attention: ruth bennett (senior project planner) … · the overall bulk of the building form /...

Our Ref: M160425 18 March 2019

The General Manager

Blacktown City Council

PO Box 63

BLACKTOWN NSW 2148

ATTENTION: RUTH BENNETT (SENIOR PROJECT PLANNER)

Dear Ruth,

AMENDED SUBMISSION TO DA16/0459

SITE B, 1-9 GEORGE STREET, SEVEN HILLS

We act as town planning consultants to the owner of the above property. This correspondence accompanies amended

plans and supporting documents resulting from various correspondence between Council and the Applicant to resolve

issues identified during the assessment of DA16/0459.

Annexed to this correspondence are revised compliance tables and an updated Clause 4.6 Variation Statement in

relation to Building Height to demonstrate the amended levels of compliance in light of plan amendments.

Accompanying this correspondence include:

Amended Plans prepared by Urban Link reference P01, dated 6 September 2017;

Amended Landscape Plan prepared by Melissa Wilson;

Amended Access Report prepared by Vista Access Architects ; and

Amended Stormwater Plan prepared by SGC Engineering.

Background

The subject application, DA16/0459 was lodged on 22 December 2018 for construction of a residential flat building at

part No. 5 and Nos. 7 and 9 George Street, Seven Hills.

Specifically, the original proposal included 8 x 1 bedroom (16%) apartments, 37 x 2 bedroom (73%) apartments and 6

x 3 bedroom (12%) apartments (51 in total). The site the subject of DA16/0459 is referred to as Site B.

Proposed subdivision - A separate development application was submitted on 22 December 2018 under DA16/0560

for demolition of all buildings (5 in total), consolidation of 5 lots into one and Torrens title subdivision of one lot to create

two lots at the site (Proposed Site A and B). This application remains under assessment.

Proposed residential flat building, Site A - A further separate development application was submitted on 22 December

2018 under DA16/05458 for the construction of a residential flat building at Nos. 1, 3 and part No. 5 George Street,

Seven Hills. This application remains under assessment.

Correspondence with Council

We understand various correspondence has taken place between the Applicant and Council through email and phone

discussions in relation to both Site A (DA16/05458) and Site B (DA16/05459).

Site B, 1-9 George Street, Seven Hills

Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd 2

In summary, to our knowledge the following has taken place:

11.7.17 - Discussion regarding easement by phone, follow up email from Urban Link;

19.7.17 - City Architects Comments provided by email;

8.12.17 - Amended Plans and letter issued to Council; and

3.9.18 - Response to Amended Plans from Assessment Officer by email and phone.

12.9.18 - Email from Council Engineer (A.Singh) confirming acceptance of Deferred Commencement

condition wording regarding drainage easement.

Proposed amendments

The subject proposal now seeks, 46 apartments comprising 8 x 1 bedroom apartments, 37 x 2 bedroom apartments

and 6 x 3 bedroom apartments. Of the 51 apartments, 6 remain as adaptable dwellings and 11 remain as livable

dwellings (silver standard). A total of 67 parking spaces are proposed across two basement levels and lower ground

level.

The primary amendments include:

Reduction of 5 units from 51 to 46;

Modified unit mix 8 x 1 bed (16%), 37x 2 bed (73%), 6x 3 bed (12%);

Reduction in area of roof top terrace and consequent reduction in extent of height breech area;

Habitable rooms now setback 6m and 9m with some windows to habitable rooms within non-habitable zone

(as agreed these are perpendicular to the boundary and setback from the level below)

Building facades have been revised to allow for 2 different styles for each building.

Specific amendments at each level are highlighted on plan by red clouding. Changes include:

Basement 01 & 02:

Basement 01: Accessible residential parking space removed.

Additional traffic notes added per traffic engineers’ comments.

Lower Ground Floor:

Unit LG.02: The external walls / windows facing S-E have been revised.

Unit LG.01: Revised to standard layout. Silver Level not required as unit numbers reduced.

Ground Floor:

Unit UG.01: The external walls / windows facing S-E have been revised. The balconies have been

reduced.

Unit UG.04: Converted to an accessible unit.

Unit UG.01: The external walls / windows / balcony area facing S-E have been revised. The balcony area

facing N-E has been reduced to provide 6m compliant setback.

Unit UG.03: The balcony area facing N-E has been reduced to provide a 6m compliant setback.

Unit UG.04: Balcony reduced to achieve compliance with 6m setback requirement.



Unit UG.05: Balcony reduced to achieve compliance with 6m setback requirement.

Floor - Level 01:

Balconies along George Street façade have been cut back to provide 9m compliant setback.

Balconies along N-E façade have been cut back to provide 6m compliant setbacks.

Unit L1.01: Balcony reduced to provide a 6m compliant setback. Internal unit area reduced.

Unit L1.01: Converted to an accessible and silver level apartment.

Unit L1.02: The external walls / windows / balcony area facing S-E have been revised. The balcony area

facing N-E has been reduced to provide 6m compliant setback.

Unit L1.02 – L1.06: Balcony along S-E façade / internal area reduced

Floor - Level 02:

Balcony spaces along George Street façade have been cut back to provide a 9m compliant setback.

Unit L2.02 – L2.05: Balcony along S-E façade / internal area reduced.

Unit L2.06: Balcony along S-E façade reduced.

Unit L2.07 and L2.08: Balcony reduced to provide 6m compliant setback/ internal unit area reduced.

Floor - Level 03:

The total number of units / unit mix have been reduced from total of 9 units (1x 1Bed, 7x 2Bed and 1x 3Bed)

to total of 7units (5x 2Bed & 2x 3Bed).

All the unit numbering has been revised.

All balcony spaces along N-E façade has to provide 6m compliant setback.

Unit L3.02 – L3.06: Balcony along S-E façade / internal area reduced.

Floor - Level 04:

The unit mix has been revised from total of 8 units (7x 2Bed & 1x 3Bed) to total of 7 units (1x 1Bed, 5x 2Bed

& 1x 3Bed).

Reduction in balcony to achieve predominant 9m setback with some encroachments (treated with blank wall

to side boundary with exception of Unit L4.01).

Unit U4.03 has been converted to an accessible apartment.

Floor - Level 05:

The total number of units / unit mix have been reduced from total of 7 units (2x 1Bed, 3x 2Bed & 2x 3Bed) to

total of 5 units (1x 1Bed & 4x 2Bed).

