Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report · 2015-09-23 · 1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8...

Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report

1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble

Project Application (MP10_0219)

Submitted to the Minister for Planning

On Behalf of Ausbao NSW Management Pty Ltd

September 2015 15031

Reproduction of this document or any part thereof is not permitted without prior written permission of JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd operates under a Quality Management System. This report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with that system. If the report is not signed below, it is a preliminary draft.

This report has been prepared by:

Gordon Kirkby Date 4/09/15

1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report | September 2015

JBA Planning 15031 iii

Contents

Executive Summary vii

1.0 Introduction and Background 1

1.1 Concept Plan Approval 1 1.2 Stage 1 Project Application 3

2.0 Preferred Project Report 4

2.1 Description of Stage 1 Development Components 5 2.2 Development Parameters 13 2.3 Consistency with the Concept Plan Approval 15

3.0 Required Concept Plan Modifications 20

4.0 Concept Plan Further Assessment Requirements 24

4.1 Built Form: Utility Infrastructure 24 4.2 Vegetation Management 24 4.3 Public Positive Covenant for the BGHF Conservation Area 25 4.4 Residential Amenity 26 4.5 ESD 27 4.6 Section 94 Contributions 27 4.7 Adaptable Housing and Accessibility 27 4.8 Roads and Maritime Services Requirements 28 4.9 Bushfire Safety Requirements 29 4.10 Sydney Trains Requirements 30 4.11 Sydney Water Requirements 32 4.12 Contamination 32 4.13 Design of Future Dwellings on Housing Lots 34 4.14 Exterior Finishes and Materials 37 4.15 Heritage Management Document 38 4.16 Water Sensitive Urban Design 39 4.17 Arborist Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan 40 4.18 Landscape Plans 41 4.19 Staging of VMP and Landscaping Works 42 4.20 Relocation of Driveway to Building 1 42 4.21 Other relevant matters 42

5.0 Statement of Commitments 44

6.0 Conclusion 46

Figures

1 Figure 1 – Apartment building location and configuration 5 2 Figure 2 – Building 1 view north from Avon Road 6 3 Figure 3 – Building 1 view south west from Avon Road 7 4 Figure 4 – Central courtyard, Building 3 and 4 8 5 Figure 5 – Heritage Curtilage for 1 Avon Road 9 6 Figure 6 – Proposed single dwelling footprints 10 7 Figure 7 – Proposed dwelling lot subdivision layout 12 8 Figure 8 – Excerpt from the plans demonstrating proposed northern boundary

treatment 17


iv JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd 15031

Tables

1 Table 1 – Dwelling Lot Areas 10 2 Table 2 – Compliance with Terms of Approval 13 3 Table 3 – Concept Plan Key Development Parameters 15 4 Table 4 – Concept Plan required modifications 20 5 Table 5 – Solar access and cross ventilation breakdown 26 6 Table 6 – Response to Sydney Trains requirements 30 7 Table 7 – Compliance table of the proposal against the Local Centres DCP 34

Appendices

A NSW Land and Environment Court Concept Plan Judgement

Land and Environment Court of NSW

B Legal Advice - The Capacity to Amend Major Project Application MP10-0219

Chris McEwen SC

C Concept Plan Approval

NSW Planning Assessment Commission

D Architectural Plans

Marchese + Partners

E Landscape Plans

TaylorBrammer

F Traffic Impact Assessment

Traffix

G Bushfire Protection Assessment

ABPP

H Revised Vegetation Management Plan

Anne Clements and Associates

I Plan of Subdivision

Robert Moore and Associates

J Pedestrian Crossing Treatment

Traffix

K Urban Design Report

GMU

L Statement of Heritage Impact

NBRS+Partners

M Environmental Management and VMP Implementation Costing Assessment

Eco Logical Australia

N BASIX Certification

Efficient Living Environmental Sustainability Consultants


JBA Planning 15031 v

O Access Report

Accessibility Solutions

P Construction Traffic Management Plan

Traffix

Q Site Survey

Higgins Surveyors

R Rail Noise Assessment

Sebastian Giglio Acoustic Consultant

S Stormwater Aspects and Riparian Management

NPC

T Sydney Water Infrastructure Overview

Rose Atkins Rimmer (Infrastructure Pty Ltd)

U Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Tree Wise Men

V Correspondences with Sydney Trains

PWC

W Waste Management Plan

Elephant’s Foot Recycling Solutions

X Geotechnical Investigations

Douglas Partners

Y Structural Report on Sydney Trains Infrastructure

Marchese and Partners

Z Phase 2 Contamination Assessment

Environmental Investigation Services

AA CPTED Report

Harris Crime Prevention Services

AB Building Code of Australia (BCA) Fire Service Review

Holmes Fire

AC Building Code of Australia Review

Metro Building Consultancy

AD Construction Traffic Management Plan Correspondence

RMS

AE Computer Generated Images

Ivolve Studio


vi JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd 15031

Statement of Validity Prepared under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

Environmental Assessment prepared by

Name Gordon Kirkby

Qualifications BEc Dip URP

Address Level 7, 77 Berry Street, North Sydney

In respect of a Concept Plan Application

Concept Plan

Applicant name Ausbao NSW Management Pty Ltd

Land to be developed 1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble

Proposed Development Project Application for construction of a residential

development comprising three building envelopes, the

retention and adaptive re-use of a heritage building,

four single dwelling lots, associated access and

parking, landscaping and site infrastructure.

Environmental Assessment A Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report is attached.

Certificate I certify that I have prepared the content of this Environmental Assessment and to the best of my knowledge:

It is in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation.

It is true in all material particulars and does not, by its presentation or omission of information, materially mislead.

Signature

Name Gordon Kirkby

Date 4/09/2015


JBA Planning 15031 vii

Executive Summary This report has been prepared on behalf of Ausbao NSW Management Pty Ltd (The Applicant). The Report forms part of the Land and Environment Court of NSW (L&E Court) Proceeding No.10834 of 2013. The proceedings relate to the refusal by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), as delegate of the Minister for Planning (Minister), of the Project Application (MP10_0219) for Stage 1 of a multi-unit residential development at 1, 1A & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble (Proposed Development). The Stage 1 Project Application relates to the construction of development described in Concept Plan Application (MP08_0207) that was also the subject of proceedings in the Land and Environment Court (No.10648 of 2013). During the proceedings of the Concept Plan Application, it was agreed that the conciliation conference for the Stage 1 Project Application should be adjourned until after the Court made a decision on the Concept Plan. On 12 December 2014, the Senior Commissioner handed down judgement and ordered that the appeal be allowed for the Concept Plan for:

3 residential flat buildings to provide 187 dwellings and up to 257 parking spaces;

Subdivision for four residential lots for single dwellings;

Retention and restoration of 1 Avon Road for common use of future residents; and

Vegetation management, landscape and stormwater concept

subject to conditions set out by the Court. Subsequent to this on 19 December 2014, the PAC approved the Concept Plan Application in the manner determined by the Court. The approval of the Concept plan has established the parameters within which the Stage 1 Project Application can amended to comply with. The amended Stage 1 Project Application seeks approval for the following:

construction of three residential flat buildings ranging in height between three and nine/ten storeys up to a maximum RL of 165.5m accommodating 174 apartments and 257 parking spaces across four basement levels;

retention and restoration of No.1 Avon Road for the common use of future residents;

construction of four single residential dwelling houses and associated vehicular access;

demolition of existing buildings at Nos. 3 and 5 Avon Road and No.8 Beechworth Road;

associated landscaping;

subdivision;

construction of a new footpath along the northern and southern sides of Avon Road and associated pedestrian crossing;

stormwater management infrastructure; and

implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan to manage and protect the proposed conservation area.

This report, the Second Revised Preferred Project Report , describes the amendments to the Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0219) that have been brought about as a result of the Concept Plan Approval, and in particular


viii JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd 15031

addresses the Future Environmental Assessment Requirements specified in Schedule 3 of the Concept Plan approval and the Statement of Commitments in Schedule 4. The report does not specifically address the issues which were resolved under the Concept Plan Approval (MP08_0207) with regard to land use justification and the location and scale of buildings within the development. The report rather:

describes the detailed design of the buildings for which approval to construct is sought, including the incorporation of Concept Plan modifications;

demonstrates general consistency of the development with the approved Concept Plan parameters

describes and assesses a number of minor inconsistencies with the approved Concept Plan;

provides additional detail on the conservation management frameworks; and

addresses the Further Assessment Requirement contained in Schedule 3 of the Concept Plan Approval.

The scope of the Stage 1 Project Application has been amended and expanded to include all aspects of the Concept Plan. This has resulted from a change of ownership of the site, subsequent to the Concept Plan approval and significant design changes that have been required to ensure the development complies with the Concept Plan. The proposed amendments are outlined in Section 2 of this report with an assessment of the development against the required Modifications and the Further Assessment Requirements of the Concept Plan approval in Sections 3 and 4. A revised Statement of Commitments is included in Section 5.


JBA 15031 1

1.0 Introduction and Background This Preferred Project Report has been prepared on behalf of Ausbao NSW Management Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the amended Stage 1 Project Application for the proposed multi-unit residential development at 1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Avenue, Pymble (the proposal). The report forms part of the Land and Environment Court of NSW (L&E Court) Proceeding No. 10834 of 2013. The proceeding relates to the appeal by the then Applicant, Brett Stephen Lord and Marcus William Ayres as Joint and Several Receivers, to the refusal by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), as delegate of the (then) Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (Minister), of the Concept Plan Application (MP08_0207) and Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0219) for the development. In February 2015, ownership of the land transferred to Ausbao NSW Management Pty Ltd which is the Applicant. The Concept Plan Application was subject to separate proceedings in the Land and Environment Court (Proceeding No. 10648). At these proceedings, it was agreed that the conciliation conference for the Stage 1 Project Application be adjourned until after the Court made a decision on the Concept Plan appeal.

1.1 Concept Plan Approval The Proposed Concept Plan development, as modified in the Revised Preferred Project Report prepared by Urbis and dated May 2013, sought approval for:

Concept Plan MP08_0207

4 residential flat building envelopes accommodating 273 Apartments with building heights ranging from between 4 and 9 storeys;

a total GFA of 15,426m2 equating to an overall FSR of 0.94:1;

a total of 324 on-site parking spaces;

a total landscaped area of 15,259m2 (68% deep soil);

the creation of a Conservation Area to protect the Blue Gum High Forest on the site;

a pedestrian link through the site; and

Internal roads to support the development.

In the Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report dated June 2013, the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure recommended that the Concept Plan be approved subject to a number of recommended Conditions. On 30 July 2013, the PAC, as delegate of the Minister refused to grant approval to the Proposed Development. In refusing to grant approval for the Concept Plan Application (and Project Application), the PAC cited the following grounds: 1. The Proposed Development is inconsistent with the Ku-ring-gai Local

Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012, and it is out of character with the surrounding area.

2. The site is highly constrained by its topography and ecological environment and not suitable for the Proposed Development.

3. It would have significant adverse impacts on adjoining residences including visual impact, privacy, and overshadowing. The Proposed Development, if

1,1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report | September 2015

2 JBA 15031

approved, will isolate No 3 Avon Road and effectively prevent it from redevelopment.

On 22 August 2013, the then Applicant filed Class 1 proceedings in the L&E Court appealing against the Minister’s refusal of the Concept Plan Application (and Project Application). As a consequence of the issues raised in the PAC’s Determination Report and the Minister’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, the Applicant amended the original Concept Plan to include fully updated plans and reports to allow a proper assessment of the proposed amendments including:

A Further Revised Preferred Project Report, including supporting reports;

A complete set of updated plans, including shadow diagrams;

An updated view analysis; and,

The additional information requested in the Minister’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

The Further Revised Preferred Project Report was publicly exhibited by the Court between 31 January and 28 February 2014. Submissions were received from 11 agencies and 575 individuals. In response the amended Concept Plan, the Minister submitted an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions and the Council (which had then been joined to the proceedings) submitted its Statement of Facts and Contentions. The Applicant subsequently made a number of changes to the Concept Plan to address the outstanding concerns of the PAC, Council and the submissions received during the public exhibition period. These changes were incorporated into the revised plans and technical reports that are appended to the Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report and related to:

The inclusion of No.3 Avon Road in the development area;

Retention of the listed heritage building No.1 Avon Road;

The deletion of proposed Building 5 and replacement with 4 dwelling houses;

Increased building setbacks from site boundaries through amendments to building footprints; and,

A combined basement and vehicular entry for the residential flat buildings.

These documents were exhibited in October 2014. Additional amendments were made to the Concept Plan development during Joint Expert Conferences following the exhibition. On 20 November 2014, Joint Expert Reports were filed on both the planning and urban design issues as well as the heritage issues. The Joint Planning and Urban Design Expert Report concluded that all experts agreed on all contentions relating to planning and urban design, noting that some contentions would be dealt with by the heritage experts. The Joint Heritage Experts Report did not come to agreement on all contentions with the main outstanding unresolved contention relating to the impact of the development on views from the heritage building at 1202 Pacific Highway, Pymble and the height of proposed Building 4. On 12 December 2014, the Senior Commissioner handed down judgement and ordered that the appeal be allowed for the Concept Plan for:

3 residential flat buildings to provide 187 dwellings and up to 257 parking spaces;

Subdivision for four residential lots for single dwellings;


JBA 15031 3

Retention and restoration of 1 Avon Road for common use of future residents; and

Vegetation management, landscape and stormwater concept

subject to conditions set out by the Court. The Senior Commissioner’s Judgement is at Appendix A.

