the general manager strathfield council po box 120 ... · our ref: 0103/12lts.96see 14 january 2016...

Our Ref: 0103/12ltS.96SEE 14 January 2016

The General Manager Strathfield Council

PO Box 120 STRATHFIELD NSW 2135

Dear Sir,

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

S.96(2) MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION No. 0405/176 (‘STAGE 1D’) 81-86 COURALLIE AVENUE, HOMEBUSH WEST

1. Introduction We act on behalf of the owner of the property located at 81-86 Courallie Avenue (formerly 78 Marlborough Rd), Homebush West. This Statement of Environmental Effects is written in support of a Section 96(2) modification application relating to Stage 1D of development approval under DA 0405/176. This submission follows meetings and correspondence between the project architects and Council staff. The purpose of this Statement is to address the planning issues associated with the modification proposal and specifically to assess the likely impact of the development on the environment in accordance with the requirements of Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment (EP&A) Act, 1979. 2. Site Description The subject site is located at 81-86 Courallie Avenue (formerly 78 Marlborough Rd), Homebush West (Figure 1), and has a legal description of Lot 1 in DP 883804, Lot 2 in DP 881461 and Lots 49 & 52-54 in DP 11427. The site has a curvilinear shape and is relatively isolated. It is bordered to the south and west by the western railway line and is located to the north and halfway between Lidcombe and Flemington Railway Stations. Located further to the east are residential properties and to the north is Homebush Business Park. Stage 1D development is located at the south-western part of the site essentially following the curve of the adjacent railway line. It is the part of the site with the greatest separation to surrounding land that is outside the development site. As indicated in Figure 1, redevelopment of the site is well advanced with Stage 1D of the original development site being the last remaining component of the site to commence construction. The northern (Stage 1B), middle (Stage 1C) and eastern (Stage 1A) parts of the site are completed. The subject site does not contain any significant vegetation and previous development consent allowed for clearing of the site.

S.96(2) Modification Application 81-86 Courallie Ave, Homebush West – Stage 1D

Planning Ingenuity Pty. Ltd.

Figure 1: Site location, outlined red and Stage 1D location, outlined yellow (Source: www.nearmap.com)

3. Background On 21 June 2007 Strathfield Council granted development consent for the construction of Stages 1D and 1E of “Centenary Park” residential estate comprising 389 apartments. As indicated on the architectural plans, Stages 1D and 1E are located along the western and eastern portions of the site, respectively. Stages 1A, 1B and 1C comprise the remainder of the site and are subject to separate development approvals, which are not affected by the subject modification proposal. On 12 December 2013, in relation to Stage 1E of the development, Council granted consent to a Section 96 approval which permitted various building alterations that do not directly relate to Stage 1D. Modifications were approved to Stage 1D on 24 August 2015, including consent conditions that required the substantial reduction in development density as originally submitted to Council under the Section 96 application. Submitted separately to this statement is a letter of offer related to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) that the applicant seeks to enter into with Council in relation to this Section 96 Application. The VPA offer is for upgrading of the pedestrian link between the subject site and The Crescent, which links to Flemington Station. 4. Modifications Proposed The proposed modifications relate to Building Nos. B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6 of Stage 1D, which are located on the south-western perimeter of the site adjacent to the railway line. No alterations are proposed to Stage 1E under this application. To provide an overall indication of the approved

http://www.nearmap.com/



development in comparison to the proposed modifications (in relation to Stage 1D only), the apartment mix and car parking calculations are summarised in the table below.

