|
1. That
Development Application No. DA2020/0336 for Demolition of existing structures
and construction of an 11 storey mixed use development comprising 10 levels
of residential apartment units, ground floor retail/commercial tenancies and
ground floor & basement car parking on land at 22 Park Road AUBURN
NSW 2144 be approved as deferred commencement consent subject to
conditions listed in Attachment 1.
2. Persons
whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of
the determination of the application.
PANEL
DECISION
1. That
the Development Application No. DA2020/0336 for Demolition of existing
structures and construction of an 11 storey mixed use development comprising
10 levels of residential apartment units, ground floor retail/commercial
tenancies and ground floor & basement car parking on land at 22 Park Road
AUBURN NSW 2144 be refused for the following reasons:
i.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with State Environmental
Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment
Development with regard to the following:-
3D – Communal and public Open Space
The location of the communal open space on the podium level does not
provide opportunity for group or individual recreation and activities within
the building.
3E – Deep Soil Zones
The proposed development does not provide any deep soil zone within
the site
that allows for and support healthy plant and tree growth.
3F – Visual Privacy
The communal open space and access paths are not adequately separated
from the private open spaces and windows of apartments 106; 107 & 108 on
the ground floor and therefore fails to satisfactorily provide adequate
visual privacy to the future residents.
4A
– Solar and Daylight Access
More
than 15% of apartments (25%) will not receive adequate sunlight during
mid-winter. The design does not correspond to the site orientation where
daylight access could be maximised.
4O
– Landscape Design
The landscaping proposed at
the podium level does not promote planting growth and not likely to be viable
nor contribute to the amenity of the intended occupants.
(Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Sec. 4.15(1)(a)(i)).
ii. Failure
to demonstrate compliance with Auburn Development Control Plan (DCP) 2010,
with regard to the following:
The
maximum site coverage for residential flat development is 50% of the site
area. However, the built upon area exceeds 50% of the site area. Given the
proposed development also fails to provide a reasonable landscaped area for
plant growth and deep soil zone, the excessive site coverage cannot be
supported.
(Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Sec. 4.15(1)(a)(iii)).
iii.
The development fails to appropriately address the design
considerations of the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel with respect to the
dominance of the driveway, concealed residential entry lobby, location of the
communal open space, visual privacy, insufficient information to analyse
“eye of the sun”, treatment of blank walls and overdevelopment of
the site.
(Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Sec. 4.15(1)(c).
iv. Based
on the above deficiencies, the likely environmental impacts of the
development are not considered acceptable as the proposal will likely to have
adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining residential development.
Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Sec 4.15 (1)(b)).
v.
Based on the above deficiencies, the site is not considered
suitable for the development as proposed (pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
(Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Sec 4.15 (1)(c)).
vi. Based on the above
deficiencies and submissions received, approval of the proposed development
would not be in the public interest
(Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Sec 4.15 (1)(d) & (e)).
For: The
Hon. Paul Stein AM QC (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, Michael Ryan and Irene
Simms.
Against:
Nil.
The Panel notes that under the draft Cumberland LEP there
is a possibility for a better planning outcome for the site.
|
