MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – 16 SEPTEMBER 2020 THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
PRESENT:
Julie Walsh Chair
Richard Thorp AM Expert Penny Holloway Expert
Alison Turner Community Representative
COUNCIL STAFF:
Cameron McKenzie Group Manager, Development & Compliance Paul Osborne Manager, Development Assessment
Claro Patag Development Assessment Coordinator Robert Buckham Senior Town Planner
MEETING COMMENCED:
12:00PM
MEETING FINISHED:
1:15PM
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:
Nil
ITEM 1: DA 250/2020/HA - PROPOSED CHILD CARE CENTRE - LOT 1022 DP 731819 NO. 65 DARCEY ROAD, CASTLE HILL
SPEAKERS
Madam Mayor, Dr Michelle Byrne
The Applicant & behalf of the Applicant:
Danny Jones Project town planner Morgan Stanbury Traffic Expert
Michael Trinh CEO of Idraft Architects Resident Objectors:
Kevin Naughton Objector Robert Vallis Objector
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The development application be approved subject to the conditions in the report.
PANEL’S DECISION
By a majority of 3 – 1, the Development Application is approved subject to the conditions contained in the council officers report, with the following amendments:
Addition of a second bullet point in condition 1 as follows:
Deletion of storage and relocation of meeting room on the first floor further to the south. This requires amendment to the roof line for the relocated meeting room and adjustment to the roof pitch to suit ceiling height.
Condition 13 is amended to read as follows:
13.Acoustic Requirements
The recommendations of the Acoustic Report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics Revision 3 dated 23 April 2020 and submitted as part of the development application are to be implemented as part of this approval including in particular:
-The works shown on figure 2-2 Proposed Child Care Centre Layout.
-The construction of a new 1.8metre high fence of 25mm thick plywood timber panelling adjacent to 2 Henley Close and 67 Darcey Road as shown in yellow on the plan.
-The glazing for the windows on the western façade must have a minimum 6.38mm laminated glass panel; all of the remaining glazing can have 6mm standard glass.
-Windows on the northern, western and southern external walls and the door on the western wall (servicing nursery 2) shall be closed during the operation of the centre as shown on figure 2-2.
-Section 5-4 Acoustic barrier details.
All works including perimeter fencing shall be carried out at the cost of the applicant.
Condition 91 is amended to read as follows :
91.Hours of operation for waste collection, delivery/dispatch of goods
Delivery/dispatch of goods and waste collection shall be restricted to the following times:
Monday to Friday – 7am to 6pm.
Condition 93 is amended to read as follows ;
93.Operational Management plan to be kept on site
The approved Operational Management Plan is to be kept on site at all times when the Childcare Centre is in operation and is to be made available to Council officers on request.
Condition 97 is amended to replace “35 children” with “30 children”
Condition 100 is amended to read as follows : 100.Operational Management Plan
The Operational Management Plan submitted with the application by Ology Early Childhood Consulting dated April 2020 and referred to as “Operational Management Plan - Noise and Traffic – 65 Darcey Road Castle Hill “ is to be complied with at all times when the centre is in operation. Where there is a conflict between specific conditions of this consent and the Operational Management Plan the specific condition shall prevail.
Condition 103 is amended to read as follows:
103.Waste and Recycling Management
All waste generated on the site must be removed at regular intervals to minimise odour impact. The collection of waste and recycling must not cause nuisance or interference with the amenity of the surrounding area. Garbage and recycling must not be placed on public property for collection without the previous written approval of Council.
REASONS
The majority generally agreed with the reasons in the Council officers report.
A modification to the plans was required to set back the upper level of the proposed building adjacent to 2 Henley Close to ameliorate the bulk of the building at that point , and
adjustments were made to a number of the conditions for clarity.
The community member, Alison Turner was not satisfied that the child care centre should be approved having regard to the following provisions of Section 4 (Part 3) of the Child Care Centre Planning Guidelines :
C1 The acoustic impacts of the development and the setbacks and siting of the buildings in the residential context.
C2 The selection of the site and its compatibility with the surrounding uses and context.
C3 The location of the site which is not near compatible social uses such as schools , employment areas , town centres , business centres and shops.
C5 Local character, streetscape and public domain interfaces, particularly as the location is a low density residential area.
C15 The built form of the development and the requirement for it to contribute to the character of the local area.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified and Sixty eight (68) Submissions were received.
As a result, a Conciliation Conference was held between Council staff, the applicant and objectors in accordance with Council’s standard practice.
The issues raised in the submissions are summarised in the report.
The panel members considered the concerns raised in the written and oral objections .The majority determined that on balance, the child care centre should be approved having regard to the provisions of the SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 and the Child Care Planning Guidelines 2017.
The majority noted that the state government has mandated that child care centres be a permissible use in the R2 zone and that a number of matters raised in the objections are precluded by the SEPP from being grounds for refusal, including whether there is a need for a child care centre and the existence of other child care centres nearby.
The community member, Alison Turner considered that a number of the objections formed the basis of reasons to refuse the application (refer to “reasons” above).
VOTING
Approval – Julie Walsh, Richard Thorp AM and Penny Holloway.
Refusal – Alison Turner
ITEM 2: 455/2020/HC - SUBDIVISION (BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY DWELLING - LOT 1300 DP 1114932 AND LOT 1 DP 512490, 2768-2772 AND 2868 RIVER ROAD, WISEMANS FERRY
SPEAKERS
Noelene Hopkins Objector
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The Development Application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed subdivision is prohibited as it does not comply with the minimum lot size for the land as specified in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and 1(c) and Section 4.16(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)
2. Development consent cannot be granted as the relevant provisions of State
Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 cannot be satisfied given the outstanding information requested including flooding and wastewater issues with the application.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and 1(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) 3. Development consent cannot be granted as the relevant provisions of State
Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land cannot be satisfied given the unresolved contamination issues with the application.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and 1(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) 4. Development consent cannot be granted as the provisions of Clause 7.3 of The Hills
Local Environmental Plan 2012 cannot be satisfied given the outstanding information in relation to flooding issues on the site.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and 1(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) 5. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan
No 20—Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No 2—1997) with respect to the specific planning policies outlined in Clause 6 of the SREP.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
6. The proposal is inconsistent with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 with respect to setbacks, wastewater, water supply and development in the visual catchment of the Hawkesbury River.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
7. The proposal has not adequately addressed planning, engineering and environmental health issues.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i), (iii), (iv), 1(b) and 1(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
8. The proposal is not in the public interest given the outstanding concerns with the application as raised in the public submission.
(Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
PANEL’S DECISION
The Development Application is refused for the reasons set out above.
REASONS
The Panel generally agrees with the council officers report and the reasons for refusal.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION
The development application was notified and one (1) submission was received.
The submission raised issues regarding unauthorised works and tree clearing and
management of stormwater. The first two issues are not considerations in the determination of the application and the third issue is encompassed in the reasons for refusal.
VOTING Unanimous
ITEM 3: HILLS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
SPEAKERS Nil
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The Local Planning Panel adopts the Operational Guidelines (September 2020) as shown in Attachment No. 2.
PANEL’S DECISION
The Local Planning Panel adopts the Operational Guidelines (September 2020) as shown in Attachment No. 2.
REASONS
The Operational Guidelines will allow for the official operations of the panel having regard to recent directions for the minister of planning.
VOTING Unanimous
