• No results found

ASSESSMENT UNIT

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "ASSESSMENT UNIT "

Copied!
56
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

Access to the site is proposed via Mustang Avenue across adjacent land not controlled by the applicant or owner of the site in question. The applicant was informed that further design issues would be raised as the evaluation of the application continued. The amended plans no longer take into account the proposed land exchange or orderly development of the adjacent land.

The submitted information contains inconsistencies regarding the operating hours of the kindergarten and the public institution. However, insufficient information was provided to support the proposed community capacity as defined above. The use of the heritage-listed bypass as the primary access to the site (either temporarily or long-term) is considered to have unacceptable heritage impacts.

The application is therefore deemed to be in conflict with objectives (a), (b) and (c) of the objectives of Article 5.10 Heritage Preservation.

Draft Amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

Compliance with the requirements of SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017

Context – The design of the childcare center does not allow for the orderly development of adjacent land and does not respond appropriately to or enhance the existing or future low density residential and large lot residential character of the surrounding land. Amenity – The amenity of the existing and future surrounding community has not been satisfactorily addressed. A western elevation plan has not been submitted. demonstrate adequate privacy for future residential development to the west of the site.

The proposed development does not respond appropriately to or respect the existing or future built form, character, streetscape and heritage of the surrounding area. Side boundary fencing extends forward from the building line to the bypass front which is not acceptable. A western elevation plan has not been submitted with amended plans to demonstrate adequate privacy to future residential development west of the site.

The proposed development does not respond appropriately to or respect the existing or future built form, character, streetscape and heritage of the surrounding area. Details of the use of this area and any screening for privacy or acoustic impacts have not been provided. Amended plans changed proposed vehicular access to the rear of the site, but a revised traffic report was not submitted and no right of way was obtained.

Compliance with the Development Control Plans

The large erf residential zone will enable the preservation of the existing vegetation, the ridge line formation and the existing views. The scope and scale of the development (number of children and community center residents, basement parking, etc.) is inconsistent with the desired future character of the surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Sections 2.2 Indicate layout plan, 2.3.2 Ridge Character Area, 5.6.1 General Requirements (3), (9) and (10) of the Box Hill DCP. ii) Compliance with the Hills DCP Part B Section 6 – Business.

The proposal does not comply with the provisions of the DCP for childcare in the center as follows:. The property in question is located near a "diverted section of road" which is listed in Schedule 5 of The Hills 2012 Local Environmental Plan (not the Growth Centers SEPP) as a Locally Important Archaeological Heritage (Item A3). is located in the road reserve for 162-170 Old Pitt Town Road. As such, the provisions of section 3.3 Changes, section 3.15 Development in the vicinity of a heritage site and section 3.13 Development archaeological sites of the DCP Heritage apply.

HIS suggests that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of clause 5.10 as it preserves the heritage significance of the unsealed road and any archaeological potential of the road. There is concern that the proposed bituminous sealing of the gravel road will significantly alter the detail, fabric, finish and appearance of the heritage site and diminish its significance. Consideration should also be given to the maintenance of the existing streetscape where this has particular significance for the heritage area.

The proposed bituminous resurfacing of the gravel road will significantly alter the existing environment of the heritage site. An assessment of the archaeological potential of the road has not been submitted in support of the topic proposal. The current unsealed nature of the heritage listed road provides an important and positive visual contrast to the modern stretch of Old Pitt Town Road.

It is considered that the suggested "temporary approach" of applying a bituminous surface to the unsealed road (whether temporary or not) will significantly alter the existing streetscape setting and the visual significance of the heritage site. As submitted and as it lacked the required information, the application was deemed unsatisfactory in relation to the provisions of Part C, Section 4 – Heritage of The Hills DCP 2012.