The overall bulk of the building form and balcony spaces have been cut back to 9m compliance setback.

Rear units and habitable area been removed to comply with overall storey limit due to the site topography,

replaced with common open space.

Roof Terrace:

Common open space reduced in size;

Deletion of S-E stair and lift core.



The overall communal open space area and planter / landscaping zone has been revised to fit in with the

new design of the building form.

Building Form:

George Street Elevation

Balconies extended and connected through the central part of the façade from Level 01 to 03.

Balconies have been cut back along N-E façade.

The overall bulk of the building form / balcony spaces have been revised from Level 04 to 05.

The façade materials from Level 04 to 05 has been changed from painted render to lightweight wall

cladding.

North-East Elevation

Façade / balconies treatment has been revised from Upper Ground Floor to Level 04.

The lower bulk of the building form has been stepped with fall of the site.

Greater articulation and modulation through introduced materials, finishes and treatments.

The overall bulk of the building form / balcony spaces have been revised from Level 03 to 05.


cladding.

Communal open space has been split between Level 05 and roof terrace and second lift core deleted.

South-East Elevation

Façade / balcony spaces have been revised from Lower Ground Floor to Level 02.

The overall bulk of the building / balcony spaces from Level 03 to 05 have been cut back.


cladding.

Communal open space has been split between Level 05 and Roof Terrace.

Top, middle and base established through material treatment definition.

South-West Elevation

Façade / balcony spaces towards S-E end of the site have been revised n from Upper Ground Floor to Level

02.

The lower bulk of the building / balcony spaces from Level 03 to 05 facing S-E end have been stepped down

to follow the fall of the site.


cladding.

Communal open space has been split between Level 05 and Roof Terrace and second lift core deleted.

Reduced extent of area above maximum height line.



Compliance Assessment

Annexed to this correspondence are the following:

Annexure A – Amended Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table

Annexure B – Amended Blacktown LEP 2015 Compliance Table

Annexure C – Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height

Annexure D – Amended Blacktown DCP 2015 Compliance Table

We trust the above is self-explanatory. Should you have any questions relating to this correspondence or the DA matter

in general, please feel free to contact the undersigned to discuss.

Yours faithfully,

Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd

Alison Davidson

PRINCIPAL PLANNER

ANNEXURE A

Apartment Design Guide – Amended Compliance Table – Site B


Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd REF NO. 425/16 2

Apartment Design Guide - Compliance Table

Clause / Control Requirement Proposal Complies?

Part 3 Siting the development

3D Communal

Open Space

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site

(site area = 2035m2). Minimum required = 508m2

Communal open space is located at Level 5 (179.38m2) and the rooftop

(342.1m2) which includes BBQ facilities, shade shelter and seating. The

combined area of these spaces is 521m2 and equates to 25.6% of the

site area.

2. 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 proposed communal open space area will receive sunlight

throughout the day on the winter solstice, as demonstrated by solar

access diagram submitted with the development application. Regardless

of future development on neighbouring sites the roof top terrace will

retain direct sunlight.

3E Deep Soil

Zones

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

Site Area Minimum Dimension Deep Soil Zone

Less than 650m2 -

7% of the site area

(142.42m2) 650m2 to 1,500m2 3m

Above 1,500m2 6m

Deep soil areas are provided at the street frontages, north-eastern side

and rear of the site. The deep soil area has a width of at least 6m and

a combined area of 370m2 which equates to 18.2% of the site and

therefore exceeds the ADG requirement.

3F Visual Privacy 1. 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 (4 storeys) 6m 3m

Up to 25m (5-8

storeys)

9m 4.5m

Ground level – Level 3

The proposal has been designed to comply with Council’s setback

controls which require a front setback of 9m and side and rear setbacks

of 6m. This is consistent with the ADG requirement for a building up to

4 storeys where setbacks of 6m are provided to the side and rear

boundaries.

Level 4

At Level 4 the external walls of the building are setback 9m from the side

boundaries with the exception of small sections on each side elevation

On Merit,

meets ADG




Over 25m (9+ storeys) 12m 6m

No building separation is necessary where building types incorporate

blank party walls. Typically, this occurs along a main street or at podium

levels within centres.

(Beds 1 and 3 of L4.05, media room of L4.01 and Bed 1 and 2 of L4.07)

which encroach the 9m setback, however there are no windows facing

the boundaries within the 9m in these parts.

This is consistent with the Design Guidance of the ADG, whereby

separation is relaxed where blank walls are provided.

Units L4.01 and L4.03 are non-compliant at the side boundaries as they

are setback 6m to the balcony and/or living room wall, and the two

bedrooms doors to the balcony in Unit L4.01. The proposed Site A

building adjoining the subject site will create a blank wall interface

between bedrooms and a separation of 15m between balconies. This is

considered to be an acceptable interface between the subject proposal

and proposed Building A (DA16/05458)

The rear setback is compliant.

Level 5

At Level 5 the external walls of the building are setback 9m from the side

boundaries with the exception of small sections on each side elevation

(Beds 1 and 2 of L5.01 and a section of balcony, and a section of the

living room and balcony of L5.02) which encroach the 9m setback,

however there are no windows facing the side boundaries within the 9m

in these parts.

The rear setback is compliant.

Design

Guidance

On merit

On Merit,

meets ADG

Design

Guidance

3J Bicycle and

Car Parking

1. 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

The site is within 500m of Seven Hills Railway Station and therefore the

ADG rates apply.




on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3

Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use 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 (GTTGD), or the car

parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less.

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development best describes the

proposed development as A high density residential flat building. This

refers to a building containing 20 or more dwellings. This does not include

aged or disabled persons' housing. High density residential flat buildings

are usually more than five levels, have basement level car parking and

are located in close proximity to public transport services. The building

may contain a component of commercial use. The parking requirements

relating to a sub-regional centre are as follows:

0.6 spaces per 1 bedroom unit (6 x 0.6 = 3.6 spaces)

0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom unit (34 x 0.9 = 30.6 spaces)

1.40 space per 3 bedroom unit (6 x 1.40 = 8.4 spaces)

1 space per 5 units (visitor parking) – (46/5 = 9.2 spaces)

Total Required spaces:

Residential – 42.6 spaces (43 spaces)

Visitors – 9.2 spaces

Total = 52 spaces

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

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

The proposal will require the provision of 52 car parking spaces within

the basement. The proposal exceeds this minimum requirement with the

provision of 67 car parking spaces.

