|
DETERMINATION
(a) That the
Parramatta Local Planning Panel (PLPP) exercising
the functions of Council, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 refuse
Development Application No. DA/151/2020 for
boundary adjustment to create two (2) lots from the existing two (2) lots,
demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two-storey and
part three-storey child care facility for 58 children (4 x 0-2 year olds, 14
x 2-3 year olds & 40 x 3-5 year olds) and basement car parking for 17
vehicles with vehicular access from Spurway Street on land at Lot 1 in DP 650987 and Lot 1 in DP 128425, 245-247
Kissing Point Road, DUNDAS NSW 2117 for the following reasons:
Insufficient
subdivision pattern
1.
Pursuant to Sections
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
Clause 4.1 ‘Minimum subdivision lot size’ of the Parramatta Local
Environmental Plan 2011 and Part 3.7 ‘Subdivision’ of the
Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the proposed boundary adjustment
(subdivision) creates a western lot which is not characteristic of the
existing lot shape, size of pattern in the R2 Zone. The proposed western lot
dimensions are not accurately shown on the plan nor show the indicative
building footprints of the western lot to ascertain whether the new lot can
achieve the maximum theoretical potential as envisioned by the PDCP 2011.
State
Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care
Facilities) 2007 / Child Care
Planning Guideline August 2017
2.
Pursuant to Sections
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
the proposal is unsatisfactory regarding the design quality principles and
the Child Care Planning Guideline August 2017 with respect to site
selection and location, local character, streetscape and the public domain,
building orientation, envelope and design, landscaping, visual and acoustic
privacy, noise and air pollution, storage space requirements, toilet and
hygiene facilities, ventilation and natural light, administrative space,
nappy change facilities, premises designed to facilitate supervision,
emergency and evacuation procedures, fencing and shade structure
device/details.
Inconsistency
with the Aims of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011
3.
Pursuant to Sections
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2(2)(h) ‘Aims of Plan’
of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established
residential area and in terms of the site selection, design and
location.
Inconsistency
with the R2 Zone objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011
4.
Pursuant to Sections
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
and Clause 2.3 ‘Zone Objectives and Land’ of Parramatta Local
Environmental Plan 2011, the proposal is inconsistent with the stated
objective (dot point 3) of the R2 Zone of PLEP 2011. The above-ground built
form is 3m from the northern boundary which creates an undesirable amenity to
the future dwelling/s on the western lot. Further, the proposed subdivision
creates an elevated L-shaped outdoor play area with play equipment abutting
the boundaries of adjoining and surrounding dwellings along Wassell Street,
Kissing Point Road and Spurway Street results in unreasonable visual and
acoustic amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The proposal is of a bulk
and scale that adversely impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties
and does not achieve satisfactory urban design outcomes. The proposal is not
suitable for this site as it would have a significant impact on local
amenity. This is at odds with the aim and objectives (dot point 3) of the R2
Low Density Residential zone within the PLEP 2011, both concerned with
minimising such impacts.
Unacceptable
streetscape
5.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(iii) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
and Part 3.2.5 ‘Streetscape’ and Part 2.12.6 ‘Development on
Sloping Land’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the Child Care Planning Guideline gives
considerable attention to the existing character of the streetscape and the
proposed street presentation to both Kissing Point Road and Spurway Street is
a negative aspect of the proposal. The proposed building is not in character
with the established residential setting.
6.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(iii) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
and Part 2.12.8 ‘Public Domain’ and Part 3.2.6
‘Fences’ of the Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2011, the building does not appropriately
address the public domain along Spurway Street or Kissing Point Road. In
addition, the fencing detracts from providing positive interface between
private and public domains.
Unacceptable
bulk and scale
7.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.1.3 ‘Preliminary
Envelopes’, Part 3.2.1 ‘Building Form and Massing’ and Part
3.2.2 ‘Building Façade and Articulation’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the built form is considerably out of
scale with its established residential setting as the proposal does not observe the prevailing front
setbacks to Spurway Street or to Kissing Point Road, the internal side and
rear setbacks to the proposed western lot. The acoustic mitigation measures
do not fully resolve the visual privacy impacts to adjoining and surrounding
properties. The scale of the proposal creates an undesirable built form
within an established residential setting as the total height of the acoustic
barrier fencing including the modified ground levels and retaining walls
above the natural ground level results in a structure that is excessive in
bulk and scale as the acoustic barrier is approximately 2.4m-3.7m above the
proposed new western lot.
Inadequate
landscaping (and deep soil) from the acoustic fences
8.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.3.1 ‘Landscaping’ of the
Parramatta Development Control Plan
2011, the absence of any significant perimeter landscaping on-site creates a
sense of enclosure for both the children in care, especially given the height
of the proposed acoustic boundary/balustrade fencing, and the adjoining
properties. The lack of such landscaping, generally 2m in width as prescribed
in Part 5.1 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, along the site
boundaries is a significant negative aspect of the proposal. The visual
impact from the adjoining residential properties created as a result of the
installation of the acoustic boundary/balustrade fencing is unacceptable in
an established residential setting.
9.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.3.3 ‘Visual and
Acoustic Privacy’ and Part 5.2.3.5 ‘ Acoustic and Visual
Privacy’ of the Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2011, the 26m long 2.1m high acoustic barrier
to the new western lot (as recommended by the acoustic consultant) and to
adjoining residential properties is not adequately addressed in the proposal.
The visual impact of the recommended height of the acoustic
fences/balustrades barriers to the neighbouring residential properties, to
the west, is approximately 2.4m-3.7m above the proposed new western lot and
is unacceptable given these properties sits below the elevated L-shaped
outdoor play area.
Air
Quality/Pollution
10.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
and Part 2.12.5 ‘Air Quality’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the submitted air
quality assessment report has not provided the air quality parameters for the
proposed underground parking given the site is located on Kissing Point Road.
In addition to the proximity of the major arterial road, the proposal has not
considered the car exhaust fumes which will emanate from the basement car
parking level. No mechanical ventilation or exhaust extraction stacks are
shown on the plans.
Insufficient
information
11.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
and Part 2.12.2 ‘Water Management’ and Part 3.3.6 Water Sensitive
Urban Design’ of the Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2011, stormwater/engineering concept plans
have not been provided.
12.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a) (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and
Part 3.4.2 ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011,
inadequate Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) information
including the absence of a revised access report have been provided.
13.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.4.4 ‘Safety and
Security’ of the Parramatta Development
Control Plan 2011, insufficient information regarding the
evacuation/assembly point not shown. In addition, integrated fencing,
security gates and landscaping and security details have not been provided
which creates opportunities for anti-social behaviour which does not comply with Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
14.
Pursuant to Section
4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.3.5 ‘Solar Access
and Ventilation’ of the Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2011, the shadow diagrams provided do not include the shadows cast by
the proposal, any future dwellings on the proposed western lot or the shade
sail structures in conjunction with the proposed acoustic consultant’s
recommendation.
15.
The development is
considered to adversely impact on the built environment (Section 4.15(1)(b)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).
16.
The proposal fails
to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(c) Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the site constraints together with the
design issues renders the site unsuitable for the development.
17.
The proposal fails
to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(e) Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the adverse impacts generated by the
development due to non-compliance with the applicable planning controls is
not beneficial within the development site or to the established residential
community and as such, it is not considered to be in the wider public
interest.
(b) That
the objectors be advised of the PLPP’s decision.
The Panel decision was unanimous.
For: David Lloyd QC (Chair), Robert Hussey, Richard Thorp,
Warrick McLean.
Against: Nil
|