On 19th December 2014, the PAC approved the Concept Plan Application in the manner determined by the Court (Appendix B). Schedule 2 of the Concept Plan Approval specifies the terms of the approval including the approved plans and documentation and specified development parameters relating to:

Building envelopes;

Building heights;

Maximum floor space ratio (FSR);

Maximum gross floor area (GFA);

Maximum number of residential units and car spaces; and

Unit mix

Part B of Schedule 2 of the Approval specifies required modifications to the Concept Plan. The key modification to the development ordered by the court was the deletion of the entire top level of the southern portion of Building 4. Schedule 3 of the Approval specifies future environmental assessment requirements that must be addressed in future detailed applications for development. Schedule 4 of the Approval is the Proponent’s Statement of Commitments.

1.2 Stage 1 Project Application This Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report describes the amendments to the Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0219) that have been brought about as a result of the Concept Plan Approval and in particular addresses the Future Environmental Assessment Requirements specified in Schedule 3 of the Approval and the Statement of Commitments in Schedule 4. The Concept Plan approval is at Appendix C. The report does not specifically address the issues which were resolved under the Concept Plan Approval (MP08_0207) with regard to land use justification and the location and scale of buildings within the development. The report rather:

describes the detailed design of the buildings for which approval to construct is sought, including the incorporation of Concept Plan modifications;

demonstrates general consistency of the development with the approved Concept Plan parameters

describes and assesses a number of minor inconsistencies with the approved Concept Plan;

provides additional detail on the conservation management frameworks; and

addresses the Further Assessment Requirement contained in Schedule 3 of the Concept Plan Approval.


4 JBA 15031

2.0 Preferred Project Report The amended Stage 1 Project Application seeks approval for the following:


retention and restoration of No.1 Avon Road for the common use of future residents;




subdivision;




The key amendment to the Stage 1 Project Application from that described in the Further Revised Preferred Project Report that was publicly exhibited in February 2014 has been the expansion of the scope of the Project Application to include all development on the site under the Concept Plan approval. The Stage 1 development had originally included the construction of Building 1 and associated infrastructure and landscaping only. A number of factors have led to the decision to expand the scope of development for which approval is now sought:

Subsequent to the approval of the Concept Plan, ownership of the site has transferred to the current Proponent, which proposes to construct the development as one integrated stage;

Revisions to the overall development during the Court proceedings for the Concept Plan have created a more integrated built form arrangement with the inclusion of No.3 Avon Road into the development site and retention of No.1 Avon Road. The three residential flat buildings now share a common basement car park. The inclusion of all the residential flat buildings in the one approval significantly reduces engineering and cost challenges associated with construction the buildings in separate stages;

Inclusion of all Concept Plan development in the one stage will enable the construction timetable for the project to be significantly reduced, thereby shortening the duration of construction impacts on the amenity of the locality;

The level of design detail required to demonstrate that the amenity of potential apartments within the Concept Plan building envelopes could achieve compliance with the Rules of Thumb under the Residential Flat Design Code, has enabled the design to progress to an advanced stage and enable inclusion of Buildings 3 and 4 in Stage 1; and

The Land and Environment Court process provides the opportunity for the proposed amendments to be publicly exhibited and enable the community and other interested parties the opportunity to comment;

Legal advice has been obtained from Chris McEwen SC that supports the capacity to amend the Major Project Application and is at Appendix B.


JBA 15031 5

A description of the key components of the amended Stage 1 development are described and quantified in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 below.

2.1 Description of Stage 1 Development Components

This section describes the key components of the amended Stage 1 Project. The amendments largely reflect the changes brought about to the development as a result of the Concept Plan approval for the site. The numeric development parameters for the Stage 1 development are described in Section 2.2 and Table 3. Architectural Plans prepared by Marchese + Partners are at Appendix D and landscape plans prepared by TaylorBrammer are included at Appendix E. Computer Generated Images (CGI) for the proposed development when viewed from Avon Road and within the site are included in Appendix AE The location and configuration of the residential apartment buildings on the site is shown in Figure

1.

Figure 1 – Apartment building location and configuration

Source: Marchese Partners


6 JBA 15031

2.1.1 Building 1 With the incorporation of the property at No.3 Avon Road, Building 1 has been modified to increase its size and re-orientate the building footprint north-south to face Avon Road in accordance with the Concept Plan approval. This re-orientation has reduced the visual bulk of the building and the perceived overlooking and privacy concerns on the adjoining residence at No.7 Avon Road. The revised building envelope is defined as two wings with separate access cores such that the building will read as two elements. The northern wing of the building is set back a minimum of 10m from Avon Road and 1.4m from the driveway “stub” road access to 1 Avon Road. The building height is up to 6 storeys on the eastern, Avon Road section and 7 storeys on the western section. The building has been set back a minimum 12m from the retained heritage building at 1 Avon Road and 30m from Building 3. The southern wing of the building is set back 15m from Avon Road and 12m from the dwelling at No.7 Avon Road. It is set back 32m from the southern portion of Building 3. The building height will range from 3 storeys on the southern section (adjacent to No.7 Avon Road) stepping up to 5 storeys on the eastern Avon Road section and 5 storeys on the western section of the building. Pedestrian access to Building 1 will be directly off Avon Road. The vehicle entry to the consolidated basement car park area, including loading facilities, will be provided under the southern wing of the building with access off Avon Road which is further set back from No.7 Avon Road, improving its amenity. Photomontages of Building 1 are in Figures 2 and 3. Building 1 will accommodate 57 apartments.

Figure 2 – Building 1 view north from Avon Road

Source: Ivolve and Marchese Partners


JBA 15031 7

Figure 3 – Building 1 view west from Avon Road corner


2.1.2 Building 3 The location of the Building 3 envelope was modified at the Concept Plan stage to move the building’s footprint north to a more central location within the site. This has removed the previous building setback issues associated with its proximity and visual impact on No.15 Avon Road and No.1 Arilla Avenue. Building 3 has now been set back approximately 50m from No.15 Avon Road in accordance with the Concept Plan approval. Within the development, the setback to Building 1 is a minimum of 30m and the setback to Building 4 is a minimum of 10m. Much of the setback between Buildings 3 and 4 is 12m, with only a small portion reduced to 10m. The revised Building 3 is proposed to operate off two separate lift cores. The Building height will range from 6 storeys at the southern end stepping up to 9 storeys at the northern end. While there are 10 distinct levels within the building, due to topography the building is a maximum 9 storeys at any one point. Car parking and vehicular access will be via the main consolidated basement with access off Avon Road under Building 1. The internal access road that had previously provided vehicular access to Buildings 3 and 4 has been deleted from the Concept Plan. Pedestrian access to Building 3 will be via the “stub” access road to 1 Avon Road or via a laneway access from Avon Road to the south of Building 1. A photomontage showing Buildings 3 and 4 is at Figure 4. Building 3 will accommodate 56 apartments.


8 JBA 15031

Figure 4 – Central courtyard, Buildings 1 and 3


2.1.3 Building 4 The Building 4 envelope and footprint has been revised to accommodate the retention of the heritage building at No.1 Avon Road. The building footprint was moved to the north-east under the Concept Plan approval and now partly occupies the area where the internal access road to the Buildings 3 and 4 car parks had previously been proposed. The new building footprint is set back 8m from the retained heritage building at No.1 Avon Road to provide an appropriate curtilage. There is a minimum 10m setback between Buildings 3 and 4, with the distance between the two buildings 12m for much of the length. The revised footprint and envelope of the building has been designed to provide a sympathetic interface with the heritage building at 1 Avon Road, through tapering the south east corner of the building. The south-west corner of the building is similarly tapered to respond to the canopy zone of a significant Sydney Blue Gum tree. The revised building will operate off two lift cores. Building height will step up from 6 storeys at the north eastern section of the building to 9 storeys at the south, although the variation is due to the topography. Car parking and vehicular access will be via the main consolidated basement with access off Avon Road under the southern section of Building 1. Pedestrian access to Building 4 will be via the “stub” access road to 1 Avon Road. Building 4 will accommodate 61 apartments.

2.1.4 1 Avon Road The dwelling at No.1 Avon Road is listed as an item of local heritage in the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012. It had previously been proposed to be demolished as part of the initial Concept Plan development. The Concept Plan approval has included the retention and restoration of the significant heritage


JBA 15031 9

elements of the building for use as a common facility for future residents of the development. The intended future uses include:

Gym with associated support spaces;

Reading Room;

Games Room;

Common outdoor BBQ area;

Letterboxes;

Caretaker room / CCTV control room;

Satellite TV and movie room; and,

Dining Room for resident functions

Some minor additions to the building that are not of heritage significance will be demolished. No.1 Avon Road will be set back 8m at its closest to Building 4. To prevent potential impacts on privacy of residents in Building 4, windows along the western façade of 1 Avon Road will be treated with frosted / opaque glazing. The curtilage of the building will include the existing front garden area. Pedestrian access to the building will be via the existing “stub” access road. As the proposed building will be owned by Ausbao Pymble Pty Ltd, it is proposed that the current Lot on which the building stands be included in a future subdivision to amalgamate the Lots on the site. The heritage curtilage is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Heritage Curtilage for 1 Avon Road

Source: Marchese Partners

2.1.5 Basement Car Park Buildings 1, 3 and 4 will be serviced by a common basement car park accommodating 213 residential spaces, 44 spaces for visitors and associated loading dock, garbage bin collection and storage areas, bicycle and general storage areas.


10 JBA 15031

The basement car park will be access via a driveway off Avon Road under Building 1. The driveway will incorporate a security intercom system for access to the basement. The proposed loading bay has been designed in accordance with AS2890.2 and Part 2.3 (Basement Car Parking) of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP. A clear head height of 3.5m is provided above the loading bay area as required for Small Rigid Vehicles (SRV) in accordance with AS2890.2 and in exceedance of Council’s DCP control. A full description and analysis of the basement parking areas is included in the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Traffix at Appendix F.

2.1.6 Beechworth Road Dwellings Under the Concept Plan approval, the original ‘Building 5’ was deleted and replaced by a subdivision into four residential allotments each with a dwelling. The proposed lot areas and dwelling sizes are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 – Dwelling Lot Areas

Lot Area Dwelling GFA

1 831m2 228m2

2 1328m2 342m2

3 1196m 309m2

4 1356m 272m2

The proposed dwelling footprints are shown in Figure 6 below and in detail at Appendix D:

Figure 6 – Proposed single dwelling footprints

The detailed design of these four dwellings was originally proposed to be the subject of a separate Development Application at concept plan stage, however they have been incorporated into this Project Application. A full discussion of the compliance of these dwellings has been provided at Section 4.13 below. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the dwelling at proposed Lot 4 will be provided by way of a driveway that runs between the residences at No’s 6 and 8A Beechworth Road. Access to Lots 1 to 3 will be by way of a common driveway located between Nos. 2 and 6 Beechworth Road.


JBA 15031 11

2.1.7 Landscape and Conservation There have been a number of changes to the landscape plans for the Proposed Development, prompted by the amended building footprints and to respond to specific issues raised by the Minister and Council in their Statements of Facts and Contentions. The proposed landscaping design prepared by TaylorBrammer is included at Appendix E and reflects the landscaping contemplated under the Concept Plan approval. In terms of the changes to the built form across the site described in the preceding sections, the key flow-on landscape amendments are:

Retention of a number of additional significant trees;

An increase in the deep soil planting zone in the area to the south of Building 3 prompted by the relocation of that building to the north. The area formerly proposed to be occupied by Building 3 will now be an addition to the Blue Gum High Forest Conservation Area. This will facilitate improvements in vegetation screening between Building 3 and residences at 1 Arilla Avenue and 15 Avon Road;

The protection of the curtilage and landscape surrounds of the heritage item at No.1 Avon Road, which will be retained as a community building for residents.

The creation of a large central common open space between Buildings 1, 3 and 4 to provide significant visual and recreational amenity to residents and provide accessible path links to gardens, buildings and the community amenities proposed for No.1 Avon Road.

The creation of an improved landscaped buffer along the boundary of the site between Building 1 and 7 Avon Road. The driveway previously proposed in this location has been relocated north to enter under Building 1 and replaced with a pedestrian pathway and landscape buffer a minimum 9.2m wide.

The removal of the public pedestrian/cycle pathway linking Avon Road through the site to Beechworth Road. This is due to the removal of Building 5 and the addition of single dwelling lots on the west of the site.

The managed buffer areas to the conservation area have been revised to ensure that they are a minimum 10m wide to comply with the recommendations for an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) outlined in the Bushfire Protection Assessment prepared for the site by ABPP (Appendix G).

There have been minor amendments to the proposed Blue Gum High Forest conservation area as a result of Future Assessment Requirement No.12 in Schedule 3 of the Concept Plan Approval. The amendments relate to the addition of APZ managed buffer areas for dwellings 1 Arilla Road and 12 Mayfield Avenue. This is discussed in Section 2.3.6.

With regard to the management of the proposed conservation areas, this is addressed in Section 4.2 and the Revised Vegetation Management Plan prepared by Anne Clements and Associates at Appendix H.