All parking for the development is provided off street.

Motorbike and scooter parking is provided within the basement car park.

Bicycle parking is provided within the basement car park to the meet the

needs of residents and provide for other modes of travel.




Part 4 Designing the Building

4A Solar Access

and Daylight

1. 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

Solar access is provided to 37 of the 46 apartments (80.4%) which

complies with the ADG requirement.

4B Natural

Ventilation

1. 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

Natural ventilation is provided to 34 of the 46 apartments (73.9%) which

meets the requirements of the ADG.

2. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not

exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line

Maximum apartment depth is approximately 18m.

4C Ceiling Height

1. Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum

ceiling heights are:

Minimum ceiling height

Habitable rooms 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms 2.4m

Floor to ceiling heights of habitable rooms exceed the minimum

requirements of the ADG with 3m floor to floor heights. Refer to sections

provided with plan set.

4D Apartment

Layout

1. Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

Apartment type Minimum internal area

Studio 35m2

1 bedroom 50m2

2 Bedroom 70m2

3 Bedroom 90m2

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional

bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m2 each.

The proposal comprises a combination of single, 2 bedroom and 3

bedroom apartments and all units comply with the relevant minimum

internal area requirements prescribed.

Where additional bathrooms are provided the apartments are an

additional 5m2 with the exception on 1 unit.




L3.01 is 3 bed with additional bathroom and has an area 93.96m2. This

represents a minor shortfall to the requisite 95m2 of 1.04m2.

Refer to data sheet and dimensions provided on plan set.

This 1 minor breach represents 2.17% of the development (1 of 46).

Notwithstanding the minor shortfall to 1 unit, this unit still meets the

Objective under 4D-3 of the ADG wherein the Unit L3.01 has been

designed to accommodate a variety of household activities and needs

as demonstrated by the unit layout and generous private open space.

2. 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

Each habitable room has a sufficiently sized window/s for solar access

and natural ventilation.

1. Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling

height.

Dimensions provided on the submitted plan set demonstrate that rooms

are appropriately proportioned to comply with the numeric requirements

of the ADG and to permit entry of sunlight and natural ventilation

throughout internal spaces.

2. In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are

combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window.

Dimensions indicated on plans demonstrate that room depths comply

with numeric requirements. Room depths are not more than 8m from a

window.

1. Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms

9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Refer to plan set which demonstrates that each bedroom is sized to

comply with the numeric requirements of the ADG.

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

space)

Each bedroom has a minimum dimension of 3m to allow for typical

furniture layouts.

3. 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

Each living room has a minimum dimension which accords with the ADG

to allow for varied furniture layouts.




4. The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m

internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts

There are some cross-through apartments proposed which have a

minimum width of 4m as per ADG requirement, and thus avoid elongated

spaces with poor utility value and internal amenity.

4E Open Space All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

Dwelling type Minimum area Minimum depth

Studio 4m2 -

1 bedroom 8m2 2m

2 Bedroom 10m2 2m

3 Bedroom + 12m2 2.4m

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony

area is 1m.

All apartment is provided with an area of private open space in the form

of a terrace or balcony that is directly accessible from a primary living

area and 40 units (87%) comply with the minimum area and depth

requirements of the ADG.

The following 6 units (13%) provide very minor shortfalls to the requisite

balcony areas to primary open space. Each of these units also have a

secondary balcony and the total sum of each balcony exceeds the

minimum requirement.

L1.04 2 bed 9.78 + 6.29

L1.05 2 bed 8.73 + 6.29

L2.04 2 bed 9.57 + 6.29

L2.05 2 bed 8.70 + 6.29

L3.04 2 bed 9.58 + 6.29

L3.05 2 bed 8.73 + 6.29

On merit

2. 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

Each ground level apartment has an extended private open space area,

which is accessible from primary living space and exceeds the minimum

area (between 28.22m2 – 65.02m2) and dimension requirements

contained in the ADG.

4F Common

Circulation Space

1. The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single

level is 8.

Each circulation core has between 3-5 apartments at each level.

2. For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of

apartments sharing a single lift is 40

Less than 10 storeys in height. N/A




4G Storage 1. In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the

following storage is provided:

Dwelling type Storage volume

Studio 4m3

1 bedroom 6m3

2 Bedroom 8m3

3+ Bedroom 10m3

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.

Each apartment is provided with compliant storage space, provided

within the apartment and secure storage within the basement.

ANNEXURE B

Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015 – Amended Compliance Table – Site B



Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015 - Compliance Table


Part 2 Permitted and prohibited development

2.3 Zone

objectives and

Land Use Table

Zone R4 High Density Residential

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high

density residential environment.

The proposal will contribute 46 additional dwellings within a high density

residential environment, thus providing for the housing needs of the

community.

To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential

environment.

The proposed buildings contain a combination of single, two and three

bedroom apartments, some of which are adaptable and silver level

liveable apartments. This arrangement will cater for a cross section of

household and family compositions.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet

the day to day needs of residents.

The proposal does not provide for land uses other than residential

however will contribute to the economic viability of those businesses

situated in the nearby Seven Hills Town Centre through enhanced

patronage.

-

To enable certain activities to be carried out within the zone that do

not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

The building will provide additional housing and therefore will not

adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

To permit residential flat buildings in locations close to public

transport hubs and centres.

The subject site is ideally situated in that it is within 500m of Seven Hills

Railway Station and less than 50m from nearby bus routes. The site is

ideal for high density development due to its proximity to public

transport.

2.7 Demolition

requires

development

consent

The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with

development consent.

The proposal does not involves demolition – subject to separate

development application.




Part 4 Principal development standards

4.3 Height of

buildings

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum

height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map (20m)

The Height of Building Map indicates that the maximum building height

for the site is 20m. Although the building is largely compliant, the lift

overrun and some upper roof elements exceeds this maximum by

3.42m with a height of 23.42m. Refer to elevations and sections

submitted with the architectural plan set which illustrates the extent of

the non-compliance.

See Cl. 4.6

variation

request

provided at

Annexure C

4.4 Floor space

ratio

There is no FSR standard applicable to the site. N/A N/A

4.6 Exceptions to

development

standards

(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.

