PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 13 AUGUST 2019
PRESENT
Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance (Chair)
Robert Buckham Principal Executive Planner (New Release & Growth Centres) Benjamin Hawkins Acting Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Angelo Berios Manager – Environment & Health
Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services
Megan Munari Principal Co-ordinator – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner
APOLOGIES
Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment Nicholas Carlton Manager – Forward Planning
TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 8:30am
TIME OF COMPLETION 8:39am
ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
RESOLUTION
The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 6 August 2019 be confirmed.
ITEM-2 DA 2286/2018/HA - CHILD CARE CENTRE AND COMMUNITY FACILITY - LOT 122 DP 562991, NO. 166 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 on the following grounds:
PAGE 2 1. The proposed development does not adequately address the provisions of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of Appendix 11, State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and proposes an unacceptable variation to the height of buildings control which has not been supported by a request pursuant to Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
2. The proposed development does not provide sufficient evidence to support the permissibility of the proposed community facility as defined in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
3. 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 operating hours 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).
4. The proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the significance of the heritage listed bypass road adjacent to the site and does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, Sections 3.3 (Alterations), 3.15 (Development in the vicinity of a heritage site) and 3.13 (Development of archaeological sites) of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 Part B Section 4 – Heritage, and Section 7.3 (European heritage) of the Box Hill Development Control Plan.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii), and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
5. 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).
6. 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, Part C Section 3 – Landscaping and Part C Section 4 – Heritage).
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
7. The proposed development prevents the orderly development of adjoining land in accordance with the Indicative Layout Plan under the Box Hill Development Control Plan.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
PAGE 3 8. 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).
9. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 Part B Section 6 – Business with regard to landscaping and food preparation.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
10. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 Part C Section 1 – Parking due to insufficient landscaping and since insufficient information has been provided in support of dual parking arrangements and to detail the nature of the community facility.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
11. The proposed development does not satisfy the relevant provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 Part C Section 3 - Landscaping due to insufficient details and planting proposed in the landscape plan and possible impacts on trees to be retained.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
12. The proposal has not satisfied the requirements of Clause 6.1 – Public Utility Infrastructure of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 since evidence that the site can be serviced for electricity has not been submitted.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
13. The proposal has not satisfied the requirements of Clause 7 – ‘Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application’ of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 since insufficient information has been submitted to satisfy Council Officers that the proposal will be able to achieve compliance with the provisions of SEPP 55.
(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
14. 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).
15. 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 The Hills Development Control Plan (Part B Section 6 – Business, Part C Section 1 – Parking, Part C Section 3 – Landscaping and Part C Section 4 – Heritage).
(Section 4.15(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
16. The proposal has not adequately addressed subdivision engineering, environmental health, waste 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).
PAGE 4 REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory.
SEPP Growth Centres – Variation – see report.
SEPP Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 – Unsatisfactory.
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land – Unsatisfactory.
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.
DCP Part C Section 4 – Heritage – Unsatisfactory.
Section 7.12 Contribution: $182,089.44
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified and three (3) submissions were received. The issues raised were discussed in the report.
END MINUTES
