Agenda of Local Planning Panel

Local Planning Panel 18 February 2020 Item 5.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 5.1

SUBJECT 2 O'Reilly Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 Sec 30 DP 758829)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a boarding house containing 32 boarding rooms and managers residence with basement parking.

REFERENCE DA/56/2019 -

APPLICANT/S C K Design

OWNERS O'Reilly House Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

DATE OF REPORT: 21 January 2020

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO LPP

The application is being referred to Parramatta Local Planning Panel because it has received 21 unique submissions during the notification period. Following amendments to the plans to incorporate comments from DEAP, the application was re-notified with 5 additional unique submissions received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject site is known as 2 O’Reilly Street, Parramatta. The current property description is Lot 1 Sec 30 DP 758829.

The surrounding area consists primarily of 3-4 storey walk-up residential flat buildings with hipped tiled roofs. Adjoining the subject site to the west across Steele Street is Mays Hill Cemetery - which is identified as an item of heritage significance, adjoining the subject site to the east is a 3 storey residential flat building, and to the south across O’Reilly Street is a 3 storey residential flat building.

The proposed development includes the following components:

· Demolition of existing structures;

· Site preparation works;

· Removal of three (3) trees;

· Construction of a split 3 storey boarding house comprising 33 boarding rooms, including a mangers residence and up to 59 lodgers;

· At-grade parking accessed from O’Reilly St

The site is located within an R4 High Density Residential Zone pursuant to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 under which boarding houses, residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing are permissible on the site and in the surrounding locality.

The application was referred to the following internal Council officers:

· Development Engineer;

· Landscape’

· Traffic & Transport;

· Environmental Health (Waste);

· Environmental Health (Acoustic); and

· Design Excellence Advisory Panel.

No objections were raised, subject to the imposition of conditions of consent.

As mentioned above, the application has been advertised on two separate occasions. The issues raised in these submissions comprise the following:

· Boarding House use is out of character with residential and family oriented neighbourhood;

· Safety;

· Subject site is not a good location for a Boarding House;

· Traffic & Parking;

· Poor Design’

· Application was not notified to entire street.

After consideration of the development against Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposed is considered to be suitable for the site and is in the public interest. It has been recommended for conditional approval for the following reasons:

1. The development is permissible in the R4 zone and satisfies the requirements of all of the applicable planning controls;

2. The development will provide provision for additional affordable housing;

3. The site is located in an accessible area;

4. The boarding house will be operated by a community housing provider; and

5. The design of the building is compatible with the desired future character of the locality, and has been presented to a Design Excellence Advisory Panel.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.16 of the EP&A Act 1979, grant approval to DA/56/2019 for a period of five (5) years within which physical commencement is to occur from the date on the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent.

(b) Further, that those who made a submission be advised of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel’s decision.

Darren Wan

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Attachment 1: Assessment Report	36 Pages
2 ⇩	Attachment 2: Locality Map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Attachment 3: Plans used during assessment	13 Pages
4	Attachment 4: Internal plans used during assessment (confidential)	7 Pages
5 ⇩	Attachment 5: Draft conditions	41 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Local Planning Panel 18 February 2020 Item 5.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 5.2

SUBJECT 26 & 26A York Street, Epping (Lot 1 & 2 DP 204144)

DESCRIPTION Demolition of existing structures, site consolidation, tree removal and construction of an 85-place childcare centre with basement and at-grade car parking for 22 vehicles.

REFERENCE DA/686/2018 -

APPLICANT/S North Epping Early Learning Pty Ltd

OWNERS North Epping Early Learning Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

DATE OF REPORT: 18 February 2020

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO LPP

The application is referred to the Parramatta Local Planning Panel because it has received 84 unique submissions and 2 petitions during two separate notification periods.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject site is known as 26 and 26A York Street, Epping. The current property description is Lot 1 and Lot 2 in DP 204144.

The site is located within an established low-density residential area characterised by single and two storey residential dwellings. The subject site is currently bounded by battle-axe lots containing single dwellings on each lot, to its northern, eastern and southern boundaries with York Street separating the site from low -density residential development in the Epping/Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area to the west.

The subject site currently accommodates a two-storey house on Allotment 1 and a single storey dwelling on battle- axe block on Allotment 2.

Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following components:

· Demolition of existing structures;

· Removal of 5 trees; and

· Construction of a two (2) storey childcare centre for 85 children with basement and at-grade car parking for 22 vehicles.

