St Patrick’s College Strathfield Replacement of Roof Tiles ... · The subject site is zoned R2...

Statement of Environmental Effects

St Patrick’s College Strathfield Replacement of Roof Tiles to Hickey Building AP 1163 June 2017

Studio 10 | The Interchange| 13-29 Nichols Street | Surry Hills | NSW 2010 telephone: 02 9360 0989 | fax: 02 9360 0389| www.asquareplanning.com.au

Replacement of roof tiles to Hickey Building

St Patrick’s College, Francis Street, Strathfield Statement of Environmental Effects for submission to Strathfield Council June 2017 I AP 1163 Reproduction of this document or any part thereof is not permitted without written permission of aSquare Planning Pty Ltd. aSquare Planning Pty Ltd. operates a quality control system. If the report is not signed below, it is a preliminary draft. Report Prepared by: Jennie Askin

Signature Date: 13 June 2017 Report Reviewed by: Lewis Adey

Signature Date: 7 June 2017

CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 42. THE SITE .............................................................................................. 53. THE LOCALITY ................................................................................... 7 4. BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 8

4.1 Planning History – Subject Site .................................................... 84.2 Pre DA Meeting .............................................................................. 8

5. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 79C ................. 10 6. SECTION 79C(1)(a) ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS ............................ 10

6.1 Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 106.2 Integrated Development ............................................................. 106.3 Relevant State Instruments and Legislation ............................. 116.4 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 .............................. 14

7. S.79C (1)(a)(ii) DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS ................ 17 8. S.79C 1(a)(iii) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS ...................... 18

8.1 Strathfield DCP 2005 ................................................................... 18 9. S.79C 1(a)(iv) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ................................. 2010.S.79C 1(b) THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL .............. 2011.S.79C 1(c) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE .................................. 2112.S.79C 1(d) SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

ACT OR THE REGULATIONS .......................................................... 2113.S.79C 1(e) THE PUBLIC INTEREST – CONCLUSION .................. 22 APPENDIX 1 CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION .............................................. 23APPENDIX 2 PLANS ............................................................................. 31

Statement of Environmental Effects St Patrick’s College, Strathfield

4 of 31

1. SUMMARY This statement is to be read in conjunction with plans prepared by Glendenning Szoboszlay Architects dated 2 June 2017. It is proposed to replace the existing roof tiles of the Hickey Building within the school complex known as St Patrick’s College Strathfield. The proposal has been designed to protect the heritage significance of the existing school building. The preparation of this Statement is pursuant to Section 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. It provides for an assessment of the development proposal, having regard to relevant legislation, contextual analysis, social, economic and environmental impacts, potential amenity impacts on the surrounding locality and the measures proposed to mitigate impacts. This statement assesses the proposal concluding that the proposal has no adverse impacts and is in compliance with all relevant DCP and LEP objectives.


5 of 31

2. THE SITE The site is located on the western side of Francis Street near the intersection with Merley Road.


6 of 31

The school campus consists of numerous buildings including chapel, gymnasium and music centre with sporting ovals and cricket nets. The proposal is limited to the Hickey Building located adjacent to the Chapel.

Hickey Building

Hickey Building with Chapel in foreground


7 of 31

The site is zoned R2 under the provisions of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. The Hickey building is identified as a Heritage Item.

3. THE LOCALITY St Patricks College is surrounded by low-density residential development. The subject building, The Hickey Building is located within the site away from the surrounding residential properties. The photographs below indicate existing development within the visual catchment of the school.


8 of 31

4. BACKGROUND 4.1 Planning History – Subject Site There is no recent recorded planning history relating to the subject building. 4.2 Pre DA Meeting The matter was not the subject of a formal pre DA meeting.


9 of 31

5. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION This statement is to be read in conjunction with the following plans prepared by Glendenning Szoboszlay Architects dated 2 June 2017:

J1307/SK01 Site plan J1307/SK02 Elevations J1307/SK03 Elevations J1307/SK04 Cross section J1307/SK05 Roof plan

The following reports are also submitted with this application

• Heritage Assessment by Ruth Daniell It is proposed to replace the roof tiles to the existing Hickey Building (local heritage item).


10 of 31

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 79C

The following matters are to be considered in the assessment of this development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

6. SECTION 79C(1)(a) ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

6.1 Objects of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act The relevant objects under Clause 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 are:

to encourage:

• the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

and

• the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and

development of land

The proposal is to replace the existing roof tiles to the Hickey Building. This represents the orderly and economic use of the land. As such the proposal is consistent with the relevant objects of the Act. 6.2 Integrated Development The proposal does not constitute Integrated Development.


