is depicted in Figure 1 to Figure 5 below.

 

Figure 1: Subject Site (Shaded Red) – 47A Penrose Street, Lane Cove West

Figure 2: Subject Site – Viewed from Johnston Lane (West)

 

Figure 3: Subject Site – Viewed from Penrose Street (South)

Figure 4: Subject Site – Viewed through Service Station (East)

 

Figure 5: Subject Site – Building and Parking (North)


 

2.2       Adjoining Properties

 

Table 2 – Adjoining Properties

North

 

To the north of the site is located a three storey boarding house comprising 24 boarding rooms at No. 1 Johnston Lane, Lane Cove West (Figure 6). The existing development was approved by the NSW LEC under Development Application DA4/2014 being for the refurbishment of an existing office into a boarding house.

 

Figure 6: Boarding House - No. 1 Johnston Lane, Lane Cove West

East

 

To the east of the site is located a service station on the corner of Burns Bay Road and Penrose Street (No. 237-245 Burns Bay Road) (Figure 7).

 

Figure 7: Service Station – No. 237-245 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove West

South

 

To the south of the site is Penrose Street. To the southern side of Penrose Street is located a number of single detached dwellings as shown in Figure 8 below.

 

Figure 8: South of Site – Penrose Street and Single Detached Dwellings

 

West

 

To the west of the site is Johnston Lane. To the western side of Johnston Lane is located the rear access point for a number of single detached dwellings as shown in Figure 9. One of the dwellings is identified as a heritage item under Schedule 5 of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Figure 9: West of Site – Johnston Lane and Single Detached Dwellings

 


2.3       Local Planning Provisions

 

In order to understand the site and adjoining development in the context of the existing local planning provisions, the existing zoning, building height, FSR and heritage maps of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP 2009) are included as Figure 10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively below.

 

Figure 10: Zoning Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Light Blue: B1 Neighbourhood Centre, Pink: R2 Low Density Residential)

 

Figure 11: Max. Building Height Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Green: 9.5m)

 

Figure 12: Max. FSR Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Light Brown: 1:1, Light Green: 0.6:1, Blue: 0.5:1)

 

Figure 13: Heritage Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Brown: Heritage Item – Dwelling House – 1 Wood Street, LCW – ‘The Oaks’)


3.         PROPOSAL

 

3.1       Overview

 

The Development Application is for the demolition of the existing two storey commercial building and construction of a three storey boarding housing pursuant to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 comprising 37 boarding rooms, one managers dwelling, a ground level commercial floor space, and undercroft parking for 24 vehicles. Figure 14 details the proposed Johnston Lane elevation with the existing building outline shown in red, and the proposed building shown in blue.

 

Figure 14: Existing and Proposed Building Elevations

 

A level by level description of the proposal is provided in Table 3 below.

 

Table 3 – Proposed Development By Level

Level

Description

Ground Floor Level

-     Parking

-     24 car parking spaces; and

-     Bicycle and motorbike parking

-     Vehicle Access from Johnston Lane;

-     Garbage Room;

-     Pump Room;

-     1 x Boarding Room;

-     Ground Level Commercial Suite; and

-     Managers Dwelling

Level 1

-     19 x Boarding Rooms

Level 2

-     17 x Boarding Rooms; and

-     Communal Living Room

 

3.2       Landscaping

 

The proposed landscaping includes the removal of three on-site trees and the retention of two street trees on Penrose Street. These street trees can be seen in Figure 3 above.

 

The proposed landscaping scheme is shown in Figure 15 and includes 2 replacement trees (Blueberry Ash) on-site within the Penrose Street frontage, shrub planting to Johnston Lane and to the eastern boundary adjacent to the service station.

 


 

Figure 15: Proposed Landscape Plan

 

3.3       Site Access

 

Vehicle access is proposed from Johnston Lane through a 3.5m wide driveway which does not allow for simultaneous entry/exit from the site. The principal pedestrian access point is proposed from Penrose Street.

 

3.4       External Colours and Finishes

 

The proposed external colours and finishes incorporate rendered masonry (white) for the main structure, glass balustrades to balconies and extensive aluminium privacy screens.

 

 

Figure 16: Proposed External Colours and Finishes

 

3.5       Waste Management

 

On-street waste collection is proposed with a garbage room located within on-site at the ground floor as stated within the submitted Traffic Report. Bins are proposed to be presented to the street for collection and then returned to the garbage room.

 

3.6       Stormwater Management

 

On-site detention is proposed beneath the proposed car parking aisle with a total storage volume of 26.4m3.

 

 


 

4.         ASSESSMENT HISTORY

 

4.1       Assessment Timeline

 

The assessment timeline of the Development Application is summarised in Table 4 as follows:

 

Table 4 – Assessment Timeline

Date

Stage

7 December 2020

 

Prior to the lodgement of the Development Application the applicant was requested to include the corridors/lobby areas at each level within the gross floor area calculations (this was not ultimately done despite a request being made).

 

5 January 2021

Development Application lodged.

