Background

5. Compliance with relevant statutory requirements

5(a) Marrickville local Environmental Plan 2011

The development site is subject to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011)

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones

According to MLEP 2011, the site is located in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the proposal is a permissible form of development but requires Council’s consent. Proposal nature is for alterations and additions with an outcome of a dwelling and garage loft/studio addition which coincides with point 3 of Zone R2 Under Clause 2.1. The loft/studio isn’t explicitly specified in this section of the MLEP 2011 but falls under “Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4” therefore is permissible with consent.

Part 4 – Principal development standards

Applicable MLEP 2011 Clause Development Standards Development Proposal Compliance/ Comment

4.3 Height of Buildings

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

9.5 m Labelled J

(Height of Buildings Map Sheet HOB _ 003) Main dwelling structure Highest ridge height - MD LG Level = 28.405 - 21.41 = 6.995 m

Garage First Floor Addition (assessed against LEP as per Marrickville DCP 2011 Section 4.1.7.5 Control 31) Ridge height - Garage Level = 28.040 - 22.100 = 5.94 m

Maximum FSR Ratio 0.60:1 Labelled F

(Floor Space Ratio Map Sheet _ 003) Site Area ● 221.3m2 (as per the DP 310734) ● 226.5 m2 (by manual calculation) This will be used in FSR calculation

GFA Calculation GFA = 104.9 + 14.6 + 42.2 = 161.70 m2

(Excludes garage and stair areasas specified by definition of Gross Floor Area from MLEP 2011 Dictionary Section)

FSR Calculation FSR = 161.7 m2 ÷ 226.5 m2 = 0.73

4.4 (2A) Applies to “dwelling houses... labelled “F” on FSR Map”

Site is subject to 0.9:1 FSR ratio as it within the > 200 ≤ 250 square metres ✔ YES

✔ YES

0.73 complies with the 4.4(2A) requirement of being under 0.9:1 FSR

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

The proposal is within Heritage Conservation Area 6 (HCA 6) of Marrickville LGA known as Annandale Farm and is subject to the 5.10 standards of MLEP 2011.

As per the MLEP 2011:

● Requires Council’s consent as there is “demolishing... or altering the exterior... of a building within a heritage conservation area” Clause 5.10. 2a(iii)

● A heritage management document should be prepared that assesses the impact the development has on the heritage conservation area. As discussed in section 6 of this report, the application should be referred to Council’s Heritage Officer for further advice on the development’s impact on the heritage conservation area. (For the purpose of this assignment, will still determine whether the development is approved or rejected as long as the development follows the conditions provided by Heritage Officer)

It is deemed that the proposed works, as amended and conditioned (comments provided after 5(c) DCP Compliance Table), satisfactorily address the provisions of this Clause.

Part 6 – Additional local provisions

6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

The site is not categoried in any of the ASS classes. Therefore, it isn't subject to these provisions and an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is not required.

6.2 Earthworks The proposal does not involve significant excavation or basement work and will not “have detrimental impact on environmental functions and process, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land” Part 6.2.1(a)

6.3 Flood Planning

The proposal is not located in a flood planning area. There the development is not subject to the Clause 6.3 standards as per 6.3.2

It is determined that the proposed development satisfies the aims, objectives and development standards, where relevant, of the Marrickville LEP 2011.

5(b) Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX Certificate has been submitted for the proposed development and the commitments required by the BASIX Certificate have been satisfied fulfilling the requirements as per Clause 3.1(a).

5(c) Marrickville Development Control Plans 2011 (DCP)

The development proposal is subject to the provisions of the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2005. The table below summarises the applicable DCP controls and highlights key issues of the proposal providing in-depth comments for the proposal to satisfy the objectives and controls stated within the DCP. Key recommendations and solutions colour coded blue

Part 2.6 Generic Provisions - Acoustic and Visual Privacy

Relevant Control Summary from Marrickville DCP 2011 Comply Comments

2.6.3 C3 Visual Privacy

(iv) Windows must be offset

(v) Minimum height and sill height of 1.6 from finished floor or opaque glazing ✔ YES (iv) WF07 as shown in the notification plans looks to be stagger/offset from the adjacent second storey windows.Bay Window has an extruded frame minimising overlooking into 27 Salisbury private open space (v) WF09 (NE Garage Loft Window) Not specified to be a sill height of 1.6m. Design of WF08 (SE garage dormer window) should either meet minimum sill height of 1.6m or utilise opaque glazing to minimise overlooking to properties across Stanmore Lane.

Part 2.7 Generic Provisions - Solar Access and overshadowing

2.18.11.1 C8

Maximise direct solar access (i) Habitable room (not bedroom) receives 2hr of sunlight

(ii) minimum two hours of direct sunlight over 50% of surface ✘ NO These existing issues are due to the orientation and the narrow lots (i) Living spaces (ground kitchen and living room) do not have direct sunlight being placed toward the back of the house. (existing issue) Other ground floor windows do not get direct sunlight due to the same overshadowing issue from adjacent property 27 Salisbury Road.

(ii) Meets 2hr over 50% finished surface requirement as shown in the shadow diagrams

Part 2.18 Generic Provisions - Landscaping and Open Spaces

2.18.11.1 C11

2.18.11.1 C12

Pervious landscaping for front setback except paths and driveways

Private open space (POS) (i) 20% of site area to be private open space with no dimension < 3m

(ii) Min. 50% of POS to be pervious ✔ YES Proposal doesn’t involve changes to front setback landscaping

✘ NO

However, these issues are existing. (i) Required open space Calculation Current = 22.1 m2 Requirement = 226.5 x 0.2 = 45.3 m2 Currently does not fulfill requirements, though the proposal doesn’t involve landscaping, with Heritage Officer advice may require inclusion of landscaping as explained in 4.1.6 C8. (ii) The existing paving (non-pervious) and is being retained

DCP Compliances (cont’d)

Part 4.1.5 Streetscape Design

Relevant Control Summary from Marrickville DCP 2011 Compliant Comments

C1 Address principal street frontage and orientated to complement the existing pattern

C2 Facade enhances existing built character, interpreting any positive characteristics ✘ NO Salisbury Rd has a very strong roof pitch and rhythm that dominates the streetscape especially among the immediate properties surrounding 25 Salisbury. The proposed roof design for the first storey may detract from this strong pattern shown in Fig 1. However, the retention of immediate frontage elements are retained to still reflect the Victorian Italianate Period style.

✔ YES Though the proposed roof viewed from the main frontage Salisbury Road is not consistent with the strong roofline, it is reminiscent of the rooflines of other properties located further down on Salisbury Road which is an “interpretation” and “translation” of the positive elements of the overall area, not just the immediate properties making it compliant and appropriate for the overall context area. Refer to Fig 2.

Part 4.1.6 Built Form and Character

4.1.6.1 Floor Space ratio and height

C7 FSR, height consistent with MLEP 2011 ✔ YES Refer to Section 5(a) of this report

C8 Bulk and mass of is acceptable regarding

(i) Overshadow & Privacy (ii)Streetscape (iii) Building setback (iv) Parking & Landscaping (v) Visual impact & views ✘ NO

✔ YES ✔ YES ✘ NO

✔ YES (i) ✘ (Refer to Part 2.7 C8) Elaborating on Part 2.7 C8, solar access for 23 Salisbury is not significantly impacted as the overshadowing is an existing issue as indicated on the shadow diagrams. The additional storey will slightly worsen this, but can’t be accurately determined from the shadow diagrams. (ii) ✔The roof design blends the additional height of the proposed first floor and is pushed back from the main frontage therefore not completely detracting from the character of the streetscape. Neighbouring property 23 Salisbury also has an additional modern style first floor addition showing a trend in developments in area. (iii) ✔ First Storey Setbacks make the additional storey discrete (iv) ✘ Landscaping not appropriate for the increased FSR. Further advice from Heritage Officer needed as the site is part of HCA 6. (v) ✔ increased height doesn’t have a significant visual impact as the roof is designed to make the transition to the additional storey discrete and subtle.