The proposed hours of operation are 7:00am until 7:00pm, Monday to Friday.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Development Engineer, Building Surveyor, Traffic Engineer, Landscape and Tree Officer, Urban Design Officer, Social Outcomes Officer and Environmental Health Officer. Concerns were raised by Environmental Health, Access and Social Outcomes Officer who requested amendments to the proposal.

The key identified include site suitability, excessive bulk and scale, inconsistency with the existing residential built form character and poor amenity.

The original application and amended application was advertised in accordance with Council’s notification procedures contained within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013. During this time, 84 individual submissions and 1 petition against and one petition in favour of the application were received. The issues raised within the submissions include but are not limited to:

· Streetscape character;

· Built form incompatibility;

· Proximity of existing child care centres;

· Decrease in value of homes;

· Increased traffic;

· Traffic safety impacts;

· Scale of development;

· Noise impacts;

· Inappropriate location within a residential zone;

· Excessive number of children;

· Two storey development inconsistent with existing locality;

· Privacy impacts;

· Increased traffic noise;

· Excessive hours of operation;

· Insufficient parking provided;

· Overdevelopment of the site;

· Overshadowing; and

· Overlooking impacts.

On 11 December 2017, Council resolved that:

“If more than 7 unique submissions are received over the whole LGA in the form of an objection relating to a development application during a formal notification period, Council will host a conciliation conference at Council offices.”

A Conciliation Conference was held on the 1 July 2019. In attendance was the applicant, Council staff and number of submitters. The issues raised at the Conciliation Conference were generally a reiteration of the written submissions received during the notification period and are addressed in the assessment report.

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration outlined in Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposed child care centre is inconsistent with the aims, objectives and controls of the Child Care Guidelines 2017, Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013.

The proposal is permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, however, results in a development which is unsuitable within the context of the future desired character of this locality. A merit assessment of the proposal as a whole has determined that the proposal is unsatisfactory and results in unreasonable impacts to adjoining properties and the locality. The proposal is unsuitable for the site and is not in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

a) That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (PLPP), excising the functions of Council as consent authority refuse development consent to DA/686/2018 for Demolition of existing structures, site consolidation, tree removal and construction of a 85 place childcare centre at 26 & 26A York Street, Epping NSW 2121 for the following reasons:

1. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the proposal fails to provide sufficient unencumbered indoor space as per Clause 4.1 – Indoor Space Requirements of the Childcare Planning Guideline 2017, Regulation 107 of the Education and Care Services National Regulations and Clause 25(2)(a)(i) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017.

2. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Zone of HLEP 2013 as the built form is of a bulk and scale that results in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties, adversely impacts on the streetscape and does not achieve satisfactory urban design outcomes.

3. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal fails to comply with Clause 23 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 as:

3.1 The proposal is contrary to the planning objectives within Part 1.3 of the Guideline in that the proposal is not compatible within the existing streetscape and the proposal does not adequately minimise adverse

impacts on adjoining properties and the neighbourhood.

3.2 The proposal is contrary to the design principles of Part 2 of the Guideline in relation to context, built form, landscaping, amenity and safety.

3.3 The proposal is contrary to the Part 3 considerations of the guideline with respect to Part 3.2 Local Character, Streetscape and the public domain interface, Part 3.3 Building Orientation, Envelope and Design, Part 3.4 Landscaping, Part 3.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Part 3.6 Noise and Pollution.

3.4 The proposal is contrary to Part 4 of the Guideline in respect to the

requirement of the minimum outdoor storage area.

4. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal contains insufficient information in order for an assessment to be undertaken in accordance with Clause 6.2 Earthworks of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013.

5. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal does not comply with the desired outcomes or the prescriptive measures of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 in respect to Part 7.1.3 Setbacks.

6. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development would result in an adverse environmental and amenity impact on the surrounding built environment as the proposal would result in adverse visual and acoustic impacts, overshadowing impacts and not be consistent with the existing streetscape.

7. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development would not be in the public interest as the proposal is contrary to the local planning controls.

(b) Further, that submitters be advised of the Panel’s decision.

Deepa Randhawa

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Attachment 1: Assessment Report	44 Pages
2 ⇩	Attachment 2: Locality Map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Attachment 3: Plans used during assessment	11 Pages
4 ⇩	Attachment 4: Noise Report	19 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL