The childcare center is proposed on the ground floor and first floor of the development with the medical center containing five consulting rooms on the first floor. The submitted information contains discrepancies regarding the working hours of the child care center and medical center as detailed below. Context – The design of the childcare center does not provide for the orderly development of adjacent land and does not respond appropriately to or enhance the existing or future low density residential and large lot residential character of the surrounding land.
Amenity – The amenity of the existing and future surrounding community has not been satisfactorily addressed. The scale and scale of the proposed building is inconsistent with the existing intended low density residential character and street. Access to the site has not been adequately designed to ensure the safe operation of the surrounding road network.
Parking provided for the childcare center and the on-site medical center is proposed to be in the basement parking lot and at grade park at the front of the building. The proposed development does not respond appropriately to or respect the existing or future built form, character and streetscape of the surrounding area. The scope and scale of the development is not in keeping with the intended low density residential development within the zone.
The on-site health center parking lot is not separate from the designated on-site child care center parking lot.
Compliance with the Development Control Plans
Although some fencing details are provided (ie reference to 1.8m boundary fencing, steel palisade fencing and 2m acoustic fencing), detailed fencing/planning information for other areas of construction is not provided in the plans. In accordance with checklist items 107 and 108, the proposal includes an unencumbered indoor play area of 412 m² and an unencumbered outdoor area of 1,010 m², meeting the requirements of national regulations for 175 children. The proposal does not comply with all the provisions of the Childcare Planning Guideline in relation to Parts 2, 3 and 4 and therefore does not comply with Article 23 of the SEPP.
The proposal complies with the required percentage of landscaped area and parking on the site. The front of the lot is within the ridge character area which would be characterized by one or two storey detached dwelling with large setbacks. The large residential area will allow for the preservation of existing vegetation, ridge line formation and existing views.
The proposed development does not reflect the desired future character of the area which is characterized by single or double storey houses with large setbacks which would act as a buffer between the rural and land release areas. Although not proposing housing, clause 5.6.1 General Requirements (3) of the DCP provides that the control in relation to lots with frontages greater than 15 meters in clause 4.2.5 applies to non-residential development. While it is presented as a two storey development to the Old Pitt Town Road frontage, the rear of the development may appear to be up to three storeys due to the slope of the site and the excavation for the basement.
The scope and scale of the development (number of children, health consulting rooms and basement parking etc.) is not consistent with the desired future character of the surrounding area. Architectural plans, landscape plans and acoustic reports have not been provided to demonstrate that impacts on the surrounding area will be acceptable and concerns are raised regarding the adequacy of the use of the site for two separate commercial uses. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Sections 2.2 Indicate layout plan, 2.3.2 Ridge Character Area, 5.6.1 General Requirements (3), (9) and (10) of the Box Hill DCP. ii) Compliance with DCP Part B Section 6 – Business.
Particular concerns are raised about operating until 9.30pm, which would indicate that the development is operating for more than 15 hours of the day. DCP Part C Section 1 specifically outlines that stack parking should not be included in assessing the number of parking spaces for retail, commercial, medium density residential, industrial development and the like. As such, landscaping provided on site does not meet the requirements set out in DCP Part C Section 3.
Issues Raised in Submissions
The proposed development does not meet the objectives of the zone and is considered an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in achieving compliance with the Box Hill DCP and the dual commercial use is considered an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal does not comply with multiple clauses of the Box Hill Growth Center DCP.
An assessment against the DCP was carried out and the proposal was assessed as unsatisfactory in terms of meeting the DCP (see Report - Section 6(i)). The development is considered overdevelopment of the site, with the multitude and scale considered excessive. While the proposal is considered to satisfy privacy and overshadowing concerns, the three-storey nature of the building is considered unsatisfactory.
An assessment has been made against the DCP, with the proposal deemed to be unsatisfactory to meet the DCP (see report - section 6(ii)). The proposal does not comply with the design quality principles of the Planning Guidelines for Childcare. There are safety concerns given the development's proximity to the junction of Terry Road and Old Pitt Town Road.
The proposal was referred to the municipality's traffic engineer, who was not concerned about the location of the building in relation to the location and proximity to the intersection. The development application has been assessed against the relevant considerations under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the State's Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region's Growth Centres) 2006, the State's Environmental Planning Policy (2007) Infrastructure, the State's Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Institutions and Childcare Centres) 2017, the State's environmental planning policy No. 55—remediation of land, Box Hill Development Control Plan and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered unsatisfactory. The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report and some of the issues raised are consistent with the central issues raised in this report.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the planning principles, vision and objectives set out in "Hills 2026 - Looking Towards the Future" as it does not provide for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social amenity impacts and is not an appropriate built form -response to the existing and future character of the locality. The proposed development is considered to be incompatible with the amenity of a low density residential environment due to the proposed scale and the proposed working hours and is therefore contrary to the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region) Growth Centers) 2006. The proposed development does not comply with the relevant provisions of Section 2.3 Character Areas (Reef Character Area), Section 4.2.5 Residential Aggregation and Location and General Requirements (9) and (10) of the Box Hill Development Control Plan in relation to non-residential development in residential zones , due to its size, scale and working hours.
The proposed built form is inconsistent with the natural, built, social and economic environment of the place. The proposal is not in the public interest due to the incompatible nature and scale of the development in relation to the site and its deviance from the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Institutions and Childcare Centres) 2017, the Development Control Plan Box Hill 2017 and Development Control Plans (Part B Section 6 - Business, Part C Section 1 - Parking and Part C Section 3 - Landscaping).