C9 Max 2 storey height ✔ YES Development is for first floor addition.

4.1.6.2 Building setbacks Looks at overall footprint of building and outer extremities of that building

C10 (i) Dwelling front setback consistent with adjacent (ii) Side setback (at council’s discretion) (iii)a. Consistent rear predominant first storey line or by merit

C12 Notwithstanding setback compliances, proposal (i) maintains street character ✔ YES (i) Immediate frontage retained, first floor addition pushed back with larger front setback.

(ii) Non-compliant due to the nature of the narrow lot but the issues of overshadowing, solar access and privacy are existing as mentioned in the Part 2 Generic Provisions compliance table. (iii) No Predominant first storey building line currently exists on the streetscape, but has a similar first storey rear setback as 23 Salisbury making it compliant.

✘ NO

✔ YES

✔ YES Overall proposal aims to retain the character of the street as a whole. Reflects other new first storey development on the street, takes into consideration the look and setbacks of such developments to establish a prominent first storey building style.

4.1.6.3 Site Coverage

C13 0-300sqm, Site coverage based on merit ✔ YES Large site coverage has not changed,but as shown in the aerial view Fig 3 adjoining houses have similar site coverage as indicated by the yellow boxes (not accurate but representative).

Part 4.1.7 Car Parking

C14 Convenient, efficient space, doesn’t detract or dominate

C15 C17

Located at rear Not forward of building line ✔ YES Wasn’t moved and is conveniently located on Stanmore Lane which is for this type of use. The current garage looks run down. The streetscape of Stanmore Lane has variety (Fig 4) and the garage alterations and additions will be effective in rejuvenating the rundown look of the lane and add to the variety or establish a character for first storey structures along Stanmore Lane.

✔ YES ✔ YES Garage location has not changed.

4.1.7.2 Design of garage doors

C21 200 mm Setback Suitable colours ✔ YES Meets setback requirements and the proposed material and colours suit the variety found on Stanmore Ln structures.

C22 Metal and specified type ✔ YES Metal door, but door type not specified. Must use either roller shutter doors or panel lift doors as outlined in the DCP.

C23 Not obstruct public path ✔ YES As long as design adheres to C22 choosing a suitable door.

C24 Garage off rear lane ✔ YES Garage located off rear lane

4.1.7.5 Loft structure over garages

C31 (i) Adheres to FSR, Height requirements LEP (ii) Minimal impact on amenity (iii) Bulk and scale not dominant (iv) No adverse effect on character of lanway ✔ YES

✔ YES

✔ YES

✔ YES (i) Adheres to Height requirements from LEP Highest Ridge level - Garage Level = 28.040 - 22.100 = 5.94 m < 9 m (ii) Overshadowing of loft occurs on the street not properties (iii)(iv) Proposal looks similar to adjacent property 23 Salisbury which has a very similar loft over garage development and the overall lane streetscape contains variety (Fig 4) so there is no strong pattern and thus no adverse effect on the lane’s character.

Part 4.1.8 Dormer Windows - The south east loft has been deemed a dormer window and will be assessed as so

C36

C40

C42

Rear dormer may be required to be traditional style or assessed on merit Mindful of traditional models Existing design cues ✔ YES

✔ YES

✔ YES Two houses with rear dormer windows as part of the garage or ancillary structure Fig 5 and Fig 6. The style of this lane rear dormer is not established and there is a lot of variety on the streetscape so advice from the Heritage Officer is required. Design should reflect the existing rear dormers Fig 5 and Fig 6 to establish a consistent character for structures on the laneway, but with the advice from the Heritage Officer.

C41 Doesn’t dominate roof plane ✘ NO The Style of the window proposed is almost as wide as the width of the garage and almost appears as a second storey. Along with the Heritage Officer’s advice, the window may need to use Fig 6 (43 Stanmore Lane) for design cues.