 

16 February 2021

Letter sent to the applicant from Council providing a preliminary assessment and request for further information within 14 days being summarised as:

 

·    Floor Space Ratio: Exceeds maximum FSR. Request to reduce to a max. of 1:1 including Level 1 and 2 common lobbies/corridors;

·    Building Setbacks: Proposed upper level set back 3m where DCP stipulates 6m from laneway, side and rear boundaries;

·    Building Width: 50m to laneway where DCP stipulates max. 40m;

·    Waste Collection: On-site waste collection required;

·    Boarding Room Basement: Boarding room in car park;

·    Landscaping: inadequate extent and documentation;

·    Arborist Report: insufficient detail on protecting street trees;

·    SEPP 55: No contamination report (site adjacent to service station);

·    Environmental Health: Insufficient construction management documentation, no air quality or light pollution assessment (adjacent to service station), and consideration of enclosing car park area.

 

2 March 2021

Applicant given 14 day extension for the provision of additional information by 16 March 2021.

 

22 March 2021

Applicant provided draft response (see Section 4.2).

 

 

4.2       Consideration of Draft Revisions

 

The applicant was given a reasonable timeframe to provide additional information and the response provided on 22 March 2021 was incomplete and gave no timeframes for when the outstanding documentation would be provided.

 

The response received indicated some minor changes to the design in the provision of concept floor plans and a landscape sketch. The main design changes (FSR and setbacks) were not resolved and the bulk of documentation requested was not provided.

 

Accordingly, the additional information, being incomplete and conceptual only, will not be considered for the purposes of this report. Delaying the determination for the receipt of this further is unlikely to change the recommendation of this report given the fundamental issues raised with the design as detailed in this report.

5.         SECTION 4.15 ASSESSMENT

 

The following assessment is provided against the relevant provisions of Section 4.15 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

 

 

5.1       Any environmental planning instrument:

 

 

5.1.1    SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

An assessment against SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is provided in Table 5 below.

 

Table 5 - SEPP (ARH) 2009 – Division 3 Boarding Houses – Table of Compliance

Clause

Control

Proposal

Complies

26 – Land to which this Division applies

Any of the following land use zones:

 

(a) Zone R1 General Residential,

(b) Zone R2 Low Density Residential,

(c) Zone R3 Medium Density Residential,

(d) Zone R4 High Density Residential,

(e) Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,

(f) Zone B2 Local Centre

(g) Zone B4 Mixed Use.

 

The subject site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under LCLEP 2009 and therefore the Division applies to the subject site.

Yes

27 – Development to which Division applies

The Division applies to development for the purposes of a boarding house

The proposal is for the purposes of a boarding house.

 

Yes

28 – Development may be carried out with consent

Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent.

The Development Application seeks consent.

 

Yes

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

(1) If the density and scale of buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than the existing maximum floor space ratio permitted for any residential accommodation permitted on the land.

The maximum permitted FSR is 1:1.

 

The proposed FSR is 1.28:1 being a variation of 315m2 or 28%.

 

No, see Section 5.1.1.1 below.

 

 

 

 

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

2 (a) If the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument.

The maximum permitted building height is 9.5m.

 

The proposed maximum building height is 9.75m to the top of the lift overrun being a variation of 250mm or 2.6%.

 

No, see Section 5.1.1.1 below.

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

2 (b) if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

Insufficient landscape treatment is provided to both Penrose Street and Johnston Lane.

 

No, see Section 5.1.1.1 below.

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

2 (c) where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum 3 hours direct sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm in mid-winter.

The upper level of the development contains a 40m2 communal living room with access to a 24m2 communal open space balcony. As well as large west and south facing windows, the large skylight will receive direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm on June 21.

 

Yes

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

2(d) if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

 

(i) one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers;

 

 

 

(ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager, one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

i) The proposed development includes a 24 sqm (5m x 8m) private open space at the upper level which complies with the required dimensions.

 

ii) The proposed managers dwelling courtyard (other than the front setback area) does not meet the required dimensions/area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, see Section 5.1.1.1 below.

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

2 (e) Parking if

 

(iii) In the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider – at least 0.5 parking spaces are to be provided for each boarding room.

 

(iii) in the case of any development – not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed connection with the development and who is resident on site.

 

 

 

The required parking is 18.5 spaces for 37 boarding rooms. The proposed parking is 24 spaces being a surplus of 5.5 spaces.

 

A condition can be imposed ensuring not more than 1 space be allocated to the Managers dwelling.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent.

2 (f) Accommodation size if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least –

 

(i) 12m2 in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

 

(ii) 16m2 in any other case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No single lodger rooms proposed.

 

 

All rooms exceed 16m2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

30 – Standards for boarding houses

(1) (a) If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding room, at least one communal living room will be provided.

 

One communal living area of 40m2 with an adjacent balcony of 24m2 is provided.

Yes

30 – Standards for boarding houses

1 (b) No boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25m2.

 

Boarding rooms range in size from 18m2 to 24m2.

Yes

30 – Standards for boarding houses

1 (c) No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers.

 

Noted.

Yes

30 – Standards for boarding houses

1 (d) Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger.

