|
Planning
and Building Committee Meeting
21 July 2008
|
|
|
Environmental
Services Division Report No. 280
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reference: Environmental Services Division
Report No. 280
Subject: 196 Pacific
Highway, Greenwich
Record No: DA08/65-01 - 22696/08
Author(s): Rajiv Shankar
Property: 196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich
DA No: DA65/08
Date Lodged: 6 March 2008
Cost of Work: $8,000,000
Owner : S MacJohn
Author: Rajiv Shankar
|
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION
|
Demolition of the existing building and construction of a ten (10)
storey, one hundred (100) bed room motel with three (3) levels of basement
parking for 46 vehicles, restaurant, conference rooms, roof top SPA &
entertainment area.
|
|
ZONE
|
Residential 2(c)
|
|
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?
|
Yes
|
|
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?
|
No
|
|
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?
|
No
|
|
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?
|
No
|
|
BCA CLASSIFICATION
|
Class
|
|
STOP THE CLOCK USED
|
Yes
|
|
NOTIFICATION
|
Neighbours 194,
198, 200-204, 206-208, 218-220, Pacific Highway, 17,7-15, 17G, 21 Bellevue
Ave, 6, Morven Ave, 8 Nield Ave,
Ward Councillors Clr
R D’Amico, Clr R Tudge, Clr T Lawson.
Progress Association Wollstonecraft Progress Association.
Other Interest Groups Willoughby
Council
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL:
The application has been
referred to the Planning and Building Committee on the request of Clr T Lawson
as a result of community concern.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
· The proposal is for
the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 10 storey motel building with one hundred
(100) one bedroom suites and three (3) levels of basement parking (46
vehicles).
· The proposal does
not comply with the provisions of Council’s Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007 with regards to height and
floor space ratio.
· The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI with regards to the
objective, minimum site area, building design & scale, views and overshadowing, setbacks, landscaping and car
parking.
· The
proposal would necessitate the removal of 22
trees and the possible retention of five (5) trees on the adjoining properties.
· As per Council Code 107 car parking spaces are
to be provided. According to RTA, this would result in increased traffic
generation and would impact on the operational efficiency of the neighbouring
traffic signals on the Pacific
Highway.
· Council has received thirty three (33)
submissions with regard to the proposal.
· The proposal is not supported.
SITE:
The site is located on the western side of Pacific Highway adjacent to its
intersection with Westbourne
Street. The site is rectangular in shape with an
area of 696.18 m2. It has
an eastern front boundary of 15.24m and southern side boundary of 45.79m.
The site currently features a 3-4 storey motel development. The site
falls gently away from the street. Majority of the site is paved with little
landscaping. There are two street trees and no significant trees on the subject
property but there is a row of trees along the boundary on both the adjoining
properties.
Neighbouring to the south is a five storey motel known as ‘Urban’.
Towards the north is a 2-3 storey residential flat building. Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).
PROPOSAL:
The proposal includes the following:
· Demolition of the existing building.
· Demolition of boundary fences and brick walls.
· Construction of 10 storey motel building,
including restaurant, conference rooms, roof top SPA &
entertainment area.
· The building would include one hundred (100) one bedroom suites with
kitchenettes and ensuites.
· Three (3) levels of basement which would provide for forty six (46) car
parking spaces accessed by a car lift and two (2) car parking spaces at the
ground floor level within the front building line. Basement 1 would have a
restaurant and kitchen.
Business Hours
The motel would run on a twenty four (24) hours
basis. Cleaning would be carried out between 9am to 5pm.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:
DA 18/05 – Inclusion of
food preparation area.
DA 35/92 – Old
application-withdrawn.
DA 18/05 – Alteration &
additions to existing motel.
DA 283/96 – Juliet
balconies.
REFERRALS:
Manager Assets
No
objections have been expressed to the proposal subject to conditions.
Heritage Advisor
No
objections have been expressed to the proposal.
Environmental Health
Officer.
The application was referred to the Environmental Health Officer and the
comments received are as under:
“The following information is required to be submitted in order to
further assess this application:
· An acoustic report
carried out in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.
· Detailed plans
showing the fitout out of the kitchen and storage areas in relation to the Food
Safety Standards.”
The above was communicated to the applicant by Councils letter dated 6
May 2008. The requested information has not been provided.