11 of 31

6.3 Relevant State Instruments and Legislation State Environmental Planning Policy- Building Sustainability Index: (BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") is not applicable to this application. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land This SEPP provides a state-wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has to be given as to whether the land is contaminated. The proposal does not seek to disturb the ground and therefore no further consideration is therefore required under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Clause 28 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 outlines development permitted with consent and reads as follows: 28. Development permitted with consent

(1) Development for the purpose of educational establishments may be carried out any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone.

(1C) Development for a purpose specified in clause 31A (1) may

be carried out by any person with consent on land on which there is an existing school or TAFE establishment.

(2) Development for any of the following purposes may be

carried out by any person with consent on any of the following land: (a) development for the purpose of educational establishments—on land on which there is an existing educational establishment,

(b) development for the purpose of the expansion of


12 of 31

existing educational establishments—on land adjacent to the existing educational establishment.

(3) An educational establishment (including any part of its site

and any of its facilities) may be used, with consent, for any community purpose, whether or not it is a commercial use of the establishment.

(4) Subclause (3) does not require consent to carry out

development on land if that development could, but for this Policy, be carried out on that land without consent.

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, which is a prescribed zone in the SEPP. Therefore, use as an educational establishment is permissible with consent. Clause 32 of the SEPP outlines the requirements in terms of determination of development applications and requires the consideration of the following:

• School Facilities Standards—Landscape Standard— (Version 22/03/2002),

• Schools Facilities Standards—Design Standard (Version 1/09/2006), • Schools Facilities Standards—Specification Standard (Version

01/11/2008). The School Facilities Standards are written as a general educational and technical specification for planning new school buildings for New South Wales Department of Education and Training and operate as a guide only. The standards are not legally binding. The subject Educational Establishment is not a NSW Department of Education School. However, the standards are discussed below where relevant. School Facilities Standards—Landscape Standard (Version 22/03/2002) This section outlines the following principles for landscape design:

1. Principles to provide a sense of place 2. Principles for a safe landscape 3. Principles for a sustainable landscape 4. Principles for a cost effective landscape

These controls are not applicable to the subject proposal, as the works are limited to the replacement of roof tiles.


13 of 31

School Facilities Standards—Design Standard (Version 1/09/2006) The purpose of the design standard is to outline the general requirements of each technical component within all spaces of the school. These controls are not applicable to the subject proposal, as the works are limited to the replacement of roof tiles. Schools Facilities Standards—Specification Standard (Version 01/11/2008) These controls are not applicable to the subject proposal, as the works are limited to the replacement of roof tiles.


14 of 31

6.4 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 Aims of Plan The aims of the Strathfield LEP 2012 are:

(a) to achieve high quality urban form by ensuring that new

development exhibits design excellence and reflects the existing or desired future character of particular localities and neighbourhoods in Strathfield,

(b) to promote the efficient and spatially appropriate use of land, the sustainable revitalisation of centres, the improved integration of transport and land use, and an appropriate mix of uses by regulating land use and development,

(c) to promote land uses that provide a wide range of employment, recreation, retail, cultural, service, educational and other facilities for the local community,

(d) to provide opportunities for economic growth that will enhance the local community,

(e) to promote future development that integrates land use and transport planning, encourages public transport use, and reduces the traffic and environmental impacts of private vehicle use,

(f) to identify and protect environmental and cultural heritage, (g) to promote opportunities for social, cultural and community

activities, (h) to minimise risk to the community by identifying land subject to

flooding and restricting incompatible development. The proposal complies with the above objectives. Aims and objectives of zone The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and SP2 Infrastructure under the provisions of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. The subject building, the Hickey Building, is located within that part of the site zoned R2. The objectives of the R2 zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density

residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the

day to day needs of residents.


15 of 31

• To ensure that development of housing does not adversely impact the heritage significance of adjacent heritage items and conservation areas.

