Minutes of the Local Planning Panel – 17 March 2021

(1)

MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – 17 MARCH 2021 THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL

PRESENT:

Julie Walsh Chair Scott Barwick Expert

Alf Lester Expert

Rohan Toner Community Representative

COUNCIL STAFF:

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager Development and Compliance Paul Osborne Manager Development Assessment

Kristine McKenzie Principal Co-Ordinator Claro Patag Specialist Planner Justin Keen Senior Town Planner Elise Leeder Senior Town Planner

Rodney Pavitt Principal Coordinator Traffic & Roads Management

MEETING COMMENCED: 1:00 PM

MEETING FINISHED: 2:50 PM

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

Alf Lester declared a potential conflict of interest in items 3 and 4 as he sits on the Rouse Hill Town Centre Design Review Panel, which considers proposed developments in the Rouse Hill Town Centre and was on the panel which considered and gave advice on these two development applications previously. He did not take part in the determination of these two development applications at this Local Planning Panel meeting.

ITEM 1: DA 725/2020/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A BOARDING HOUSE CONTAINING 15 ROOMS PURSUANT TO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 - LOT 30 DP 27563, 13 TORRS STREET, BAULKHAM HILLS

SPEAKERS

1. SANIMERI DONNELLY - Speaking as an objector 2. AMANDA HAJGATO - Speaking as an objector 3. JAMES PROCTOR - Speaking as an objector 4. ABBAS IMANI - Speaking as an objector 5. SCHANDEL FORTU – Planning Consultant 6. DRAGAN PASAT – Architect

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

(2)

PANEL’S DECISION

The application is approved as a deferred commencement consent subject to the conditions contained in the Council Officer’s report amended as follows:

Insert deferred commencement condition 1A and 1B.

PART A - DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

1A Pedestrian Entry

(i) The pedestrian entry sequence from Torrs Street into the site shall provide for a stepped landscape design on either side of the path with maximum retaining wall heights of one metre and minimum landscape widths of one metre between retaining walls

(ii) Automatic night–time lighting is to be provided and integrated into the landscape/retaining walls

1B Rear Courtyard

(i) Soil depths to the rear courtyard are to be a minimum of 500mm deep and the RL of the courtyard shall not exceed the ground floor designated RL of 80.40

Amended plans in satisfaction of the above conditions shall be submitted to Council for written approval and the consent shall become operational upon written approval by Council of those plans subject to the following conditions in PART B (amended as required):

PART B – OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

Add the following bullet points to condition 7:

• The North West corner of the basement in the vicinity of the tree protection zone for tree 7 is to be built using piling construction techniques.

• Services, in particular storm water drainage is not to be located within the tree protection zone of retained trees and pits are also to be located outside the tree protection zone of retained trees.

Replace condition 10 with the following:

10. Vehicular Access and Parking

1) The formation, surfacing and drainage of all driveways, parking modules, circulation roadways and ramps are required, with their design and construction complying with:

• AS/ NZS 2890.1

• AS/ NZS 2890.6

• AS 2890.2

• DCP Part C Section 1 – Parking

• Council’s Driveway Specifications

Where conflict exists the Australian Standard must be used.

(3)

The following must be provided:

• All driveways and car parking areas must be prominently and permanently line marked, signposted and maintained to ensure entry and exit is in a forward direction at all times and that parking and traffic circulation is appropriately controlled.

• All driveways and car parking areas must be separated from landscaped areas by a low level concrete kerb or wall.

• All driveways and car parking areas must be concrete or bitumen. The design must consider the largest design service vehicle expected to enter the site.

• All driveways and car parking areas must be graded, collected and drained by pits and pipes to a suitable point of legal discharge.

2) Traffic Operation Plan for the development: A Traffic Operational Plan shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer for the development satisfying the following requirements:

2.1. Vehicles ingress and egress to the basements car park shall be controlled by a way of internal traffic light system that effectively prevents vehicles conflict in the proposed one way access driveway.

2.2. The traffic control system will be designed such that inbound vehicles are provided with a green signal at all times other than when a vehicle is departing.

2.3. Nominate the details/location of any proposed traffic loops, linemarking, traffic sign, dome mirror and traffic light signals

2.4. The trigger point for the traffic lights/timing shall not be impacted by the turning vehicles within the basements

2.5. Provide schedule maintenance and replacement for the any proposed traffic loops and traffic light signals

2.6. The traffic Operational Plan/report including the scheduled maintenance shall be reflected on the Construction Certificate plans and supporting documentation prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

69. 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) Positive Covenant – Traffic Operational Plan

The subject site must be burdened with a positive covenant relating to the maintenance of the Traffic Operational Plan. Draft dealing/wording shall be submitted to Council for review and approval prior to the final lodgement.

c) Positive Covenant – Stormwater Pump

The subject site must be burdened with a restriction and a positive covenant using the

“basement stormwater pump system” terms included in the standard recitals.

(4)

Boarding House

The boarding house premises shall be operated in accordance with the definition of

“boarding house” as stipulated in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 and accommodation is not to be provided for tourists or visitors

Add the following to the end of condition 82:

Where there is any conflict between the Plan of Management and these conditions, these conditions shall prevail.

REASONS

The majority of the panel voted to approve the application for the following reasons:

• The Panel notes whilst the street comprises single dwelling houses, it has been identified as capable of supporting a higher density reflected in the R3 zoning.

• The Panel is satisfied that the form of the development is compatible with the character of the area as set out in relevant Land and Environment Court case law.