(4.1.12) C73

Windows to be compatible with existing ✔ YES According to the finish schedule, windows are aluminium with a timber look but should aim to match the existing dwelling windows

Part 4.1.9 Additional controls for contemporary dwellings

C48 Maintains perceived scale ✔ YES Fulfills all requirements as the roof disguises the first floor addition and has a larger front setback.

C49 Additions on streets with varied heights ✔ YES The loft over the garage deemed compliant as Stanmore Lane has more variety in terms of height.

C50 C55

Appropriate new walls Heu of traditional colour ✘ NO ✘ NO Main dwelling addition is render and paint finished with grey, does not match the existing brick, refer to 4.1.11 C59.

Part 4.1.11 Additional Controls for Residential period buildings

C58 C60

No demolition of front Rear and side alterations to be subordinate

C59 No finishes other than that typical to period building ✔ YES ✔ YES Roof demolition occurs after the first existing bedroom, but is a large amount of the existing roof and needs advice from the heritage officer.The first floor is discreetly transitioned by the proposed roof form and uses same roof tiling as existing

✘ NO First floor to be rendered with grey colour which clashes with the warm red brick of existing dwelling. Addition must match the existing brick dwelling as per control C50(i)

5. 5(c) cont’d Part 2.21 Site facilities and waste management

The development does not meet the requirements of Part 2.21 of Marrickville DCP 2011. As indicated by the controls, a Model Recycling & Waste Management Plan (RWMP) should be attached as the development consists of C1(i)a,b demolition and alterations/additions affecting more than 20 m2 of floor area. The current waste management plan drawing only indicates the location of storage and skip bins and is deemed unsatisfactory. Prior to works or construction, the applicant must submit Part 1 and Part 2 of the RWMP. A template is provided in Appendix 1 of Part 2.21 of the DCP.

Part 8 Heritage and Part 9.3 Strategic Context (Stanmore North)

The proposal has been assessed against Part 8 and Part 9.3 of the DCP, which informed the compliances discussed in the previous DCP tables and is deemed satisfactory but still must undergo assessment by Council’s Heritage Officer.

Part 8 Heritage (8.3, 8.5.1)

8.3.2 Controls

Residential HCA Controls ✔ YES The development complies with all the controls stated in this section and overlaps with controls from Part 4.

8.5.1

Victorian Italianate & ObjectivesVictorian Filigree ✔ YES Key Issue Objectives 2,4 While the proposal is making changes to the roof form it is still sympathetic to the overall style and area as there are similar roof forms as per 4.1.5 C2 and is more sympathetic than the first storey addition of 23 Salisbury (Fig 7)

Main comments and other issues:

Materiality - The addition of the first floor has satisfied controls regarding setback, discrete roof design, the external walls of the addition must reflect the existing brickwork. Garage Form,Dormer Window - Garage addition requires further advice from Heritage Officer, but recommended to reflect the design of either 23 or 43 Stanmore Lane (Fig 5 and Fig 6). Structural issues - Removal of internal wall may present structural issues for the support of the first floor, advice is needed from Council’s Civil Engineer. Overlooking/Privacy - Identified windows to be min. sill height and utilise opaque glazing Landscaping - With Heritage Officer approval, development should consider landscaping to accommodate for increased height and FSR (to ensure proportional development between built and natural elements of the site).

6. Public Consultation & Referrals 6(a) Notification & Advertisement

Yes, public notification is required as per Clause 3.40 of EP&A 1979 and has been carried out as the new alterations have an impact on immediate residents and character of the streetscape. 6(b) Major stakeholders and impact on them (as explained in 5(c)) 23 Salisbury - May be subject to overshadowing, overlooking and privacy issues 27 Salisbury - Subject to overlooking and privacy issues into private space

6(c) Referrals

To be internally referred to: ● Council’s Heritage Officer - Further assessment required as the property is in HCA 6, treatment of existing building and new elements need to be assessed by an expert, ● Council’s Engineer - The internal wall of existing kitchen is to be removed, needs assessment as to whether the retain walls are able to support a first storey addition

6(d) Submissions Received

No submissions found on Innerwest’s Application Tracking website to be reviewed.