The existing and proposed use as an educational establishment is not listed is permissible within the R2 zone. However, pursuant to the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, R2 is listed as a prescribed zone and Clause 28(1) states that development for the purpose of educational establishments may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone. Clause 8(1) of the SEPP states that if there is an inconsistency between this Policy and any other environmental planning instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. It is also noted that the existing use as a school has been in operation for some time and without this provision within the SEPP, would benefit from existing use rights. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone in that it will ensure that the heritage significance of the existing school building, being a heritage item, will be retained. Statutory Compliance Table Site Area Proposed Control Complies

Height 11.5m* 9.5m No*

* As existing Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings The site is subject to a height control of 9.5 metres. The existing building provides a maximum height of 11.5 metres, providing a non-compliance with this control. The proposal does not seek to alter the height of the building but seeks to undertake works above the statutory height control of 9.5 metres. In this regard, a Clause 4.6 variation has been prepared and is attached as Appendix 1.


16 of 31

Clause 4.2 – Floor space ratio The proposal will not alter the existing floor area of the school. Clause 5.3 – Development near zone boundaries The objective of this clause is to provide flexibility where the investigation of a site and its surroundings reveals that a use allowed on the other side of a zone boundary would enable a more logical and appropriate development of the site and be compatible with the planning objectives and land uses for the adjoining zone. The subject site zoned both R2 and SP2 with the subject building located within the R2 zone. The provisions of this clause allow for consent to a use that is permissible on the adjoining zone if:

(a) the development is not inconsistent with the objectives for development in both zones, and

(b) the carrying out of the development is desirable due to compatible land use planning, infrastructure capacity and other planning principles relating to the efficient and timely development of land.

Given the existing use as a school on the R2 site and the adjoining zone being SP2 Infrastructure, where educational establishments are permissible, the existing use on the R2 site is permissible. Clause 5.10 – Heritage conservation The objectives of Clause 5.10 are:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Strathfield, (b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and

heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites, (d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage

significance. The subject building is listed as a heritage item under the Strathfield LEP 2012. A Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared by Ruth Daniell, Heritage Consultant and concludes:


17 of 31

In my professional opinion, the decision to replace the roof tiling is a sound decision and will benefit the care and ongoing life of the heritage listed building. The HIS has determined that the selected tiles and colour are a suitable replacement and are sympathetic to the heritage listed building.

Clause 6.1 – Acid sulfate soils The site is located in a Class 5 area identified on Council’s Acid Sulphate Soil Map. The site is not within 500m of Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land below AHD 5 metres. Therefore the proposal does not require the need for an assessment of acid sulphate soils under clause 7.14 of the Sydney LEP 2012. Clause 6.2 – Earthworks No excavation is proposed as part of the application. The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant provisions of the LEP and is acceptable for the reasons discussed above.

7. S.79C (1)(a)(ii) DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

Not applicable to this assessment.


18 of 31

8. S.79C 1(a)(iii) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 8.1 Strathfield DCP 2005 General Introduction Section 1.11 Heritage and Conservation The objectives of this section of the DCP are:

A. To preserve and enhance the visual and environmental amenity of heritage items and heritage conservation areas within the municipality of Strathfield.

B. Ensure all development affecting heritage items and conservation

areas is designed to be compatible in setting, scale, setbacks, form, materials and character with the building and surrounding area.

C. Ensure that development in the vicinity of a heritage item or

conservation area does not have an adverse impact on the heritage significance or setting and that development is compatible in setting, scale, setbacks, form, materials and character with the item or conservation area.

D. Conserve archaeological sites and places of Aboriginal

significance In accordance with the heritage listing of the building, a Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted with the application. This statement concludes that the proposed new tiles to the existing Hickey building are a suitable replacement and will not affect the significance of the building. The proposal will ensure the preservation of the building for the future. Part M Educational Establishments The purpose of Part M is to ensure that educational establishment proposals within the Strathfield LGA are:

• attractive and sympathetic to the streetscape • appropriate for the surrounding built and natural environment • provide a satisfactory learning environment


19 of 31

• incorporate suitable design and environmentally sustainable principles and have a minimal impact on surrounding land uses and the road network.

The proposal seeks to replace the existing roof tiles to an existing building within the school campus and therefore will not affect the overall built form and layout of the school, which will continue to have a positive contribution to the locality. Part M applies to the construction, alteration, change of use and/or operation of educational establishments (including changes to the hours of operation, number of students, age profile of students and so on) and has been prepared to outline the application process and provide guidelines and requirements for educational establishment applications. The proposal will not alter the current operational arrangements of the school and therefore, such provisions are not applicable to the subject proposal. Part M provides local planning requirements but does not outline requirements relevant to educational establishments otherwise provided for under state or Commonwealth legislation, regulations, plans, policies or codes that may apply to educational establishments and any such other requirements are the responsibility of applicants to determine. Given the limited scope of works proposed and the fact that the existing building is to be retained in its current form, these local controls are not considered to be applicable to the subject proposal.