Table 1 – Required Minimum Car Parking and Section 2.8 Landscaping (c)
Table 1 – Required Minimum Car Parking and Section 2.8 Landscaping (c)

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land

As described above, the application as originally proposed lacked supporting information and was not considered admissible in relation to heritage. The amended plans submitted are based on providing permanent access to the site from the future Mustang Road to the west of the site via a right of way, not relying on temporary access. The amended plans show however, that the bypass road will still be used for lift and lift activity as it is the site's only road frontage and main pedestrian access / front door point.

A revised Heritage Impact Statement and Traffic Report would be required to address the likely impacts of this proposed bypass road use. Due to the above history and the fact that the proposed use is a child care center with an outdoor playground, a level 2 contamination assessment should be conducted and submitted for review. If the level 2 pollution assessment identifies pollution requiring remediation, a remedial action plan should be prepared and submitted together with the level 2 pollution assessment.

In this regard, it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to convince Council officials that the proposal will be able to comply with the provisions of SEPP 55.

Issues Raised in Submissions

160 traffic movements in the morning peak and 140 movements in the afternoon peak are grossly disproportionate to the anticipated traffic generation associated with a 2,000 m2 residential lot. The size and scale of the development is not in keeping with the adjacent RU6 land on the opposite side of Old Pitt Town Road. The size and scale of construction is not appropriate in the environment of low density residential/large residential lots and characteristic ridge area.

The acoustic report does not take into account the future expected grounds and calls for fences of up to 2.4m, which would need to be increased if assessed correctly and is unacceptable.

Internal Referrals

Comments provided to the applicant raised concerns regarding the proposed use of the community facility/potential functional center. If this component of the Development Application were to be permitted in the area, these would have to be removed as they cannot be used from an acoustic point of view. A handwashing basin shall be in addition to any dishwashing, food preparation, or sink necessary for the operation of the food preparation area.

Details of the proposed floor, wall and ceiling finish in the kitchen/any bottle preparation area shall be provided. No objections were raised to the proposal in terms of traffic impact as a result of the increasing volumes. A revised traffic report would be required to determine the safety and traffic implications of vehicular access to the site via Mustang Avenue and any proposed use of the bypass.

The proposed development does not provide an appropriate response to the Ridge Character Area as defined in the Box Hill Development Control Plan and is inconsistent with future low density development or the importance of the bypass road listed in inheritance. The applicant has not been able to obtain a right-of-way agreement over adjacent land due to the scale and intensity of the proposal. The proposed development does not provide sufficient evidence to support the permissibility of the proposed community facility as set out in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.

The proposed development is likely to adversely affect the heritage-listed significance of the bypass adjacent to the site and does not meet the requirements of Article 5.10 Heritage Conservation of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006, Sections 3.3 ( Alterations ), 3.15 ( Adjacent Development heritage areas) 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 . The proposed design does not comply with the relevant provisions of Section 2.3 Characteristic Areas (ridge area), Section 4.2.5 Threat and accommodation of dwellings and general requirements (9) and (10) of the Box Hill Development Control Plan in relation to non-residential development in residential zones, due to size, scope and operating time. The proposed development does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Hills Development Control Plan 2012, Part B, Section 6 - Landscaping and Food Preparation Business.

The proposed development does not comply with the relevant provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012, Part C, Section 1 – Parking due to inadequate landscaping and as insufficient information has been provided to support dual parking arrangements and to detail the nature of the communal facility . The proposed development does not comply with the relevant provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012, Part C, Section 3 - Landscaping due to insufficient detail and planting proposed in the landscape plan and possible impacts on trees to be retained. The proposed built form is incompatible with the natural, built, social and economic environment of the locality.

The proposal is not in the public interest due to the incompatible nature and scale of the development in relation to the locality and its departure from the requirements under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006, State Environmental Planning Policy (Institutions Education and Childcare Centers) 2017, 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 – Landscape and Part C Section 4 – Inheritance).

Figure

Table 1 – Required Minimum Car Parking and Section 2.8 Landscaping (c)

References

Related documents

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 7 DECEMBER, 2021 PAGE 13 All requirements of the Waste Management Plan submitted as part of the Development Application must be implemented