|
1.
That DA2019/0506 for the demolition of existing structures,
consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, and construction of a residential flat
building including a 3 storey building facing Cox Lane and a 5 storey
building facing Toongabbie Road over basement parking accommodating 20
residential units and 25 parking spaces on land at 27-29 Toongabbie Road,
Toongabbie be refused for the following reasons:
1.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with State Environmental Planning
Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development
(pursuant to S.4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979), with regard to the following:-
Clause
28(2) – Determination of Development Applications
1.1 In
determining a development application for consent to carry out development to
which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration
the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide
(ADG). The proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to the following provisions
of the ADG:
3F – Visual Privacy
1.1.1 By
reason of the provision of the 3.8m setback to Cox Lane, the proposal fails
to protect visual privacy between the adjoining properties. The applicant has
not demonstrated that a 12m building separation can be achieved as required
by the ADG.
3E – Deep Soil Zones
1.1.2 By
reason of the inadequate provision of deep soil area of 2.42% where 7% is required,
the development fails to sustain planting of canopy trees to positively
contribute to landscaping on the subject site.
4E
– Private Open Space
1.1.3 By
reason of the inadequate private open space for units 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the
ground floor level of 9.6m² where 15m² is required, the development
compromises amenity of future residents.
4W
– Waste Management
1.1.5 Design
to waste management area with openings is unsuitable as it is to be located
adjoining to unit 4 bedroom window. Waste storage facility design fails to
consider adverse impacts on the amenity of residents.
2.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with Holroyd Local Environmental
Plan (HLEP) 2013 (pursuant to S.4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979), with regard to the following:-
Clauses 4.3 and 4.6 –
Variation to Height of Buildings
2.1 Pursuant
to the Height of Buildings Map referred to in Clause 4.3(2) of HLEP 2013, the
maximum permissible building height for the site is 15m. The maximum height
of the proposed building is 16.7m, which is 1.7m greater than the maximum
building height, representing a 11.3% variation to the development standard.
The development application has not adequately demonstrated the variation to
the building height would allow for the development that is complementary to,
and well-integrated with the high density residential development; as an amended
Clause 4.6 variation requested was not submitted.
The
development application must be refused because a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013 in relation to the
1.7m contravention of the development standard in clause 4.3(2) of HLEP 2013
has not been submitted to demonstrate:
i.
that compliance with the
development standard in clause 4.3(2) of HLEP 2013 is unreasonable or
unnecessary in the circumstances of the case,
ii.
that there are sufficient
environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development
standard in clause 4.3(2) of HLEP 2013, and
iii.
that the proposed development
will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objective of
the standard in clause 4.3(2) of HLEP 2013.
Clauses 4.4 and 4.6 –
Variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR)
2.2 Pursuant
to the Height of Buildings Map referred to in Clause 4.4(2) of HLEP 2013, the
maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) for the site is 1.2:1. The
maximum FSR of the proposed building is 1.29:1 representing a 8.25% variation
to the development standard. The development application has not adequately
demonstrated the variation to the FSR would allow for the development that is
complementary to, and well-integrated with the high density residential
development; as a Clause 4.6 variation requested was not submitted.
The development
application must be refused because a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013 in relation to the contravention
of the development standard in clause 4.4(2) of HLEP 2013 has not been
submitted to demonstrate:
i.
that compliance with the
development standard in clause 4.4(2) of HLEP 2013 is unreasonable or
unnecessary in the circumstances of the case,
ii.
that there are sufficient
environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development
standard in clause 4.4(2) of HLEP 2013, and
iii.
that the proposed development
will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objective of
the standard in clause 4.4(2) of HLEP 2013.
Clause 6.5 – Essential
Services
2.3 Inadequate
information to confirm the location of substation to enable the supply of
electricity to be provided wholly within the site.
Clause 6.7 –
Stormwater Management
2.3 The
proposed stormwater system will allow for contaminants to seep into the OSD
tank, which is detriment to environment. Inadequate information to confirm
that stormwater management could be provided wholly within the site.
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:-
3.3 – Car Parking
Dimensions and 3.5 – Access Manoeuvring and Layout
3.1
The proposal fails to provide proper vehicles manoeuvring to allow for
adequate setback from the existing lamp pole and side boundary, and
sufficient passing and turning bays, as the aisle widths do not comply.
3.6 – Parking for
Disabled
3.2
By the reason that 2 accessible spaces are provided where 3 spaces are
required, the proposal fails to provide the required parking spaces for
disabled person.
4.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with Holroyd Development Control
Plan (DCP) 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:-
1.12 – Universal
Housing and Accessibility
4.1
By the reason that 2 adaptable units are provided where 3 units are
required, the proposal fails to provide the required parking spaces for disabled
person.
6.2 – Site Coverage
4.2
The proposed site coverage is 44.8% where maximum of 30% is permitted,
which results in failure to provide adequate deep soil area and stormwater
management.
5.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with Holroyd Development Control
Plan (DCP) 2013, Part L – Town Centre Controls (pursuant to
S.4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979),
with regard to the following:-
1.2 – Rear Laneways,
Land Dedication, Access and Vehicular Entries
5.1
Deleted
6.3 - Building Height
5.2
The maximum number of storeys for residential flat building on the
subject site is 4 storeys. However, the development proposes a maximum 5
storey building. Given that the proposal has not been accompanied with
appropriate justification and Clause 4.6 variation request for height of
buildings, the storey exceedance is not supported.
Traffic and Parking
6.
The development application should be refused because the design of
the basement and car parking provided is unacceptable and fails to meet the
relevant Australian Standards. There is inadequate information to demonstrate
the following:
i. That
dimensions of the proposed aisle width comply with the relevant Australian
Standards.
ii. That
two vehicles can pass each other at intersection points and at the entry and
exit of the ramp.
iii. That details
of the control device for the roller gates to ensure that the control device
shall not reduce the width of the access driveway or impact on the flow of
traffic and road safety.
iv. That
appropriate setback of driveway to the existing lamp post could be provided.
Inadequate Information
7.
The proposed development fails to address the relevant matters arising
from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A
Reg) in relation to documents required to be submitted to accompany a
development application pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development application
should be refused because there is inadequate information submitted with regard
to the following:
i. Deleted
ii. There
is inadequate information submitted to address issues raised with respect to
the design of the basement, setback from existing lamp pole, and traffic and
parking matters.
iii. There is
inadequate information submitted to address issues raised with respect to the
design of the stormwater management on site.
iv. A revised
acoustic report to address noise during construction, communal open space,
and mechanical and basement ventilations is required.
v. There
is inadequate information submitted to ensure supply of electricity could be
provided wholly within the site.
Suitability of the site for
the proposed development
8.
The subject site is not considered suitable for the development as
proposed due to the inadequacies detailed above (section 4.15(c) of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).
Environmental Impact
9.
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
10.
Due to the deficiencies detailed above, approval of the proposed
development would be contrary to the public interest (section 4.15(1) (e) of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).
For: Paul
Stein AM QC, Marjorie Ferguson, Lindsay Fletcher and Irene Simms.
Against: Nil.
|