Building height is a development standard that can be varied by

Clause 4.6 and is submitted in relation to building height.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

5.9 Preservation of Trees of vegetation

The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

There are several trees to be removed to facilitate redevelopment of the

site. Their loss will be mitigated with replacement planting as detailed

on the Landscape Plan submitted separately with the application.

Part 7 Additional local provisions

7.5 Essential

services

Development consent must not be granted to 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,

All essential services are available to the site.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2013/36/maps




(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) Suitable vehicular access.

7.7 Design Excellence

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development exhibits design excellence that contributes to the natural, cultural, visual and built character values of Blacktown.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Design excellence” on

the Design Excellence Map. (3) Development consent must not be granted to development to which

this clause applies unless the consent authority considers that the development exhibits design excellence.

(4) In considering whether the development exhibits design excellence, the consent authority must have regard to the following matters: (a) whether a high standard of architectural design, materials and

detailing appropriate to the building type and location will be achieved,

(b) whether the form and external appearance of the development will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain,

(c) whether the development detrimentally impacts on view corridors,

(d) whether the development detrimentally impacts on any land protected by solar access controls established in the Black town Development Control Plan,

(e) the requirements of the Black town Development Control Plan, (f) how the development addresses the following matters:

(I) the suitability of the land for development, (ii) existing and proposed uses and use mix, (iii) heritage issues and streetscape constraints, (iv) the relationship of the development with other

development (existing or proposed) on the same site or on neighboring sites in terms of separation, setbacks, amenity and urban form,

(v) bulk, massing and modulation of buildings, (vi) street frontage heights, (vii) environmental impacts such as sustainable design,

overshadowing, wind and reflectivity, (viii) the achievement of the principles of ecologically

sustainable development, (ix) pedestrian, cycle, vehicular and service access and

circulation requirements,

(x) The impact on, and any proposed improvements to, the public domain.

The development has been designed by Architects Urban Link and will

provide a high standard of architectural design in relation to the massing

of the development, articulation of the facades and material detailing.

The landscape treatment at the site frontages and the property

boundaries will ensure that the development improves the interface of

the site to the public domain.

The shadowing impacts of the development results in an entirely

acceptable outcome and does not unreasonably diminish existing

access to sunlight.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2015/239/maps

ANNEXURE C

Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Request – Building Height

Site A, 1-9 George Street, Seven Hills


Clause 4.6 variation statement – maximum height (clause 4.3)

1. INTRODUCTION

This Variation Statement has been prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Blacktown Local Environmental Plan

2015 to accompany DA2016/0459. The application seeks consent for a part six, part seven storey residential flat

building comprising 46 residential units with two levels of basement car parking at Nos. 1-9 George Street, Seven Hills

2. PROPOSED VARIATION

Clause 4.3(2) of Blacktown LEP 2015 relates to the maximum height requirements and refers to the Height of Buildings

Map. The relevant map identifies the subject site as having a maximum height of 20m. Building height is defined as:

“building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the

highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae,

satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.”

Figure 1 below shows the roof top building footprint and the extent of structures beyond the 20m building height plane.

Indicating that due to the provision of lift overrun and the natural fall of the land the building height exceeds the maximum

permissible for the site. The proposed height exceedance is also demonstrated in the height blanket diagram provided

below in Figure 2 demonstrating those part of the building that sit above the 20m height line.

As indicated in the section a significant amount of the building is located within the maximum height limit and the

projecting element is limited to the lift overrun. In addition, the building is fully compliant with the height requirements

at the street frontage to George Street.

Although the building is largely compliant, the proposal exceeds the maximum building height by a maximum of 2.342m

(11.71%) to the lift overrun at 22.342m (RL. 68.30).

As indicated in Figures 1 and 2 the height non-compliance is generally limited to the centre of the building where access

to the roof top terrace is achieved via lift and stair access. The upper level has been designed to comply with the height

requirement at the street edge and results in a building that is consistent with the scale of development expected at the

site.

Building Height is a “development standard” to which exceptions can be granted pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP.



Figure 1 Height non-compliance (Section A – Site B)

Figure 2 Height Blanket Diagram



3. OBJECTIVES AND PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 4.6

The objectives and provisions of clause 4.6 are as follows:

“ 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.

(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.

(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.

(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 sub clause (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 Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary 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 Secretary before granting concurrence.

(6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production,

Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5

Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4

Environmental Living if:

(a) The subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a

development standard, or

(b) The subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a

lot by a development standard.

Note. When this Plan was made it did not include all of these zones.

(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of

its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in sub clause (3).

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the

following:

(a) A development standard for complying development,



(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment

set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability

Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

(c) Clause 5.4,

(ca) clause 6.1 or 6.2.”

The development standards in clause 4.3 are not “expressly excluded” from the operation of clause 4.6.

Objective 1(a) of clause 4.6 is satisfied by the discretion granted to a consent authority by virtue of subclause 4.6(2)

and the limitations to that discretion contained in subclauses (3) to (8). This submission will address the requirements

of subclauses 4.6(3) & (4) in order to demonstrate to Council that the exception sought is consistent with the exercise

of “an appropriate degree of flexibility” in applying the development standard, and is therefore consistent with objective

1(a). In this regard, the extent of the discretion afforded by subclause 4.6(2) is not numerically limited, in contrast with

the development standards referred to in subclause 4.6(6).

4. THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IS UNREASONABLE OR UNNECESSARY IN

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE (CLAUSE 4.6(3)(a))

In Wehba V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ sets out ways of establishing that compliance with a

development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. This list is not exhaustive. It states, inter alia:

“An objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the

Policy in a variety of ways. The most commonly invoked way is to 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 judgement goes on to state that:

“The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The

ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual

means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the

proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective strict compliance with the

standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).”

Preston CJ in the judgement then expressed the view that there are 5 different ways in which an objection may be well

founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the policy, as follows (with emphasis

placed on number 1 for the purposes of this Clause 4.6 variation [our underline]):

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

2. The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is

unnecessary;

3. The underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance

is unreasonable;

4. 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 unnecessary and unreasonable;

5. The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for

that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard that

would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the

particular zone.

