|
The Panel
Resolved:
PURSUANT TO SECTION
4.16(1) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979
A The
Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel, as the consent authority, is not satisfied
that the variation request submitted under Clause 4.6 of the Ku-ring-gai
Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) to vary the floor space ratio
development standard in Clause 4.4 of the KLEP 2015 has adequately addressed
and demonstrated that, compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the
circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental
planning grounds to justify the variation to the development standard.
B The
Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel, as the consent authority, refuses development
consent to DA0532/22 for demolition of existing structures and construction
of a residential flat building comprising 14 apartments, basement parking,
landscaping and associated works on land at 26 Pacific Highway, Roseville,
for the reasons included in the Supplementary Development Assessment Report,
as amended below.
C Date
of the decision: 17 June 2024
D: Reason
for the decision: The development proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to
the relevant provisions of s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979 and would not be in the public interest.
E: How
community views were taken into consideration: The application was notified
in accordance with the Council’s Community Participation Plan and
submissions made by members of the public were considered.
Changes to Reasons for Refusal
The panel notes duplication in numbering of Reasons in the
report which is to be corrected prior to issue.
The Reasons for Refusal are as outlined in the Supplementary
Development Assessment report, except with the following amendments:
Reason 1. Water
Management (d, e, f and g) to be amended to read as below:
d. There
is uncertainty as to the condition of the existing pipe and its
functionality.
e. Should
the existing drainage pipe be inadequate a new 150 millimetres diameter
stormwater pipeline is required to be provided within the drainage easement.
Council would require owners’ consent from the Strata Corporations of
all burdened properties, which has not been provided.
f. Insufficient
information exists to enable assessment of the inter-allotment drainage
design, including but not limited to civil design of the pipeline and any
potential impacts on trees and vegetation on adjoining properties. A suitably
qualified arborist report would be required should there be any identified
impacts to trees and vegetation to enable an assessment.
g.
The
pipeline within the downstream properties as marked up by SureSearch does not
correspond with the Survey Plan showing Easement for Drainage prepared by CMS
Surveyors Pty Ltd.
Reason 2. Excessive floor
space ratio and inadequate Clause 4.6 variation request (d and e) to be
amended to read as below:
d. The
FSR exceedance is attributable to non-compliances with the KDCP controls
relating to the design of the top storey, parts of the car park that are not
‘basement’ and site coverage.
e. The
proposal is inconsistent with objective (a) of the FSR development standard,
which requires a built form that is compatible with the size of the land to
be developed, its environmental constraints and contextual relationship.
Reason
4. Excessive site coverage
To
be deleted
Reason
. Insufficient Information (various) (d) add the following:
d. Lack of clarity over the
proposed Right of Way over No 26 Pacific Highway and how it relates to the
existing Right of Way over 26A Pacific Highway and whether the consent of the
owners of 26A Pacific Highway is required.
Voting: unanimous
|