Manager Parks
The application was referred to the Tree Preservation Officer and the
comments received are as under:
“I have looked at
the plans, visited the site and viewed the Arborist Report. I do not support
this application in its current form. The proposed excavation works for the
basement floor R.L will impact on the structural integrity of mature screen
trees on neighbouring properties to the north and south of the site. These
trees provide shade, soften the landscape and to some degree provide privacy
screening between buildings. The
Arborist Report prepared by Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd identifies 27 trees that
will be affected by the proposed development of the site. All 27 trees are
standing on neighbouring properties save three (3) Paperbark trees located on
the nature strip in front of the subject site. The Site arborist has suggested
the proposed development will necessitate the removal of 22 of the
aforementioned trees and the possible retention of five (5) trees.
The Landscape Plan
mentions tree removal and replacement on neighbouring allotments shall be
“negotiated with the owners of the allotments with Council’s recommendations in
mind”. I do not support the removal of 22 trees standing in neighbouring
properties as the trees; at the time of inspection, appeared to be in good
condition. I consider the trees to be a valuable asset to the local community
that have good horticultural aesthetic qualities and provide amenity to the
local community and the residents of residential Units alike.”
Roads & Traffic Authority
The application was referred to the Roads & Traffic Authority and
the comments received are as under:
1. The RTA has no proposal that requires any part of the
subject property for road purposes. Therefore there are no objections to the
development proposal on property grounds.
2. No provision has been made for delivery/service vehicles as
detailed in the RTA Guide to Traffic
Generating Developments other than by using the guest waiting spaces (C1
and C2). Concerns are raised regarding vehicle access and the ability of
delivery/service vehicles to perform a 3-point turn internally to exit the
property in a forward direction.
3. Furthermore, the RTA raises concerns regarding the design of
the ground floor parking area as there is limited room for manoeuvring,
particularly if delivery/service vehicles and waiting cars are present
simultaneously. To potentially address this concern the development would need
to provide two waiting area parking spaces plus a service vehicle space plus a
vacant space to be used as a turn around area.
The provision of a vacant space
for a turn around area would facilitate vehicles entering/ existing the site in
a forward direction (particularly if a situation arises that vehicles are
entering the site and the car lift is inoperable).
Therefore it is recommended that
the ground floor parking area be redesigned to address the abovementioned
concerns.
4. To ensure that there would be minimal impact to the traffic
flows along the Pacific Highway,
the developer should also be required to prepare a suitable management plan
which will address how the vehicles entering the site will be managed should
the car lift become in-operable or the car parking area is full. This plan
should be submitted to Council and the RTA for comments prior to the
determination of the application.
5. Although Council’s parking code requires 107 spaces, the RTA
would support the parking provision provided of 46 spaces, as the traffic
generation and its impact on the neighbouring traffic signals will be reduced.
However, if the total parking provision be provided at an amount that is
noticeably higher than the suggested 46 spaces, then RTA would raise concerns with
regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on the operational
efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.
6. The design and construction of the proposed driveway and
gutter crossing off the Pacific
Highway shall be in accordance with AS2890.1 –
2004 and the RTA requirements (ie 6m plus 0.5m splays to the kerb line and
extended back to a width of 5.5m at the property boundary to facilitate
simultaneous entry/exit manoeuvres). Details of these requirements could be
obtained from the RTA’s Project Services Manager, Traffic Projects Section, Parramatta (ph: 02 8849
2144)
A certified copy of the design
plans should be submitted to the RTA for consideration and approval prior to
the release of any construction certificate for this site by Council and
commencement of road works.
The RTA fees for administration,
plan checking, civil works inspection and project management shall be paid by
the developer prior to the commencement of works.
7. The layout of the proposed car parking areas associated with
the development (including: driveways, grades, turn paths, sight distance
requirements, aisle widths, and parking bay dimensions) should be in accordance
with AS2890.1 2004.
8. Suitable drainage retardation should be implemented on –site
to ensure that there is no increase in the current stormwater discharge from
the site to the Pacific Highway.
Detail design plans and
hydraulic calculations of any changes to the RTA’s stormwater drainage system
are to be submitted to the RTA for approval, prior to commencement of any
works.