Relevantly, in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 (paragraph 16), Preston CJ

makes reference to Wehba and states:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Depi%20AND%20Year%3D2004%20AND%20No%3D396&nohits=y

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Depi%20AND%20Year%3D2004%20AND%20No%3D396&nohits=y



“…Although that was said in the context of an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development

Standards to compliance with a development standard, the discussion is equally applicable to a written request under

cl 4.6 demonstrating that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.”

Compliance with the maximum building height development standard is considered to be unreasonable and

unnecessary as the objectives of that standard are achieved for the reasons set out in Section 7 of this statement. For

the same reasons, the objection is considered to be well-founded as per the first method underlined above.

Notably, under Clause 4.6(4) (a) (ii) a consent authority must now be satisfied that the contravention of a development

standard 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. Clause 4.6(4) (a)

(ii) is addressed in Section 6 below.

5. SUFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GROUNDS (CLAUSE 4.6(3)(b))

Having regard to Clause 4.6(3) (b) and the need to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning

grounds to justify contravening the development standard, the following planning grounds are submitted to justify

contravening the maximum building height:

1. The point of maximum breech s to the lift overrun at 2.342m (11.7%) which is located at the centre of the

building, away from all boundaries and limited in area.

2. The height departure relates to encroachment of the lift over run, roof parapet with the remainder of the building positioned below the maximum building height limit.

3. The height breach will not be readily visible from George Street.

4. It is considered that there is an absence of any material impacts of the proposed non-compliance on the

amenity of the environmental values of the locality, the amenity of future building occupants and on area

character.

5. The desire to achieve unimpeded access throughout the site and to the communal open space provides clear

amenity benefits for the residents of the development. For Council to insist on strict compliance in this instance

would require a reduction of the floor to ceiling heights throughout the building and a reduction in the overall

number of units to accommodate the lift overruns within the 20m height limit. This would result in an

unreasonable burden on the development that is to be balanced with the impacts, or lack thereof, resulting

from the non-compliance.

6. The lift over run is a core service element of the development and the shading device provides necessary

amenity benefits to residents using the communal area.

7. The development has been designed to minimize impacts where practicable on neighboring properties and

likely future adjoining properties;

8. Strict compliance with the building height standard would result in no material built form benefits and loss of

resident amenity;

9. The proposed height non-compliance relates to parts of the building that do not contribute to calculable floor

space;

10. Specifically as demonstrated below in the shadow diagrams, the proposed development creates minimal

additional shadow impacts compared to a compliant development scheme. The degree of shadow is therefore

what would be reasonably expected of development on the subject site.



11. The height breach does not result in any additional privacy impacts. The area of height breach does not

contain window openings that will allow views into neighbouring properties.

12. The proposed development meets the objectives of the development standard and meets the objectives of

the R4 High Density Residential zone (as further detailed in Section 7 below);

13. The proposed development achieves the objects in Section 1.3 of the EPA Act, specifically:

a. The proposal promotes the orderly and economic use and development of land through the

redevelopment of an underutilised site for commercial and residential uses(1.3c);

b. The proposed developed promotes good design and amenity of the built environment through a well-

considered design which is responsive to its setting and context.

It is noted that in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ clarified what

items a Clause 4.6 does and does not need to satisfy. Importantly, there does not need to be a "better" planning

outcome:

86. The second way is in an error because it finds no basis in cl 4.6. Clause 4.6 does not directly or indirectly

establish a test that the non-compliant development should have a neutral or beneficial effect relative to a

compliant development. This test is also inconsistent with objective (d) of the height development standard in

cl 4.3(1) of minimising the impacts of new development on adjoining or nearby properties from disruption of

views or visual intrusion. Compliance with the height development standard might be unreasonable or

unnecessary if the non-compliant development achieves this objective of minimising view loss or visual

intrusion. It is not necessary, contrary to what the Commissioner held, that the non-compliant development

have no view loss or less view loss than a compliant development.

87. The second matter was in cl 4.6(3) (b). I find that the Commissioner applied the wrong test in considering

this matter by requiring that the development, which contravened the height development standard, result in

a "better environmental planning outcome for the site" relative to a development that complies with the height

development standard (in [141] and [142] of the judgment). Clause 4.6 does not directly or indirectly establish

this test. The requirement in cl 4.6(3)(b) is that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify

contravening the development standard, not that the development that contravenes the development standard

have a better environmental planning outcome than a development that complies with the development

standard.

As outlined above, it is considered that in many respects, the proposal will provide for a better planning outcome than

a strictly compliant development. At the very least, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify

contravening the development standard.

6. CLAUSE 4.6(4)(a)

Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council details how Clause 4.6(4) (a) needs to be addressed

(paragraphs 15 and 26 are rephrased below):

The first opinion of satisfaction, in clause 4.6(4) (a) (I), is that a written request seeking to justify the contravention of

the development standard has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3). These

matters are twofold: first, that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the

circumstances of the case (clause 4.6(3) (a)) and, secondly, that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds

to justify contravening the development standard (clause 4.6(3) (b)). This written request has addressed Clause 4.6(3)

(a) in Section 4 above (and furthermore in terms of meeting the objectives of the development standard, this is

addressed in 7a below). Clause 4.6(3) (b) is addressed in Section 5 above.



The second opinion of satisfaction, in clause 4.6(4) (a) (ii), is that the proposed development will be in the public interest

because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular development standard that is contravened and the

objectives for development for the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. The second opinion

of satisfaction under cl 4.6(4) (a) (ii) differs from the first opinion of satisfaction under clause 4.6(4) (a) (I) in that the

consent authority, or the Court on appeal, must be directly satisfied about the matter in clause 4.6(4) (a) (ii), not

indirectly satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matter in clause 4.6(4) (a) (ii). The

matters in Clause 4.6(4) (a) (ii) are addressed in Section 7 below.

7. 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 (CLAUSE 4.6(4((a)(ii))

7a. Objectives of Development Standard

The objectives and relevant provisions of clause 4.3 are as follows:

4.3 Height of buildings

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

(a) to minimize the visual impact, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to surrounding development and the

adjoining public domain from buildings,

(b) To ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the surrounding residential localities

and commercial centers within the City of Black town,

(c) To define focal points for denser development in locations that are well serviced by public transport, retail and

commercial activities,

(d) To ensure that sufficient space is available for development for retail, commercial and residential uses,

(e) To establish an appropriate interface between centers, adjoining lower density residential zones and public

spaces.