2.1.8 Proposed Subdivision The Stage 1 Project Application includes subdivision of the site to create four separate lots (Lots 1-4) for the single residential dwellings and associated reciprocal arrangement for rights carriageway and easements for services. The residue of the site will be included in a single lot (Lot 5) that will accommodate the residential flat buildings, the heritage building at No. 1 Avon Road and associated landscaping, as well as the conservation area that will be maintained and managed by the Strata. The Plan of Proposed Subdivision is shown at Figure 7. Detailed subdivision plans are at Appendix I.


12 JBA 15031

Figure 7 – Proposed dwelling lot subdivision layout

2.1.9 Avon Road Footpath Schedule 2, Condition B10 of the Concept Plan approval requires that, subject to consent being granted by the landowner, a new footpath is to be built on the north side of Avon Road between the site and the existing footpath in accordance with Traffix plans Project 14.243 Drawings TX.00-TX.05. Land owner’s approval is required by Sydney Trains (Transport for NSW) to implement this proposal as the planned footpath encroaches on Sydney Trains’ land.


JBA 15031 13

Discussions held with Sydney Trains indicate approval will not be granted to implement the footpath design as proposed. Correspondence between the Proponent and Sydney Trains is at Appendix V. Consequently, an alternative proposal has been developed to include a general pedestrian crossing on Avon Road. This draft design drawing is included in correspondence prepared by Traffix at Appendix J. The proposed alternative pedestrian footpath arrangement involves construction of the proposed footpath along from the site along the northern kerb of Avon Road to a point approximately 110m to the east of the site. At this point a general crossing will be constructed with a 2m kerb buildout. While the proposal will result in the loss of one car space, the Proponent will make good with the construction of 5 spaces within the “stub” road adjacent to the site.

2.2 Development Parameters As a result of the design changes outlined in Section 2.1 above, Project Approval is now sought for a residential development including:


retention and restoration of No.1 Avon Road for the common use of future residents




subdivision;




The key development parameters for which Stage 1 Project Approval is sought are required to be generally consistent with the Terms of Approval in Part A of Schedule 2 of the Concept Plan approval (Appendix C). Compliance with the relevant Terms of Approval is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2 – Compliance with Terms of Approval

Term of Approval

Requirement Comment

A1

Development Description

Concept approval is granted to the development as described below:

Use of the subject site for a residential development including:

three (3) building envelopes incorporating basement level parking;

15,136m2 GFA for residential flat building use (excluding 1 Avon Rd) and187 dwellings and up to 257 parking spaces;

subdivision into four (4) residential lots with building footprints for single dwellings on the western (Beechworth Ave) side of the site with maximum GFA of 1,151m2 and subdivision of associated vehicular access

Consistent

Consistent – maximum GFA is 15,133m2 with 174 dwellings and 257 car spaces.

Consistent – proposed subdivision for 4 residential lots with maximum GFA of 1,151m2


14 JBA 15031

lot;

retention and restoration of 1 Avon Rd for common use of future residents;

vegetation management plan for conservation and rehabilitation of Blue Gum High Forest;

landscape concept; and

stormwater concept.

Consistent

Consistent - see Appendix H

Consistent – see Appendix E

Consistent – see Appendix S

A4

Building Envelopes

Building footprints and setbacks are to be generally consistent with the Building Position Plan Drawing MP21.06, Revision P, dated 27 November 2014.

Generally consistent. Building footprints are shown in Appendix D – Building Position Plan Drawing MP21.06, Revision T. There are a number of minor inconsistencies that are discussed in Section 2.3 below.

A5

Building Height

Building heights are to be consistent with the RLs shown on MP 22.16 Indicative Design Floor Plan Level Roof, Revision P, dated 27 November 2014 subject to condition B12.

Consistent Building heights are shown in Appendix D - Floor Plan Level +162 Drawing MP22.15, Revision T. The building heights are equal to or within the approved heights.

A6

Maximum FSR

The maximum FSR for development on the site shall not exceed 0.66:1 (excluding the GFA of 1 Avon Rd). The FSR is to be calculated on a site area of 24,643m2.

Consistent. Maximum FSR for the Project Application is 0.66:1, calculated on the site area of 24,643m2

A7

Maximum GFA

The maximum GFA for the development shall not exceed 15,136m2 GFA for residential flat building use (excluding the GFA of the heritage building at 1 Avon Rd).

Consistent. Maximum GFA for the Project Application is 15,133m2

A8

Maximum No. of residential units and car spaces

This approval is for 187 dwellings in the residential flat buildings and up to 257 car spaces. However, the dwelling numbers may vary by up to 10% subject to there being:

a. No increase in the GFA for the residential flat buildings of 15,136m2 (excluding the GFA of the heritage building at 1 Avon Road); and

b. No increase in the number of parking spaces (257 spaces); and

c. No increase in the approved basement footprint.

Consistent. Number of proposed residential flat dwellings is 174. Number of proposed car spaces is 257.

There has been a variation to the approved basement footprint. This is discussed in Section 2.3.1.

A9

Maximum GFA and FSR (single dwelling footprints)

The maximum GFA for the development shall not exceed 1,151m2 GFA for the single dwelling building footprints for the residential subdivision or the following FSR for each individual dwelling:

a. Lot 1 – 0.3:1

b. Lot 2 – 0.3:1

c. Lot 3 – 0.3:1; and

d. Lot 4 – 0.2:1

Any unrealised GFA for any or all of these lots may not be transferred to the Residential Flat Building Use.

Consistent. The proposed combined GFA for the dwellings is 1,151m2. The proposed FSR for each dwelling is:

a. Lot 1 – 0.27:1

b. Lot 2 – 0.26:1

c. Lot 3 – 0.26:1

d. Lot 4 – 0.20:1

A11

Unit Mix

A range of apartment sizes and types (studio, one, two and three bedrooms) must be included within the residential flat buildings as required by Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013 Volume A Part 7 clause 7C.6.

Consistent.

The proposed development includes the following apartment mix:

64 x 1 bed

87 x 2 bed

23 x 3 bed

Proposed apartments sizes are:

1 bed – 49m2 – 68m2

2 bed – 76m2 – 98m2

3 bed – 100m2 - 122m2

The proposal includes 18 adaptable apartments.


JBA 15031 15

A summary of the overall development parameters and a comparison with the Concept Plan Approval requirements is provided below in Table 3.

Table 3 – Concept Plan Key Development Parameters

Project Element Concept Approval Project Application

Site area 24,643m2 24,643m2

Beechworth Road Lots area

(Lots 1-4)

4,726m2 4,711m2

Residential Apartments Lot area (Lot 5)

19,917m2 19,932m2

Gross Floor Area - Residential Flat Buildings (excluding 1 Avon Road)

15,136m2 Building 1: 5,061m2

Building 3: 5,156m2

Building 4: 4,916m2

Total: 15,133m2

Dwelling House GFA 1,151m2 1,151m2

Dwelling House FSR

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

Lot 4

0.3:1

0.3:1

0.3:1

0.2:1

0.27:1

0.26:1

0.26:1

0.2:1

Floor Space Ratio (excluding 1 Avon Road GFA)

0.66:1

0.66:1

Apartment Mix

1 bedroom

2 bedroom

3 bedroom

Total

50%

41%

9%

187

64 (37%)

87 (50%)

23 (13%)

174

Total Landscaped Area *19,355m2

15,601m2

(Lot 5 only)

3,168m2

(Lots 1-4)

Deep Soil Area (Lot 5) 12,131m2 (61%) 14,365m2 (72%)

Conservation Area 8,990m2 (excl. APZ) 8,545m2 (excl. APZ)

11,973m2 (incl APZ) Building Height

Building 1

Building 3

Building 4

3-7 storeys

6-9 storeys

6-9 storeys

3-7 storeys

6-9 storeys

6-9 storeys

Car Parking:

Resident

Visitor

Total

207spaces

50 spaces

257 spaces

213 spaces

44 spaces

257 spaces (19 accessible)

Bicycle Spaces:

Resident

Visitor

38 spaces

18 spaces

* Figure for whole development area prior to final s34 mediation process

2.3 Consistency with the Concept Plan Approval

This section of the report details the compliance or non-compliance of the proposal with the Concept Approval for the site. The proposal has been designed so as to be generally consistent with the Concept Approval, and minor inconsistencies with the Concept Plan have been discussed below. A detailed analysis of the compliance with the key Concept Plan requirements is included in the Urban


16 JBA 15031

design Report prepared by GMU (Appendix K). With regard to the building footprints, Plans MP22.03 – MP22.05 in Appendix D show an outline of the approved Concept Plan footprint, with the proposed building footprint for each level of the buildings to enable comparison.

2.3.1 Basement Car Park – RL+126, RL+129, RL+132, RL+135

The proposed basement area provides a revised total of 257 spaces, as required under the Concept Plan Approval. Changes to the design of the basement area have meant that there are variations in the proposed basement under this Project Application from what was approved under the Concept Plan. These changes have been proposed primarily to reflect a changed basement vehicular circulation layout, as well as to accommodate parking spaces of 2.5m width. These wider spaces will enable the provision of individual storage spaces for each parking space. The revised basement layout is considered to be an acceptable variation from the concept plan, as it will result in a basement which affords apartment owners additional storage amenity and security, whilst maintaining the required level of deep soil landscaping across the site. Although some additional basement area is proposed, this is largely located underneath Buildings 1 and 4, and the additional area in these locations is offset by the removal of the basement from other areas which will result in the provision of deep soil in areas approved for basement car parking. The layouts of the basement levels has been designed so that the four proposed levels are located above one another, to minimise the overall basement footprint across the four levels.

2.3.2 Building 1 Building 1 is generally consistent with the building envelope approved under the Concept Plan. Some minor variations from the Concept Plan have been discussed below, however the overall impact of these variations is considered to be acceptable.

Northern Elevation

The proposed design of the northern elevation at all levels of Building 1 deviates from the approved building envelope, which currently results in a building form that runs parallel to the north-eastern boundary of the site. As demonstrated at Figure 8 below, the proposal incorporates a northern edge which is perpendicular to the bulk of the building. This results in some portions of the northern building boundary being located further in than the approved envelope, and other portions being located outside of the approved envelope. The variation of the northern Building 1 edge from the Concept Plan is minimal in nature, and the proposed areas where the building edge will be further set back outweighs the small areas that the building is proposed to be moved closer to the boundary.


JBA 15031 17

Figure 8 – Excerpt from the plans demonstrating proposed northern boundary treatment

Southern Elevation

The south-eastern corner of Building 1 has been aligned similarly to the northern elevation, in that the previously angled façade has been levelled to be perpendicular with the main building form. The majority of this realignment has been undertaken by pulling the building back into the approved envelope, and will result in a further increased distance between the site and 7 Avon Road to the south. A small portion has been proposed just outside the approved envelope, which is considered acceptable due to the minor nature of the variation. The proposed vehicle access driveway to the basement car park has been re-aligned and moved north to further improve the landscape buffer to 7 Avon Road.

2.3.3 Building 3 Building 3 is generally consistent with the building envelope approved under the Concept Plan. Some minor variations from the Concept Plan have been proposed at the eastern and western boundaries which are discussed below, however the overall impact of these variations is considered to be acceptable.

Eastern Elevation

The eastern elevation of Building 3 encroaches approximately 2.4m beyond the building envelope at the northern end of the building. This encroachment is an inward facing element of the proposal, with the building separation between Building 3 and Building 1 reducing to 30m at this point. The proposed encroachment is considered minor and will have little impact on the internal open space areas nor the heritage curtilage of 1 Avon Road.

Western Elevation

The western elevation along the entire length of the southern core of the building has been recessed by approximately 1.6m, resulting in the building being set further back from the conservation and riparian area.

2.3.4 Building 4 Building 4 is generally consistent with the building envelope approved under the Concept Plan. Some variations from the Concept Plan have been proposed at the northern, eastern and western boundaries which are discussed below, however the overall impact of these variations is considered to be acceptable.

Northern Elevation

At the western section of the northern elevation, the proposal includes a minor exceedance of the approved building envelope plan. This is acceptable on the grounds that the building form will maintain a minimum separation distance of 2.1m from the northern site boundary, which is consistent with the approved building envelope minimum separation distance from Building 4.


18 JBA 15031

At the eastern section of the northern elevation, the building has been set back from the northern boundary in excess of the building envelope approval. This will result in the northern elevation of Building 4 providing an overall well-articulated appearance, and will provide opportunities for additional planting at the northern boundary of the site.

Western Elevation

The south-western section of Building 4 has been partially pulled inside the approved envelope by approximately 1.6m resulting in the building being set back from the conservation and riparian area.

Eastern Elevation

The north-eastern section of Building 4 includes a component which extends up to 2.5m beyond the approved building envelope. This change is the result of Building 4 shifting to the north-east to further reduce the encroachment on the conservation and riparian area. The proposed encroachment is located internally to the site and will not impact on adjacent residential dwellings however has the potential to impact on the heritage curtilage of 1 Avon Road. The encroachment is also largely made up of balcony areas, which will not contain solid walls at the eastern façade of the building and will appear less bulky than if internal areas of the building were built to the boundary. The proposed encroachment will not have any significant impacts with regard to privacy or amenity. The uses proposed within the room in No. 1 Avon Road that interface this area are non-habitable and include a bathroom and sun-room annex to a proposed office reception area. The heritage impact of the altered eastern elevation on No.1 Avon Road has been analysed within the Statement of Heritage Impact provided by NBRS + Partners at Appendix L. The heritage statement states (on page 19) that: The Council has identified the proximity of Build 4 to the rear of the Heritage Item

as a concern, however I consider there is adequate separation and mitigation

through the design and the use of obscure glass in the public areas of the item to

avoid any privacy concerns. It is accordingly recommended by NBRS + Partners that the application be approved on heritage grounds.