Details should be forwards to:-
The Sydney Asset Management
PO Box 973
Parramatta CBD NSW 2124
A plan checking fee may be
applicable and a performance bond may be required before the RTA’s approval is
issued. With regards to the Civil Works requirement please contact the RTA’s
Project Engineer, External Works Ph: 8849 2114 or Fax: 8849 2766.
9. The proposed development should be designed such that the
road traffic noise from the Pacific
Highway is mitigated by durable materials and
complies with the requirements of Clause 102 – (Impact of road noise or
vibration on non road development) of State Planning Policy (Infrastructure)
2007.
10. All vehicles must enter and exit the property in a forward direction.
11. Council should ensure that a ‘Left Turn Only’ sign is provided
at the exit point within the property.
12. The sight distances for northbound vehicles along Pacific
Highway to the access driveway is restricted by large trees, thus requiring the
installation of ‘Caution Driveways’ (W2-207 IL) signage. In order to carry out
the installation of the proposed signage the applicant must contact the RTA Ph:
02 8849 2591 to organise a works inspection.
13. Vegetation and proposed landscaping along the Pacific Highway
frontage must not hinder sight lines to/ from the proposed access driveway to
motorists, pedestrians and/or cyclists.
14. Suitable provision is to be made on site for all construction
vehicles. No construction works zones (s) would be approved by RTA for the Pacific Highway.
15. All works and regulatory signage associated with the proposed
development will be at no cost to the RTA.
Traffic
Manager
The application was
referred to Council’s Traffic Manger and the comments received are as under:
“I reviewed the plans and the Traffic report by
Traffix regarding the proposed Greenwich Inn Hotel at 196 Pacific Highway.
Following my assessment of the traffic and
parking component of the development, the following are my comments:
· The analysis of the parking requirements has been
assessed and the proposed parking spaces for the proposed development are not
considered to be adequate. Council’s requirement is for 107 spaces. The
proposal provides 46 spaces. This number is less than half of the required
parking spaces. The concern of not supplying the required or close to the
required spaces is the ‘spill – over’ effect to the surrounding area where the
parking is at premium. The parking requirement does not comply
· The proposed driveway is not in accordance with
AS2890.1 – 2004 as the requirement is 6 metres. The proposal provides a 5 metre
wide two – way driveway. The driveway narrows to 4 metres on approach to the
existing car park at the rear of the site. The driveway can be narrowed up to
5.5 metres internally. In this aspect the driveway does not comply.
· The internal design of the carpark and layout does
comply in relation to the configuration and position of some parking spaces.
· Car Spaces No’s 19 & 20 are not acceptable in that
location as they block other parking spaces. They need to be deleted.
· There is no adequate manoeuvring around car spaces
No’s 18 and 15.
· The car spaces between the wall and the Car Lifts
require an additional 600mm for door openings.
· A traffic management plan is required to show the
impact of vehicles accessing at the Pacific
Highway. The plan requires approval by the RTA.
· Waiting areas require to be provided for service
vehicles and a turn around area.
· Bicycle parking area should be designed.
Due to the above
issues the parking area requires to be re-designed. The current design is not
supported.”
Valet
Parking Scheme
A
sketch plan was provided by the applicant in May 2008 which suggested that in
lieu of the 3 levels of basement parking, that two levels be provided with
valet parking. This was supplemented on
15 July 2008 with a further report from the applicant’s Traffic Consultant
which advises that in their opinion a parking demand for less than 32 vehicles
was expected and the proposal could provide 40 in 2 levels based on valet
parking. The applicant indicates that
the proposed layout and sizes are what have been in operation at the Greenwich
Inn over the past 20 years with patrons parking the vehicles themselves.
79 (C) (1) (a) the provisions of any Environmental
Planning Instrument
Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987
The subject site is zoned Residential 2 (c) under the
provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987. A ‘Motel’ is permitted within this zone with
development consent of Council.
Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007
The
subject site is zoned R4- High Density Residential. Although ‘motel’ has not
been indicated as a permitted use, the proposal may be considered under ‘hotel’
as it meets the requirements of a ‘hotel’.
|
CRITERIA
|
DLEP - PARAMETERS
|
PROVIDED
|
COMPLIES
|
|
1.