 

Each room is provided with private bathroom and kitchen facilities.

Yes

30 – Standards for boarding houses

1 (e) If the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager.

 

As the site has the capacity to cater for 74 adult lodgers (37 double rooms) an on-site dwelling is required. 

Yes

30 – Standards for boarding houses

1 (g) If the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use.

 

The proposal includes residential uses on the ground floor fronting a street including the Managers dwelling to Penrose Street and a boarding room to Johnston Lane.

No, see Section 5.1.1.1 below.

30 – Standards for boarding houses

1 (h) At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

 

37 boarding rooms proposed. 8 bicycle and 8 motorbike spaces required and provided.

 

 

Yes

30A – Character of Local Area

 

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

 

Consideration of compatibility with the character of the local area is addressed in further detail in Section 5.1.1.1 below.

No, see Section 5.1.1.1 below.

 

5.1.1.1 Variations

 

The variations to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 identified above are assessed in detail as follows:

 

5.1.1.1.1 - Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposed FSR is 1.28:1 (Council staff calculation) where a maximum FSR of 1:1 applies to the land under LCLEP 2009. The variation is 28% or 315m2 above the standard. The applicant states the proposed FSR is 1.05:1 being a variation of 5% or 58m2.

 

a) Discrepancy in Calculation of Floor Space Ratio

 

There is a discrepancy between the applicant and Council staff in the calculation of Gross Floor Area. The applicant seeks to exclude corridors/lobby areas where Council staff are of the view the areas should be included in the calculation. It is noted that the applicant submitted a previous scheme which included the corridors in the Gross Floor Area calculation but a different interpretation is now being adopted.

 

Figure 17 details the Gross Floor Area calculations submitted by the applicant. The plans clearly show the lobby and corridors being excluded from Gross Floor Area calculations on all three levels. The exclusion of these areas is not considered consistent with the Standard Instrument definition of Gross Floor Area. While the southern and northern ends of the corridors on Level 1 and 2 may be open, they have a length of up to 40m, and would generally be perceived as being within the external walls of the building. The Council staff calculation is used for the purposes of this report.

 

Figure 17: Applicant Gross Floor Area Diagram

 

b) Consideration of Clause 4.6 Request

 

It is unclear whether a Clause 4.6 request is required to vary a do not refuse standard. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 request to vary Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009. For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure there is a means to consider the merits of the variation the Clause 4.6 request is considered.

 

Written Request Requirements

 

The applicant’s written request is required to demonstrate the following under Clause 4.6(3):

 

(a)  That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

Comment: The request seeks to demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the standard and zone to establish the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. While addressing the objectives is an agreed method of addressing this part, the objectives are not considered to be met (See below).

 

(b)  That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Comment: The request provides two (2) environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard:

 

(i)         Compliance with Objective 1.3(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 “to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

(ii)        Compliance with Objective 1.3(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 “to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing.”

 

The environmental planning grounds for additional floor space are not well-founded. The proposal could meet both objectives with a compliant Floor Space Ratio.

 

Consent Authority Considerations

 

The consent authority cannot grant consent for development that contravenes a development standard unless it is satisfied that:

 

(a)  The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

Comment: As above the Clause 4.6 request does not demonstrate compliance with the objectives or identify sufficient environmental planning grounds.

 

(b)  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.

 

Comment: In addition to the consent authority considering the objectives of the standard and zone, the applicant has sought to address these for the purposes of Clause 4.6(3)(a). The objective, the applicant’s view and an assessment of that view is provided in turn as follows:-

 

Floor Space Ratio Objective – To ensure the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

 

Comment: The applicant argues the proposed building is generally within the bulk and scale (9.5m height and 3 storey form) anticipated (and existing) in the B1 zone and would not be jarring offensive or sympathetic in its streetscape context. The applicant’s justification is predicated on an erroneous calculation of GFA. The GFA variation is more significant (28% variation not a 5% variation) and would accordingly have a greater impact on the streetscape. In relation to considering the suitability of the impact consideration is given to where the GFA is located. The proposal exceeds the maximum building length for commercial buildings (50m instead of 40m), breaches the upper level setbacks (3m instead of 6m). These variations in total equate to approximately the total GFA variation proposed. That is, if the proposal was to comply with the building controls established for the B1 zone that limited building length and scaled back the upper level, the proposal would comply with the FSR provision. The application of these controls is more prudent given the residential interfaces of the subject site. The proposed variation to FSR is not considered to satisfy the objective of Floor Space Ratio.  

 

B1 Zone Objective 1 - To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Comment: The scale of the building is addressed in the objective to FSR. The proposal seeks to provide street frontage residential uses contrary to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. These uses contribute to a non-compliant FSR and the proposal is therefore not considered to satisfy this objective.

 

B1 Zone Objective 2 - To encourage urban design maximising the attractive public domain and adequate circulation space throughout the neighbourhood centres for current and future users.

 

Comment: The proposal is overbearing at the upper level and would detract from the experience within the public domain through a three storey laneway wall without the necessarily relief at the upper level.

 

B1 Zone Objective 3 - To ensure landscaping is a significant element in public and private development viewed from the public domain.

