PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2019
PRESENT
Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance (Chair) Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment
Gannon Cuneo Senior Town Planner
Angelo Berios Manager – Environment & Health Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Nicholas Carlton Manager – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner
APOLOGIES
Benjamin Hawkins Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification1
TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 8:30am
TIME OF COMPLETION 8:35am
ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
RESOLUTION
The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 8 October 2019 be confirmed.
ITEM-2 DA 1376/2019/HA - CHILD CARE CENTRE AND MEDICAL CENTRE WITH BASEMENT CARPARK - LOT 40 DP 1229900 OLD PITT TOWN ROAD, BOX HILL
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO ITEM 20(2)(c) AND (d) OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979
DECISION:
The Development Application be refused for the following reasons:
PAGE 2 1. The proposed development is considered to be incompatible with the amenity of a low density residential environment due to its proposed scale and the proposed hours of operation and is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i), (b) and (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
2. The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of SEPP (Education Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 since it does not comply with Clause 23 (Compliance with Child Care Planning Guideline) including Part 2 Design quality principles (context, built form, landscape, amenity and safety), Part 3 Matters for consideration relating to site selection, local character, streetscape, building design, landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation and Part 4 Applying the National Regulations to development proposals in relation to fencing, laundry and storage.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
3. The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of SEPP (Education Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 since it does not comply with Clause 26 Centre-based child care facility—development control plans due to various non- compliances with relevant development control plans including Box Hill Development Control Plan, The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 (Part B Section 6 – Business, Part C Section 1 – Parking and Part C Section 3 – Landscaping.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
4. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of Section 2.3 Character Areas (Ridge Character Area), Section 4.2.5 Dwelling massing and siting and General Requirements (9) and (10) of the Box Hill Development Control Plan with respect to non-residential development in residential zones, due to its size, scale and hours of operation.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
5. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of Development Control Plan 2012 Part B Section 6 – Business with regard to landscaping and hours of operation.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
6. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of Development Control Plan 2012 Part C Section 1 – Parking due to insufficient landscaping and non-compliance with the required parking rates outlined in Table 1.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
7. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of Development Control Plan 2012 Part C Section 3 - Landscaping due to insufficient details and planting proposed in the landscape plan.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
8. The proposed built form is inconsistent with the natural, built, social and economic environment of the locality.
(Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
PAGE 3 9. The proposal is not in the public interest due to the incompatible character and scale of the development with regard to the locality and its departure from the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017, The Box Hill Development Control Plan 2017 and Development Control Plans (Part B Section 6 – Business, Part C Section 1 – Parking and Part C Section 3 – Landscaping).
(Section 4.15(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
10. The proposal has not adequately addressed subdivision engineering, environmental health, tree management and planning concerns raised by Council Officers.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), 1(b) and 1(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory
SEPP Growth Centres – Unsatisfactory
SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 – Unsatisfactory
SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 – Satisfactory
SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land - Satisfactory
Box Hill DCP – Variation, see report
DCP Part B Section 6 – Business – Variation, see report
DCP Part C Section 1 – Parking – Variation, see report
DCP Part C Section 3 – Landscaping – Variation, see report
Section 7.12 Contribution: $233,559.79
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION:
The development application was notified and two (2) submissions were received. The issues raised were discussed in the report.