Stage 1D - Approved Stage 1D - S.96 Proposed

1 bed 28 50 (+22)

2 bed 242 490 (+248)

3 bed 33 68 (+35)

TOTAL 303 Units 608 Units (+305)

Car Parking 737 spaces 737 spaces (no change)

The proposed works are described in brief as follows: Basement Levels

No change. Residential Levels

Buildings B2 and B5 – construction of an additional 4 residential levels comprising a range of new 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments which maintain the footprint of the approved levels below;

Buildings B3 – construction of an additional 3 residential levels comprising a range of new 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments which maintain the footprint of the approved levels below;

Buildings B3 and B6 – construction of an additional 5 residential levels comprising a range of new 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments which maintain the footprint of the approved levels below; and

The building is altered externally to accommodate the increased building footprint and number of levels (see elevations).

5. Requested modifications to Development Consent The proposed modifications outlined in Section 4 above necessitate the modification of consent Condition 1, Part B of DA No. 0405/176 to reference the amended plans. Condition 2(1) which requires plan amendments (resulting in reduced development density) is proposed to be deleted. The Section 94 contributions portion of the condition is to be amended to reflect the increased apartment density. 6. Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 contains provisions relating to the modification of development consent. Specifically, subclause (2) states as follows:

“ (2) Other Modifications A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if: a. it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same

development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

b. it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and



c. it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control

plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

d. it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification.”

The proposal is the subject of a Section 96(2) modification as it entails modifications to 5 separate approved buildings identified as B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6 within Stage 1D. The proposal does not require a new development application as it is substantially the same as in that it does not seek to alter the use, the approved building footprint and does not substantially alter the relationship of the building to the surrounding area. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered guidance provided by the Land & Environmental Court Case, Moto Projects (No. 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280; (1999) 106 LGERA 298, which outlines principles for determining whether a S.96(2) application is ‘substantially the same’ as an originally issued development consent. The assessment of ‘substantially the same’ needs to consider both qualitative and quantitative matters. In terms of a quantitative assessment, we have considered the proposal in the context of the approved development across the master planned site. Although additional building density is proposed, the actual increase in floor area when measured across the entire Centenary Park development site is only 18.8%. The overall form of each building remains similar and the degree to which the building is increased in size is negligible in light of the scale of the overall development on the site, including approved building B1 (Stage 1B, north of building B2). In terms of a qualitative assessment of the proposal, the modifications proposed will not result in any significant additional adverse amenity impacts on any adjoining property in terms of view loss, overshadowing or loss of privacy, and will not necessitate the removal of any trees or significant natural site features. The absence of such impacts is largely a function of the isolated location of the site. Similarly, the scale and overall visual context of the site will not change significantly as a result of the proposal. These matters are discussed in detail with the Urban Design Report prepared by Geoff Baker Consult Pty Ltd, which is submitted separately with the application. On this basis, qualitatively, the built form outcome and its environmental effects remain substantially the same as the original development approval. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not have any significant or adverse environmental impacts on the locality and it is satisfies the criteria for classification as a S.96(2) application. SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development The proposed modifications are subject to the design quality controls of SEPP 65. Submitted separately is a Design Verification Statement which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP.



In terms of compliance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), the only controls that have relevance to the modifications proposed are the controls relating to apartment layout, daylight access (2 hours to 70% of the development during mid-winter), cross ventilation (minimum 60%) and apartment storage. This is because the other controls more appropriately relate to a new building and on this basis controls relating to building depth, open space and landscaping, crime risk assessment, building separation, driveway width, building orientation and the number of apartments accessed from a common corridor, are of little or no relevance to the modifications proposed. Provided in the Table below is a response to the relevant ADG controls, both with relation to the approved and proposed developments.

Source: Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd

The above Table reveals that the modified development achieves compliance with the relevant ADG requirements. Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 The original development was approved under the provisions of Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance 1969 under which the subject site was located within the 2(b) Residential ‘B’ zone. However, on 29 March 2013, Strathfield LEP 2012 came into effect which imposed new zoning requirements and planning controls for the site. This Section 96 proposal must be assessed under the provisions of the new LEP. Under the LEP the site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, within which residential flat buildings are a permissible land use. This application, and on a broader basis, the Centenary Park development is consistent with the stated zone objectives which seek to provide additional housing to meet the needs of the community, within a variety of housing types, and within a medium density residential environment. The LEP includes development standards relating to maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio, which are 20m and 1.2:1 respectively. In accordance with the GFA definition under the LEP, the entire Centenary Park redevelopment site will have an FSR of 1.9:1 when including Stage 2

Apartment Design Guide – Compliance Table

Control Numerical Requirement Proposal Complies?