20 of 31

9. S.79C 1(a)(iv) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Clause 92 of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires consideration of Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures. It also requires compliance with this, by standard by condition of consent. Demolition, being limited to the removal of existing tiles, will be undertaken in strict accordance with AS 2601-1991. Demolition works will be undertaken in accordance with prescribed times. It is intended that any noise generated from the site will comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of Environment Operations Act and the NSW EPA Environmental Noise Manual for the control of construction noise. Approved silencing devices will be provided and maintained on all power operated machinery, where required.

10. S.79C 1(b) THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL

Construction works will be undertaken in accordance with prescribed times. It is intended that any noise generated from the site will comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of Environment Operations Act and the NSW EPA Environmental Noise Manual for the control of construction noise. Approved silencing devices will be provided and maintained on all power operated machinery, where required. Construction works will be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. The site will be secured by a standard Class A hoarding, as required and appropriate signage will be erected. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be adopted during site works and the existing Stormwater system will be protected during works The above analysis demonstrates that the proposals will have no adverse Environmental Impact and therefore satisfies this section of the Act.


21 of 31

11. S.79C 1(c) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The subject site is suitable for the proposal as: 1. The proposal seeks to undertake restoration to the existing heritage item

within the St Patrick’s College campus to ensure its long-term viaiblity. 2. The site is not subject to natural hazards such as bushfire tidal inundation

and mass movement. 3. There are no precipitate constraints posed by adjacent land uses. 4. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be employed

during works. 5. The development will not result in environmental degradation of the

coastal foreshore.

The application therefore satisfies this section of the Act.

12. S.79C 1(d) SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT OR THE REGULATIONS

Not applicable to local development.


22 of 31

13. S.79C 1(e) THE PUBLIC INTEREST – CONCLUSION

It is proposed to replace the roof tiles to the existing heritage item (Hickey Building) within the St Patrick’s College campus The proposed works are required to protect the existing building and ensure the ongoing life of the heritage listed building. The proposed tiles and colour are a suitable replacement and are sympathetic to the heritage listed building. The proposed development is therefore in the public interest. The proposal complies with all relevant SEPP, LEP and DCP objectives and would have no adverse impact. The application therefore satisfies this section of the Act.

APPENDIX 1

CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION

HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

STRATHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

ST PATRICK’S COLLEGE STRATHFIELD

REQUEST PROVIDING GROUNDS FOR VARIATION TO HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 4.6(3) OF STRATHFIELD LEP 2012

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 allows for exceptions of Development Standards. The objectives of this Clause 4.6 are:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by

allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. The clause goes on to state:

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that

contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is

unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds

to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

This document constitutes the written request referred to in Clause 4.6(3) in relation to the proposal’s breach of the height of building development standard. The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) provides guidance on how to prepare Clause 4.6 variations; ‘Varying development standards: A Guide’ (August 2011). This written request to vary the standards is based on the DP&I’s Guide. Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

Clause 4.3 and the associated map prescribe a height limit of 9.5m for this site. The existing roof has a maximum height of 11.5 metres above existing ground level and the proposal does not seek to alter this height. However, as the replacement of the roof tiles will occur above the statutory height control, the proposal provides a non-compliance with this control. The questions contained in the DP&I’s Guide are addressed below. 1. What is the name of the environmental planning instrument that applies to the land? Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the LEP) 2. What is the zoning of the land? The zoning of the land is R2 Low Density Residential 3. What are the objectives of the zone? The objectives of the R2 zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To ensure that development of housing does not adversely impact the heritage significance of adjacent heritage items and conservation areas.

4. What is the development standard being varied? The development standard being varied is the height development standard. 5. Under what Clause is the development standard listed in the environmental planning instrument? The development standard is listed under clause 4.3 of the LEP. 6. What are the objectives of the development standard? The objectives of Clause 4.3 are as follows:

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

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

(c) to achieve a diversity of small and large development options. 7. What is the numeric value of the development standard in the environmental planning instrument? The numeric value of the development standard is 9.5m. 8. What is the proposed numeric value of the development standard in your development application? The maximum numeric value existing is 11.5 metres. This is not proposed to be increased. 9. What is the percentage variation (between your proposal and the environmental planning instrument)? The percentage variation is 21% (2 metres above the statutory control of 9.5 metres). 10. How is strict compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case?