 

Comment: The landscaping within the site to Johnston Lane is not significant. The landscaping to Penrose Street is reliant on existing street trees and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how these trees would be retained. The view from Burns Bay Road through the service station to the site would be largely void of landscaping due to insufficient deep soil zones along the eastern boundary to promote the growth of mature trees.

 

In conclusion, the consent authority cannot be satisfied that sufficient environmental planning grounds have been established or that the proposal is within the public interest as the proposal does not meet with the objectives of FSR or the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. Accordingly, the Clause 4.6 written request is recommended to be rejected.

 

5.1.1.1.2 - Building Height

 

The proposed maximum building height is 9.75m to the top of the lift shaft (Council staff calculation) where a maximum building height of 9.5m applies to the land under LCLEP 2009. The variation is 2.6% or 250mm as shown in Figure 18 below.

 

Figure 18: Roof and Section Plan – Proposed Variation to Maximum Height of Building

 

The Clause 4.6 request is considered well founded being an extremely minor encroachment in terms of area and extent and could be supported however the proposal is recommended for refusal on other grounds.

 

5.1.1.1.3 – Front Setback Landscaping

 

The SEPP requires that the landscaping treatment within the front setback be compatible with the streetscape in which it is located. The proposed landscape plan is shown in Figure 15 above. The proposal fails to utilise the 3m ground floor front setback areas to Penrose Street or Johnston Lane to full advantage. The proposed landscaping to Johnston Lane is minimal and tokenistic. The proposed landscaping to Penrose Street while of a higher quality is largely taken up by paving. Further the landscape documentation provided is insufficient for a development of the scale proposed. The proposed landscaping treatment is not considered to satisfy Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

5.1.1.1.4 – Managers Dwelling Private Open Space

 

The SEPP requires that the Managers Dwelling be provided with an 8m2 courtyard with a minimum 2.5m dimension, not within the front setback area. As shown in Figure 19 below the principal courtyard is within the front setback to Penrose Street and the other courtyard is within the basement parking area and doesn’t meet the minimum area or dimension requirements. The proposed design of the Managers Dwelling does not satisfy Clause 29(2)(d)(ii).

 

5.1.1.1.5 - Boarding Houses in Commercial Zones

 

The SEPP requires that boarding houses in commercial zones do not provide residential uses fronting a street. The proposal provides both a boarding room and Managers Dwelling fronting a street as shown in Figure 19 below. The provision of residential uses at the ground level detracts from the commercial zoning of the site. The proposal is not considered to satisfy Clause 30(1)(g). Being contained within Clause 30, the Panel has no discretion to approve a variation to this clause without a Clause 4.6 written request being provided and being found satisfactory. No Clause 4.6 request has been provided in relation to this non-compliance.

 

Figure 19: Proposed Residential Uses at a Street Frontage (Shaded Red)

 


 

5.1.1.1.6 - Character of Local Area

 

Clause 30A of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 requires the consent authority to consider whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. The NSW Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle on compatibility in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 181. The judgement specifies the most apposite meaning of compatibility in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony. It then goes on to stipulate that compatibility is thus different from sameness. The principle establishes two tests as to whether the proposal is compatible within its context which are addressed as follows:

 

Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

 

The proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development have been assessed. A merit assessment has been undertaken against the part of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 applying to commercial buildings in the B1 Zone (See Section 5.3 below). Figure 20 to Figure 23 shows where the proposed building platform/envelope is outside the envisaged envelope for a commercial building within the B1 Zone. The question is mainly in relation to the physical impacts of those departures. The provision of a 50m building length (rather than 40m) and a three storey street wall to Johnston Lane (rather than two storey with a stepped third storey) would result in additional overshadowing, bulk and scale, and privacy impacts to the residential properties backing on to Johnston Lane. The proposed physical impacts are not considered acceptable in this instance. 

 

Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

The proposal is not in harmony with the residential properties to the west on Johnston Lane. The DCP provides what would be a suitable interface to the laneway by limiting the building length and massing of the upper storey. Figure 23 illustrates the discrepancy in scale between the proposed building and the residential properties to the west. The stepping in of the upper level would provide for a more appropriate transition in scale and result in a development more in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street.

 

It is noted that there is an existing boarding house at No. 1 Johnston Lane adjoining the site to the north. The building is limited in its building length (25m) reducing its bulk and scale, and was the refurbishment of an existing building approved by the NSW Land and Environment Court. No. 1 Johnston Lane does not justify the bulk and scale of the proposed development.

 

In summary the proposal does not meet the physical impact and harmony test contained within Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 181. A summary of the merit assessment against the principal building envelope/design provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 Part D – Commercial and Mixed Use development is provided at Section 5.3 of this report.


 

 

Figure 20: Level 1 – Building Platform Breaches (Shaded Red)

 

Figure 21: Level 2 – Building Platform Breaches (Shaded Red)

 

Figure 22: West Elevation – Building Envelope Breaches (Shaded Red)

and Required Stepping (Shaded Orange)

 


Figure 23: South Elevation – Building Envelope Breaches (Shaded Red)

 

5.1.2    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

A BASIX certificate accompanies the application. The BASIX Certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and is consistent with the architectural documentation submitted.  The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP (BASIX) 2004.