Apartment Layout 1 bedroom – min 50m2

2 bedroom – min 70m2

3 bedroom – min 95m2

50m2

72m2 130m2

Yes

Storage Excluding kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes - Studio apartment, min 6m3 - 1 bedroom apartment, min 6m3 - 2 bedroom apartment, min 8m3 - 3 bedroom apartment, min 10m3

100% Yes

Daylight Access For min 70% of apartments, living rooms and private open spaces receive min 2 hours direct sunlight in mid-winter between 9.00am and 3.00pm

71% Yes

Natural Ventilation Min 60% of apartments naturally cross ventilated 82.2% Yes



site area and floor space. In our view, the non-compliance with the FSR control is best viewed in the context of the overall site which in reality is akin to a master planned site. As indicated, Stage 1D forms part of the overall master planned site. The first development approval was issued in 2006 and, long after that time, Strathfield LEP 2012 commenced. Prior to commencement of the LEP, total approved floor area on the site was 95,058m2, (calculated on the DCP definition of GFA) representing an FSR of 1.99:1. When LEP 2012 was gazetted it included a maximum of 1.2:1. This was despite the approved FSR at that time being significantly more than the control. With gazettal of SLEP 2012, the definition of ‘site area’ and ‘gross floor area’ changed (for example, gross floor area under the new LEP is to be measured from the inside face of the wall as opposed to the outside face of the wall under the SPSO). This has resulted in site area and gross floor area calculations having little relevance when comparing what was originally approved under the SPSO to the current proposal. A more appropriate comparison is to simply compare the FSR that is currently approved on site with the current proposal, using the same definition of GFA and site area. When measured in accordance with the current LEP definitions, the proposed modifications will result in an FSR of 1.9:1. This is an increase from the currently approved FSR of 1.6:1. The proposal will also be non-compliant with the 20m height maximum, proposing a maximum height of 24m for Building B2, 27m for Building B3, 27m for Building B4, 24m for Building B5 and 27m for Building B6. Provided below is justification for the proposed variations. Building Height and Floor Space Ratio As the building height and FSR proposed on the site are intertwined, the proposed variations will be considered concurrently. Clause 4.3 of the LEP permits a maximum building height of 20m on the site and as indicated above, the proposed buildings have a height that ranges from 24m to 27m. Clause 4.4 of the LEP permits a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 on the site and as indicated, when measured in accordance with the current LEP definitions, an FSR of 1.9:1 is proposed across the overall Centenary Park development site. In the NSW Land and Environment Court case of Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2008], the Court held that there is power to modify a development application where the modification would result in the breach of development standards. The Court took the view that development standards within an LEP did not operate to prohibit the grant of consent if they were not complied with (and no objection pursuant to SEPP No. 1 had been lodged). Indeed, the Courts have stated that SEPP 1 cannot ever be used at Section 96 stage, as SEPP 1 expressly only applies ‘where a development application is made’, not when a modification application is made. The same would apply to Clause 4.6 variations, which expressly only regulates whether ‘development consent’ may be granted, not whether an existing consent may be modified. Notwithstanding, the Court has consistently held that despite a SEPP No. 1 Objection not being required (or Clause 4.6 justification under SLEP 2012) Section 96(3) of the EP&A Act still requires the consent authority to take into consideration those matters referred to in Section 79C. Given Council’s desire for a clause 4.6 variation under a previous Section 96 application, attached are Clause 4.6 variations, despite not technically being required for the reasons outlined above.