Height
|
15m (approx 5 storeys above ground)
|
30m
( approx 10 storeys above ground)
|
NO
|
|
2.
Floor Space Ratio
|
0.8:1
|
4.29:1
|
NO
|
The proposal exceeds the maximum height limit by 15m (approx 5 storeys above ground).
The proposed floor space ratio exceeds
over 5 times the maximum permissible floor space ratio.
Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part
VI – Motels.
Site
Area (696.18 m2)
|
CRITERIA
|
CODE - PARAMETERS
|
PROVIDED
|
COMPLIES
|
|
1.
Objective
|
This Part aims at maintaining, and where necessary,
enhancing the existing high standard of residential development in the 2(c)
Zone, whilst providing for the establishment of motel developments.
|
The
existing building is used as a motel. The proposed building also provides for
a motel. The adjoining building towards the south is also a motel. A motel
would be compatible to the adjoining development.
The
proposal does not enhance the
existing standard of residential development. The proposal would dominate the
adjoining developments
|
YES
NO
|
|
2.
Minimum Site Area
|
Motel
developments will not be permitted on sites of less than 2,000m
|
The
area of the site is 696.18 m2 which is much less than the
minimum requirement.
|
NO
|
|
3.
Building Design and Scale
|
A.
To ensure the preservation of the existing residential character in
the vicinity of the development, the architectural style of motel proposals
must be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height,
the materials used, roof pitch, and overall building character.
B.
The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas
should be minimised.
C. Designs which include an excessive paved
area or which do not screen paved areas adequately from the street and
neighbouring development, will not be accepted. Similarly, designs which show
little imagination in the placement of buildings mass and with straight
driveways are also unacceptable.
|
The
adjoining building ‘Urban’ motel is 5 storeys and the adjoining residential
flat building is 2-3 storeys. The proposed building is 10 storeys, which is
much in excess of the adjoining buildings. Therefore the proposal is not
considered sympathetic to the adjoining buildings in terms of number of
storeys and height.
A
substantial portion of the front setback area is devoted to driveway and
vehicle turning areas.
The
whole of the site is paved particularly because of the basement which extends
across the entire site.
|
NO
NO
NO
|
|
4.
Height
|
The height of motel developments are to
match, or be less than, the heights of adjoining or nearby residential flat
development.
|
The
height of the proposed building would be nearly double the height of the
adjoining building.
|
NO
|
5.
Views and Overshadowing
|
The siting of a motel on an allotment
needs to be related to the particular effect the development may have on the
adjoining dwellings. For a proposal to be sympathetic to the existing
immediate neighbouring buildings, it is required that the development will
not significantly affect any available views from adjoining dwellings, nor
significantly decrease the amount of sunshine access available to the
adjoining allotments.
Motel developments are to be so located
and designed that a total of five hours sunshine is available daily over 80%
of the southern contiguous allotment during 22nd June
|
The
proposal would impact adversely upon the city views of the adjoining building
towards the north.
There
would be significant impact upon the adjoining buildings in terms of
overshadowing. 1-15 Bellevue
and ‘Urban’ hotel would not receive a reasonable sunlight.
|
NO
|
|
6.
Setbacks.
|
Building
setbacks from a public street are to match that of neighbouring residential
development. Side and rear boundary setbacks should not be less than that of
neighbouring or nearby flat development
|
Front setback: The adjoining RFB has a front setback of
9.0m The proposed building has a front setback of 7.325m measured from the
edge of the balcony which is less than that of the adjoining building.
Side setback: The adjoining RFB has a side setback of
3.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a side setback of nearly 5.0m. The proposed
building has a side setback of 2.0m for external walls and only 1.5m measured
from the edge of the balcony towards the southern side which is less than
that of the adjoining building.
Rear setback: The adjoining RFB has a rear setback of
nearly 8.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a rear setback of nearly 13.0m. The
proposed building has a rear setback of 3.0m for external wall and only 1.2m
measured from the edge of the balcony which is less than that of the
adjoining building.
|
NO
NO
NO
|
|
7.
Landscaping
|
Fifty percent (50%) of the site shall be
landscaped. Landscaping does not include paved areas, such as driveways. A
separate landscape plan is required with any development proposal. The
landscape
plan should achieve or include the
following:-
(a) An informal softening on building
and paved areas generally.