7. Environmental Planning & Assessment S4.15 Discussion (1) Matters to be considered in general (a) Provisions of various planning

(i) The development was assessed against the MLEP 2011’s written instrument as and maps (ii) As per Clause 3.40 of EP&AAct 1979, public notification was provided for 19 days. (iii) The Marrickville DCP 2011 was used to assess the development and while it is recommended in Part 1.1.12 to prioritise in the order of Part 9, 8, 4, 2, the assessment has taken into consideration the controls presented in the site and precinct specific controls outlined in Part 9 throughout the entire assessment to ensure identify compliance or non-compliances.

(b) Likely Impacts

Environmental - The assessment notes that no landscaping is involved in the proposal but that it does require a RWMP to be submitted to ensure waste is handled as per Marrickville’s DCP. Social - The assessment highlights the impact on adjacent dwellings and provides solutions to solve overlooking and privacy issues, while striving to preserve the area’s desired character. Economical - As a residential building, there were no identified impacts in an economic sense. The convenient location of the house near the station and bus routes have been acknowledged.

(c) Suitability of the Site

The assessment referred to Part 8 and 9 of the DCP to understand the site/precinct controls and objectives to understand the suitability of the development for the site and as shown in the compliance tables was deemed satisfactory or suitable with certain conditions in place.

(d) Submissions (f) Public Interest

There were no submissions to be taken into consideration. The development has been deemed sympathetic to the community’s desired and appreciated heritage character of the area.

(2)(3) Non-discretionary development standard Compliances and Non-compliances

As explained in the MLEP compliance table in Section 5(a), the development is compliant to the non-discretionary standards set in the LEP and no conditions have to be further imposed.

(3A) Relevant DCP Controls Compliances & Non-Compliances

The comment column of the DCP Compliance table in Section 5(c) explains whether the proposal is compliant or non-compliant with the controls set in Part 2, 4, 8, 9 of the Marrickville DCP. Where there were non-compliances, as per the additional comments concluding Section 5(c), assessment took into consideration the existing issues of the site and provided flexible solutions, as required by (3A)(b) EP&A 1979 to allow the development to be more suitable and sympathetic to its setting within heritage conservation area. The solutions are colour coded blue throughout the DCP compliance table.

8. Conclusion and Recommendation

The development application for 25 Salisbury Road has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the MLEP 2011 and Marrickville DCP 2011 and is deemed satisfactory to the relevant controls. To conclude assessment, it is considered that Development Application No. 2021/0166 is satisfactory and recommended for approval (with certain conditions in place) as the alterations and additions are subtle, and both structures are sympathetic to their street or lane frontage. The main dwelling structure addition iscompliant as the fronts of the house are untouched with alterations and additions occurring in the back 3 quarters of the house. The discrete transition design of the roof has also been deemed compliant, but issues of sympathetic materiality have been identified and addressed with recommendations to ensure the addition does not detract from the main streetscape of Salisbury Rd. The garage loft addition has also been deemed compliant as it is located at the rear, a low impact area and satisfies height and FSR standards. However, along with the advice of Council’s Heritage Officer, it is recommended that the form and dormer window must look to existing dormers along Stanmore Lane to establish a consistent pattern to enhance the character of the laneway.

Picture Reference Sheet

Fig 1. Streetscape, neighbouring properties strong roof pitch and rhythm.

Fig 2. 24 Salisbury, 20 Salisbury and 17 Salisbury (somewhat similar roof viewed from main frontage as proposed roof)

Fig 3. Site coverage and comparisons of private open space showing similarities.

Fig 4. Stanmore Lane has a variety of rear structures and no dominant pattern.

Fig 5. 23 Stanmore Lane garage roof form and dormer similar to proposal Fig 6. 43 Stanmore Lane garage roof form and north facing dormer & skylight

Fig 7. Neighbouring property’s (23 Salisbury) first floor addition is an example of unsympathetic design the style and character of the area