Section 79C requires as follows: “ 79C Evaluation

(1) Matters for consideration—general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

(a) the provisions of: (i) any environmental planning instrument, and (ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and

that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Secretary has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

(iii) any development control plan, and (iii) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning

agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and (iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and (v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(c) the suitability of the site for the development, (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, (e) the public interest.

In relation to relevant environmental planning instruments, Strathfield LEP 2012 prescribes the following objectives for the Floor Space Ratio development standard: “ (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that dwellings are in keeping with the built form character of the local area, (b) to provide consistency in the bulk and scale of new dwellings in residential areas, (c) to minimise the impact of new development on the amenity of adjoining properties, (d) to minimise the impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items, (e) in relation to Strathfield Town Centre:

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

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

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

The intention of the FSR control can be summarised as aiming to create consistency in built form character, control building density and bulk and in doing so minimise adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties. The LEP prescribes the following objectives for the Building Height development standard: “ (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

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

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

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1979%20AND%20no%3D13&nohits=y



In relation to the above objectives, it is noted that they seek to achieve improved appearance for a locality, consolidated developments and a variety of development outcomes. Despite the proposed non-compliances, the proposal is consistent with the aforementioned objectives for the following reasons:

With exception of the penthouse level to Building B4, which is located centrally within Stage 1D, the proposed modifications maintain similar overall height to building 15A, which is the tallest building on the site. In addition, the proposal maintains a similar height to building B1 adjoining to the north. In a visual context, the proposed building height will result in buildings that are contextually appropriate to buildings already approved on the site;

In combination, permitted height, FSR, setbacks and separation will generally determine the desired building envelope. In the case of the proposed development, the setbacks and building separation have already been determined by the approved development. Therefore, in the case of the current proposal, it is assessment of building height and FSR that determines the acceptable building envelope. As indicated above, the proposed building heights are consistent with the height datum approved on Building B1, and ‘filling’ the space between the approved buildings and the accepted height maximum (i.e. datum of Building B1) is achieving a height outcome on the site that has already been accepted in visual terms by Council. Whilst technically, the proposal provides for heights above the maximum control, the degree of variation is exacerbated by the sloping site topography. Despite the ‘technical’ heights, the main viewing points of the site are from the railway lane and Centenary Drive which is elevated above the site and from surrounding industrial lands. From these viewing points the variation to the height control will not result in buildings that differ in visual catchment terms to those already approved. These matters are discussed in detail with the Urban Design Report prepared by Geoff Baker Consult Pty Ltd, which is submitted separately with the application.;

Building orientation and separation remains largely as approved and building presentation will be enhanced through incorporation of contemporary design, materials and finishes;

Given the isolated location of the site, there will be no additional adverse amenity impacts created on surrounding residents or the environment (Refer to Geoff Baker Consult Pty Ltd report);

Given the absence of amenity related impacts, consistency of the proposal with the approved built form on adjoining stages, the ideal location of the site within a strategic location in the heart of Sydney, and current housing shortage within the wider Sydney region, the site is entirely suited to achieving additional height and density. Indeed, in the current strategic planning terms, it would be reasonable to expect that the subject site with its size, relative isolation from surrounding land and proximity to public transport, employment and areas of entertainment, and absence of amenity impacts on adjoining properties, would be suited to achieving density and height far in excess of what is proposed. As indicated in Figure 2, other sites that are also allocated an FSR of 1.2:1 are much smaller than the subject site, are not isolated and do not benefit from a master planned development approach. Current work on the Parramatta Road corridor study suggests that FSRs of 5:1 and higher & heights of 12 storeys or more are encouraged in appropriate sites & will likely become common place. It is our strong view that the subject site would clearly benefit from planning controls allowing development scale well beyond that proposed if considered in contemporary strategic planning terms.



Figure 2: SLEP 2012 FSR map extract

In addition to the points raised above, the proposal will contribute public benefits via a Voluntary Planning Agreement that will embellish the pedestrian link between the subject site and Flemington Station.

