|
1.
That Development Application No. DA2019/432/1 for the
Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey 53
place child care facility over basement level car parking on land at 20 Dan
Street MERRYLANDS NSW 2160 is refused for the reasons set out below.
REASON FOR REFUSAL
1.
Failure to
demonstrate compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational
Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979), with
regard to the following:-
Clause 23 – Matters for consideration by consent authorities
1.1
The proposed child care does not
comply with the provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline (CCPG) 2017
as listed under Section 3 below.
2.
Failure to demonstrate
compliance with Child Care Planning Guideline
(CCPG) 2017 (pursuant to S.4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979), with regard to the following:-
Part
2 – Design quality principles
2.1
The proposal
does not respond appropriately to the context of the site, adjoining
properties and the existing development in the vicinity. The site shares its
boundaries with six (6) other residential properties and will have negative
acoustic, traffic and safety impacts.
2.2
The facility does not provide adequate access to daylight within the
indoor play areas which will require artificial lighting throughout the
operation of the centre.
2.3
The entrance into the building lacks a catchment area for children and
as a result, the proposed development will have adverse safety impacts on
pedestrians and motorists.
Part
3 – Matters for consideration
Clause 3.1
– Site selection and location
2.4
The CCPG 2017
requires child care centres proposed in a residential zone to consider the
traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity. The
proposal has been reviewed by Council’s traffic department and
considered to pose unacceptable traffic, safety and amenity impacts on the
residential area.
2.5
As the site is
located in a cul-de sac with a narrow street frontage, the design of the
front setback is dominated by the driveway which is considered to be unsafe
for children and parents entering and leaving the facility. No child
catchment area is detailed on the plans within the front setback which is
considered unsafe.
2.6
The site does
not provide safe and accessible pedetrian access for people walking to the
site including people accessing the site by public transport.
Clause 3.3 – Building
orientation, envelope and design
2.7
The design of
the facility restricts solar access to the indoor play areas for children
aged 2-3 year olds. Having regard to this, artificial lighting will be
utilised throughout the hours of operation.
2.8
The proposed
development does not respond appropriately to the context of the site, the
adjoining properties and the existing development in the streetscape. The
site shares its boundaries with six (6) other residential properties and will
have negative acoustic, traffic, safety and amenity impacts.
Clause 3.8 – Traffic, parking
and pedestrian circulation
2.9
The aisle
widths are not compliant with the relevant Australian Standards. As such, the
basement parking is considered unacceptable that will further generate
traffic and safety impacts.
2.10
As Burnett
Street is the only connecting road for vehicular access into and out of Dan
Street, the proposed development will result in additional cars turning into
and out of Dan Street. This will result in a potentially dangerous situation
for vehicles turning right into Burnett Street, particularly during peek
periods. Additionally, Dan Street allows on-street parking along both sides
which results in only one way traffic to flow at one given time. Consequently,
this will increase the traffic within the local area.
The Traffic and Parking
Impact Assessment Report submitted with the application is considered
unsatisfactory as it provides inaccurate information regarding the width of
Dan Street and the traffic flow of Burnett Street. Having regard to this, the
report is unable to satisfactorily address site suitability.
Part
4 – Applying the National Regulations
Clause 4.1 – Indoor space requirements
2.11
Under the CCPG
2017 (Regulation 107 of E&CSN) a minimum of 0.3m3 of external
storage is to be provided per child. Access to the outdoor storage on the
ground floor from the outdoor play areas has not been sufficiently
demonstrated.
Clause 4.2 – Laundry and hygiene facilities
2.12
The size of the
laundry proposed is not considered adequate with an area of 5m2. The Draft
Child Care Planning Guideline recommends a minimum area of 8m2 for laundries
and the Building Code of Australia recommends 10m2. Having regard to this and
the lack of storage provided within the laundry, the laundry is not adequate.
3.
Failure to
demonstrate compliance with Holroyd
Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013, Part A – General Controls
(pursuant to S.4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979), with regard to the following:-
Clause 3.5 – Access, Manoeuvring and Layout
3.1
The design of the basement and
car parking provided is unacceptable and fails to meet the relevant
Australian Standards.
4.1.1.
Sufficient sight distance is not
provided for the accessible parking.
4.1.2.
The aisle widths are not
designed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.
4.
Failure to
demonstrate compliance with Holroyd
Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013, Part B – Residential Controls
(pursuant to S.4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979), with regard to the following:-
Clause 1.11 – Vehicular
access and driveways
4.1
Due to the non-compliant aisle
width within the basement parking, cars are unable to leave the site in a
forward direction. This raises traffic and safety issues and is not
considered acceptable.
5.
Failure to
demonstrate compliance with Holroyd
Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013, Part I – Child Care Centres
Controls (pursuant to S.4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979), with regard to the following:-
Clause 1 – Size, Density and Location
5.1
Child care centres should not be
located having frontage to any road, which in the opinion of Council, is
unsuitable for the establishment of a child care centre. Dan Street is
connected by Burnett Street which is a classified road under the HDCP 2013.
The proposed development will result in additional cars turning into Dan
Street from Burnett Street and furthermore increase the traffic within the
local area.
5.2
Under Section 1, Part I of the HDCP
2013 child care centres shall not be located on an allotment within an entire
residential cul-de-sac. The subject site is located within an entire
residential cul-de-sac on Dan Street and results in unacceptable traffic,
safety and amenity impacts. As such, will not be supported by Council.
Clause 2 – Vehicular access and parking
5.3
The Traffic and Parking Impact
Assessment Report supporting the application was reviewed by Council and
considered unsatisfactory. The report contains inaccurate information
regarding the road width and the traffic flow on Burnett Street. As a result,
the report has not satisfactorily demonstrated the site is suitable for the
proposed development.
Clause 3 – Acoustic and visual privacy
5.4
The acoustic report submitted
with the application has been reviewed by Council and considered generally satisfactory.
However, the locations of the mechanical ventilation, including the air
conditioning units, have not been detailed on the plans. As such, an
assessment of the acoustic impacts of the proposal is unable to be assessed
and will have amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.
Suitability
of the site for the proposed development
6.
The subject site is
not considered suitable for the proposed development due to the inadequacies
detailed above (pursuant to s. 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979.)
Environmental
Impact
7.
Due to the
deficiencies detailed above, the likely environmental impacts of the proposed
development are considered to be unacceptable (section 4.15(1)(b) of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).
Public
Interest
8.
Due to the
deficiencies detailed above and submissions received, the approval of the
proposed development would be contrary to the public interest (pursuant to s.
4.15(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.)
2. Persons
whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of
the determination of the application.
For: Stuart
McDonald (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, Larissa Ozog and Irene Simms.
Against: Nil.
Reasons for Decision:
1. The
Panel generally agreed with the reasons set out in the Council
Officer’s report, particularly in relation to traffic and safety
impacts.
|