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map."

Objective (a):

Objective (a) seeks to minimize the visual impact, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to surrounding development

and the adjoining public domain from buildings. The proposal has been designed to minimize loss of privacy and is of

a contemporary aesthetic that will not give rise to visual impact. The portions of the building that result in the most

significant projections are the two lift overruns. These parts of the building are not readily visible from surrounding

residential properties or the road. The proposal is fully compliant with the building height requirements for the remainder

of the building and where it fronts George Street the building appears to be of a scale that is expected at the site.

In relation to overshadowing, the impacts of overshadowing are entirely acceptable given the orientation of the site and

the scale of development anticipated by the planning controls. The overshadowing created by the non-compliant

portions of the building are not significant. The additional shadow impacts of the non-compliant portions of the building

are negligible in relation to the shadow that is cast from the compliant elements of the building. This is demonstrated

in Figure 4 below showing comparison of shadows from a compliant scheme versus the proposal.

As such, the height non-compliance will not give rise to any significant shadow impacts.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+239+2015+pt.4-cl.4.3+0+N?tocnav=y

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+239+2015+pt.4-cl.4.3+0+N?tocnav=y



Figure 3 Shadow diagrams (1) – 9am, (2) 12 noon, (3) 3pm – mid winter (red line represents compliant height)

Objective (b):

Objective (b) seeks to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the surrounding residential

localities within the City of Black town. In our view, “compatible” does not promote “sameness” in built form but rather

requires that development fits comfortably with its urban context. Of relevance to this assessment are the comments

of Rosset SC in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191:

“22 there are many dictionary definitions of compatible. The most apposite meaning in an urban design context is capable

of existing together in harmony. Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can

exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes

increases, harmony is harder to achieve.”

In relation to the built form context, the majority of buildings in the vicinity of the site are detached residential dwellings

that will be redeveloped in the near future to realise the development potential afforded to them under the Blacktown

LEP 2015. The site and surrounding properties are identified as being able to accommodate a height of 20m.



The proposal is fully compliant at the George Street frontage and will be consistent with the height and scale of future

residential flat building development. Due to the minor non-compliances being limited to the lift overruns and the small

portion of roof at the rear of the building, the development is generally indistinguishable from a fully compliant scheme

when viewed from the public domain and the adjoining street frontage. As such, it cannot be said that the proposal by

virtue of the lift overrun and stair access height exceedances are incompatible with the desired future character of the

surrounding properties.

In light of the above, the proposal will exist in harmony with the desired future character of development in the area

and is consistent with objective (b).

Objective (c):

Objective (c) seeks to define focal points for denser development in locations that are well serviced by public transport,

retail and commercial activities. This objective is satisfied by the hierarchy of height limits that are established on the

height of buildings maps. Notably, the subject site is within the centre of the R4 zone which permits building heights of

20m and consequently it will be surrounded by buildings of a similar scale and form once neighboring sites are

redeveloped. Therefore, the minor height exceedances identified above are not antipathetic to this objective.

Objective (d):

This objective seeks to ensure that sufficient space is available for development for retail, commercial and residential

uses. The proposed development makes efficient use of the site and the applicable height limit to provide residential

accommodation in a location that is both highly desirable and suitable for such a level of density. Therefore, the proposal

is consistent with this objective as the maximum height limit is used to efficiently allocate appropriate levels of residential

accommodation at the site within the preferred allowable ceiling heights of 3m. The height exceedance is limited to the

lift overruns and stair access to the roof top terrace, shade structure and for a small portion of the roof where the site

falls away at the rear and to insist on strict compliance would result in the loss of amenity to the upper level open space

with no demonstrable built form outcome.

Objective (e):

Finally, this objective seeks to establish an appropriate interface between centers, adjoining lower density residential

zones and public spaces. As discussed, the site is located at the centre of the high density area and would have no

impact upon any nearby lower density residential zones. The site has no interface with public open space or adjoining

centers and therefore is entirely consistent with the intention of the control.

The proposed development is therefore consistent with the objectives for maximum height, despite the numeric non-

compliance.

7b. Objectives of the Zone

Clause 4.6(4) also requires consideration of the relevant zone objectives. The objectives of the R4 – High Density

Residential zone are as follows:

• 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.

• To enable certain activities to be carried out within the zone that do not adversely affect the amenity of the neighborhood

• To permit residential flat buildings in locations close to public transport hubs and centers.

The proposal will provide a high density residential development that provides a range of accommodation types,

orientations, internal living arrangements as well as the required number of adaptable and liveable dwellings. The



proposal is a well-designed and sited residential flat building that offers high levels of residential amenity and is entirely

consistent with the intentions of the zone.

8. THE CONCURRENCE OF THE SECRETARY HAS BEEN OBTAINED (CLAUSE 4.6(4)(b)

The second precondition in cl 4.6(4) that must be satisfied before the consent authority can exercise the power to grant

development consent for development that contravenes the development standard is that the concurrence of the

Secretary (of the Department of Planning and the Environment) has been obtained (cl 4.6(4)(b)). Under cl 64 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the Secretary has given written notice dated 21 February

2018, attached to the Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018, to each consent authority, that it may

assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards in respect of applications made under

cl 4.6, subject to the conditions in the table in the notice.

9. WHETHER CONTRAVENTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD RAISES ANY MATTER OF

SIGNIFICANCE FOR STATE OR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING (CLAUSE 4.6(5)(a))

Contravention of the maximum height development standard proposed by this application does not raise any matter of

significance for State or regional environmental planning.

10. THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF MAINTAINING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (CLAUSE 4.6(5)(b))

As detailed in this submission there are no unreasonable impacts that will result from the proposed variation to the

maximum building height. As such there is no public benefit in maintaining strict compliance with the development

standard. Whilst the proposed building height exceeds the maximum permitted on the site by 2.342m (11.7%), the

proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for

development of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. It is the proposed development’s

consistency with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone that make the proposed

development in the public interest. .

11. CONCLUSION

Having regard to all of the above, it is our opinion that compliance with the maximum height development standard is

unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the development meets the objectives of that

standard and the zone objectives. The proposal has also demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to

support the breach.

Therefore, insistence upon strict compliance with that standard would be unreasonable. On this basis, the requirements

of Clause 4.6(3) are satisfied and the variation supported.