Again, it is noted that the FSR and height maximums under the LEP are substantially less than the built form that has been approved by Council on the site. The LEP FSR and height maximums are therefore, in our view, an anomoly given what was already approved on the site and cannot be relied on as a definitive guide as to the scale of development that achieves the objectives of the standards (particularly in relation to built form character or bulk and scale of development). In this regard and in reference to the judgement of Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, Preston CJ outlined ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. 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:

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 of 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.

For an objection to be well-founded it is only necessary for an applicant to demonstrate that any one of these five different ways is applicable. In the case of the proposed development, it is the fourth and fifth methods that are relied upon. In relation to the fourth method, previous approvals granted on the site create a gross floor area and building height that does not correlate with the LEP stated maximums. As the proposal clearly achieves the relevant objectives, the fifth method is also satisfied and strict application of the development standards is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the current circumstances. Strathfield Development Control Plan No. 25 – 79 Courallie Ave, Homebush West This DCP is site specific and is intended to be a guide for new development on the site. The DCP clearly states that the Development Concept included within the document is indicative only and is not intended to act as a Masterplan. This is reflected in the approved Masterplan on the site which has little resemblance to the Development Concept included in the DCP. For similar reasons, as cited previously in discussion of the ADG, there are numerous controls within the DCP that relate to a new development proposal and are therefore not appropriate to be considered under the ambit of the subject Section 96 modification application. On this basis, provided in the following Table is a response to the relevant DCP controls.

STRATHFIELD DCP No. 25 - COMPLIANCE TABLE

Control Response

3.2.2 Building Height (a) Maximum building heights are expressed in storeys and the maximum building height for the site will be 4 storeys.

In accordance with Section 74C(5) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, provisions of a DCP have no effect where similar provisions are also stated in an Environmental Planning Instrument (SLEP 2012 in the case of the proposed development). Section 74C(5) states as follows:

A provision of a development control plan (whenever made) has no effect to the extent that: (a) it is the same or substantially the same as a provision of an

environmental planning instrument applying to the same land, or (b) it is inconsistent or incompatible with a provision of any such



STRATHFIELD DCP No. 25 - COMPLIANCE TABLE

Control Response

instrument.

In this regard, the DCP provision does not apply as it relates to achieving the same end (limiting building height) and the DCP prescribes a height limit that is substantially less than the LEP height limit.

3.2.5 Parking (a) Parking for residents will be provided at the following minimum parking rates: - 1 bed units – 1 space/dwelling - 2 bed units – 1.5 spaces/dwelling - 3 bed units – 2 spaces/ dwelling

As indicated in the car parking summary provided on the architectural plan cover sheet, the proposal complies with the RTA generation rates. Council has recently approved a Section 96 application with excess parking in anticipation of additional development density being achieved on the site. The proposal complies with the car parking requirements of the RTA Guidelines.

3.2.6 Environmental amenity (b) Building design shall ensure that: - active communal recreation

areas, parking areas, accessways and service equipment areas are separated from bedrooms and minimise the entry of high levels of external noise to dwellings;

- bedrooms of one dwelling do not adjoin living rooms or garages of adjacent dwellings; and

- dwellings are designed to locate habitable rooms and private open space away from noise sources and are protected by appropriate noise-shielding devices. Also refer to the State Rail Document Rail Related Noise and Vibration.

The relationship between the bedrooms of each unit has been suitably located in the same manner as the approved scheme. Dwelling location is generally the same as already approved and acoustic attenuation is covered by conditions of consent.

3.2.8 Private Open Space (a) Private open space will be provided adjacent and directly accessible from a living area of each dwelling at the following rates: - minimum total balcony area of

12m2 for 2 bedroom units above the ground floor;

- minimum total balcony area of 15m2 for 3 or more bedroom units above the ground floor;

- minimum courtyard area of 25m2 for residential apartment units located on the ground floor; and

(b) Balconies to apartment units will have a minimum dimension of 1.5m and courtyards to apartments and townhouses will have a minimum dimension of 4ms.

