|
DETERMINATION
(a) That
the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council as
the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse development consent to DA/220/2020
for the following reasons:
1. State
Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
i. The
proposed development in its current form is unsuitable on the site and does
not exhibit a satisfactory building form and massing in that it is
inconsistent with the following provisions prescribed within SEPP (Affordable
Rental Housing) 2009:
i. Clause 30A – The proposed
development in its current form is not in harmony with the existing and
future desired character of the locality.
2. Parramatta
Local Environmental Plan 2011
i. The
proposed development is inconsistent with clause 1.2(2)(h) ‘Aims of
plan’ in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it does not
contribute towards the orderly and sustainable development of Parramatta, and
results in an overdevelopment on a constrained, isolated site.
ii. The
proposal does not comply with clause 4.3 ‘Height of buildings’ as
it will result with a building height that contravenes the maximum building
height and fails to reinforce and respect the existing character and scale of
the street, which is gradually transitioning from low density residential
development to high density residential development.
iii. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the
height of buildings development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in
the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental
planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard as required
by clause 4.6(3) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.
3. Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2011
i. The
proposed development does not exhibit a satisfactory building form and
massing and is inconsistent with the following provisions of Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2011:
Section
3.1.3 – Preliminary Building Envelopes: Excessive building height,
non-compliant front, side and rear setbacks, insufficient site frontage, no
deep soil zones and inadequate landscaped areas.
Section
3.2.5 Streetscape Appearance – The development does not positively
contribute to the streetscape quality of Collett Parade, as it creates
excessive building dominance to the street frontage on an isolated site. In
this regard, it is inconsistent with objectives O.1 and O.3.
Section
3.7.2 – Site Consolidation and Development on Isolated Sites: The
proposal is inconsistent with Objective O.2 and Design Principle P.3.
Section
5.1 – Boarding Houses: The proposal is inconsistent with the following
objectives and design principles in Section 5.1:
o Objectives
O.7 and O.8, and Design Principles P.4, P.10, P.21, P.46, P.48, P.55 and P.60
4. Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979
i. The proposed development in its current form is
inconsistent with Section 1.3(c) of the EP&A Act 1979, as it fails to
promote the orderly and economic use of the subject site.
ii. The
proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest
and fails to satisfy section 4.15(1)(b), (c), (d), and (e) of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
(c) That by
placing the recommendation at the front of the report, it should be used in
the direct order of information/sequence for an informed reader. The
direct order focuses the reader’s attention on the conclusions and
recommendations first.
(d) Further,
that the grounds of refusal point 2 add the words ‘and the
development does not provide a better planning outcome than an otherwise
complying development’.
The
Panel decision was -
FOR:
David Lloyd, David Ryan, Robert Hussey
AGAINST:
Maree Turner
|
