|
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
THAT Development Application No. DA/893/2019 for
demolition of existing structures and construction of a 71 place two storey
child care centre at Lot 91 DP 8354, No. 9 Stuart Avenue Normanhurst be
refused subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in Schedule 1 of LPP
Report No. LPP10/20.
PANEL’S CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION
The Panel considered the matters
raised by the objectors in written submissions and at the meeting, including traffic
& pedestrian safety, scale of development, privacy, landscaping, contamination
and acoustic impacts.
The Panel resolved to adopt the
officers’ recommendation and refuse consent to the proposed development
for the following reasons:
1.
The proposed development is unsatisfactory
in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 as the proposed development does not satisfy Clause
23 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and
Childcare Facilities) 2017 and the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 as
follows:
1.1 The proposal is contrary to the planning objectives
within Part 1.3 of the Guideline in that the proposal is not compatible
within the existing context and neighbouring land uses and the proposal does
not adequately minimise adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the
neighbourhood.
1.2 The
proposal is contrary to the ‘design principles of Part 2 of the
Guideline in relation to built form, landscaping, safety, amenity, privacy,
solar access and noise.
1.3 The
proposal is contrary to the Part 3 considerations of the Guideline with
respect to Part 3.1 Site Selection and Location, Part 3.2 Local Character,
Streetscape and the public domain interface, Part 3.3 Building Orientation,
Envelope and Design, Part 3.4 Landscaping, Part 3.5 Visual and Acoustic
Privacy and Part 3.6 Noise and Pollution and Part 3.8 Traffic, Parking and
Pedestrian Circulation.
2.
The proposed development is
unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the removal of tree No. 1 would pose
a detrimental impact to the streetscape and the ‘major’ incursion
into the TPZ of tree No. 4 would pose an adverse impact to the vitality of
the tree and is unacceptable with respect to State Environmental Planning
Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017.
3.
The proposed development is
unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the application has not adequately
demonstrated whether the site is free of contaminants or whether the site is
suitable for children in accordance with the requirements of State
Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land.
4.
In accordance with Section
4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
the proposal does not comply with the desired outcome and the prescriptive
measures of Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) as follows:
4.1 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Tree Preservation’ prescriptive
measures within Parts 1B.6 of the HDCP as the removal of tree No. 1
would pose a detrimental impact to the streetscape and consideration should
be given to its retention through the reconfiguration of the carpark layout,
including the relocation of the proposed driveway and reduction of car
parking spaces within the front setback. In addition, the development would
generate a ‘major’ incursion into the TPZ of tree No. 4 and would
pose an adverse impact to its life expectancy.
4.2 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Transport and Parking’ prescriptive
measures within Part 1C.2.1 of the HDCP as the existing traffic
conditions in the vicinity of the site would not be suitable for a child care
facility on safety grounds.
4.3 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Waste Management’ prescriptive
measures within Part 1C.2.3 of the HDCP as the bin carting route
includes a ramp and would not allow for safe manoeuvrability of the 660L
bins.
4.4 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Noise and Vibration’ prescriptive
measures within Part 1C.2.5 of the HDCP as the proposed 2.2m high
acoustic fences are considered excessive in height and would have an adverse
visual impact to adjoining properties.
4.5 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Scale’ prescriptive
measures within Part 7.1.2 of the HDCP as the proposed development would
adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties with regard to
amenity, noise, landscaping, privacy and bulk and scale.
4.6 The
proposal does not comply with the minimum 2 metre building setback along the
northern and southern side boundaries in accordance with the
‘Setbacks’ prescriptive measures within Part 7.1.3 of the HDCP.
4.7 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Privacy, Security and
Sunlight’ prescriptive measures within Part 7.1.6 of the HDCP
as the main entry landing, elevated pathways and balconies would pose a
privacy impact to adjacent residential properties.
4.8 The
proposal does not comply with the ‘Landscaping’ prescriptive
measures within Part 7.1.4 of the HDCP as landscaping within the
northern and southern setbacks would not provide adequate vegetation density
and screening along the front of the site to appropriately screen the parking
spaces from the adjoining properties.
5.
In accordance with Section 4.15(1)(c)
of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered
that the site is not suitable for the proposed development.
6.
Pursuant to the provisions of
Section 4.15(1)(b) and (e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, it is considered that the proposed development would not be in the public’s interest.
- END OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL -
VOTING OF THE PANEL MEMBERS
FOR: Garry Fielding,
Linda McClure, Juliet Grant, Jerome Cox
AGAINST: Nil
|
