The applicant was informed that the proposed development was considered an overdevelopment of the site which is not considered site responsive and that insufficient details had been submitted to demonstrate compliance with relevant legislation and controls. A letter was sent to the applicant on March 31, 2021 detailing all of the above and expressing concern about the negative impact the proposed development and associated works will have on the critically endangered ecological community. Several other issues were also raised, as described in the summary, and the applicant was informed that the proposed development, as it stands, was not site-responsive, was excessive, and was considered an overdevelopment of the lot.
To ensure that development does not adversely affect the rural and scenic character of the country. As described in this report, the proposed development and associated works will have an adverse effect on the rural and scenic character of the country. This has been raised with the applicant, but the response received did not indicate that the proposed development and all required services can be accommodated within the plot without adversely affecting the viability of the area and the environment.
Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 – Formerly SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care
Concurrence of the Regulatory Authority
Matters for consideration by consent authorities Before determining a development
Compliance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 – Former SEPP (Educational Institutions and Childcare).
Non-discretionary development standards
Development Control Plans A provision of a development control plan
The Hills Development Control Plan 2012
Vegetation and natural landscapes rather than the built form dominate the character of the Hills Shire. The visual appearance of the proposed development is not considered to maintain the open rural feel of the area. In addition, the works required to establish and maintain the Asset Protection Zone required for the development are not considered to preserve the environmental characteristics of the area.
The bulk and scale of the proposed development is considered excessive, unresponsive to the site and an excessive plot design. The applicant was informed that the building was considered an excessive construction of the plot and was not supported. Adequate acreage for high-quality landscape planting has not been provided for the development, adversely affecting the overall visual appeal and character of the neighborhood.
It does not maintain or contribute to the environmental and visual character of the area, but will instead detract from it. Car Park Design and Structure / Loading and Delivery Requirements The aims and objectives of clause 1.2 of the Parking DCP are: To provide suitable access to the site for service vehicles, for the purpose of loading and/or delivering goods. ii) Ensure that the types of loading and unloading areas are suitable for development needs. iii).
The submitted plans also do not provide the necessary dimensions to enable an assessment of the car park design to ensure compliance with the Australian Standard.
Compliance with Title restrictions
The waste vehicle is currently required to perform a three-point turn and reverse into the car park aisles so that it can exit the site in a forward direction. Reverse maneuvers are limited to a single reverse entry into a designated waste service area in order to be sustainable. A response to the issues raised was submitted, however the information submitted did not demonstrate that the proposed development and all the services it requires can be accommodated within the lot without adversely affecting the amenity of the area and the environment.
As a result, the proposal does not achieve the aims, objectives and desired outcomes of the above sections of the DCP, nor does it demonstrate compliance and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused. Lots required to be managed as an asset protection zone require a positive agreement affecting the whole lot. The building is proposed to be built on approved lot 1, which was approved by the above subdivision permit.
The proposed development and associated works do not comply with points (a), (d) and (e) of the above condition of consent, which must constitute the 88B instrument for the approved subdivision. It appears from the amended plans submitted that vehicular access is now proposed from the access handle for the adjacent property (approved lot 3), which is specifically excluded by point (a) of the above condition. As described in this report, the proposed development and associated Asset Protection Zone infringes on and will adversely affect the limited development area described in item (d).
Due to the scale and size of the proposed development, as set out in this report, the size of the Asset Protection Zone required significantly exceeds that established with the preceding subdivision and also proposes to encroach on the adjoining property (Approved Lot 2).
Internal Referrals
Given the additional traffic that the proposed development will generate, road works will be required to improve the full width of the road, which includes curb and gutter construction. As a result, sufficient information has not been submitted for an assessment of the application to be made. The purpose of the present measurement is to determine the source of the background noise to ensure that the noise is typical for the area.
If the application relies on such a significant reduction of the barriers, full details and specifications of the proposed acoustic barrier are required together with the justification for the expected noise reduction. Even with the questionable calculations outlined, the predicted noise levels are based on the management and control of the children. The building must be provided with a reserve area that can dispose of 100% of the waste water from the facility.
This application is based on the soil investigation that was used for the allotment of the land. An Inner Protection Zone (IPA) (which is part of the overall Asset Protection Zone) is contained within the full extent of the front setback, preventing a landscaping outcome that is compatible with the existing and intended streetscape. The car park and driveway are insufficiently planted to fit into the landscape of the site.
The landscaping currently proposed is not supported for the reasons set out above, nor does it meet the relevant objectives, principles and considerations of the Childcare Planning Directive.
External Referrals
However, if the application were to be supported, the following additional information would be required to be submitted for review and further consideration:. To ensure safe and efficient access to the site, a basic right turn lane on the southern approach and a deceleration lane on the northern approach with a lane length that is designed/constructed in accordance with AUSTROADS requirements is required. The crossing may need to be moved to ensure the length of the deceleration lane does not conflict with the existing queues on Maguires Road.
If the location of the driveway is intended to be retained, it may be that the vegetation/trees to the east of the driveway in the property need to be trimmed to ensure that sight lines are not compromised. The NSW RFS response dated 20 December 2021 was based on the updated Bush Fire Assessment Report submitted by the applicant (dated 9 September 2021). Based on the assumption that the submitted reports were acceptable to Council as they were no longer contradictory, the RFS presented their general conditions of approval.
However, as detailed in this report, the prior subdivision approval (including the title restriction associated with the previously approved Vegetation Management Plan) has not been amended or modified. As a result, the proposed development and the associated Asset Protection Zone are still in direct conflict with the Vegetation Management Plan approved in the preceding subdivision. The applicant has not submitted sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development and all the services it requires can be accommodated within the approved premises without adversely affecting the amenity of the area and the environment.
As a result, the proposed development cannot be supported and is recommended for rejection for the reasons set out in this report.
Issues Raised in Submissions
The exterior facade and overall design does not match or complement the rural character of the area. Reliance on continuous monitoring to ensure compliance with noise levels will create an ongoing burden on facility management and creates the potential for non-compliance. Similarly, section 6.3.2 (Page 48) of the acoustic report states that only 32 children can be outside.
The sound power levels that should be used in any assessment of child care centers are the upper end of the range presented in the AAAC Child Care Center Guideline, i.e. using the maximum levels for the AAAC area, the following sound power levels are assumed for the 32-child scenario. The impact of the development across all these considerations is not satisfactory and should not be supported.
As described in this report, the proposed development is considered unsatisfactory with respect to the provisions of the Environmental Act. It is in direct conflict with other land uses in the area, which will adversely affect the rural and scenic character of the area. The issues raised in the comments have been addressed in the report and warrant rejection of the application.
The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal complies with the provisions of the Childcare Planning Guideline as required by Clause 3.23 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. The proposed development is not considered to be orderly development that is in keeping with the character of the area. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal meets the objectives of the RU6 transition zone as set out in the Local Environment Plan 2019.
LOCALITY PLAN
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
ZONING MAP
APPROVED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
SITE PLAN
APZ PLAN
ELEVATIONS
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
