Page 1
MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2020 THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
PRESENT:
Mr Garry Fielding Chair Ms Penny Holloway Expert Mr Scott Barwick Expert
COUNCIL STAFF:
Paul Osborne Acting Group Manager, Development & Compliance Cynthia Dugan Principal Co-ordinator
Justin Keen Senior Town Planner
Ben Hawkins Manager - Subdivision & Development Certification.
Gannon Cuneo Senior Town Planner.
APOLOGIES:
Dr Morgan Wood Community Representative
MEETING COMMENCED:
12:30 PM
MEETING FINISHED:
1:34 PM
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:
Nil
ITEM 1: DA 554/2019/ZB - SUBDIVISION CREATING 71
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, THREE RESIDUE LOTS AND ONE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE LOT INCLUDING NEW ROAD - LOT 161 DP 1007387 AND LOT 105 DP 1072158 - 60-98 CATTAI CREEK DRIVE AND 14 GEORGIA TERRACE,
KELLYVILLE.
SPEAKERS
1. Mr Tim Orpen - Resident Objector.
2. Mr Myall Stevens - KPMG on behalf of Applicant
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the report.
PANEL’S DECISION
The application is refused for the reasons outlined below;
REASONS
1) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 7.16(2) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 as the proposal is likely to have a serious and irreversible impact on the biodiversity values of the subject site.
2) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that general terms of approval from the Rural Fire Service/ a bushfire safety authority is required but has not been provided.
3) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not meet the following matters prescribed by the Regulations:
Page 2
The following information has not been submitted and is able to be requested under Clause 54. The following information and amendments have been requested in the letter from Council staff dated 20 February 2019:
a) Amended Biodiversity Development Assessment Report b) Arborist Report
c) Tree Removal Plan
d) Amended Concept Engineering Plans e) Amended Plan of Proposed Subdivision f) Amended Statement of Environmental Effects
g) Amended Bushfire Report/ Asset Protection Zone Plan h) Plan showing Building Platforms (addressing the DCP) i) Plan showing the planned staging
j) Amended Stormwater Management Strategy k) Flood Assessment
l) Updated Traffic Report/ Swept Turning Paths
4) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the following provisions from The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019:
a) The objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation Zone.
b) The controls in Clause 5.1A Development on land intended to be acquired for public purposes would be inconsistent with the identified public purpose.
5) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions from Part D Section 5 – Kellyville/ Rouse Hill Release Area of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012:
a) The objectives of Clause 2.1 Tree and bushland protection b) The controls in Clause 2.3 Orientation and shape of allotments c) The controls in Clause 2.4 Road planning
d) The controls in Clause 2.6 Stormwater management e) The controls in Clause 2.9 Public recreation space
6) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not adequately considered the likely impacts of the development.
7) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
8) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is not in the public interest.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was exhibited and notified to 165 adjoining properties for 31 days and 86 submissions were received.
VOTING Unanimous
Page 3
ITEM 2: DA 1335/2020/ZB - SUBDIVISION CREATING 52
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE RESIDUE LOT INCLUDING NEW ROAD - LOT 161 DP 1007387 AND LOT 105 DP 1072158 - 60-98 CATTAI CREEK DRIVE AND 14 GEORGIA TERRACE, KELLYVILLE.
SPEAKERS -
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the report.
PANEL’S DECISION
The application is refused for the reasons outlined below;
REASONS
1) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 7.16(2) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 as the proposal is likely to have a serious and irreversible impact on the biodiversity values of the subject site.
2) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not meet the following matters prescribed by the Regulations:
The following information has not been submitted and is able to be requested under Clause 54. The following information and amendments have been requested in the letters from Council staff dated 27 May 2020 and 24 July 2020 and has not been submitted:
a) Amended Biodiversity Development Assessment Report b) Amended Concept Engineering Plans
c) Amended Plan of Proposed Subdivision d) Amended Statement of Environmental Effects
e) Amended Bushfire Report/ Asset Protection Zone Plan f) Amended Stormwater Management Strategy
g) Updated Traffic Report
3) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the following provisions from The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019:
a) The objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation Zone.
b) The controls in Clause 5.1A Development on land intended to be acquired for public purposes would be inconsistent with the identified public purpose.
4) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions from Part D Section 5 – Kellyville/ Rouse Hill Release Area of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012:
a) The objectives of Clause 2.1 Tree and bushland protection b) The controls in Clause 2.3 Orientation and shape of allotments c) The controls in Clause 2.6 Stormwater management
d) The controls in Clause 2.9 Public recreation space
5) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not adequately considered the likely impacts of the development.
Page 4
6) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
7) The development application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is not in the public interest.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was exhibited and notified to 502 adjoining properties for 31 days and 153 submissions were received.
The development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
VOTING Unanimous
ITEM 3: DA 1028/2017/HA/D- SECTION 4.55(2) MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PUB – LOTS 2-3 DP 270106, 34-36
BROOKHOLLOW AVENUE, NORWEST SPEAKERS
1. Marcello Colosimo Applicant
2. David Rippingill Town Planner (on behalf of Applicant) 3. Renzo Tonin Acoustic Consultant
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The section 4.55(2) modification be approved subject to the conditions of consent as outlined in the assessment report.
PANEL’S DECISION
The modification is approved as recommended subject to the conditions of consent contained in the Council Officer’s report. The Panel supports the recommendation not to approve the extended hours.
REASONS
1) The proposal for live music satisfies the provisions of Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the overall development is considered substantially the same development to that originally approved and the amenity impacts of the changes to the noise levels and provision of live music are considered acceptable subject to conditions of consent.
Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.
Section 4.55(2) (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.
LEP 2019 – Satisfactory.
2) The proposed extended hours of operations are not approved as the Panel considers the extended hours are inappropriate having regard to the likely adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the nearby dwellings.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified to 130 adjoining properties for 14 days and 26 submissions were received.
