LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

(1)

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON WEDNESDAY, 19 JUNE 2019

PRESENT:

Julie Walsh Chair Alf Lester Expert

Damian Kelly Community Representative

COUNCIL STAFF;

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance

David Reynolds Group Manager – Shire Strategy, Transformation & Solutions Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment

Claro Patag Development Assessment Co-ordinator Nicholas Carlton Manager – Forward Planning

Megan Munari Principal Co-ordinator – Forward Planning

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT:

2:06pm

TIME OF COMPLETION:

4:25pm

APOLOGIES:

Scott Barwick was an apology.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest. The Chair noted that all Panel Members have completed and signed the Declaration of Interest form.

(2)

ITEM 1: FURTHER REPORT – DA 866/2016/HB – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES & CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING CONTAINING 19 UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED TWO BASEMENT PARKING LEVELS – LOT D DP 357085 & LOT F DP 363039, 14 - 16 SEVEN HILLS ROAD, BAULKHAM HILLS

SPEAKERS:

 Warwick Gosling, Planning Consultant for the Applicant

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Local Planning Panel approve the variations to the Development Standard relating to Minimum Lot Size as contained within Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the applicant’s Clause 4.6 objection has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3) as required by Clause 4.6(4)(a)(1) and the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with objectives of the Minimum Lot Standard and the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential Zone.

2. The application be approved subject to conditions set out in the report.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL DECISION:

1. That the Local Planning Panel approve the variation to the Development Standard relating to Minimum Lot Size as contained within Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the applicant’s Clause 4.6 objection has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3) as required by Clause 4.6(4)(a)(1) and the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with objectives of the Minimum Lot Standard and the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential Zone.

2. The application be approved subject to conditions set out in the report with the exception of:

a) Condition 1 which will require an additional amendment as follows:

- Provide a window opening to bedroom 2 in apartment 1 at lower ground floor level.

- Reverse the stair in apartment 2.

- Increase the sill height of the window to the study in apartment 3 to 1.6 metres above finished floor.

b) Deferred Commencement condition A1 be amended to read as follows:

The registration of a 1.5 metre wide drainage easement in favour of 14-16 Seven Hills Road, Baulkham Hills over a downstream property (or properties) to Yattenden Crescent.

REASONS:

The Panel generally agrees with the Council officer’s report.

It is noted that the Panel received legal advice obtained by the applicant regarding the right to drain water through 18 – 20 Seven Hills Road and 37 Yattenden Crescent. The Panel does not agree that there is a legal entitlement to drain water from the subject site through 37 Yattenden Crescent and in any event the easement is not 1.5 metres wide as required by Council’s drainage specifications.

(3)

ITEM 2: DA 2332/2018/HA – AN EIGHT STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING SIX RESIDENTIAL LEVELS COMPRISING 44 APARTMENTS AND TWO LEVELS OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL TENANCIES – GATEWAY PLAZA, LOT 1 DP 657024, 2 – 4 OLD NORTHERN ROAD, BAULKHAM HILLS

SPEAKERS:

 Russell Olsson (Applicant)

 David Waghorn (Applicant)

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

The application be approved subject to conditions set out in the report.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL DECISION:

The development application is approved subject to conditions as set out in the report with the exception of Condition 7 which is to read as below and condition 83 which shall be modified with the addition of Point d) as set out below in red:

7. Right of Carriageway

The applicant is advised that access to Windsor Road will be required to be closed upon registration of a right of carriageway access six metres wide from the subject site to Central Place.

83. Creation of Restrictions/ Positive Covenants

Before an Occupation Certificate is issued the following restrictions/ positive covenants must be registered on the title of the subject site via dealing/ request document or Section 88B

instrument associated with a plan. Council’s standard recitals must be used for the terms:

a) Restriction/ Positive Covenant – Onsite Stormwater Detention

The subject site must be burdened with a restriction and a positive covenant using the “onsite stormwater detention systems” terms included in the standard recitals.

b) Restriction/ Positive Covenant – Water Sensitive Urban Design

The subject site must be burdened with a positive covenant that refers to the water sensitive urban design elements referred to earlier in this consent using the “water sensitive urban design elements” terms included in the standard recitals.

c) Positive Covenant – Onsite Waste Collection

The subject site must be burdened with a positive covenant relating to onsite waste collection using the “onsite waste collection” terms included in the standard recitals.

d) Restriction/Positive Covenant Future Right of Carriageway

The subject site must be provided with a positive covenant on title which indicates that access to Windsor Road will be required to be closed upon registration of a right of carriageway access six metres wide from the subject site to Central Place.

The Panel noted the applicant’s request for a variation to condition 35 being a security bond but the Panel determined to impose the condition as proposed as it is in accordance with the Council’s policy.

REASONS:

The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report.

VOTING:

Unanimous

(4)

ITEM 3: PLANNING PROPOSAL – 1 COLUMBIA COURT, NORWEST (11/2019/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

 Andrew Wilson, Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Proposal not proceed to Gateway Determination.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE:

The Local Planning Panel’s advice is not to proceed to Gateway determination.

The Panel determined not to accede to the applicant’s late request for a deferral to allow the planning proposal to be amended. The Panel’s reasons were based on the lateness of the request, the fact that the Panel members had already carefully considered the Council officer’s comprehensive report on the Planning Proposal, the nature of the foreshadowed amendments and that the role of the Panel is an advisory one only.

REASONS:

VOTING:

Unanimous.

ITEM 4: PLANNING PROPOSAL – 34-36 BROOKHOLLOW AVENUE, NORWEST (9/2019/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

 Andrew Wilson, Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE:

The Local Planning Panel’s advice is not to proceed to Gateway determination.

The Panel determined not to accede to the applicant’s late request for a deferral to allow the planning proposal to be amended. The Panel’s reasons were based on the lateness of the request, the fact that the Panel members had already carefully considered the Council officer’s comprehensive report on the Planning Proposal, the nature of the foreshadowed amendments and that the role of the Panel is an advisory one only.

REASONS:

VOTING:

(5)

ITEM 5: PLANNING PROPOSAL – SECONDARY DWELLINGS IN RURAL ZONES (12/2019/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

Nil

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway Determination.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE:

REASONS:

VOTING:

Unanimous

ITEM 6: PLANNING PROPOSAL – OLD NORTHERN ROAD AND DERRIWONG ROAD, DURAL (23/2016/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

 Clare Brown, Director Urbis (Applicant) COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE:

REASONS:

1. The proposal does not demonstrate strategic merit.

2. The proposal is not consistent with the Greater Sydney Commission Central Sydney City Plan, specifically planning priority C18 “Better Managing Rural Areas”.

3. The proposal is not consistent with Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 1.2 Rural Zones.

4. The proposal is not consistent with Council’s Rural Lands Strategy.

5. The proposal has the potential to generate conflict with the RU2 zoned land in the Hornsby Local Government Area.

6. The proposal will have an adverse impact on the character of the Dural Precinct.

VOTING:

Unanimous