2.3.5 Beechworth Road Dwelling Houses The proposed Beechworth Road dwelling houses are considered to be generally consistent with the building footprints, setbacks and access arrangements approved in the Concept Plan.

2.3.6 Conservation Area The proposed conservation area is generally consistent with the Concept Plan approval in terms of location and area. The only significant change to the core conservation area is the inclusion of a 10m APZ managed buffer area along the southern Arilla Road boundary of the site. The APZs have been recommended in the Bushfire Protection Assessment to protect dwellings at 1 Arilla Road and 12 Mayfield Avenue. The reduction in core conservation area is 445m2. Notwithstanding this, the 10m APZ buffer is a managed area which will still be revegetated to Blue Gum High Forest and will not be inconsistent with the Vegetation Management Plan aims. The vegetation within the APZ areas will still be recognised as BGHF as the existing canopy trees will be retained and the ground areas to be revegetated with BGHF groundcovers. The missing component


JBA 15031 19

will be the shrub level to reduce the “fire ladder” effect and allow better access to the area for fire fighters.


20 JBA 15031

3.0 Required Concept Plan Modifications This section outlines the required modifications to the Concept Plan required in Part B of Schedule 2 of Concept Approval. Table 2 below provides a summary of how the required modifications have been addressed.

Table 4 – Concept Plan required modifications

Mod Detail Comment

Rehabilitation and Management of the Blue Gum High Forest

B1 The building footprint for House 4 is not to extend into the 10 m wide Asset Protection Zone/Buffer Zone to the Conservation Area.

The Building 4 footprint does not encroach. See Houses Overview Plan MP40.00 in Appendix D

B2 The impact of the stormwater management works on Blue Gum High Forest Trees 39 and 201 is to be assessed by a suitably qualified arborist. The works are to be modified if necessary to ensure that these trees are not significantly affected.

An assessment of the impact of the stormwater management works on Tree 39 and 201 has been undertaken by Tree Wise Men (Appendix U Addendum). The assessment concludes that no modifications to the stormwater management works are required.

B3 The Blue Gum High Forest Conservation Area and Buffer Zone/Asset Protection Zone in the multi-unit residential development area are to be protected on title in perpetuity. The unit owners will be required to manage the conservation Area and Buffer Zone in accordance with the approved vegetation, stormwater and fire management plans. An annual levy will be imposed on each unit to fund these management obligations. The Owners Corporation will set, collect and spend the levies, both for regular maintenance and monitoring, and for any additional works that may be required from time to time. There is to be no alienation of Conservation Area land for purposes inconsistent with conservation of Blue Gum High Forest. There is to be no clearing of Blue Gum High Forest trees or vegetation for bushfire protection except as required under the approved fire management plan (i.e. no additional clearing under the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code).

To be addressed prior to determination of the Project Application and at Strata subdivision stage. Costing for the delivery of the VMP have been prepared by EcoLogical Australia and are discussed in Section 4.2 and included at Appendix M.

B4 Blue Gum High Forest Trees 23 and 24 are to be retained in House Blocks 2 and 3, respectively, and are to be protected on title. There are to be no soil level changes within the Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) of the two trees. Construction work within the TPZs is to be restricted to less than 10% of each TPZ, except for decking or other suspended structures. The trees are not to be removed under the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code.

Both trees are proposed to be retained. Their respective Tree Protection Zones are clear of proposed dwelling footprints or soil level changes. An Assessment by Tree Wise Men (Appendix U Addendum) concludes that encroachment associated with stormwater services has been restricted 10% of the TPZ.

B5 A 10 m wide strip along the eastern boundaries of House Blocks 2, 3 and 4 is be managed as both an Asset Protection Zone (Inner Protection Area) for bushfire protection, and a Buffer Zone to the adjoining Blue Gum High Forest Conservation Area (i.e. plants growing within the Buffer Zone are to be Blue Gum High Forest species derived from material of known local provenance). No houses are to be constructed within the Asset Protection Zone. There is to be a restriction on the titles of House Blocks 2, 3 and 4 to ensure appropriate management of the Asset Protection Zone/Buffer Zone in perpetuity.

Compliance with this Modification is shown in Houses Overview Plan MP40.00 in Appendix D and Conservation Area and Management Buffer Plan LA06 in Appendix E.

B6 The Vegetation Management Plan dated 19 September 2014 is to be modified as follows:

p.6 - Add a paragraph stating that although the vegetation

The required modifications have been incorporated into the revised Vegetation Management Plan at


JBA 15031 21

in the gully does not currently meet the criteria for recognition as Blue Gum High Forest under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, it may meet those criteria if successfully rehabilitated, i.e. the Conservation Area has potential high conservation significance at national level as well as state level.

p.11 - 2nd dot point – Reword as ‘No communities listed under the EPBC Act were recorded because of extensive weed occurrence. Single isolated trees or stands of trees, characteristic of the canopy of Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion, without a native understorey are not included in the Commonwealth listing. However, successful weed control and restoration of a native understorey may mean that the vegetation may in future correspond to BGHF as listed under the EPBC Act.’

p.19 - Section 4.2 – Expand to include the size of the Conservation Area (0.899 ha) and the Buffer Zone (0.2918 ha, not including the western Buffer Zone in House Blocks 2, 3 and 4). Outline the management arrangements for the western Buffer Zone and how these will be coordinated with management of the Conservation Area and the eastern Buffer Zone.

p.19 - Management objectives – Rewrite Objective 2 so that it is clear that the primary purpose of the ephemeral ponds is for stormwater management (including protection of water quality) and that they have incidental value as fauna/gully habitat. Reorder the objectives so that Objective 3 is weed control, Objective 4 is stimulation of natural regeneration, and Objective 5 is enhancement through revegetation and planting. Adjust the remainder of the Vegetation Management Plan accordingly. p.20 - 8th dot point in first set of dot points – Clarify by rewording as ‘Trees or tree groups to be retained in the Buffer Zone are to be ….’

p.20 - 1st dot point in second set of dot points – Clarify by rewording as ‘All earthworks in the Conservation Area and Buffer Zone are to be ….’

p.23 - Section 4.3.2 heading – Delete ‘(fauna habitat and flight paths)’.

p.24 - Ephemeral ponds section – Refer to the Stormwater Management Plan that provides the design for the works.

p.25 - Section 4.3.4 – Add an introductory paragraph stating that assisted natural regeneration is the preferred means for restoring Blue Gum High Forest wherever possible, but that supplementary plantings are likely to be necessary in this highly degraded site for effective restoration of the community.

p.27 - 1st dot point under revegetation of bare ground – A wider range of species is to be planted, not just ferns and Dichondra. Use the list of species in the 1st paragraph at the top of p.27 as a guide for these plantings. p.35 - After paragraph 12 of the Final Determination, list other relevant key threatening processes involving weeds, namely invasion by African Olive, invasion by Chrysanthemoides monilifera, and invasion by escaped garden plants.

p.37 - 3rd dot point – Clarify by rewording as ‘Trees or tree groups to be retained are to be ….’

Table 1 - Add a statement at the top of the table that the tree height data are estimates and may be subject to error.

Table 4, p.1 - Delete ‘(fauna habitat and flight paths)’ after Objective 2.

Table 4, p.2, 3rd target - Change target to ‘All new residents made aware of environmental significance of site’.

Table 4, p.3, 5th target - Change target to ‘Remove at least

Appendix H


22 JBA 15031

95% of primary weed cover’.

Table 4, p.4, 1st target - Change target to ‘All vehicles and machinery cleaned and inspected before entering site’. Don’t restrict it to the first two weeks of construction.

Table 4, p.4, 2nd target - Change target to ‘Remove at least 95% of secondary weed cover’.

Table 4, p.5, 5th target - Change target to ‘<5% total projected foliage weed cover in the Conservation Area and Buffer Zone’.

Table 4, p.6, 2nd target - Change target to ‘Recruitment of at least 1 canopy tree per 20 m x 20 m area’. Appendix 3, Assessment of Significance – Correct all descriptions of the impact of the proposal. There are 59 local native trees or possible local native trees (some may be plantings) on the subject site. These include 53 eucalypts (44 Eucalyptus saligna, 6 E. pilularis, 2 E. paniculata and 1 Angophora floribunda) and 6 other trees (3 Acmena smithii, 2 Ficus rubiginosa and 1 Pittosporum undulatum). Seven of the 59 trees will be removed, including 4 Eucalyptus saligna trees (Trees 49, 175, 180 and 343), 1 Ficus rubiginosa tree (Tree 328) and 2 Acmena smithii trees (Trees 327a and 329). The Ficus rubiginosa tree is in poor condition and growing on an old dead tree; the two Acmena smithii trees are possible plantings of unknown provenance; and Eucalyptus saligna Tree 49 has apparently been poisoned and is suffering severe dieback. Include this information in the assessment.

Appendix 3, Assessment of Significance, p.3, Section 3.2, last paragraph – Rewrite to say that 7 of the 59 local native trees or possible local native trees on the subject site will be removed, which is a loss of 11.9% of those trees. Four of the 53 canopy trees (eucalypts) will be removed, which is a loss of 7.5%. These losses are greater than the acceptable maximum limit loss of 5% of a Blue Gum High Forest stand discussed in Court evidence by Dr Smith. However, they are not considered a significant impact in this case because of the poor condition or doubtful provenance of 4 of the 7 trees to be removed, and the proposed restoration and long-term management of this highly degraded stand. Include a commitment here and in the main part of the Vegetation Management Plan to compensate for the loss of the Ficus rubiginosa and Acmena smithii trees by replacement plantings of these two species in the Conservation Area using material of known local provenance.

Access and Parking

B7 Bicycle Parking

Bicycle storage is to be provided in accordance with Marchese Partners Drawing MP22.06 Revision P, with two bicycle spaces to be provided within each of the boxes shown on this plan. The design of the bicycle storage is to conform to AS2890.3.The minimum number of bicycle storage spaces is to comply with Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013.

Proposed bicycle storage areas comply with this requirement. 38 bicycle spaces are provided for residents and 18 spaces for visitors in compliance with Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP requirements.

B8 Car Parking

A maximum of 257 car parking spaces is to be provided for the residential flat buildings and contained within the approved basement footprint. In all other respects, the design of the carpark is to comply with Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013 Volume C Part 2.

257 car spaces are proposed made up of:

213 spaces for residents (including 18 accessible)

44 visitor spaces (1 accessible)

B9 Carpark Layout

The driveway and internal layout of the site access and car parking are to comply with AS/NZS 2890.1-2004.

Car parking spaces, circulation areas, roadways and ramps comply with the DCP and


JBA 15031 23

Compliance is required for all aspects of the design, including the ramp gradients between parking levels. The location of the driveway off Avon Road is to be as shown on Marchese Partners Drawing MP22.06 Revision P.

AS2890.1. The driveway location is generally consistent with Drawing MP22.06 Revision P (see Drawing MP22.06 Revision T in Appendix D)

B10 Avon Road Footpath

Subject to owners consent being granted by the landowner a new footpath is to be constructed along the northern side of Avon Road between the site and the existing footpath on the northern side, in accordance with the Traffix plans Project 14.243 Drawings TX.00-TX.05.

This issue is discussed in Section 2.1.9 and Appendix J.

Waste Management

B11 Waste management storage and collection is to be designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013, and to the satisfaction of Council.

All waste facilities and equipment are to be designed and constructed to be in compliance with the Ku-ring-gai Shire Councils DCP, Australian Standards and statutory requirements. A Waste Management Plan prepared by Elephants Foot Recycling Solutions is at Appendix W.

Reduction in GFA

B12 To satisfy the maximum GFA of 15,136sqm (0.66:1) for the Residential Flat Buildings (1, 3 and 4) a minimum of 186sqm of GFA is to be deleted from the development as approved in the plans in condition A2. This GFA shall be removed from the height of Building 4 through the deletion of the entire top level of the southern portion of the building. 53sqm of the GFA removed from the height of Building 4 can be transferred to another building so long as it does not increase the height of any building.

The required modification has been incorporated into the Project Application. Total GFA does not exceed 15,136m2

Cross ventilation

B13 All communal corridors in the residential flat buildings must be naturally lit and ventilated.

Complies

Legal curtilage of the heritage lot

B14 The legal curtilage of the heritage lot (1 Avon Road) is to include the heritage building and land to the boundary of the rail corridor consistent with the "Heritage Lot Plan" Drawing No. MP 21.05, Revision P, dated 27 November 2014.

The proposed legal curtilage is shown in Drawing MP21.05 Revision T in Appendix D and is consistent with this requirement.


24 JBA 15031

4.0 Concept Plan Further Assessment Requirements

The following sections address the Further Assessment Requirements of the Planning Assessment Commission, prescribed in Schedule 3 of Part B of the Concept Plan approval.

4.1 Built Form: Utility Infrastructure 1. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall provide for utility

infrastructure, including substations, within the building footprint, wherever

possible. If this is not possible, infrastructure shall be located outside of the public

domain and appropriately screened.