 

5.1.3    SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

No contamination report accompanies the application. The subject site is at risk of contamination being adjacent to a service station. The Development Application cannot be supported as the consent authority cannot be satisfied that the land is not contaminated or capable of remediation. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory with respect to SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land.

 

5.1.4    SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The proposal is subject to Clause 102 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 in relation to noise from a classified road (Burns Bay Road and Penrose Street). The proposal was accompanied by an acoustic report.  The acoustic report demonstrates noise mitigation measures could be implemented to meet the internal noise levels required by the NSW Department of Planning’s ‘Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads (Interim Guideline)’. The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

5.1.5    Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LCLEP 2009 in Table 6 below.

 

Table 6 – Compliance with LCLEP 2009

Clause

Provision

Proposal

Compliance

Permissibility

The site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under LCLEP 2009.

Boarding houses are permitted with consent in the zone. Notwithstanding, the proposal relies on SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for permissibility.

 

Yes

Objectives

The objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone are as follows:

 

- To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

- To encourage urban design maximising the attractive public domain and adequate circulation space throughout the neighbourhood centres for current and future users.

 

- To ensure landscaping is a significant element in public and private development viewed from the public domain.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal detracts from ground floor commercial opportunities by providing residential uses in this location.

 

 

 

The proposal does interface with significantly circulation space and does not detract from the achievement of this objective.

 

 

 The proposed landscaping is not a significant element in private development viewed from the public domain.

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

4.3 – Building Height

 

9.5m

9.75m

No, addressed in Section 5.1.1 above.

 

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

1:1

1.28:1

No, addressed in Section 5.1.1 above.

 

4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

See Section 5.1.1

See Section 5.1.1

See Section 5.1.1.

5.10 - Heritage

The proposal is within the vicinity of No. 1 Wood Street, Lane Cove West which is listed as Item No. 221 and is known as The Oaks. The site contains an existing dwelling house and detached garage.

 

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects does not identify any heritage items within the vicinity of the development. It is unclear how the Development Application has addressed Clause 5.10(5) and accordingly how this provision of LCLEP 2009 is satisfied.

 

No

6.1A - Earthworks

Consideration of impact of earthworks in accordance with Clause 6.1(A)(3)(a)-(g).

 

 

Complies - The matters are satisfied.

 

 

5.2        Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP, Planning Proposal)

 

 

5.2.1    Housing Diversity SEPP

 

An Explanation of Intended Effect was notified for a proposed Housing Diversity SEPP from 29 July 2020 until 9 September 2020. The EIE includes a list of changes proposed to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The Department has indicated these changes will be introduced after March 2021. The changes include considering an affordability mechanism, not-mandating boarding houses in the R2 zone and changes to the FSR bonus in areas where a residential flat building is permitted. The only applicable change would be the affordability mechanism which could, if adopted before the determination of the subject Development Application, be incorporated as a condition of consent.

 

5.2.2    Draft Environment SEPP

 

The Draft Environment SEPP was subject to public exhibition between 31 January and 13 April 2018. As no contamination report has been submitted an assessment against Draft Environment SEPP cannot be made and therefore the proposal is unsatisfactory with respect to Draft Environment SEPP.

 

 

5.3       Any development control plan

 

 

5.3.1    Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 Part C – Boarding Houses

 

Part C5 of LCDCP 2010 applies to boarding house development and contains two provisions.

 

Firstly, Clause 5.2 requires a Social Impact Statements be provided for proposed boarding houses with the objective being to achieve a reasonable level of substantive, objective evidence to supports statements about the socio-economic character of boarding houses. The proposal was accompanied by a Social Impact Assessment prepared by Wynne Planning. The Social Impact Assessment provides site and LGA specific analysis and establishes a reasonable level of a substantive evidence base as required by the DCP.

 

Secondly, Clause 5.3 requires a maximum kitchen area within a boarding house room to be 2m2. The proposal complies with this provision.

 

5.3.2    Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 Part D – Commercial and Mixed Use Development

 

The principal building parameters are outlined in Table 7 below. The non-compliances are addressed as being unacceptable with respect to Clause 30A of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as they are not compatible with the character of the locality.

 

 

 

 

Table 7 – Compliance with LCDCP 2010 Part D – Commercial and Mixed Use Development

Clause

Provision

Proposal

Compliance

1.1.6 - Setbacks

Height in Storeys

Required Setback

Proposed

Setback

 

Front Setback (Penrose St)

1-2

0m

3m

Yes

3

3m

3m

Yes

Laneway Setback (Johnston Lane)

1-2

3m

3m

Yes*

3

6m

3m

No

Side/Rear Setback

1-2

3m

3m

Yes*

3

6m

3m

No

1.1.4 – Building Depth and Bulk

Residential component not greater than 40m.

50m

No

*The balconies encroach into the setback zones and would be required to be deleted.