In order to assess whether strict compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case, the proposal is considered against the five ways of demonstrating that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as set out by Preston CJ in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. These five ways have recently been re-emphasised by Commission Morris in Mecone Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 1312. It is noted that each ‘test’ offers a potential way of demonstrating that complaisance is unnecessary or unreasonable in a particular circumstance. All tests are separate and not all tests may not be applicable in each case. Therefore not all tests need to be met.

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

In this case the objectives of the development standard are met as follows: Objective (a) seeks to ensure that development is of a height that is generally compatible with or which improves the appearance of the existing area The proposal does not seek to alter the existing maximum height of the roof with restoration works to occur above the statutory height control. Objective (b) encourages a consolidation pattern that leads to the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area. As the proposal does not seek to alter the existing height of the roof, the proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this objective.

Objective (c) seeks to achieve a diversity of small and large development options. This is not relevant to the subject proposal, as no change to the building envelope is proposed. The proposal will retain the existing non-compliant height, which is considered appropriate having regard to the significance of the building. The existing building is set back within the site away from adjoining residential properties and within a landscaped setting, allowing for its significance to be acknowledged whilst reducing any amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

2. The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary:

Not applicable in this instance.

3. The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or

thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable:

Strict compliance with the control would not comply with the underlying purpose of the control. This is because a building that fully complied with height would result in the loss of significant building fabric affecting the heritage significance of the building.

As such this underlying objective or purpose of the LEP in terms of heritage conservation would be thwarted if compliance were required in this case with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or

destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard:

Not applicable in this instance; the development standards of height and FSR cover a wide area and whilst the height standard may not be appropriate to this site, they may be appropriate to other sites elsewhere in the locality. There are numerous instances where consents departing from the standard have been approved and others where the standard have been upheld. This is more an indication of the inappropriateness of particular standards to some sites rather than a comment on Council’s actions. 5. The zoning of particular land was unreasonable or inappropriate

so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to the land:

The zoning of the site is not considered to be unreasonable or inappropriate, having regard to the character of the area.

11. How would strict compliance hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act? Compliance with the standard would hinder the attainment of the objects of section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act, which are to encourage development that

promotes the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, and to promote and coordinate orderly and economic use and development of land. The proposal satisfies the zone and development standard objectives and therefore strict compliance with the standard is not required in order to achieve compliance with the objectives. Strict compliance would result in an inflexible application of policy. It does not serve any purpose that should outweigh the positive outcomes of the development and therefore a better planning outcome overall. The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of orderly and economic development of land, in that it proposes to restore an existing heritage item. The retention of the existing non-compliant height of the building is considered fundamental to ensure that the heritage significance and long-term life of the building is further enhanced. This is consistent with the promotion and coordination of the orderly use and development of land. 12. Is the development standard a performance based control? Give Details. The height of buildings development standard is a performance based control as the control contains objectives to which compliance with the standard is targeted to achieve. 13. Would strict compliance with the standard, in your particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary? Why? As discussed above it is considered that strict compliance, in this particular case, would result in an inflexible application of policy given the heritage significance of the building. Strict compliance, in this particular case, does not serve any purpose that should outweigh the positive outcomes of the development, namely heritage conservation. The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of orderly and economic development. 14. Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard? Give details:

In the circumstances of the case, the provision of strict numerical compliance would be unreasonable for the reasons advanced below. The existing height is achieved without adverse impacts and retaining this height is imperative to ensure the heritage significance of the building is further enhanced. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the relevant underlying objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone. The above is considered to represent sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and as such compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. The resultant development will therefore be in the public interest. When considered alongside the lack of adverse environmental impacts arising from the additional height, overall a variation to the control would result in a better outcome in accordance with Clause 4.6(b) of the LEP. As such the proposal meets the assessment criteria set out in Clause 4.6(3) (a) and (b) and (4)(a). Conclusion This document has considered that there are more than sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation on the basis that compliance with the standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this particular case. As demonstrated above, the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the objectives of the R2 zone. In the context of other requirements of Clause 4.6, it is considered that no matters of State or regional planning significance are raised by the proposed development. Moreover, it is considered that there would be no public benefit in maintaining the particular planning control in question, in the case of this specific development. This submission is considered to adequately address the matters required by Clause 4.6 and demonstrates that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. Despite the proposal’s non-compliance with the proposed standard, the proposed development is considered to meet the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the R2 zone.

