|
The Panel Advised:
A.
Decision: The
Ku-Ring-Gai Local Planning Panel, refuse development consent to DA0105/17 for
demolition of existing structures and construction of 20 residential dwelling
units for seniors, including basement parking and associated landscaping
pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 on
land at 117 – 119 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, for the following
reasons:
1.
The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 26
(1)(a) to (c) of State Environmental
Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 as the
applicant has not demonstrated that future residents will have
access to the items listed at subparagraphs (a) to (c), and which access will
comply with Clause 26(2).
Particulars
(a) Clause
26(1) states a consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this
Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that
residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with
subclause (2) to shops, bank service providers and other retail and
commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and community
services and recreation facilities, and the practice of a general medical
practitioner.
(b) Clause
26(2) states access complies with Clause 26 if the facilities and services
identified in subclause (1) are located at
a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed
development that is a distance accessible by means of a suitable access
pathway and the overall average gradient for the pathway is no more than 1:14.
(c) The
application has not demonstrated that this type of construction can be used
while maintaining the gradients required under Clause 26(2)(a) of the SEPP
has been submitted.
(d) The design requires
reconstruction of the existing vehicular crossing of 123 Merrivale Lane.
Design details including longitudinal sections have not been submitted
demonstrating compliance with AS 2890.1 -2004. It shall be noted that if any
works are required inside another private property, then owners’
consent must be provided.
2.
The submitted site analysis is inadequate and does not comply
with clause 30(2) and (4) of the Seniors’ SEPP, as it fails to
demonstrate that the proposed design is responsive to the site.
Particulars:
(a)
As specified by cl 30(1), a consent authority must not consent to a
development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent
authority is satisfied that the applicant has taken into account a site
analysis prepared by the applicant in accordance with this clause.
(b)
The application has not been supported by a written statement required
by clause 30(2)(b)(ii) and (ii), which sets out: how the design of the
proposed development has regard to the site analysis, and explaining how
the design of the proposed development has regard to the design principles
set out in Division 2. The submitted Statement of environmental effects
prepared by Kim Burrell does not adequately articulate how this provision is
satisfied other than stating the architect has prepared a site analysis in
accordance with the requirements and these accompany the plans with the
application.
(c)
Any proposed development pursuant to SEPP Seniors must demonstrate a
design that is a sensitive and compatible to the context.
3.
The proposal is contrary to clause 31 of the Seniors’
SEPP and the Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development.
Particulars:
a.
Clause 31 of the Seniors’ SEPP requires the consent authority to
take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required
to be, or may be, taken into consideration) the provisions of the Urban
Design Guideline for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March. The
proposed development does not adequately address the Guideline.
b.
Clause 31 of the SEPP references the requirements of Seniors
Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development, which at p5
Policy Environment specifically identifies local planning instruments
to define the desired urban character).
c.
The urban design response to the site and streetscape is not
satisfactory in particular with respect to:
i.
Inadequate front setback that is inconsistent with adjoining
properties
ii.
Unsatisfactory entry to the development that results in a poor address
to the streetscape and creates privacy impacts to dwellings within the
development
iii.
The front façade contains continuous balconies which makes the
development present as a residential flat building.
d.
The internal amenity of the dwellings is not satisfactory – in
particular:
i.
Bedrooms being less than 3 metres in dimension and living room being
less than 4 metres in dimension
ii.
Rooms that could be habitable and do not have access to light and
ventilation
iii.
Poor access to balconies from living areas
iv.
Unsatisfactory solar access to living rooms and private open space.
e.
NSW Department of Planning - Planning Circular
PS18/01 for Local Character – recognises the community’s concern
about the impacts on amenity and local character within neighbourhoods.
Ku-ring-gai’s planning instruments (LEP and DCP) clearly describe the
Desired Future Character of localities, including low density development
areas. This also references the Government Architect’s Better Placed
Policy that further reinforces the need for local character to play a
stronger role in future development as follows:
i.
Better Placed – Objective 1 Better Fit - Good design in the built
environment is informed by and derived from its location, context and social
setting. It is place-based and relevant to and resonant with local character,
heritage and communal aspirations. It also contributes to evolving and
future character and setting.
4.
The proposal has not demonstrated that adequate regard has been
given to principles set out in Division 2 of State
Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a
Disability) 2004 as required by Clause 32 of the Seniors’ SEPP.
Particulars:
(a)
Pursuant to clause 46(1) of the Seniors’ SEPP, the consent
authority cannot grant development consent to the application if the consent
authority is satisfied that the applicant has not demonstrated that adequate
regard has been had to the principles set out at Division 2 of Part 3
(clauses 33-39).
(b)
The proposed design does not satisfy the requirements of SEPP Seniors,
including the Policy aim for housing to be of good design and the design
principles of Part 3 Division 2.
(c)
The proposed development does not satisfy SEPP Seniors Clause 33 (d)
as the development has not been set back in sympathy with, but not
necessarily the same as, the existing building line.
(d) The
drawings lack sufficient detail to provide a proper assessment of the
application
(e) Only 20% of units (Units 1, 2, 11 and 12) receive 3 hours solar
access.
5.
The proposal results in an unacceptable impact upon vegetation
contrary to State
Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017
(Vegetation SEPP).
Particulars:
(a)
The objective of the SEPP is to protect the
biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation and to preserve the amenity
of the area through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.
(b) Tree
3 is a Nyssa sylvatica (Tupelo) located centrally within the site
frontage. The tree is identified as having high significance with a high
priority for retention, in good health and condition. The tree is located
within the established front setback contributing positively to the site and
landscape setting. The proposal seeks to be removed and should be retained to
maintain the landscape amenity to the streetscape.
6.
The proposal is contrary to Section 4.15(1)(b), (c) and (e) of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is contrary to the
public interest.
Particulars:
(a)
The development application should be refused as it
is not in the public interest and will establish an undesirable development
in the immediate locality.
(b)
The proposed development should be refused having
regard to the broader public interest of providing development that meets the
requirements of good design quality as set out in clause 2(1) of SEPP
Seniors, is compliant with the controls and minimises impacts to neighbouring
developments.
(c)
For the reasons outlined in the recommendation, the
site is not suitable for the proposed development.
(d)
The proposed development is not within the public
interest having regard to the matters raised in the submission that have been
received by Council to the
extent that such submission is consistent with the reasons for refusal.
B.
Date of the decision: 17 September, 2018.
C.
The reasons for the decision: The proponent has not
provided sufficient detail and material to overcome the outstanding matters
reflected in the decision above.
D.
How community views were taken into account in making the
decision: Public interest recognises the need for the development
to comply with planning standards and provisions.
|
