DETERMINATION
(a)
That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel,
exercising the function as the consent authority pursuant to Section 4.16 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse consent to
Development Application No. DA/1005/2021 for Demolition of existing
structures, tree removal and construction of a 3-storey boarding house
comprising of 19 rooms over basement parking for the site at 57 Jenkins Road,
CARLINGFORD.
(b) Further,
that submitters be notified of the decision.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1. State
Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
a)
Clause 29(2)(a) - The
proposal exceeds the maximum Building Height onsite
b)
Clause 29(2)(b) - The
proposed landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the
streetscape in which the building is located
c)
Clause 30A – The
development is not in keeping with the desired future character of the area,
which encourages the amalgamation of lots of 4000 sqms or more.
2. Parramatta
(former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012
a)
Clause 4.3 – The
proposed development exceeds the 10m building height development standard
b)
Clause 4.6 – The
written request to vary Clause 4.3 has not adequately demonstrated that
compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary nor
has it provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify
contravening the development standard.
c)
In addition, it is likely
the proposal will result in an isolated site, which is not in keeping with
policy framework.
3. The
Hills Development Control Plan 2012
a)
The proposed basement
carpark does not sufficiently demonstrate that vehicles are able to enter and
exit in a forward direction in the scenario when all car parking spaces are
occupied.
b)
The proposed development
is excessive in scale when considered against the current height of building
and amenity controls.
c)
The proposed development
would result in an increase in shadows cast over adjoining properties, in
particular the southern dwelling.
d)
The motorcycle parking
arrangement is poorly configured that it has made it inaccessible.
e)
The ground floor exceeds
one (1) metre above natural ground level as a result of the inefficient
driveway and basement design.
f)
Insufficient side setback
provided.
g)
Insufficient landscaping
and deep soil zones provided.
h)
Access for people with
disabilities is not adequately addressed.
i)
The proposed means of
access to the site is unacceptable, particularly in relation to its proximity
to the traffic controlled intersection.
The Panel decision was unanimous.
|