APPENDIX 2

PLANS

J1307/SK01 Site plan J1307/SK02 Elevations J1307/SK03 Elevations J1307/SK04 Cross section

J1307/SK05 Roof plan

Glendenning Szoboszlay Architects Pty. Limited 2/605 P ac i f ic H ighway, Mt.Colah, NSW - 2079.

Te l - (02) 9482 7033. Fax - (02) 9482 7201. emai l: ggarch@ozemail .com.auJune 2017

Checked by:

Drawn by :

Drawing:

Francis Street, Strathfield NSW Drawing No. -

SHEET SIZE: A3 Date:

Z:\DWG\1307 - Strathfield, St Pats\xxxx-Project Name\01 ArchiCad - PLN's\02 DA\151013_1166-St Pats College - Site Buildings Plan - Hanna_.pln, Print Date:2/06/2017, Print Time:2:38 PM

J1307/ SK-01

MG / LS

Site Plan

St. Patricks CollegeHickey Administration Building

Roof Plan

Issue A : DA Issue 2 June 2017

#ID#ID

FO

OT

PA

TH

M E R L E Y R O A D

DRIVEWAY

FR

AN

CI

S

ST

RE

ET

FO

OT

PA

TH

S H O R T L A N D A V E N U E

FR

AS

ER

S

TR

EE

T

E D G A R S T R E E T

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY

REPLACE EXISTING ROOF TILES TO THEHICKEY BUILDING AS PER THE HERITAGE REPORT

WESTCOURTBUILDING MARKWELL BUILDING

HANRAHAN BUILDING

COGHLAN BUILDING/

COLLEGE HALL

McGLADELIBRARY

HODDA BUILDING

HEALEY

BUILDING

HICKEYBUILDING

CRICHTONTAS BLOCK

SMOLLETT PLACE

CHAPEL

RAYMER BUILDING

BREEN OVAL NO. 1

DEANGYMNASIUM

WATERFORD

HOUSE

CRICKET

NETSDUFFY

MUSICCENTRE

POOL

OVAL NO. 2

OVAL NO. 3 OVAL NO. 4

TENNISCOURT

N

MARY MacKILLOP

ART CENTRE

POWELL

PAVILLION

ROBSONAUDITORIUM

Glendenn ing Szoboszlay Archi tects Pty. L imi te d 2/605 Pac if ic Highway, Mt.Colah, NSW - 2079.

Tel - (02) 9482 7033. Fax - (02) 9482 7201. email: [email protected] 2017

Checked by:

Drawn by :

Drawing:



E:\Temp\1233-Strathfield-St Patrick's College-Hickey Building Interior Refurb B.pln, Print Date:12/06/2017, Print Time:6:55 PM

J1307/ SK-2

LS

Elevations Sheet 1


Roof Plan

Issue A : DA Issue 2 June 2017Issue B : Modifed 12 June 2017

GROUND FLOOR RL 29.31

FIRST FLOOR RL 33.86

TOP OF ROOF RL 39.96ASSUMED


REPLACE EXISTING ROOF TILES TO THE ROOF AS PER HERITAGE REPORT

RETAIN ROOF TILES TO THE TOP OF WALL PARAPETS





1 North Elevation 1:200

2 South Elevation 1:200



Checked by:

Drawn by :

Drawing:




J1307/ SK-3

LS

Elevations Sheet 2


Roof Plan






REPLACE EXISTING ROOF TILES TO THE ROOF AS PER HERITAGE REPORT






1 NORTH ELEVATION 1:200

2 South Elevation 1:200



Checked by:

Drawn by :

Drawing:




J1307/ SK-4

LS

Cross Section


Roof Plan


REPLACE EXISTING ROOF TILES TO THEROOF AS PER THE HERITAGE REPORT

REPLACE EXISTING ROOF TILES TO THE ROOFAS PER THE HERITAGE REPORT





1 Section 1:200



Checked by:

Drawn by :

Drawing:




J1307/ SK-5

LS

Roof Plan


Roof Plan


REPLACE EXISTING ROOF TILES TO THE ROOF AS PER THE HERITAGE REPORT



1 Roof Level 1:200

St Patrick’s College Strathfield Replacement of Roof Tiles ... · The subject site is zoned R2...

Documents

Transcript of St Patrick’s College Strathfield Replacement of Roof Tiles ... · The subject site is zoned R2...