All private open space is located adjacent to the living space of a dwelling. Minimum 12m2 proposed. Minimum 15m2 proposed. Not applicable. Balcony width varies however the useable space on each balcony has minimum width of 2m.

There are no other components of the DCP relevant to the proposed Section 96(2) application.



Strathfield Consolidated DCP 2005 Part H – Waste Management of the DCP applies to the proposed development and provided below is a response to the relevant provisions of the DCP with relation to the proposed modification application.

STRATHFIELD CONSOLIDATED DCP 2005 - COMPLIANCE TABLE

Control Response

Part H – Waste Management

4.5 (4) Controls Specific Controls applying to multi-unit dwellings, two or more levels including mixed development a) Buildings containing more than four storeys shall

provide a system for the transportation of garbage from each floor level to the recycling and garbage room(s).

b) Where it is considered necessary, compactors and other volume reduction equipment may be provided in the recycling and garbage room (maximum compaction ratio 2:1).

c) Volume reduction equipment cannot be used on recyclables

d) In cases of mixed developments, separate recycling and garbage rooms will be provided and appropriately located; one for the residential portion of the building and one for the commercial portion of the building.

Approved / proposed lifts provide access from each building level to the garbage rooms located within the basement. Waste management is already approved on the site. None proposed. N/A

Appendix 3 Residential b) Multi Unit Development 4 storeys or greater 1 bedroom – 80L 2 bedroom – 90L 3 bedroom – 100L Compaction: Compaction is acceptable for general waste with the maximum ratio being 2:1. This could help reduce the number of general waste bins required for the property. However compaction is not suitable for recyclable material.

Waste management is already approved on the site. The bin rooms are of sufficient size to cater for the proposed density increase. Noted.

External Design & Environmental Impacts The modified buildings when considered in the context of the overall redevelopment of the site will be appropriate and complementary to development within Centenary Park. The modified buildings will define the western edge of the site and will create a visual backdrop and transition in building height moving in an easterly direction towards the public park, communal space and commercial space located in Stage 1A. Given the isolated nature of the site, which adjoins the railway line and a business park, the proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. Each dwelling has access to appropriate areas of private open space that are of suitable area and design. The orientation of the additional units is determined by the existing orientation of the approved buildings which has been deemed to be acceptable. Views of the site are limited. They are only available from the adjoining railway line, residential properties to the east on the opposite side of Stage 2 (some 200m away) and from industrial properties to the north-east, west and south. Glimpses of the site are available from some parts of nearby roads (including Marlborough Road, Centenary Drive, Courallie Avenue and Mandemar Avenue), however,



these views are very much secondary and not significant. In any event, views from the residential properties to the east of Stage 2 and from the aforementioned roads are immediately of buildings constructed in Stages 1A, 1C, 1E and future Stage 2, and will not be of buildings located within Stage 1D. This further emphasises, the isolated location of the Stage 1D buildings. These matters are discussed in detail with the Urban Design Report prepared by Geoff Baker Consult Pty Ltd, which is submitted separately with the application. Voluntary Planning Agreement Submitted separately to this statement is a letter of offer related to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) that the applicant seeks to enter into with Council in relation to this Section 96 Application. The VPA offer is for upgrading of the pedestrian link between the subject site and The Crescent, which links to Flemington Station. 6. Conclusion In the totality of the Centenary Park redevelopment site, the proposed modifications are not considered to be significant and will result in a development that is substantially the same as previously approved. The proposal will not create any adverse significant additional environmental impacts and has attractive external presentation that is suitably integrated into the existing approved buildings on the site. The proposal will not result in any impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that Council modify the development consent as requested above.

the general manager strathfield council po box 120 ... · our ref: 0103/12lts.96see 14 january 2016...

Documents