• The Panel notes that the proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP including the parking requirements.

• The Panel is satisfied that the proposal will have acceptable environmental impacts, including in respect of traffic and parking.

• The Panel notes that a Plan of Management will govern the operation of the boarding house.

• The Panel has imposed deferred commencement conditions to improve the front pedestrian entry and ensure adequate soil depth in the rear landscaped area over the basement carpark.

Rohan Toner, the Community Member voted to refuse the application for the following reasons:

• The boarding house is not situated in an appropriate location.

• The boarding house will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the existing and future residents of the locality.

• The boarding house is not in keeping with the character of the area.

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified to 54 properties for 14 days on two occasions and 35 submissions were received. The written submissions were detailed in the report and the majority of the Panel considers the written submissions and oral submissions have been adequately addressed in the report and the further responses provided at the meeting.

VOTING

For: Julie Walsh, Alf Lester, Scott Barwick Against: Rohan Toner

(5)

ITEM 2: DA 1260/2019/HC - CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 PLACE CHILD CARE CENTRE WITH BASEMENT PARKING - LOT 9 DP 1215150, NO. 25 PARSONS CIRCUIT, KELLYVILLE SPEAKERS

1. NIMALIE PERARA – Resident Objector 2. JOSHUA MCBRIDE – Resident Objector 3. MEGAN MCBRIDE– Speaking as an objector 4. CARMEN YOUNG – Resident Objector 5. SEAN ANDERSON – Speaking as an objector 6. OLEG SANNIKOV – Traffic Engineer

7. BRAD DELAPIERRE – Town Planner 8. CHARLIE BAINI - DESIGNER

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

The matter is deferred for electronic determination by the Panel upon receipt of further clarification of the relationship of the acoustic screens to the northern boundary, retaining walls and ground levels. This will require preparation of amended architectural plans including cross sections.

The architectural plans need to be consistent with the plans contained in the acoustic report.

REASONS

The majority of the Panel considers the application capable of approval but require certainty regarding what is being approved.

Rohan Toner, the Community Member voted to refuse the application for the following reasons:

• The proposal will have adverse impacts on the residents and locality particularly in relation to parking, traffic and safety.

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified to 12 properties for 14 days on 4 occasions and 31 submissions were received. 19 unique submissions were received during the notification periods. The written submissions were detailed in the report and the majority of the Panel considers the written submissions and oral submissions were adequately addressed in the report and the further responses provided at the meeting. In relation to the concern

regarding incompatibility of a proposed child care centre as a use in the R2 Low Density residential zone, the Panel notes that child care centres are a use mandated in that zone by the State Government.

VOTING

For: Julie Walsh, Alf Lester, Scott Barwick Against: Rohan Toner

(6)

ITEM 3: DA 981/2020/HA – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING TWO RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDINGS AND A GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL PREMISE - LOT 10 DP 280013, NO. 43 CIVIC WAY, ROUSE HILL

SPEAKERS

1. PETER LAWRENCE – Consultant

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

The application is approved subject to the conditions contained in the Council Officer’s report.

REASONS

• The Clause 4.6 variation request is considered to be well founded and the proposed variation results in a development which is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone and development standard. Compliance with the development standard is

unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance and the proposal results in a better planning outcome as outlined in the report.

• The site has always been envisaged for multi-storey residential development since the approval of the Masterplan in 2004. The site is in a Town Centre location sleeving the retail centre. Apartment development is the most suitable form of residential development for the site.

• The site is considered suitable for the development.

• The proposal adequately satisfies the relevant state and local planning provisions.

• The proposal will have no unacceptable impacts on the built or natural environment.

• The proposal is in the public interest.

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified to 3 properties for 14 days and no submissions were received.

VOTING

For: Julie Walsh, Scott Barwick, Rohan Toner.

Against: Nil

Note: Alf Lester did not participate or vote on this item.

ITEM 4: DA 982/2020/HA - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING CONTAINING 36 APARTMENTS AND BASEMENT PARKING - LOT 9 DP 280013, WHITE HART DRIVE ROUSE HILL

SPEAKERS

(7)

1. PETER LAWRENCE – Consultant

REASONS

• The Clause 4.6 variation request is considered to be well founded and the proposed variation results in a development which is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone and development standard. Compliance with the development standard is

unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance and the proposal results in a better planning outcome as outlined in the report.

• The site has always been envisaged for multi-storey residential development since the approval of the Masterplan in 2004. The site is in a Town Centre location sleeving the retail centre. Apartment development is the most suitable form of residential development for the site.

• The site is considered suitable for the development.

• The proposal adequately satisfies the relevant state and local planning provisions.

• The proposal will have no unacceptable impacts on the built or natural environment.

• The proposal is in the public interest.

VOTING

For: Julie Walsh, Scott Barwick, Rohan Toner.

Against: Nil

Note: Alf Lester did not participate or vote on this item.

ITEM 5: DA 1012/2021/HA - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, REPLACEMENT OF EXTERNAL CLADDING, ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE AND CHANGE OF USE FROM A HEALTH CARE PREMISES TO AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY – LOT 10 DP 1000442, No. 1 MCDOUGALL LANE, CASTLE HILL

SPEAKERS

1. BASHIR CHIDIAC – Designer / Applicant

(8)

REASONS

The Development Application has been assessed against the relevant heads of

consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017,The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory.

VOTING

For: Julie Walsh, Alf Lester, Scott Barwick, Rohan Toner.

Against: Nil