Utility infrastructure has been located within the building footprints where possible. The residential apartment buildings will be connected to existing mains on Avon Road while the four proposed dwellings will connect to existing mains on Beechworth Road. The electricity substation, that was originally proposed to be located within the “stub road” outside the site, has been moved to a location in the south-east corner of the site on Avon Road. The substation will be appropriately screened by landscaping. The proposed substation is located outside of the building footprint in order to comply with Ausgrid’s NS113 Site Selection and Construction Design

Requirements for Chamber Substations. The following are the key reasons:

Access to the substation is required from the street – this reduces the amenity for ground floor apartments and courtyards;

The substation is required to be 6m from any ventilation opening or exhaust which may not be possible considering the requirement to naturally ventilate public corridors and apartments;

Fire rating requirement within 3m of the substation location;

A kiosk substation located near the property boundary will minimise the impact of electromagnetic radiation within the building.

4.2 Vegetation Management 2. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall be accompanied

by assessment by an environmental auditor as to the costing for the delivery of

the Vegetation Management Plan dated 19 September 2014 (VMP) to practical

completion of revegetation / rehabilitation works and ongoing monitoring,

maintenance and reporting, including the calculation of the annual cost of the VMP

delivery.

3. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall demonstrate that

appropriate measures are in place for the delivery of the VMP to practical

completion of revegetation / rehabilitation works and ongoing monitoring,

maintenance and reporting, including:

a) an establishment fund calculated at whatever percentage of the

anticipated costs of the delivery of the VMP is required to ensure that

sufficient funds are available to fund the delivery of the VMP to practical

completion.

b) an annual charge to be levied only if necessary so that sufficient funds are

available to fund the delivery of the VMP to practical completion.

4. Future Development Applications or Project Applications for subdivision of the

site shall ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for the ongoing

monitoring and management of the Conservation Area as identified by the

Landscape Masterplan and specified in the VMP, including:


JBA 15031 25

a) The appointment of an environmental manager to implement the VMP;

b) The arrangements for scheduled monitoring, maintenance and reporting to

the Council relating to the time periods of Month 1, Month 3, Month 6

and Month 12 and then annually for the life of the proposed development.

A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared by Anne Clements and Associates Pty Ltd, and provided at Appendix H. This plan outlines the vegetation currently on the site, as well as the proposed management framework, which includes the appointment of an environmental manager as well as the detailed arrangements for scheduled monitoring, maintenance and reporting to Ku-ring-gai Council. An environmental audit for the costing of the delivery of the VMP has been undertaken by Eco Logical Australia, which has been provided at Appendix M. The report includes a schedule of proposed works for the establishment and on-going monitoring and maintenance phases for the implementation of the VMP. Indicative costing of the required establishment works under the VMP is estimated at $520,946 (ex GST) which equates to approximately $2,994 per apartment. On-going monitoring and maintenance costs equate to approximately $284 per annum per apartment. These costs will be born through strata levies. The implementation of the VMP includes the appointment of a suitably qualified environmental manager (EM) to implement the VMP. The EM will be responsible for the following tasks:

Environmental inductions;

Liaison with Construction Manager on a range of tasks to ensure construction

works are completed with minimal damage to the conservation area;

Managing / supervising creation of ponds and removal of tennis court;

Ensure implementation of Hygiene protocols for Phytophthora cinnamomi and

Myrtle Rust ;

Undertake or engage seed collection services;

Managing / supervising vegetation works, including liaison with Council staff

and Fire and Rescue crew to organise the proposed burn; and,

Liaison with provenance nurseries ordering plantings for revegetation, as well

as supervision of their installation.

A Schedule of VMP targets and required implementation actions, and responsibility, is included in Appendix A to the report. Monitoring and reporting to Council will be undertaken after Month 1, Month 3, Month 6 and Month 12 and then annually.

4.3 Public Positive Covenant for the BGHF Conservation Area

5. Prior to the determination of any future Development Applications or Project

Applications, the proponent shall cause to be registered against the titles of the

BGHF Conservation Area as shown in Figures 1A and 2G of the VMP a public

positive covenant and/or restriction on the use of the land, in favour of the

Council, requiring the Proponent to implement and observe the conditions of this

approval and the VMP in relation to that land.

The public positive covenant shall remain in force in perpetuity.

The above will be undertaken prior to the determination of this Project Application.


26 JBA 15031

4.4 Residential Amenity 6. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall demonstrate

compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 -

Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and the accompanying

Residential Flat Design Code 2002 (RFDC) (except where modified by this

Concept Plan approval), including demonstrating that:

a) a minimum of 60% of apartments within each building are capable of

being naturally cross ventilated including through consideration of

methods such as ventilation chimneys, through apartments and corner

apartments; and

b) a minimum of 70% of apartments within each building receive a minimum

of 3 hours solar access to living areas and balconies mid-winter.

Marchese Partners have included a solar access and natural ventilation schedule at Appendix D, which provides a detailed breakdown of each proposed building. Table 5 provides a summary of the proposed solar access and natural ventilation.

Table 5 – Solar access and cross ventilation breakdown

Building Solar Access Cross Ventilation

Building 1 70% 72%

Building 3 79% 68%

Building 4 75% 62%

The above figures demonstrate compliance with the RFDC “Rules of Thumb” for the development as a whole as well as each individual residential flat building for both solar access and cross ventilation. Ku-ring-gai Council has raised concern with regard to ground floor apartments not being provided with courtyards with a minimum area of 25m2. While this rule of thumb is acknowledged, and complied with for ground floor units facing Avon Road, the unique nature of the site presents challenges to fully achieving this rule of thumb. Courtyards, as required by Council are not considered to be an optimal outcome for units facing the proposed Blue Gum High Forest conservation area. This includes the western units of Buildings 3 and 4. Under the vegetation management plan (Appendix H), significant effort is proposed to be made to restore the integrity of the conservation area and manage and protect it in perpetuity. Courtyards at ground level immediately adjoining the conservation area may encourage adverse behaviour including unrestrained companion animals, potential green waste dumping and weed infestation. Courtyard areas would also physically encroach into the conservation areas. It is considered that ground level courtyards in this location would have little practical effect with regard to activation of streetscapes or the open space, which, as conservation area in this location is intended to be a quiet, natural environment. With regard to ground floor apartments within the internal courtyard area between Buildings 3 and 4, this area has been designed as a common area for the enjoyment of the residents and will include formal landscaping, lawn areas and pergolas. Encroachment of this area with ground floor courtyards would diminish the value of this area to residents collectively. A full assessment of compliance of the Stage 1 development against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the RFDC “Rules of Thumb” prepared by Marchese + Partners is included in Appendix D. The GMU Urban Design Report (Appendix K) which concludes the following:

“The Development Application is generally consistent with the Concept

Plan Approval and in some cases improves on the outcomes beyond those

stipulated. It satisfies the rules of thumb of the RFDC (as considered in

this report).


JBA 15031 27

The proposal is a high quality outcome that provides a new benchmark for

quality apartment development in Pymble. It will offer diverse living

opportunities for many members of the community in a beautiful and leafy

setting with close access to rail and facilities.

The proposal is considered an appropriate outcome for the site and is

recommended for approval.”

4.5 ESD 7. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall demonstrate the

incorporation of ESD principles in the design, construction and ongoing operation

phases of the development.

ESD principles have been incorporated into the design of the development, which has resulted in the proposal having a range of sustainable initiatives. As discussed under Principle 5 of the Urban Design Report prepared by GMU (Appendix K), the proposal includes a number of ESD initiatives including the adaptive reuse of the heritage item at No.1 Avon Road, rainwater capture and reuse, the achievement of solar access and natural ventilation targets, and the use of appliances and fittings which will help reduce water and energy usage. The proposal has also been BASIX certified. A copy of the relevant BASIX certification has been provided at Appendix N.

4.6 Section 94 Contributions 8. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall be required to

pay development contributions to the Council towards the provision or

improvement of public amenities and services. The amount of the contribution

shall be determined by Council in accordance with the requirements of the

Contributions Plan current at the time of approval of the Future Development

Applications or Project Applications, including any applicable credits.

The Statement of Commitments in Section 5 includes the following commitment in regards to the payment of contributions:

“Section 94 Contributions will be paid in accordance with Council’s

Contributions Plan. Contributions and will be calculated paid prior to the

issue of construction certificates. These contributions will be paid in

addition to commitments to off-site improvement works to the Avon Road

footpaths and the Pacific Highway pedestrian underpass.”

Accordingly, Section 94 Contributions will be paid prior to the issue of construction certificates. With regard to credits, these will be sought with regard to the dwellings to be demolished at No.3 Avon Road, No.5 Avon Road and No.8 Beechworth Road.

4.7 Adaptable Housing and Accessibility 9. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall provide a

minimum of 10% of apartments as adaptable housing in accordance with

Australian Standard 4299-1995.

An Access Report has been prepared by Accessibility Solutions and provided at Appendix O. This Access Report determines that eighteen apartments meet the criteria of ‘adaptable housing’, and comply with the relevant standard AS4299.


28 JBA 15031

This represents 10.2% of the total apartments proposed, and complies with the above requirement. With regard to the proposed development’s compliance with accessibility requirements more generally, the assessment undertaken by Accessibility Solutions confirms the following outcomes;

The common domain pathways, central courtyard and heritage building

adapted for communal use will provide appropriate access for people with

disabilities consistent with BCA 2015, the DDA and the Ku-Ring-Gai DCP 55;

and

The visitability is achieved through direct wheelchair accessible walkways from

the street frontage to the principal building entrances of Buildings 1 and 4 with

lifts to a common courtyard to access Building 3 consistent with BCA 2015,

the DDA and the Ku-Ring-Gai DCP 55; and

The lifts provide access to all levels thereby enabling visitable wheelchair

access from the site entrances to all apartments with 123 apartments (70%)

providing a visitable toilet, to comply with the Ku-Ring-Gai DCP 55;

In summary: The access and adaptability review of the development demonstrates

compliance with the relevant objectives and design code requirements of

BCA 2015, which is consistent with the Ku-Ring-Gai DCP 55 for a

residential flat development in terms of accessible pathways, visitable and

adaptable housing for people with disabilities.

4.8 Roads and Maritime Services Requirements

10. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall be accompanied

by a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) detailing the various

construction stagings and, for each stage, identifying the truck access routes,

expected number of trucks per day by truck size, hours of operation, site access

arrangements, parking arrangements for construction workers and proposed traffic

and pedestrian control measures. The CPTMP shall prevent all truck activity by

vehicles larger than a 6.4m MRV between 8am and 9.30am and 2.30pm and 4pm

on weekdays (the school peaks) during school terms and such other times required

by the Council. The CPTMP shall be forwarded to Council for approval and the

RMS for review and any Road Occupancy License applications required shall be

obtained from RMS.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been prepared for the proposed development by Traffix, and provided at Appendix P. The CTMP addresses each of the above issues for all stages of the proposed development, and has been forwarded on to the RMS for review. With regard to proposed construction traffic routes, for the residential apartments on Avon Road, trucks will access and leave the site via Avon Road, Everton Street, Livingstone Avenue and the Pacific Highway. For the Beechworth Road houses, construction traffic will access and leave the site via Beechworth Road and the Pacific Highway. It is proposed that during the peak periods for the adjacent PLC College (8:30-9:30am and 2:30-4:00pm), truck movements for vehicles larger than 6.4m long will be halted along Avon Road. RMS certified Traffic Controllers will be on-site during all stages of construction to supervise / manage all truck entry and exit manoeuvres to the site and Works Zone from Beechworth Road and Avon Road, ensuring all manoeuvres are undertaken in a forward direction. The proposed arrangements are considered


JBA 15031 29

acceptable and will ensure that pedestrian access and safety is maintained at all times. Temporary on-site parking arrangement is to be provided for contractors using private vehicles. This arrangement will ensure that there is minimal impact to existing on-street car parking demands during the initial stages of construction. Once the basement car park has been constructed it will be available for contractors. Notwithstanding this, the site is located within walking distance to Pymble station and contractors will be encouraged to use public transport. The CTMP was forwarded to the RMS for comment. RMS advise by way of e-mail that a Road Occupancy Licence is not required for the development (Appendix

AD).

4.9 Bushfire Safety Requirements 11. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall demonstrate

compliance with the recommendations set out in the Amended Bushfire Protection

Assessment prepared by Australian Bushfire Protection Planners Pty Ltd dated 18

September 2014.

12. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall address the

bushfire risk associated with the proximity of the conservation area to the dwelling

at No. 1 Arilla Road.

13. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall demonstrate

compliance with the requirements of the Rural Fire Service as detailed in its

correspondence dated 14 February 2013.

The Bushfire Assessment provided by Australian Bushfire Protection Planners Pty Ltd (Appendix G) addresses the revisions to the Stage 1 Project Application as a consequence of the terms of the Concept Plan Approval. The conclusion of the report is as follows:

1. The proposed buildings have been located to provide a 10.0 metre

wide Asset Protection Zone between the nominated Conservation Area

and the Apartment Buildings No. 3 & No. 4 and the future dwellings

erected on proposed Lots 2, 3 & 4. This satisfies the requirements of

the NSW Rural Fire Service;

2. The management of the Asset Protection Zone will not extend into the

Conservation Area and BGHF;

3. The NSW Rural Fire Service’s requirement that Apartment Building No.

1be setback a minimum of 10.0 metres from the Avon Road boundary

has been addressed and the width of the Asset Protection Zone to the

east of this building is 30 – 35 metres and includes the width of Avon

Road and the 10 - 15 metre wide building setback to Building No. 1;

4. The requirement to address the bushfire risk associated with the

proximity of the conservation area to the dwelling on No. 1 Arilla Road

has been examined and a 10 metre wide managed defendable space

[landscape buffer] provided to the north of the dwelling.