(b) The screening of the development
from the side and rear boundaries and, particularly, from the street.
(c) The exclusive use of the plant
species native to Lane Cove. A list of such species is included at the end of
this document.
(d) Landscaping of the nature strip
along all frontages to a public street.
(e) The retention of all existing trees,
where possible
|
The
basement extends across full area of the site. There is no landscape area on
the site.
The
excavation of the full site would require a substantial number of trees (27)
on the adjoining property to be removed.
|
NO
|
|
8.
Car Parking
|
Off-street car parking facilities are to
be provided at the following minimum rates:-
(a) 1 space per motel unit or suite.
(b) 2 spaces, plus 1 space per 20 units
or suites to be provided for staff
parking.
(c) 1 space per every six seats provided
in any restaurant facility, and
(d) 1 space per 10m˛ of floor area
provided for convention or conference facilities.*
* Kitchen facilities which
cater for a convention or conference areas will be included in the calculation
of floor area of those convention or conference facilities.
The above car parking requirements are
to be provided for each o f the uses specified, and will be calculated
independently. No discounting of the car parking requirements between different
uses on-site will be permitted.
The provision of car parking spaces
shall not be permitted within 10 metres of the road to which the site has
frontage. Information regarding dimensions, layouts, etc. for off-street
carparks is contained in Australian Standard 2890.1-1993 “Off-Street Car
Parking Facilities
|
The
car parking spaces required are 107. This does not take into consideration
the spaces required for restaurant/ convention/ conference.
The
proposed car parking spaces provided
are only 46 which is much less than the minimum required.
Two
car parking spaces have been provided within the front building line.
|
NO
NO
|
Variations to Council’s Codes/Policies
· The proposal does not comply with the provisions for Minimum Site Area, Building Design and Scale, Height, Views and
Overshadowing, Setbacks, Landscaping and
Car Parking requirements of Residential
Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels.
· The proposal; does not comply with the provisions of height and floor
space requirements of Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007.
Other Planning Instruments
SEPP 55 – State Environmental Planning policy
No.55 – Remediation of Land
In accordance with Clause 7 of this instrument, Council is required to
consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to carrying out
of development on this land. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not
been carried out, the current and previous use of the site has been for a motel
and unlikely that that there has been any high risk uses. Accordingly,
contamination of the site is unlikely to be an issue.
SEPP 1 – Objection
SEPP No. 1
provides flexibility in the application of planning controls that apply to a
site in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in
any particular case, be unreasonable and unnecessary or tend to hinder the
attainment of the objectives specified in the Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the
Act.
Where the
consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also
of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is
consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 , it may grant consent to that development
application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the
objection made by the applicant.
The applicant
has lodged a SEPP 1 objection for variation to the following development
standards:
1. Clause-
2.0 – Minimum Site Area
Development Standard: Clause 2.0 of the Residential Zones Development
Control Plan Part VI – Motels states that the motel developments will not be
permitted on sites less than 2000 m2.
Applicant’s justification: A dispensation for
redevelopment for site on account of the existing use rights of the site.
An existing use is a use
that is lawfully commenced but subsequently
becomes a prohibited use under a new local
environmental plan (LEP). The EP&A Act
provides for the continuance of existing uses.
A ‘Motel’ is a permitted use within this zone. Therefore existing use rights
are not relevant in this instance. Furthermore, the purpose of existing use rights is to balance the potential
hardship and dislocation that could result if landowners or occupiers were
required to discontinue uses no longer permitted under current planning controls.
In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to
Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is
considered unreasonable given the significant difference in site area between
the existing site and Council’s minimum site area of 2000m2.
2. Clause- 4.0 – Height
Development Standard: Clause 4.0 of the Residential Zones Development
Control Plan Part VI – Motels states that the height of motel development is to
match or be less than the heights of the adjoining or nearby residential flat
development.
Applicant’s justification: Compliments the proposed
development application for a 6 story hospital on Nield Avenue. Existing building scales
vary between 3-10 storeys in height. The proposed building is only 4 to 5
levels above the adjoining motel and residential flat building.
The proposal for the
hospital at Nield Avenue
is being considered by the Department of Planning and has not been determined
as yet. The adjoining building, ‘Urban’
motel is only 5 storey and the adjoining residential flat building is 2-3
storey. The proposed building is 10 storeys. The height of the proposed
building would be double the height of the adjoining building.