Site B, 1-9 George Street, Seven Hill’s


ANNEXURE D

Blacktown Development Control Plan 2015 – Amended Compliance Table – Site B


Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd REF NO260/16 26

Blacktown Development Control Plan 2015 – Compliance Table


Part C Development in Residential Areas – 6. Residential Flat Buildings

6.2 Local context Understanding context is fundamental to developing housing which will

be harmonious with the physical character of an area. The context of an

area includes a wide range of factors ranging from broad characteristics

to more specific considerations including:

(a) Zonings and other planning provisions for adjacent land

(b) Nature of surrounding uses and built form

(c) Topographic and landscape character

(d) Subdivision pattern of the area

(e) Significant features and constraints

(f) Access and public transport access

(g) Potential hazards from bushfire, flooding and landslip

The proper understanding of such factors is the most important first step

for architects and developers in preparing DA plans

A thorough investigation of the site constraints and context, planning

provisions, existing natural and built form, subdivision pattern, access

and public transport and topographic and landscape character has been

undertaken by the project architect in the preparation of this

development proposal.

6.3 Site Analysis A site analysis should be undertaken covering relevant factors from the

list as assembled in the Statement of Environmental Effects. The

analysis should include a drawing and a written statement, and be

incorporated in the Statement of Environmental Effects.

The surrounding area is addressed in detail within the SEE and a site

analysis is further illustrated within the architectural plan set submitted

with the application.

6.4 Site density

controls

Sites should have a minimum frontage of 30m and a minimum depth of

30m.

The site has dimensions that exceed the required 30m x 30m.

6.6 Setbacks The minimum front setback shall be 9m for 3 or more storey buildings

The minimum side and rear setbacks shall be 6m.

The only projections which will be permitted in the setback areas are open

style balconies, roof eaves and sunhoods. Balconies may project into the

The building has been designed to be setback 9m from the street

frontage. with minor balcony encroachment within the articulation zone

to front balconies as permitted under 6.6.2(d) of the DCP.

Refer ADG compliance table.

Noted. Refer to above.

N/A

-




setback by a maximum of 1m. Roof eaves and sunhoods may project into

the setback by a maximum of 600mm

6.7 Common

open space

N/A – Requirements of the Apartment Design Guide supersede these

provisions

N/A – Refer to amended ADG Compliance table. N/A

6.9.2 Protection

of views

The design of developments should minimise the obstruction of views

from adjoining buildings.

The proposal will not give rise to any material view impacts.

6.9.3 Visual and

acoustic privacy

Outlook and views from private open space areas should be maintained

without compromising privacy.

Noise disturbance should be minimised by locating noisy activities and

mechanical sources of noise away from living areas and private open

space areas.

Visual privacy is to be maintained by:

(a) Laying out buildings and windows to avoid overlooking opportunities

(b) Separating facing windows by a suitable distance

(c) Off-setting facing windows

(d) Admitting light through windows which are narrow or opaque (e)

Ensuring that windows do not face directly onto the windows, balconies

or courtyards of adjoining dwellings

(f) Screening opposing windows, or balconies overlooking courtyards

using either fixed screens or via landscaping.

Noise disturbance is to be minimized by:

(a) Locating active recreation facilities, such as swimming pools, away

from the bedroom areas of adjoining dwellings

(b) Designing communal areas and vehicle driveways to minimize

reflected noise

(c) Ensuring that operating plant or equipment does not disturb neighbors

Outlooks from private open space areas do not impact on privacy of

future residents.

All mechanical equipment will be concealed within service areas within

the basement.

Each apartment is designed to face towards the boundaries and

contains dividing walls between adjacent living spaces to allow for good

levels of visual privacy. The window locations are suitable and will allow

for visual privacy to be maintained when the adjoining properties are

redeveloped.

The proposal includes deep soil landscaping to the side and rear

boundaries to ensure resident’s privacy and to provide screening

between existing and future occupants.

N/A

The communal area is proposed at roof level which will minimize noise

impacts.

Council may wish to impose suitable conditions of consent.

N/A




(d) Avoiding noisy walking surfaces, such as suspended timber or metal

decks, and reflective internal surfaces to hallways or other communal

areas

(e) Ensuring that plumbing noise between dwellings and between

buildings is eliminated or contained by the use of ducts, and ensuring

wherever possible that bedrooms or living spaces do not back onto the

bathroom or toilet walls of adjacent flats.

No electrical, mechanical or hydraulic plant or equipment shall generate

a noise level greater than 5dB(A) above the ambient L90 sound level at

the boundaries of any allotment at any time of day

Windows and balconies of dwellings should be separated or screened

from common use areas such as paths, driveways, common open space,

etc. Screens could include courtyard walls, hedges and fences, whilst

separation could be achieved by either distance or changes in level.




Screening is provided where necessary.

6.9.4 Orientation The site and development should be planned to optimize solar access by:

(a) Positioning and orientating walls of flat buildings to

maximize north facing walls (i.e. walls facing between 30

degrees east and 20 degrees west of north)

(b) Selecting apartment plan types which maximize living

spaces within flat buildings with a north orientation (e.g.

apartments which run the full width of the development block

and face north).

The development encourages northern oriented units. The minimum

solar and ventilation requirements are met in accordance with the ADG.

The design encourages north facing apartments where possible.

6.9.6 Vehicle and

pedestrian access

Appropriate access arrangements ensure that the main entrances to the

development or individual units are attractively landscaped, clearly

address the main access street, and can be subject to surveillance of

visitors to the development. The development must also provide clear,

separate, convenient and safe access to parking and servicing areas.

The main pedestrian access point is located from George Street which

is clearly legible and will contain landscaping that ensures site lines to

the entry foyer from the street.

6.9.8 Access way The common access way pavement shall be 6m wide from the street to

the building setback. Consideration needs to be given to maximizing the

distance between the access way and intersections and traffic lights.

The driveway access is 6m in width to allow for two-way movement.




6.9.10 Podium

design

Podiums over basement parking projecting more than 0.5m above natural

ground level count as a story. Podiums shall not be constructed beyond

the setback line.

There are no podiums over basement that project more than 0.5m above

natural ground level.

6.9.11

Accessibility

provisions

Not less than 10% of units in the whole development or one unit

(whichever is the greater number of units) shall be designed for persons

with a disability.