5. The internal fire-fighting access provisions comply with Section 4.2.7

of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006; and

6. Water electricity and gas comply with section 4.1.3 of Planning for

Bushfire Protection 2006;

This amended report has also examined the bushfire risk to the

development from the mapped Category 1 Bushfire Prone Vegetation,


30 JBA 15031

shown on the Ku-ring-gai Bushfire Prone Land Map to be located within

the adjacent Pymble Ladies College, and has made recommendations on

the bushfire construction standards to be applied to Residential Apartment

Building No. 1 & 2.

I have reviewed the Landscape Plans prepared by Taylor Brammer and

confirm that the layout and species selection satisfies the prescriptions of

an Inner Protection Area [IPA] as defined by Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Services document

‘Specifications for Asset Protection Zones’

4.10 Sydney Trains Requirements 14. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall demonstrate

compliance with the requirements set out in Attachment A of Sydney Trains’ (now

Sydney Trains) correspondence dated 15 March 2013.

Sydney Trains provided a series of requirements as part of their correspondence dated 15 March 2013, which have been detailed in Table 3 below.

Table 6 – Response to Sydney Trains requirements

Requirement Response

The Applicant shall provide an accurate survey locating the proposed development with respect to the rail boundary and rail infrastructure with every Project Application or Development Application along the rail corridor boundary. This work is to be undertaken by a registered surveyor, to the satisfaction of Sydney Trains’ representative.

This has been provided as part of this application, at Appendix Q.

For any future Project Application or Development Application involving ground penetration (e.g. excavation, piling / pilers) deeper than 2m in depth and within 25m of the rail corridor boundary, the Applicant is to include the following items with the Application:

Geotechnical and Structural report / drawings that meet Sydney Trains’ requirements. The Geotechnical Report must be based on actual borehole testing conducting on the site closest to the rail corridor.

Construction methodology with construction details pertaining to structural support during excavation.

Cross sectional drawings showing ground surface, rail tracks, sub soil profile, proposed basement excavation and structural design of sub ground support adjacent to the Rail Corridor. All measurements are to be verified by a Registered Surveyor.

Detailed Survey Plan showing the relationship of the proposed development with respect to Sydney Trains’ land and infrastructure.

If required by Sydney Trains, an FE analysis which assesses the different stages of loading / unloading of the site and its effect on the rock mass surrounding the rail corridor.

It should be noted that if a Development Application is submitted that Sydney Trains’ concurrence in accordance with Clause 86 of State Environmental Planning Policy will be required prior to the determination of the Development Application.

A Geotechnical Report has been provided

Geotechnical Report_Douglas

Partners_84887.01.R.001.Rev0_Pymble

Geotechnical Assessment (Appendix X)

A Structural Report has been provided

responding to the Geotechnical Assessment.

Structural Report_Marchese_150724_

No1AvonRoad_Pymble_DA (Appendix Y)

Two Cross Sectional Drawings have been

provided at the closest excavation points to the

Rail Corridor

Appendix D::

Architectural Site Section 1_Marchese_IssueT_

MP50.04

Architectural Site Section 2_Marchese_IssueT_

MP50.03

Construction Details will be provided prior to

Construction Certificate

Derailment Protection

The Applicant is note that for any above ground

AS5100 Clause 10.4 Collision Load from Rail Traffic. Ultimate design loads apply to structures within 10m


JBA 15031 31


structure located within 20m of the nearest rail track, that structure may be required to comply with Australian Standard AS5100.

of the rail track and for supporting elements located between 10m and 20m of the centre-line of the track a risk analysis shall be carried out by the relevant rail authority

All structural supports for the development are located out more than 20m from the rail track. Refer Site Plan and Sections

Appendix D:

Architectural Site Plan_Marchese_IssueT_ MP50.01

Architectural Site Section 1_Marchese_IssueT_ MP50.04

Architectural Site Section 2_Marchese_IssueT_ MP50.03.

Drainage

Prior to the undertaking of any drainage works, the Applicant is to submit to Sydney Trains detailed stormwater and drainage details to Sydney Trains for review and endorsement. The proposed stormwater and drainage solutions are to ensure that there is no negative impact (incl. any restrictions) to the stormwater pipe located under the rail corridor.

The stormwater and drainage solutions do not impact the stormwater pipe located under the rail corridor. A Stormwater Report and Drawings have been provided in Appendix S: Stormwater Report_NPC_140917

Noise and Vibration

For any future Project Application or Development Application seeking approval for any residential building an acoustic assessment is to be submitted prepared demonstrating how the proposed development will comply with the Department of Planning’s document titled “Development Near Rail Corridor s and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines”.

An Acoustic Report has been provided at Appendix R which has been prepared in accordance with the document ‘Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Road – Interim Guidelines’.

A series of recommendations for the control of noise have been outlined in the Acoustic Report, which will be implemented into the proposed development.

Balconies and Windows

Given the possible likelihood of objects being thrown onto the rail corridor from future buildings, all balconies, windows and roof-top terraces that are located within 20m and face the rail corridor are to incorporate adequate measures that prevent the throwing of objects onto the rail corridor.

The proposed development incorporates some balconies at the north-eastern and north-western corners of Building 4 which are within close proximity of the rail line. This is considered an acceptable outcome due to the following:

The balconies at the north-west are west facing, and will not be oriented to the rail tracks. It will be very difficult for somebody to be able to throw anything onto the tracks from these balconies due to this angle.

The railway tracks are, at this point, elevated above the ground. Accordingly, it would be highly difficult for people in lower level apartments to be able to throw something onto the tracks.

The apartments at the north-east of the building face towards the east, and are at an oblique angle to the rail line. It can be conditioned that specific measures such as barriers are enforced on these apartments if required.

Reflective Material

Future structures located along the rail corridor are not to utilise any reflective material, such as mirrored glass or metal finishes without the written endorsement of Sydney Trains.

The development does not intend the use of reflective materials such as mirrored glass or metallic reflective finishes. This can be provided as a condition of any approval.

Fencing and Landscaping

Prior to the undertaking of any works along the rail corridor boundary the Applicant is to prepare design guidelines regarding the fencing to be used / constructed along the entire common boundary with the rail corridor. The fencing guidelines and specifications are to be endorsed by Sydney Trains

The fencing along the Rail Corridor will be in

accordance with Engineering Standard ESC510 Boundary Fences Version 2.1 Issued December 2009:

The standard residential boundary fence is a hardwood timber paling fence.

A colourbond steel fence in accordance with a


32 JBA 15031


prior to the commencement of works. This fencing is to be installed in accordance with the endorsed guidelines and specifications prior to the commencement of a building construction.

manufacturer’s specifications, or urban fence may also be used.

Residential fences shall be 1800mm high. The fence shall comply with SPC 511.

Though not required for a Residential Fence a Palisade Fence may also be considered.

All Fencing will be installed to Engineering Specification SPC511 Boundary Fences Version 1.1 Issued December 2009

Fencing and Landscaping

All Landscaping within 20m of the rail corridor is to meet Sydney Trains requirements. Sydney Trains’ Biodiversity Specialist is to be contacted to obtain details of appropriate tree and plant species.

A Landscaping Plan has been provided which lists the species within 20m of the rail corridor. The species list has been prepared with the advice of a Restoration Ecologist. It is understood the plan will be referred to Sydney Trains’ Biodiversity Specialist as part of this application

Car parking

Sydney Trains notes the Proponent’s response to this issue

No further action required.

Accessibility

Whilst the Proponent has committed to upgrading the footpath links to Pymble Station, Sydney Trains requests that these links also contain appropriate lighting and comply with DDA requirements.

An alternative footpath solution has been provided which includes an indicative crossing across Avon Rd (Appendix J). A study of lighting levels will be undertaken to ensure there is sufficient lighting where new paths of travel are proposed and the crossing will comply with DDA requirements.

Impact on Stations

Sydney Trains notes the Proponent’s response to this issue. However, whilst the development has been reduced and the Stage 1 application only involves 44 units, the development’s overall increase in the number of residents living in this area may still impact on Pymble Station. As such, it is requested that the Proponent liaise with Transport for NSW to ascertain if this proposal will trigger the need to upgrade Pymble Station, and the need for developer contributions.

Developer Contributions are not payable for public transport upgrades for development of this nature.

The Proponent was advised in the meeting with Transport NSW 30th March 2015 that this condition no longer applies.

4.11 Sydney Water Requirements 15. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall address Sydney

Water's requirements in relation to:

a) required amplification works to existing drinking water mains (if required);

b) any required amplification works to the wastewater system; and

c) application for Section 73 certificates as necessary.

An overview of Sydney Water infrastructure requirements prepared by Rose Atkins Rimmer has been prepared and is included in Appendix T. the report addresses the Sydney Water requirements with regard to sewer and water. The report concludes that adequate infrastructure is available both on the site and adjacent to it to enable connection for the development and without any required amplification works.

4.12 Contamination 16. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall provide

evidence that the site is suitable for the intended residential use and include the

following:


JBA 15031 33

a) further site investigations that includes sampling and analysis after the

vegetation (weeds and noxious plants) has been cleared undertaken in

accordance with the recommendations of the Stage 1 Environmental

Assessment prepared by Environmental Investigation Services dated

December 2012;

b) a waste classification is assigned to any fill material that is excavated for

offsite disposal; and

c) a Hazardous Building Materials Survey of the existing buildings and

structures on the site is undertaken prior to demolition.

17. In the event that any significant contamination is encountered, a Remedial

Action Plan (RAP) will be required

The above requirements relate to post approval demolition and site clearing activities. Accordingly they have been included in the Statement of Commitments. Environmental Investigation Services (EIS) has undertaken a Phase 2 assessment of the site involving a review of the previous investigation reports , site inspections, preparing and implementing a sampling analysis and quality plan for 26 sampling points across the site and undertaking a Tier 1 risk assessment based on the findings of the samples. The Phase 2 assessment also include No.3 Avon Road and is at Appendix Z. The findings of the Phase 2 assessment are:

an elevated concentration of lead was found in one sample above the health investigation level, however the statistical analysis of the fill soil lead result met the site assessment criteria and the risk to human receptor is considered low;

asbestos fibres were not detected in any of the soil samples analysed however a fibre cement fragment was located in the north west corner of the site, possible a remnant of the demolition of the house at 4 Beechworth Road;

with regard to ground water, while elevated concentrations of heavy metals (copper and zinc) were identified, they are typical of urban groundwater results and most likely associated with leaking water infrastructure;

A B(a)P TEQ hot spot has been identified around the surface of the proposed location of proposed Lot 3. Further investigation around this location should be undertaken to obtain a better understanding of the extent of the contamination and to better assess the hotspot.

Based on a review of the field logs and the laboratory data, EIS are of the opinion that the soil contamination is confined to the fill material at the site. The fill ranges in depth from approximately 0.2m to 2m below ground level. Sampling was not undertaken beneath the existing buildings and densely overgrown vegetated areas. The extent of contamination beneath the buildings is currently unknown and should be undertaken following their demolition. There is a possibility of the presence of hazardous building materials in the existing buildings at the site. This is considered to pose a relatively low risk to the receptors provided that the demolition works are undertaken in accordance with the relevant codes and standards. EIS have undertaken a Hazardous Building Material Assessment (HAZMAT) of the current buildings on the site. Accordingly, the above future assessment requirements are a matter which can be resolved prior to the issue of construction certificates at the site. Overall EIS consider that:


34 JBA 15031

…the site can be made suitable for the proposed development provided

that the following recommendations are implemented to address the data

gaps and to minimise/better manage/characterise the risks:

1. Address the data gaps identified ….as part of an additional ESA;

2. Prepare a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) to outline remedial measures

for the site;

3. Prepare a Validation Assessment (VA) report on completion of

remediation; the site can be made suitable for the proposed

development provided the following

4.13 Design of Future Dwellings on Housing Lots

18. Future dwelling houses on the housing lots are to be designed to comply with

Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013 Part 4.

A full analysis of the proposed dwellings at Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been undertaken against the controls contained under the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2014 (Local Centres DCP) at Table 7 below. The proposed dwelling design is generally consistent with the Local Centres DCP. Where inconsistencies arise with the Local Centres DCP, these are largely due to the unique layout of the sites, and have been addressed within the table.

Table 7 – Compliance table of the proposal against the Local Centres DCP

Control Comment Compliance

4A.1 Local Character and Streetscape

Visual Character

The proposed dwellings will be consistent with the surrounding character, and have been designed in accordance with the visual character study (discussed at the relevant section of this table). The dwellings are significantly set back from Beechworth Road, and will be accessed by a communal access road.

Public Domain and Communal Spaces

The proposed dwellings are of an appropriate scale when viewed from the street, and will present as 1-2 storey dwellings, with a third lower story located at the rear of some dwellings. No adverse overshadowing will arise from the low scaled dwellings.

Visually Prominent Sites

Although not highly visible from Beechworth Road, the four proposed allotments could be viewed as ‘visually prominent’ in accordance with Council’s criteria of “environmentally sensitive sites on sloping land”. The proposed dwellings relate well to the slope of the land, only appearing as 1-2 storeys and low in scale from the Beechworth Road frontage. Flat roofs will reinforce the low scale character of the proposed dwellings.