 

5.3.3    Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 - Referrals

 

The relevant sections of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 have been addressed through referrals as outlined in the following table:

 

Table 8 - Referrals

Referral

DCP

Comment

Landscaping

 

Part J – Landscaping

Unsatisfactory – The landscape documentation submitted is incomplete and a request was made for complete documentation. The documentation has yet to be provided. From the information submitted the following assessment is made:

 

-     Insufficient landscaping is provided to the Johnston Lane frontage. The area is to be utilised as a deep soil zone with suitable mature tree planting forward of the building, and planting to screen the car park, to provide a front setback landscape character more in keeping with the context of the site at a residential zone transition. The extension of the footpath is not required.

 

-     The Penrose Street landscaping is generally satisfactory with the utilisation of street trees (subject to the Arborist Report demonstrating trees can be reasonably retained).

 

-     The planting species and planting area in the car park is not considered satisfactory. Larger deep soil zones are to be provided (3m width) to provide for suitable areas for screen planting to develop between the proposed building and the adjoining service station.

 

Tree Preservation

 

Part J – Landscaping

Unsatisfactory – The arborist report does not have sufficient information on the associated impacts on Council owned trees 1 and 2 located on the Penrose Street frontage. No further arborist report detail was provided despite a request being made.

 

Development Engineer

 

Part O – Stormwater Management

Satisfactory - The proposal seeks to provide an OSD system which would be capable of complying with Part O – Stormwater Management.

 

Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

Unsatisfactory – The proposal does not provide for simultaneous entry/exit from the site or demonstrate waste vehicle clearance.

 

Waste Management

 

Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation

 

Unsatisfactory - The proposal does not provide for the capability for simultaneous entry/exit from the site or demonstrated vehicle clearance of the waste vehicle for on-site waste collection.

 

Building Surveyor

 

N/A

Satisfactory - Council’s Building Surveyor has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection the proposal with NCC matters to be addressed at the CC stage.

 

Environmental Health

 

Part B – General Controls (Part B6/B7)

Unsatisfactory – No contamination reporting is provided as well as the following matters requiring further assessment:

 

-     Air Quality (service station and classified road);

-     Light Pollution from undercroft car park on residential receivers, and to boarding rooms from proposed service station;

-     Construction Management including noise and dust/sediment/water etc.

 

NSW Police

CPTED

 

Satisfactory - NSW Police reviewed the proposal and no objection is raised subject to recommended CPTED conditions. 

 

Accessibility

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

Complies - The proposal has been reviewed and is capable of compliance.

 

 

The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010.


 

5.4       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

 

 

The impacts of the development have been considered and concern is raised that the proposal would have unacceptable impact on the natural and built environments due to a proposal that would be excessive in scale and an overdevelopment of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

5.5       The suitability of the site for the development

 

 

The site suitability has not yet been established. Amenity impacts on future occupants (air quality, noise, light pollution and contamination) have not been clearly addressed. Further, the development has not had suitable regard to the character of the area and the design would be required to be more cognisant of its setting in a B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone that is adjacent to, and within the visual catchment of lower density residential development and the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

 

5.6       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Lane Cove Council’s Notification Policy and 76 submissions were received by way of objection. The submissions are summarised and addressed in Table 9 below. In summary, the concerns raised in the submissions are shared in the most part by the Council assessment of the Development Application.

 

Table 9 – Summary of Submissions

Category

Matters Raised in Submission

Comment

Bulk and Scale

-     The bulk & scale is out of character with the low-density character;

-     A 3 storey development would appear dominant in the streetscape;

-     FSR calculations incorrect and should include corridors.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns that the bulk and scale is not in keeping with the existing or envisaged character of the area by way of excessive FSR, building length and inadequate building setbacks.

 

Amenity of Adjoining Properties

-     Privacy impacts;

-     Loss of solar access;

-     Overlooking across Johnston Lane from boarding room balconies/rooms;

-     Noise from commercial suite outdoor seating;

-     No screening of car parking;

-     Impacts of single air-conditioning units to Johnston Lane balconies.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns that the physical impacts of the property are unsatisfactory in relation to light spill, privacy and overshadowing.

Amenity of Boarding House

 

-     Poor cross ventilation;

-     Poor amenity for boarding rooms in proximity to service station;

-     Insufficient access to shops, services and transport.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns that the amenity of the boarding house as a result in particular of the proximity to the service station including contamination, air quality and light pollution.

 

Parking

-     Insufficient parking would result in overflow parking to Wood and Penrose Street.

-     Visitor parking spaces are required.

 

The proposal meets the parking requirement contained within the SEPP. Council cannot refuse the proposal on the basis of parking if it meets this standard.

 

Traffic

-     The peak hour traffic is severe in this location and should not be exacerbated by this development.

 

Council’s Traffic Officer raises no objection to the traffic generation of the proposed development.

Servicing

-     Insufficient waste management including detail on on-site waste collection; and

-     Lack of loading dock.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns that the servicing of the development is unsatisfactory including simultaneous entry and exit, waste vehicle servicing and clearance, and loading zone for on-site waste collection and commercial deliveries.

