1                 LPP27/18    Development Application - Construction of two dwellings on proposed lots 2 and 3 -  88 Malton Road, Beecroft

(DA/398/2018)

Officers RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/398/2018 for the erection of two detached dwellings on proposed Lots 2 and 3 at Lot 41, DP 714483, No. 88 Malton Road, Beecroft, be refused for the reasons detailed in Schedule 1 of Report No. LPP27/18.

PANEL’S CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION

The Panel considered the matters raised by the objectors at the meeting including owners consent, consistency of plans, access, building height, bushfire, building scale, privacy and impact on trees.

The Panel resolved to adopt the officers recommendation and refuse consent to the proposed development for the reasons outlined in Schedule 1 and as amended as follows:

1.     5 f) be amended to read -  The height and visual prominence of the two dwellings is not compatible with heritage values for the Beecroft-Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area set out in Part 9.3.6 of the HDCP.

2.     7 h) to be included to read – Inadequate engineering information in respect to the driveway ramp off the right of way to enable efficient and safe manoeuvring of vehicles in and out of the double garage of Lot 3 to exit the site in a forward direction.

VOTING OF THE PANEL MEMBERS

FOR:                Garry Fielding, Juliet Grant, Linda McClure.

AGAINST:         Nil

2                 LPP30/18    Development Application - Torrens title subdivision of one lot into two and demolition of a deck - 101 - 103 Wongala Crescent, Pennant Hills

(DA/1202/2017)

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/1202/2017 for Torrens title subdivision of one lot into two and demolition of a deck at Lot 15 DP 10463, Nos.101 - 103 Wongala Crescent, Pennant Hills be refused for the reasons detailed in Schedule 1 of Report No.LPP30/18.

PANEL’S CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION

The Panel considered the matters raised by the objectors at the meeting including impact on trees, traffic safety, width of the proposed lot, drainage and flooding impacts.

The Panel resolved to adopt the officers recommendation and refuse consent to the proposed development for the reasons outlined in Schedule 1 and as amended as follows:

1.     Deleting reasons 1, 2 a), 2 b), 4 c) and 5 d)

2.     Amend reasons 5 b) - The proposed lot size does not have adequate regard to the site constraints to accommodate a future dwelling in accordance with the HDCP on the proposed lot.

3.     Amend reason 7 - The proposed subdivision is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the site is within a bushfire prone area and is unsuitable for the proposed development and would require an Asset Protection Zone for bushfire mitigation involving tree clearing inconsistent with the objectives of the zone to protect and maintain areas of bushland that have ecological value.

VOTING OF THE PANEL MEMBERS

FOR:                Garry Fielding, Juliet Grant, Linda McClure, Barbra Wynn.

AGAINST:         Nil

3                 LPP32/18    Section 8.2 Review -  Two residential flat buildings comprising 29 units and a basement car park - 29 & 31A Balmoral Street and 5 Park Lane, Waitara

(DA/1549/2016)

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Section 8.2 Review of Development Application No. DA/1549/2016 for demolition of existing structures and erection of two, 4 - 5 storey residential flat buildings comprising 29 units and a basement car park at Lot 211 and Lot 212 DP 868605 and Lot 202 DP 1097256, Nos. 29 & 31A Balmoral Street and No. 5 Park Lane, Waitara, be refused for the reasons detailed in Schedule 1 of LPP Report No. LPP/32/18.

PANEL’S CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION

The Panel resolved to adopt the officers’ recommendation and, pursuant to  Section 8.4 of the EP&A Act 1979, confirm the Council’s decision of 13 December 2017 to refuse consent to the proposed development for the reasons outlined in Schedule 1 and as amended as follows:

1.     Delete reason 2.

2.     Amend reason 4 to read as follows –

The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not achieve design excellence in accordance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide as follows:

a)          The communal open space areas do not enhance residential amenity and provide adequate opportunities for landscaping per Objective 3D-1.

b)         Unit No. 6 does not achieve a minimum 15m² of courtyard area.

c)          The deep soil zones do not satisfy the minimum dimension requirement and is inadequate per Objective 3E-1.

d)         Minimum bedroom sizes are not achieved per Objective 4D-3.

e)          The proposal does not include a shadow analysis from potential overshadowing of an adjoining development built in isolation at No.31 Balmoral Street and No.33A and 33 Balmoral Street which could further reduce the number of units that achieve 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm 22^nd June.

f)          The shadow diagrams are incorrect as they do not take into account the existing building to the west of the development which could reduce available sunlight to units and private open space areas.

VOTING OF THE PANEL MEMBERS

FOR:           Garry Fielding, Juliet Grant, Linda McClure, Jerome Cox.

AGAINST:    Nil

4                 LPP28/18    Development Application - Subdivision of Three Allotments into Two - 1 George Street Brooklyn

(DA/897/2017)

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/897/2017 for Torrens title subdivision of three allotments into two at Lots 1, 2 and 3 Section C DP 2746, No. 1 George Street, Brooklyn be refused for the reasons detailed in Schedule 1 of LPP Report No. LPP28/18.

PANEL’S CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION

The Panel considered the matters raised by the objector at the meeting including bushfire

The Panel considered representations by the Applicants consultants but was not satisfied with the adequacy of the Clause 4.6 submission and that the engineering advice appropriately addressed the potential flooding impacts on the property. Accordingly the Panel resolved to adopt the officers recommendation and refuse consent to the proposed development for the reasons outlined in Schedule 1 and as amended as follows:

1.     Delete reason 6

VOTING OF THE PANEL MEMBERS

FOR:           Garry Fielding, Juliet Grant, Linda McClure, Brian Scarsbrick.

AGAINST:    Nil