6 of the 46 apartments or 13% are proposed to be adaptable.

6.9.12 Safety and

security

The development is to maintain and enhance the safety and security of

the locality. In particular:

(a) Buildings are to overlook streets and entrances to facilitate casual

surveillance

(b) Service ways, paths and parking areas are to be either secured or

designed to allow casual surveillance

(c) There is to be adequate lighting of entrances, pedestrian areas and

common open space areas

(d) Pedestrian entrances to the development are to be from public streets

(e) Buildings shall be constructed in external materials that are robust,

durable and discourage vandalism and graffiti.

All dwellings are designed to provide passive surveillance to the street

and common areas on the site.

Paths and common access points at the site are overlooked by dwellings

to enable passive surveillance.

Council may wish to impose a suitable consent condition.

The pedestrian access points to the site are gained from the George

Street frontage.

Council may wish to impose a suitable consent condition.

Noted.

6.10.6 Internal

and external

shading and solar

access

At least 50% of the principal area of ground level open space in adjacent

properties shall not have their level of solar access reduced to less than

2 hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm on 21 June. In cases where the

level of solar access is already less than this, sunlight shall not be further

reduced by more than 20%.

Buildings within the proposal must be designed to ensure that 50% of the

common open space area of the proposed development at ground level

receives a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between the hours of 9:00am

and 3:00pm on 21 June.

As detailed on the submitted shadow diagrams, the adjoining properties

will receive increased shadow impacts, particularly in the short term

before all neighboring sites are redeveloped to their full potential.

However, it is likely that at least 50% of the principal ground floor open

space areas will maintain access to sunlight for at least 2 hours between

9.00am and 3.00pm during mid-winter.

N/A – The solar access provisions relating to the ADG are considered at

Annexure A.

N/A




Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments in

the development must receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight hitting

their primary window surfaces between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm on 21 June

N/A – the proposal achieves compliance with the solar access

requirements of the Apartment Design Guide.

N/A

6.10.7 Natural

ventilation

At least 60% of dwellings should have good cross ventilation. Site plans

should promote and guide natural breezes by determining the prevailing

breeze, orient the building accordingly and locating vegetation to direct

breezes and cool air across the site.

34 of the 46 apartments (73.9%) will be naturally ventilated.

6.10.11 Waste

management

■ Garbage and recycling collection

As a minimum, provision must be made for separate garbage and

recycling collections. Applicants must demonstrate that on-street

collection utilizing Council’s curbside collection systems is practicable, or

alternatively make provision for on-site collections utilizing one or a

combination of the following alternatives:

(a) Collections utilizing Council’s 240 liter mobile garbage bin collection

(b) Collections utilizing Council’s bulk waste collection contractor and bin

recycling collection

(c) Collections utilizing private contractors for the collection of both

garbage and recyclable materials.

Where internal collections are provided:

(a) Access to the garbage and recycling collection points by service

vehicles will require that there be a minimum height clearance for internal

garbage areas sufficient to meet operational heights of collection

vehicles. The radius and curvature of internal roads and ramps must be

free of obstruction to State Government standards

(b) Collection vehicles should not be in the position that they obstruct

access or egress by other vehicles and consideration must be made for

contractors who may have additional requirements to facilitate collection

(c) The owner/s of the building must, prior to collection services

commencing, indemnify Council against any damage to the building

Provision is made for on-site collection by a private contractor as

outlined in the WMP submitted separately with the application.

Refer to the ground floor plan for suitable turning areas to allow for a

medium rigid garbage truck to enter and leave the site.

Collection vehicles will be able to park within the garbage loading area.

This will be required by condition of consent.




caused by the collection of garbage, recyclables or waste by Council

vehicles, or contractors acting on behalf of Council, unless such damage

is caused by an act of negligence by the collection operator

(d) A positive covenant and/or easement is to be created under Section

88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 over that portion of the driveway

shared by resident and garbage collection vehicles. It is to be structurally

designed by a chartered professional engineer to a length of no less than

10 meters, a width of no less than 5 meters and to withstand a load of

25.5 tones to accommodate garbage trucks

(e) Where on-site collections are provided, provision must be made for

safe maneuvering of the vehicle on the site and egress and access

should be in a forward direction.

The creation of a positive covenant or easement can be required by

condition of consent.

As detailed on the lower ground floor plan, collection vehicles will be able

to enter and leave in a forward direction.

■ Garbage area requirements

Provision shall be made within the site for the storage of refuse in the

following manner:

(a) Mobile garbage bin requirements:

(I) Garbage storage rooms accessible to residents, where individual

dwelling occupiers can deposit their rubbish, shall be provided with

sufficient storage space to accommodate one 240 liter bin per unit. Such

rooms need not be accessible to residents where garbage chutes are

installed.

(b) Recycling bin requirements:

(I) Appropriately marked 240 liter mobile recycling bins shall be provided

within a garbage room, or area suitable for bin storage, with sufficient

space to accommodate one 240 liter bin per unit

(ii) Where garbage chutes are installed, each floor shall have an

appropriate area, located adjacent to the garbage chute, to house

recycling crates for the units on that level. The crates must be arranged

so that they are accessible at all times to store recyclables

(iii) Recycling bins/crates on each floor shall be regularly emptied and the

recycling material stored in the recycling bins located in the storage room.

The proposal will rely on a combination of bulk storage bins and 240L

bins located within two garbage rooms, one larger room and a smaller

waste room connected to a garbage chute. See submitted WMP for

details of waste management within the site.

There is a garbage chute accessible at each level with room for a

recycling bin.

Council can impose a suitable consent condition requiring this.




Where internal bin storage areas are provided:

(a) The bin standing area must have the floor graded to a floor waste

connected to the sewer in accordance with Sydney Water requirements.

In addition to this, the area must have a cold water tap to facilitate

cleaning and the charging of the floor waste

(b) If the building is to be mechanically ventilated, the garbage room must

be ventilated in accordance with the Australian Standard

(c) The floors and walls of the garbage room to 2 meters high are to be

finished in smooth, impervious, easily cleaned material

(d) The junction of walls/floors and walls/walls are to be provided with a

coving of 50mm diameter

(e) All penetrations and cavities are to be sealed to prevent access of

vermin.

Council can impose a suitable consent condition.





attention: ruth bennett (senior project planner) … · the overall bulk of the building form /...

Documents