New Dwellings

A full assessment of the dwellings against the Local Centres DCP has been provided within this table of compliance.

4A.2 Building Setbacks Assessment Criteria

The proposed dwellings are all located on battle-axe allotments, and Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 will be serviced by an internal access road. Dwelling 4 will be serviced by a battle access. All four dwellings will be significantly set back from Beechworth Road, and will facilitate solar access and the protection of vegetation at the site. The solar access provided to each dwelling is demonstrated in the provided plans.

Battle-axe Lots

Minimum 3.5m / 15% site width side setbacks are maintained at Dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Minimum 12m / 25% site length setback are maintained at the

x


JBA 15031 35


front and rear of Dwelling 3.

Dwelling 1 proposes a front boundary setback of 9.1m and a rear setback of 3.7m. These do not meet the minimum 12m / 25% side length control, but are an acceptable outcome on the site due to the orientation and building envelope of the dwelling contemplated by the Court under the Concept Plan approval. Under the Concept Plan, Dwelling 1 was proposed to maintain a significant 9m setback on the smallest of the four allotments, to the east of the site. This is where vegetation on the site is able to be preserved, and is considered an acceptable alternative to a dwelling which fully complies with Council’s controls, but does not include the preservation of the trees at the east of the site.

Dwelling 2 proposes a front setback of 2.2m, which is non-compliant with the control. This setback is consistent with the footprint contemplated by the Court under the Concept Plan approval, and is considered acceptable due to the diagonal alignment of the allotment to the communal road. The reduced front setback additionally enables further separation at the rear of the site from the conservation area, and will only present to the east as a single story element due to the slope of the site. The rear setback of Dwelling 2 meets the control requirements.

Dwelling 3 proposes a front setback of 11.4m, and a minimum rear setback of 25m. This is fully compliant with the controls, and the dwelling is within the envelope set out under the Concept Plan.

Dwelling 4 proposes a front setback of 9.2-9.9m, which is an acceptable outcome as the proposed dwelling is located significantly within the proposed footprint contemplated by the Court under the Concept Plan approval.9.9m is also considered to be an acceptable setback within the context of the site being located forward of the buffer to the conservation area, and significantly further set back than the existing dwelling at 8 Beechworth Road. The rear setback of Dwelling 4 meets the control.

4A.3 Built-Upon Area Lot 1 is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone, Lots 2 and 3 are located partially in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and partially in the E4 Environmental Living zone. Lot 4 is located entirely within the E4 Environmental Living zone.

Lot 1: Site Area: 831m2 Maximum built upon area: 465.36m2

Lot 2: Site Area: 1,328m2 Maximum built upon area: 566.392m2



The proposed dwellings all comply with their respective maximum built upon areas, due to the size of the maximum footprints imposed by the Land and Environment Court.

4A.4 Landscaping The proposed dwellings all provide and maintain a high number of trees on each of the sites. A detailed breakdown of the requirements and provision has been provided below:

Lot 1: 3 trees required Lot 2: 7 trees required


36 JBA 15031


Lot 3: 7 trees required Lot 4: 7 trees required

Due to the unique constraints of the site, including the imposition of a 10m Asset Protection Zone at the rear of each of the sites, this requirement is seen to be unduly onerous. A detailed breakdown of the trees to be removed and retained has been provided within the Arborist Report by Tree Wise Men at Appendix U.

4B.1 Vehicle Access Vehicular Access

The proposed dwellings are required to be designed so that vehicles may exit and entre the sites in a forward direction. Vehicles accessing dwellings 1, 2 and 3 will be able to do this as a result of the circular access road. Dwelling 4 will also have sufficient space to enable a standard vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

Driveways

Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 will all use a communal roadway to access each of their properties. Although the width of this roadway exceeds 3.5m, it has been proposed in accordance with the Concept Plan approval, and will service and consolidate the access requirements for three of the four low density allotments. This is also seen to be a superior alternative to providing individual adjacent access to each of the dwelling houses.

The Dwelling 4 driveway complies with the maximum 3.5m width requirement.

4B.2 Car Parking Provision

Number of Car Spaces

2 spaces have been provided for each dwelling in accordance with Volume C Part 2R of the Local Centres DCP.

Size of Car Spaces

The car spaces will be capable of accommodating a standard vehicle.

4B.3 Carports and Garages

Design of Carports and Garages

The proposed parking spaces at Lots 1, 3 and 4 provide car spaces at the front building line, as approved under the Concept Plan. Although some of the car parking areas are located forward of the setback (see 4A.2 above), all have been located significantly back from Beechworth Road and within the approved building envelopes under the Concept Plan. The car parking areas are also required to be located at the front due to the steeped nature of the sites.

The car parking has been integrated with the dwelling design.

Location of Parking Structures

The proposed parking areas have been proposed entirely within the approved building envelope areas under the Concept Plan. These areas have been approved with consideration to areas of significant vegetation, specifically the conservation area to the east of Lots 2, 3 and 4.

No high use accessways are located opposite either the communal access road or the Lot 4 driveway. None of the driveways are located within 6m of an intersection.

4C.1 Building Envelopes Dwellings 1 and 4 are two storeys in height.

Dwellings 2 and 3 are part two, part three storeys in height. Although not strictly compliant with Council’s control, the sloped nature of the sites enable Dwellings 2 and 3 to maintain an appearance of single storey dwellings from the internal access road. The third storey only comprises on guest bedroom in each of Dwellings 2 and 3. At the rear of the sites the dwellings will appear as 2 storeys in height. Additionally, the dwellings are compliant with the relevant maximum heights.

Relationship with Adjoining Dwellings

The proposed dwellings have been designed as part of an


JBA 15031 37


integrated design which enables the four dwellings to minimise impacts on existing dwellings at 2 and 6 Beechworth Road, as well as between the four dwellings. This enables a high level of amenity to be afforded to each of the dwellings, which will present a 1-2 storey low scale from the east and west. High quality landscaping has been provided on each of the sites, with generous setbacks provided (particularly in proximity to the conservation area).

4C.2 Building Facades The proposed dwellings all comply with the maximum unrelieved wall control of 12m (8m over two or more storeys) at all areas above the ground level.

4C.3 First Floor Design and Roof Forms

First Floor Design

The nature of the proposed dwellings, stepping down from an entrance at the upper level, results in dwellings where the bulk of the floor space (including car parking) is at the upper levels of the dwellings. Accordingly the proposal doesn’t comply with the maximum 40% gross floor area criteria, however this design is considered a preferable solution to an alternative situation where car parking is provided at lower levels, which would result in a significant increase in hard stand area on the site.

Roof Line

Low angled roofs are proposed at the site, which reduce the apparent bulk of the buildings. The roof pitch controls, which typically relate to maximum angles of roofs which often have attic rooms inside them, do not apply to the proposal.

N/A

4C.4 Private Open Space The proposed dwellings all provide the minimum 50m2 private open space through generous back yards. Each of these yards provides a minimum dimension of 5m.

4C.5 Solar Access The proposal enables 4 hours of solar access to be provided to living areas, and the principle private open space of all dwellings. Specific solar access details for each of the proposed dwellings have been provided within the Architectural Plans for the dwellings.

4R.1 Visual Character Summary Report

The site is listed as being within a “Character between 1920 and 1945” area. The dwellings have been provided in a battle axe arrangement, and accordingly many of the desired streetscape characteristics do not apply to the proposal. Regardless, the dwellings are generally consistent with the visual characteristics, as follows:

The dwellings orientate generous private open space to the rear.

The design incorporates the provision of mature vegetation around the site.

The dwellings will not overshadow the principle private open space of existing dwellings along Beechworth Road.

4.14 Exterior Finishes and Materials 19. The design of the residential flat buildings is to incorporate a mix of materials.

The exterior or buildings must be high quality and comprised of durable materials

and finishes. Large, unbroken expanses of any single material and finish should be

avoided. The use of high reflective materials should also be avoided. The exterior

finish material must be integral to the overall building facade and must not appear

as cosmetic. Lightweight materials and finishes should be used on the upper levels

to assist in minimising bulk and scale.

20. The selection of a colour scheme for the residential flat buildings must comply

with the following:

a) Base colours for major areas of the facade are to be light in tone and hue;


38 JBA 15031

b) Highlight colours to details of the building are to contrast with the base

colour;

c) Trim colours for window frames and awning fascias are to be darker

contrast to base and highlight colours;

d) Natural earth tones are to be used on building facades in close proximity

to bushland.

The Urban Design Report prepared by GMU Urban Design and Architecture, provided at Appendix K discusses the proposed materials and finishes within the context of the requirements above. Specifically, the report notes the following:

The design of each building is guided by an overall architectural concept.

The base colours of the buildings are light colours.

Several features break up the facades, including horizontal balustrade ribbons and glass vertical boxes.

The base of the building consists of natural sandstone, which blends in well with the bushland.

Vertical wood colour louvers are inserted into the elevation to connect further with the bushland surroundings.

The design of the building avoids completely blank expanses of walls.

Highly reflective materials are not used and the exterior finishes feel integral to the façade.

GMU Urban Design and Architecture concludes that they are satisfied that the proposal satisfies the above requirement under the Concept Plan approval. Additionally, a Schedule of Materials and Finishes has been prepared by Marchese Partners under separate cover, which demonstrates a compliant colour scheme with the above requirements. This has been submitted under separate cover.

4.15 Heritage Management Document 21. A Heritage Management Document is to be prepared and submitted to

Council/Minister for approval in accordance with Clause 5.1(10) of the Ku-ring-gai

Local Centres LEP 2012 when the first Project Application or Development

Application is lodged. The document is to address conservation issues relevant to

the adaptation of 1 Avon Rd to community uses and must include detail of the

proposed use of the community building.

A Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI) has been prepared by NBRS + Partners, and provided at Appendix L. This SHI includes a consideration of the proposal against Clause 5.1(10) of the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP 2012. This SHI includes a detailed assessment of the potential issues which are relevant to the adaptation of No. 1 Avon Road to community uses. The SHI finds that given the proposed use of the house as a residence ceased some years ago, its continued use as a residence is not essential to maintaining its local heritage values. The report also finds that the reduced heritage curtilage is acceptable as the heritage setting is to be extended to the northern boundary of the site and the new communal landscape areas to the south will open up and extend the setting. With regard to the new development surrounding the building, and the minor encroachment of Building 4 outside the approved concept envelope, the SHI finds that the impact of the change is minimal and does not affect the established setting adopted for the heritage item within the overall development context.


JBA 15031 39

4.16 Water Sensitive Urban Design 22. Future Development Applications or Project Applications shall be generally in

accordance with:

a) the approved Stormwater Concept Plan prepared by NPC Management

Consultants and Project Managers and dated 21 October 2014; and

b) the Water Sensitive Urban Design principles as outlined in Ku-ring-gai

Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013, Volume C, Part 4.

A Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared by NPC Management Consultants and Project Managers (Appendix S), which builds on the above referenced Stormwater Concept Plan and includes revisions to accommodate the Concept Plan approval. The Management plan addresses the requirements contained in the Local Centres DCP. The following summary is from the NP report: The proposed Stormwater Drainage Concept Plan has been developed in concert with the Landscape Plan for the site and will incorporate the following Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) features and achieve the following results:

Roof runoff capture in rainwater tanks and reuse – this will reduce the runoff volumes, runoff pollutant load and potable water usage;

Inclusion of water saving appliances within the buildings;

Detention of runoff from impermeable surfaces to ensure peak flow rates remain at existing levels and do not impact the flooding behaviour on adjacent properties;

Incorporation of erosion and sediment control features during the construction stage as proposed in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;

Treatment of runoff in the post development stage to maintain pollutant loads at or below existing levels as proposed in the Stormwater Drainage Concept Plan;

Enhancement of the blue gum forest and habitat, stabilisation of surfaces and improvement in runoff water quality along the watercourse; and

Use of endemic vegetation in landscaping to reduce water demand.

With regard to stormwater peak flows, all runoff All runoff from the driveways and paved areas of the development will be directed to stormwater detention tanks (refer to Appendix S - Stormwater Drainage Concept Plan, Figure 6). Runoff from the building roofs will be firstly directed to rainwater tanks and then if necessary to detention tanks. The rainwater tanks will trap some of the runoff and effectively reduce flows in the low severity storms. In larger storms, this effect is less as the rainwater tanks would fill readily and then flows would bypass the tanks. Council’s DCP 47 stipulates a detention requirement for approximately 557m³ of storage. Each apartment building would have detention storage of 170.3m³ and a rainwater tank volume of 20m³ (20 kL). The four residences and heritage building would each have a rainwater tank volume of 5m³ (5kL) and a detention storage of 5m3 (5kL). An allowance for 25% of the rainwater tank volume (85m³) would provide 21m³ of detention storage. The combination of rainwater and detention storage would provide the required detention storage of 557m³. This conforms to the Ku ring gai Council’s requirements in the Water Management Development Control Plan – DCP 47. Details of the tanks are provided in Appendix S Figures 9- 16. The tanks for the heritage building would be located underneath the elevated walkway on the eastern side of the building and would be screened with vegetation.