 

Landscaping

-     Tokenistic and insufficient landscaping in context of locality and the proposed bulk and scale.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns regarding the quality and extent of landscaping proposed.

Setbacks

-    Non-complaint with B1 zone setbacks.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns with the building setbacks proposed particularly at the upper levels.

 

Zone Objectives

 

-    The proposal is inconsistent with zone objectives, displacing existing business without adequate replacement, does not contribute to the streetscape appearance and includes tokenistic landscaping.

 

The Council assessment shares concerns regarding compliance with zone objectives.

Alternate Uses

-    Existing business uses should be prioritised in this B1 zone in this location.

-    Existing building includes a dance studio and other uses that should be retained.

-    The locality already has a number of affordable housing developments and they should be evenly distributed around Lane Cove LGA.

 

The SEPP provisions allow for the development of a boarding house in commercial zones subject to ground floor uses being for non-residential uses. The proposal does not meet this provision, and to that end, the proposal detracts from the commercial zoning of the site.

Social Impact

-     Proximity of boarding house to school;

-     Increase potential of crime and anti-social behaviour;

-     The SIA does not address proximity to the bottle shop.

 

The proposal was referred to the Police who raised no objection to the proposed development and the SIA was reviewed as having an appropriate level of site-specific detail. Notwithstanding, the density of the boarding house is considered excessive and the Development Application is recommended for refusal on these and other grounds.

 

Property Values

-     Negative impact on property prices.

Property value impact is not a planning consideration. Notwithstanding, the physical impacts of the proposal on adjoining properties are not considered in keeping with the local character.

 

Heritage

-     The SEE does not address heritage impact on The Oaks.

-    

The Council assessment shares concerns that heritage is not addressed within the SEE.

 

Inconsistent Documentation

-     Discrepancy in documents on boarding rooms etc.

It is noted there is a level of inconsistency in the documentation between revisions of the scheme made prior to lodgement of the DA.

 

 

 

(e) Public Interest

 

 

The proposal is not in the public interest as it does not comply with the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, nor the envisaged bulk and scale, and would result in an overdevelopment of the site contrary to the local character and the public interest.

 

6.         CONTRIBUTIONS

 

The proposal would be subject to Section 7.11 Contributions in relation to the proposed boarding rooms, managers dwelling and commercial floor area.

 

7.         CONCLUSION

 

The Development Application for the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a boarding house has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

The Act seeks to promote the provision of affordable housing but also includes objectives to promote good design and amenity of the built environment (Clause 1.3(g)). The assessment of the proposal against Section 4.15(1)(a) of the Act and particularly SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 raises a number of concerns in relation to density and scale (FSR), landscaping, residential uses at the ground floor of a commercial zone and compatibility with the local character of the area. The grounds to consider any departure to these standards, under Clause 4.6 or otherwise, are not considered well-founded as outlined in the report.

 

The Development Application has received significant community participation. The concerns raised are largely shared in the Council assessment of the application as being reasonable concerns and relevant planning considerations.

 

The Development Application is reported to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel with a recommendation for refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Part A

 

That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 21 April 2021, exercising the functions of the Council as the Consent Authority pursuant to Clause 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979:

 

i)          Refuse a variation to the Floor Space Ratio prescribed by Clause 4.4 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as it is not satisfied that the applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that Plan, and the proposed development would not be in the public interest as it is not consistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone;

 

ii)         Refuse Development Application DA1/21 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development on Lot 10 DP 574013, known as 47A Penrose Street, Lane Cove West, for the reasons outlined in Part B.

 

Part B

 

Density and Scale

1.         The Development Application should be refused because the floor space ratio (FSR) of the proposed development is excessive, does not comply with the development standard or objectives of Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(1)(a) in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the written request submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 is inadequate.

(a)       Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 provides as follows:

4.4   Floor space ratio

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

(a)  to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

(2)  The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

(b)       Clause 29(1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

           “29   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

           (1)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this
           Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of

           the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than—

 
                                    (a)  the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form or residential                                            accommodation permitted on the land.

 

(c)        Pursuant to the FSR Map referred to in Clause 4.4(2) of LCLEP 2009, the site is subject to a maximum FSR of 1:1.

(d)       Pursuant to Clause 29(1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a maximum FSR of 1:1 is permitted on the subject development site.

(e)       The maximum FSR of the proposed development when properly calculated is 1.28:1 which represents an exceedance of the development standard in Clause 29(1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 of 28%.

(f)        The applicant has submitted a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 seeking to justify the contravention of the FSR development standards in Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARH) 2009.

(g)       The Panel, having the functions of the consent authority on behalf of Council, would not be satisfied that:

(i)         The Applicant’s written request under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 has adequately addressed the following matters required to be demonstrated:

(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 the contravention of the development standards in Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009.

(ii)        The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and the objectives for development in B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in LCLEP 2009.

Character of the Local Area

2.         The Development Application should be refused because the design of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the local area.

(a)       Clause 30A of SEPP ARH provides as follows:

30A   Character of local area

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

(b)       The local area is currently characterised by a mix of lower scale commercial buildings and single detached residential dwellings.

