PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2019
PRESENT
Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance (Chair) Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment
Andrew Brooks Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Angelo Berios Manager – Environment & Health
Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services
Megan Munari Principal Co-ordinator – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner
APOLOGIES
Nicholas Carlton Acting Manager – Forward Planning TIME OF COMMENCEMENT
8:30am
TIME OF COMPLETION 8:38am
ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
RESOLUTION
The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 12 March 2019 be confirmed with an amendment to Item 3 to read as follows:
The Section 4.55(1A) modification application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report with the following condition relating to Privacy Screens being added under Condition 1:
Privacy screens with a minimum height of 1.7m, when measured from the finished floor level of the proposed landing areas to the rear of Townhouses 6 and 7, are to be incorporated into the design and maintained for the life of the development. These privacy screens are to run the full length of the north elevation of these landings.
ITEM-2 DA 1030/2017/ZD - FURTHER REPORT - SUBDIVISION CREATING EIGHT COMMUNITY TITLE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE ASSOCIATION LOT - LOT 194 DP 752039, NO. 3340 OLD NORTHERN ROAD, GLENORIE
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO ITEM 20(2)(c) AND (d) OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979
PUB
PAGE 2 DECISION
The Development Application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The Rural Fire Service has advised that they are unable to support the proposal because it will need to be substantially modified, including the reduction in the number of lots and the provision of a perimeter road, to comply with the objectives, and the specific provisions under Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 2 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006;
and Council cannot determine to approve the application (as Integrated Development) in the absence of a Bush Fire Safety Authority issued under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 by the Rural Fire Service.
(Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
2. The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone as contained in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 in terms of the adverse impacts on the rural landscape, in respect to vegetation, due to the extent of clearing required.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
3. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 4.1AA as contained in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it does not ensure that the site is developed, managed and conserved in a holistic and sensitive manner where affected by biodiversity.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
4. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 7.4 of The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the development footprint encroaches into the mapped Terrestrial Biodiversity Layer contained in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 with the potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity values of the land
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
5. The proposal does not comply with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 – Part B Section 1 – Rural in that the lots are incapable of providing at least 300mm of soil depth across 1,000 square metres on each lot for effluent disposal; and has not been accompanied by sufficient information demonstrating that a suitable effluent disposal system could otherwise be installed on each proposed lot.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
6. The proposal has not been accompanied by sufficient information accurately representing the quality of vegetation and fauna habitat on the site; with the underestimation of habitat quality and potential impacts result in additional impacts to threatened species and their habitats, in order to allow Council to carry out a proper assessment
(Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
7. The proposal is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the rural landscape, in respect to vegetation due to the extent of clearing required.
(Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)
PAGE 3 REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory.
The Hills LEP 2012 – Unsatisfactory.
SEPP 55 Remediation of Land – Satisfactory.
SREP 20 Hawkesbury/Nepean River – Unsatisfactory.
The Hills DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural – Unsatisfactory.
Section 7.12 Contribution – Not applicable (Refusal)
State Infrastructure Contribution – Not applicable.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified and no submissions were received.
NB: The applicant lodged a request for deferral of the application. However, the application was determined on the basis that:
The development application was lodged on 23 September 2016 and the applicant has had significant time to address concerns.
A report was prepared for the Development Assessment Unit on 25 September 2018 but the matter was deferred at the applicant’s request.
The applicant has made no significant progress since that time despite meetings and several requests for information.