40 JBA 15031

Stormwater runoff from development sites typically contain elevated levels of suspended solids, nutrients and debris/trash and can contribute to the pollution of receiving waters. The WSUD features proposed for the subject development to achieve these reductions in runoff pollutant loads are:

Litter baskets in all drainage inlet pits;

20 kL rainwater tank in each apartment building and 5kL for each house for reuse of roof runoff;

170.3 m3 detention tank in each apartment building;

5m3 detention tank in each house;

Water efficient fittings in the buildings to minimise potable water use;

450 m2 surface area of an ephemeral wetland;

Use of vegetation to stabilise the site; and

Vegetation along the drainage line through the site to provide habitat and remove pollutants.

The proposed runoff water quality control system was modelled using the industry best practice program MUSIC and the pollutant reductions achieved would be:

Gross pollutants 99%

Total suspended solids 83%

Total phosphorus 60%

Total nitrogen 49%

This exceeds the industry best practice requirements for runoff water quality control.

4.17 Arborist Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan

23. As part of any future Development Applications or Project Applications an

arborist impact assessment shall be undertaken and tree protection plan developed

by an arborist with a minimum qualification AQF 5.

Trees assessed are those trees to be retained within the subject site and those

trees on adjacent sites whose tree protection zones are impacted by the proposed

works. The plan shall include an inventory of all trees on and adjacent the site and

whether proposed to be retained or removed, and a plan to scale of 1:100 clearly

indicating all of these trees. The assessment shall be undertaken to establish likely

impacts on these trees from the proposed works including construction access

impacts and to ensure that the proposed works and site management plans are

amended to ensure the viability of trees retained.

A tree protection plan shall be developed to ensure the ongoing protection of

retained trees during construction works.

The tree protection plan shall document the trees to be retained and include

specifications for and specific locations of fencing, ground protection and the like.

The plan shall indicate the specific stages of inspections of works, by the project

arborist. Both the assessment and protection plan shall be undertaken consistent

with AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The plan shall also


JBA 15031 41

include the protection of trees during the various stages of construction within the

conservation area.

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Tree Wise Men has been provided at Appendix U. This report details the assessment undertaken for a total of 268 trees on site. Of these, 110 trees (41%) are proposed to be retained, and 155 trees (58%) are proposed to be removed as part of the development. An additional 2 trees are proposed to be transplanted to elsewhere on the site. Thirty (30) of the one hundred and ten (110) retained trees are Retention Value “A”. The retained trees also include the Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) canopy tree species located within the Conservation Area on the site. No trees on adjoining properties require removal to facilitate the development works. The Tree Wise Men report (Section 5) includes a Tree Management Plan that incorporates tree protection measures that are to be implemented during construction works for the buildings and stormwater infrastructure works. The measures address:

Tree marking;

Tree removal;

Tree protection fencing;

Canopy pruning;

Earthworks;

Stormwater works;

Ground protection;

Vegetation Management Plan works;

Tree Wise Men conclude that current proposal is supported as it allows for retention of the most significant trees on and adjoining the subject site. The likely impacts on the BGHF within the Conservation Area on the site are acceptable as detailed in the Ecological Report prepared by Anne Clements and Associates (Appendix H). No BGHF species are likely to be removed as a result of riparian, stormwater and weed removal works.

4.18 Landscape Plans 24. As part of any future Development Applications or Project Applications for this

site, a suitably qualified landscape architect is to prepare and submit to

Council/Minister, detailed landscape plans to comply with Council's Development

Application Guide, relevant development control plans, approved VMP and the

approved Landscape Architect Design Report and plans (referred to in condition

A2) and these conditions of approval.

In addition the following issue is to be addressed by the detailed landscape plans:

a. A marker tree or trees of advanced, 100 litre size Hoop Pine (Araucaria

cunninghamii) be planted to replace the Bunya Pines removed at the

corner of Avon Rd.

Detailed Landscape Plans have been provided as part of this application by TaylorBrammer (Appendix E) which include proposed additional planting on the site. This includes the planting of two Hoop Pines, as per the suggestion of Council.


42 JBA 15031

4.19 Staging of VMP and Landscaping Works 25. As part of any future Development Applications or Project Applications, a

further plan is to be provided to the Council/Minister to confirm commencement of

the VMP works and landscape works as part of early works in the areas adjacent

to No. 7 and 15 Avon Road and No 1 Arilla Avenue, and specifically to

demonstrate:

a. Early planting of screen tree species to No. 7 boundary as shown on

the detailed landscape plans; and

b. Staged removal of Privet plants within the first 18 months to assist

temporary visual screening of the development from these three adjoining

residences, while new plantings are establishing.

With regard to the early planting and screen trees to No.7 Avon Road, the landscape plans (Appendix E, Plan LA32) show the planting of Acmena “Good Neighbours” adjacent to the boundary in this location. These will be planted during the early works to establish an appropriate screen for No.7 Avon Road from construction activities. With regard to No.15 Avon Road, a two to 3 metre ‘buffer’ of woody weeds (Ligustrum spp.) will be removed along the perimeter adjoining the property to:

find the stormwater / sewer connections as well as leaks that potentially create nutrient sources and encourage weed growth;

crumbling walls and other encroachments;

commence screen planting with local provenance BGHF plants.

Ku-ring-gai Council has a nursery with a relatively wide range of local provenance BGHF plants. Trees should be included in the perimeter planting mix. Removal vegetation beyond this zone will be staged in such a way as to continue to provide screening for the properties whilst canopy and shrub plantings grow. Once these plantings are sufficiently large enough the woody weeds will be removed.

4.20 Relocation of Driveway to Building 1 At the time of the preparation of a Development Application or Project Application

for Building 1. Consideration is to be given to whether the access driveway could

be relocated to the north and/or made perpendicular to Avon Road with a view to

reducing amenity impacts on No 7 Avon Road and whether the mechanical garage

door can be setback from the facade of Building 1.

The proposal has incorporated the above recommendation, and incorporates an access driveway which has been moved further away from No 7 Avon Road, and has been adjusted so that it is perpendicular to Avon Road. The mechanical garage door has also been set further back. The above changes will assist in further reducing the impact of the proposed development on No 7 Avon Road.

4.21 Other relevant matters

4.21.1 Crime Prevention A CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) Assessment has been prepared for the proposed development by Harris Crime Prevention Services (Appendix AA). The CPTED Assessment undertook the following tasks:


JBA 15031 43

reviewed drawings for each building relative to their designing-out-crime potential;

clarified crime prevention and/or security risk issues with design team representatives;

assessed design parameters to ensure CPTED principles have been, or will be, applied to each building and public space connectors;

affirmed architectural characteristics likely to ‘encourage’ the minimisation and/or prevention of anti-social or criminal behaviour;

recommended possible changes to design that are likely to enhance the security (safety) of the buildings, residents and visitors;

examined the (crime prevention) design characteristics to ensure compliance with the State government’s and Ku-ring-gai Council’s requirements.

HCPS are of the view that the design of both developments, if supported in design detail, are likely to positively impact upon neighbourhood, Council and police initiatives to reduce and prevent opportunistic anti-social and criminal behaviour within the broader Pymble community. The relevant CPTED principles have been applied, or are likely to be applied to both developments. Recommendations are made in relation to risk mitigation options for Avon Road. In particular, HCPS encourage design detail and construction certificate attention to external lighting, fencing, signage and landscaping and vehicle parking proposals, in the interests of strengthening a whole-of site designing-out-crime outcome. HCPS also recommended that as part of any strata management policy, adoption of a site wide security awareness plan, to complement and support the CPTED measures. The plan should consider:

a strict maintenance regime for lighting, landscaping and signage,

ensuring that residents know how to respond to a security emergency (as they would for a fire emergency) and

monitoring and reporting on-going crime (security) risks, threats or incidents.

4.21.2 Fire Safety Defires have undertaken an initial assessment of the proposal with regards to compliance with the fire safety design and performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) (see Appendix AB). Based on this assessment it is evident that the proposed development will generally satisfy the ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ provisions of the BCA, however fire engineered solutions will be required in some instance to ensure compliance with performance requirements. Defires considers the proposal is capable of complying with the provisions of the BCA and as such the proposed design is acceptable from a fire safety perspective.

4.21.3 Building Code of Australia The building’s design details have been assessed by MBC (Appendix AC) in respect to the deemed to satisfy provisions of Parts C, D1, D2, E and F of the Building Code of Australia 2015. MBC conclude that the design is at a point where the inherent BCA philosophies have been checked and the DA can be submitted. The finer details with respect to BCA 2015 compliance can be reviewed during the design development stage and prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


44 JBA 15031

5.0 Statement of Commitments REFERENCE COMMITMENT

Section 94 Contributions Section 94 Contributions will be paid in

accordance with Council’s Contributions Plan. Contributions and will be calculated paid prior to the issue of construction certificates. These contributions will be paid in addition to commitments to off-site improvement works to the Avon Road footpaths and the Pacific Highway pedestrian underpass.

Pedestrian Underpass Upgrade

Subject to Sydney Trains approval, the following upgrades to the Pacific Highway pedestrian underpass adjacent to Pymble Railway Station will be constructed at the proponents expense:

– Upgrade existing pedestrian underpass lighting by increasing the Lux output and installing protection cages over lights.

– Repair and repaint walls and roof of the underpass to improve light reflection.

– Paint existing pavement to the full length of the pedestrian underpass.

Contamination After vegetation has been cleared from the site, a

further contamination sampling and analysis will be undertaken.

A waste classification will be assigned to any fill material that is excavated for offsite disposal.

If any significant contamination is encountered a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared and submitted to Ku-ring-gai Council for approval prior to the continuation of work.

A hazardous building materials survey of all existing buildings and structures will be undertaken prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

Bushfire The following will be documented in accordance

with the Bushfire Report prepared by Australian Bushfire Protection Planners (Appendix G) prior to the issue of construction certificates:

– The design and maintenance of the landscaped gardens to the complex, including the 10m wide buffer zone to Buildings 3 & 4, shall comply with the prescriptions of an Inner Protection Area [IPA] pursuant to the specifications of Appendix 5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Services document 'Specifications for Asset Protection Zones'.

– The existing Sydney Water reticulated service shall be extended into the site with hydrants installed in accordance with A.S. 2419.1 - 2005. Hydrant booster assemblies shall be


JBA 15031 45

REFERENCE COMMITMENT

provided inside the boundary and adjacent to the entry driveways off Avon Road (Building 1).

– An Evacuation Plan which incorporates protocols for defined emergencies in accordance with Australian Standard A.S. 3745-2002 "Emergency Control Organisation and Procedures for dwellings, structures and workplaces will be prepared and incorporated into the Community Management Plan, and will remain in draft format until completed by the management committee.

– Strategies to address the aim and objectives of ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ have been detailed at Section 5 of the Bushfire Report, which the proposed development will adhere to.

Drainage Prior to the undertaking of any drainage works, the

Applicant is to submit to Sydney Trains detailed stormwater and drainage details to Sydney Trains for review and endorsement. The proposed stormwater and drainage solutions are to ensure that there is no negative impact (incl. any restrictions) to the stormwater pipe located under the rail corridor.

Rail Corridor During all stages of the development extreme care

will be taken to prevent environmental harm within railway corridor, in accordance with Sydney Trains’ requirements. Any form of environmental harm to areas within the railway corridor or legislative non-compliance that arises as a consequence of the development activities will remain the full responsibility of the proponent.

Vegetation Management All works and activities on the site will be

conducted in accordance with the Vegetation Management Plan prepared by Anne Clements and Associates Pty Ltd, dated 31 March 2015.

Traffic All car parking facilities and access will comply

with relevant Australian Standards.

Landscape The site will be landscaped in accordance with the

Landscape Plans prepared by TaylorBrammer (Appendix E).

Any proposed planting will not obstruct practical access to the Sydney Water sewer main that runs the length of the drainage corridor.

Acoustic Noise mitigation measures as outlined in the

Acoustic Report prepared by Sabastian Giglio dated 5 August 2015


46 JBA 15031

6.0 Conclusion This report, outlining further revisions to the Stage 1 Project Application for 1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Avenue, Pymble, has been prepared as part of Class 1 Proceedings in the L&E Court relating to the refusal by the PAC, as delegate of the Minister, of the proposed development. This report has described the amendments to the Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0219) that have been brought about as a result of the Concept Plan Approval, and in particular addresses the Future Environmental Assessment Requirements specified in Schedule 3 of the Concept Plan approval and the Statement of Commitments in Schedule 4. The revisions to the Proposed Development have resulted from a change of ownership of the site, subsequent to the Concept Plan approval and significant design changes that have been required to ensure the development complies with the Concept Plan. The revisions have been designed to improve the relationship of the development with surrounding residences with a view to improving their amenity. Particular consideration has been given to design, residential amenity, overshadowing, view loss and maintaining the privacy of indoor and outdoor living spaces. The report also responds to issues raised with regard to the potential impact on items of local heritage significance within the site. The Proposed Development also provides significant benefits with regard to the ongoing conservation and management of the Blue Gum High Forest EEC. In addition to the site specific and local amenity improvements, the Proposed Development is consistent with delivering State and regional planning objectives. These include: The development contributing to the achievement of dwelling targets set down

in metropolitan and regional strategic plans; The site is large and in consolidated ownership. The site is located 450 metres from Pymble town centre and associated retail

services, rail station and bus services. It is considered that the further revised Stage 1 Project Application as described and assessed in this report raises no adverse impacts that cannot be effectively managed via the Statement of Commitments or be more appropriately dealt with by way of Conditions of Approval.

Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report · 2015-09-23 · 1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8...

Documents

Transcript of Second Further Revised Preferred Project Report · 2015-09-23 · 1, 1A, 3 & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8...