• No results found



Academic year: 2023



Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Council meeting of 14th August 2018 are confirmed. The application in question seeks to extend an existing residential development for the elderly by constructing 12 additional detached dwellings on the western part of the site (formerly known as 144 and 146 Glenhaven Road). In order for the application to continue to be evaluated, the applicant was asked to withdraw the subject application or provide a valid certificate of site compatibility.

Integrated Development” under the provisions of section 4.8 of the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 and the Rural Fires Act 1997. The applicant is seeking approval for a self-contained in-fill self-catering housing development under the provisions of the SEPP. As such, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of the SEPP in terms of the definition of independent serviced self-care accommodation.

This clause applies to a development application made in terms of this Chapter in respect of development for the purposes of senior housing (other than dual occupancy) if:. a) the development is proposed to be carried out on any of the following grounds to which this Policy applies:. i) land adjacent to land primarily zoned for urban purposes. ii) land that is within a zone identified as "special uses" under another environmental planning instrument (except land on which development is permitted for the purposes of hospitals). iii) land used for the purposes of an existing registered club, or (b) the development application involves buildings with a floor space ratio which. would require the consenting authority to grant consent under clause 45. 1A) Despite sub-clause (1), this clause does not apply to a development application made in terms of this Chapter in respect of development for the purposes of senior housing, if the proposed development is permitted with consent on the relevant land in terms of the zoning of another environmental planning instrument. The provisions of the SEPP state that the consenting authority must not consent to a Development Application unless it is satisfied by written evidence that the residents of the proposed development will have reasonable access to specified services and accessibility. Access is considered compliant if:. a) the facilities and services listed above are located at a distance of not more than 400m from the site and the overall slope is not more than 1:14, with alternative acceptable slopes for short distances, or.

Bus services operate along Mills Road and Glenhaven Road and there is a bus stop within 20-50m of the premises.

The proposal also includes an additional 23 spaces within the existing senior housing development for staff. The scale and building footprint of the proposed development is inconsistent with the surrounding development to the north, south and west of the site which consists of large low density rural plots within an RU6 rural zone. The character of the area includes rural lifestyle and land uses, including large parcels of land, low-scale dwellings, farm sheds, intensive plant-agricultural enterprises and open spaces.

The proposed design includes four clusters with 12 homes that have considerable lengths compared to the existing rural residential developments. Prior to this amalgamation of the lots, the provision of senior housing at 144 and 146 Glenhaven Road was not permitted, as the site is not adjacent to land primarily zoned for urban purposes and the density of the large rural residential lot was only for two homes compared to the 10 additional homes currently proposed. On this point, the proposal does not meet the design principle in relation to neighborhood experience and streetscape.

To ensure the development of communities that are livable, vibrant and safe. and who have services and facilities that meet their needs. To ensure balanced urban growth through efficient and safe transport infrastructure, a range of housing options and a built environment compatible with the cultural and natural heritage of The Hills. The proposal is deemed inconsistent with the strategic direction and management of urban and rural land use for the benefit of the community and does not protect and preserve the rural environment of The Hills.

The proposal includes the Torren title subdivision of one lot into two and is permitted by consent within the RU6 transition zone. iii) Compliance with The Hills LEP 2012 – Zone Objectives. The zoning objectives seek to protect and maintain the land that provides a transition between rural areas and other land uses of varying intensity and minimizes conflict between land uses within adjacent zones. To protect and maintain land that provides a transition between rural areas and other land uses of varying intensity or environmental sensitivity.

To reduce conflict between land uses within this area and land uses within neighboring areas. Promote innovative and sustainable tourism development, sustainable agriculture and the provision of agricultural products directly to the public. The proposal is essentially an urban form with large building lengths and a 1.8 m high solid acoustic fence along the street frontages.

Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan

Issues Raised in Submissions

Based on the proposed number of units, it is assessed that the proposal will have negligible traffic impacts on the local road network. The Council's Principal Traffic Coordinator has reviewed the application and raised no concerns with the proposed development, subject to a median at the entrance to the site on Glenhaven Road providing a left-in/left-out arrangement that will have negligible impact on the operational efficiency of the surrounding road network or nearby junction. The traffic report is inadequate as it predicts road widening of Glenhaven Road and roundabout at the Mills Road junction but does not mention the installation of traffic lights at the Old Northern Road junction.

Traffic safety for vehicles exiting Mills Road or Clarinda Road and entering Glenhaven Road. Requests built around the intersection of Mills and Glenhaven Road to allow all residents access to Glenhaven Road. To accommodate future growth through 2031, the Glenhaven Road Corridor Study recommends the construction of a two-lane roundabout at the Bannerman Road intersection.

Staff and visitors to the existing Seniors Housing complex currently park on the east side of Mills Road and park illegally across the driveways. The proposal to add 12 detached apartments includes 13 car spaces for residents and 5 spaces for visitors, which requires 18 car spaces. The Colorbond fence (as required in the consent for the existing senior housing development) between 1A Mills Road and the adjoining property is omitted from the architectural plans.

3873/2003/HC include a 2000mm high color bonding protection fence along the boundary between 140-144 Glenhaven Road and 146 Glenhaven Road. The application in question was referred to the NSW RFS, which did not object to the proposal on the recommended terms if consent to the proposal was granted. The application is considered integrated development and has been referred to the NSW RFS for general approval conditions.

The NSW RFS recommended that the property around the proposed independent living units be a distance of 100 metres, or to the property boundary (whichever comes first), be managed as an Internal Protection Area (IPA). An existing 150mm sewer connection has been provided outside the boundary of 144 Glenhaven Road and it drains to an existing private pump which discharges to the Sydney Water Sewer System at a manhole in Temora Road. If consent to the application has been granted, appropriate mitigation measures can be implemented by way of conditions in the consent.

Internal Referrals

External Referrals

The area is not consistent with the values ​​of the metropolitan area and not compatible with the surrounding rural environment and the existing rural uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development. The proposed development is contrary to the planning principles, visions and objectives outlined in "Hills 2026 - Looking Towards the Future", as the proposed development provides for unsatisfactory urban growth which will result in negative environmental and social impacts and will not ensure that a coherent built form is provided with regard to the streetscape and rural character of the locality. The proposed development does not sufficiently comply with the provisions of section 24 of the State's Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or Persons with Disabilities) 2004, as no current certificate of compatibility with the building site has been issued and the Council, as the licensing authority, is unable to give consent to the development.

The proposed development does not sufficiently comply with the planning principles in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for the Elderly or Disabled) 2004 in that the scale, scale and built form of the development is not compatible with the surrounding large parcel of low density rural residential development to the north, west and south of the site. The proposed development does not comply with the strategic planning instrument, the C18 Central City District planning priority, which restricts urban development within a metropolitan rural area. The proposed built form is inconsistent with the environment of the surrounding rural area (section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

The proposed change is not in the public interest due to deviation from the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for the Elderly or Disabled) 2004, inconsistency with the Central City District Plan and the input received. Central City District Plan (Figure 27: Central City District Metropolitan Rural Area and Protected Natural Area).


Related documents

Approval for Acetic acid, 10-30% aqueous solution HSR001582 Page 3 of 4 Appendix: Controls applying to HSR001582 Hazardous substances and new organisms HSNO default controls