(c)        The desired future character of the local area is established by the applicable planning controls which, pursuant to LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP 2010, anticipates commercial buildings within a neighbourhood centre setting on the subject site.

Density and Scale

(d)       The Floor Space Ratio is unacceptable as outlined in Point 1 and would contribute to a building scale that is out of character.

Setbacks

(e)       Pursuant to Clause 1.1.6 of LCDCP 2010 – Part D Commercial and Mixed Use Development, the building setbacks are required to be 6m to all boundaries at the third storey with the exception of Penrose Street. The proposal provides a 3m setback at the third storey which does not provide for an appropriating stepping back of the built form. The proposal also encroaches the 3m setback zone for balconies at the second storey. Both contribute to a building massing that is not compatible with the character of the local area.

Building Length

(f)        Pursuant to Clause 1.1.4(b) of LCDCP 2010 – Part D Commercial and Mixed Use Development the maximum horizontal dimension of the residential component parallel to the street frontage is to be 40m.The proposed building length is 50m and would contribute to a building massing that is not compatible with the character of the local area.

Ground Floor Residential Uses

3.         The Development Application should be refused because it provides for residential uses at the ground floor level in a commercial zone contrary to Clause 30(1)(g) of SEPP (affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

(a)       Clause 30(1)(g) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the follow:

(g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use.

(b)       The proposal provides for a manager’s dwelling and boarding room fronting a street. Given the wording of Clause 30 the consent authority cannot vary that clause, noting no Clause 4.6 written request has been provided, and the provision of residential uses at the ground floor would undermine the commercial zoning of the site.

Front Setback Landscape Treatments

4.         The Development Application should be refused as it does not provide for a landscape treatment of the front setback compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located contrary to Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. In addition insufficient landscaping documentation and softening of the built form is provided contrary to LCDCP 2010 Part J – Landscaping.

(a)       Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(b) landscape area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

(b)       The proposed landscaping to Johnston Lane is minimal and tokenistic. The proposed landscaping to Penrose Street while of a higher quality is largely taken up by paving. The proposed landscaping treatment is not considered to satisfy Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 particularly given its sensitive interface to adjacent low density residential properties.

(c)        The proposal is contrary to LCDCP 2010 Part J – Landscaping specifically the following objective outlined in Clause 1.4:

The proposed landscape treatment should assist in ensuring that the development is not visually intrusive by providing visual softening of buildings, driveways and car parking areas.

(d)       The proposal fails to provide Item 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22 or 24 of Council’s Landscape Checklist

Protection of Street Trees

5.         The Development Application should be refused because insufficient arborist reporting detail has been submitted demonstrating the proposal would allow for the retention of existing street trees to Penrose Street.

Contamination

6.         The Development Application should be refused as the consent authority cannot be satisfied that compliance with SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land is achieved. No contamination report was provided despite a requesting being made, excavation works being proposed and the site adjoining a service station.

Environmental Health

7.         The Development Application should be refused as insufficient information has been submitted to provide for a complete assessment of the application on environmental health grounds (in addition to contamination) including the following assessment detail:

-     Air Quality Assessment: for boarding rooms given proximity to service station and classified road;

-     Light Pollution Assessment: for exposed undercroft parking areas onto adjoining residential land, as well as from the service station to boarding rooms;

-     Construction Noise Management Plan: given proximity to existing residential receivers;

-     Construction Management Plan: dust, sediment, erosion and water management plan for construction. 

 

Waste Management

8.         The Development Application should be refused because on-site waste collection is not provided in accordance with LCDCP 2010 Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation despite the site conditions warranting on-site waste collection noting the following:

(a)       The proposal does not provide for on-site waste collection including insufficient detail of vehicle manoeuvring, loading zone and clearance height; and

(b)       The location on Johnston Lane warrants the provision of on-site waste storage and collection.

Parking and Servicing

9.         The Development Application should be refused because simultaneous vehicle entry/exit is not provided for despite there being capability (site width) to provide for a wider driveway contrary to LCDCP 2010 Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking.

 

Heritage

10.       The Development Application should be refused because no assessment has been provided by the applicant as to any heritage impacts to No. 1 Wood Street, Lane Cove West, despite the property being listed in Schedule 5 of LCLEP 2009 as an item of heritage significance. The Statement of Environmental Effects erroneously states there is no heritage item within the vicinity of the site. Accordingly the consent authority could not be satisfied as to what level of heritage assessment is required under Clause 5.10(5)(c) of LCLEP 2009:

Heritage Assessment: The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development on land that is within the vicinity of land on which a heritage item is located require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item concerned.

The Site

11.       The site in considered to be unsuitable for the development as proposed. Pursuant to Section 4.15(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development as amended in its current built form, having regard to the above matters. The site suitability is not acceptable having regard to the large numbers of variations involved and with the character compatibility provisions under SEPP ARH 2009.

 

Public Interest

12.       The Development Application should be refused because approval of the proposed development is not in the public interest pursuant to Section 4.15(d) and (e) of the EP & A Act 1979 having regard to the contentions raised above and 76 submissions received from surrounding residents raising concerns with the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.