In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to
Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation could
not be supported.
3. Clause-
5.0 –Overshadowing
Development Standard: Clause 5.0 of the Residential Zones Development
Control Plan Part VI – Motels. Motel developments are to be so located and
designed that a total of 5 hours sunshine is available daily over 80% of the
southern contiguous allotment.
Applicant’s
justification: Due to the relatively same footprint of the proposed building.
The proposed shadow is just elongated along the same line is the existing.
The building
bulk of the proposed building is much more than the existing building. The
impact of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties is much greater than the
existing building. There is no justification for accepting additional
overshadowing by the proposed building.
In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to
Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is
considered unreasonable.
4. Clause-
7.0 – Landscaping
Development Standard: Clause 7.0 of the Residential Zones Development
Control Plan Part VI – Motels states that fifty percent (50%) of the site shall
be landscaped. Landscaping does not include paved areas, such as
driveways.
Applicant’s justification: the existing site has been
extremely concreted leaving very little scope for landscaping.
The proposal involved
demolition of the entire buildings and all existing structures. There is no
justification to permit non compliance with respect to landscaping just because
adequate landscaping does not exist.
In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to
Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is
considered unreasonable.
5. Clause-
8.0 – Car Parking
Development Standard: Clause 8.0. of the Residential Zones Development
Control Plan Part VI – Motels requires
107 off street car parking spaces to be
provided. Only 46 spaces have been provided.
Applicant’s
justification: 46 spaces are considered to be well in excess of the needs based
on previous experience. The site is close to public transport. The restaurants
and conference rooms are designed for use by patrons of the motel only.
All residents
may have cars. It is not necessary that the residents of the motel would use
public transport. It is not necessary that the non motel residents would not
attend conferences or visit restaurants.
In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to
Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is
considered unreasonable.
Note:
The applicant has not lodged a SEPP1 objection to the non compliance with
regards to Height and Floor Space Area requirements of Council’s Draft Lane
Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007
79C (1) (b) The likely impacts of that development,
including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and
social and economic impacts in the locality.
Adjoining to the south is a
five storey motel building and north is a 2-3 storey residential flat building.
The proposal is for a ten storey building which is in excess of the height of
the adjoining buildings. The proposed
building has a front boundary setback less than that of the adjoining
buildings. Therefore it is considered that the proposed building is not
compatible with the adjoining development and would
dominate the streetscape.
The
proposed building has side setbacks less than that of the adjoining buildings.
The rear setback is considerably less than of the adjoining properties.
Balconies from the sides and the rear of the proposed building would overlook
adjoining properties. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would
adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents.
The proposal does not
provide for adequate car parking. With
appropriate parking, RTA has raised concerns with regards to the increased
traffic generation and the impact on the operational efficiency of the
neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific
Highway.
The proposal would not
provide for any soft landscape area of on the site. Furthermore, excavation for
the basement would require removal of a considerable number of trees on the
adjoining properties.
Section 79C (1) (c) - The
suitability of the site for the development
There exists a 3-4 storey
motel development on the site. The proposal is also for a motel. Therefore, the
site is considered suitable with respect to the development of the site for a
motel.
Section 79C (1) (d) - Any
submissions made in accordance with this Act or Regulations.
The proposal was advertised
in accordance with Council’s policy of Community Consultation. Thirty three
(33) submissions were received. The issues raised have been discussed below.
Submission from J & G Mills
Concern has been
expressed regarding large number of storeys, excessive height and streetscape.
Comment: The
height is much in excess of the adjoining buildings.
There shall be an
increased parking demand and traffic flow.
Comment: The parking requirement as per Council’s Code
has not been satisfied.
Submission from resident - 16/7-15 Bellevue Avenue
10 storey building
is twice as high as the adjoining hotel:
Comment: The
height is much in excess of the adjoining buildings.
As per Council’s
Code minimum area requirement for the site should be 2000 sq. m.
Comment: The
proposal does not meet the minimum area requirement of Council’s Code. The area
of the subject property is 698 sq. m.
There is no provision for parking tour buses.
Comment: It is
agreed that there is no provision for
parking tour buses.
The
proposal will have an impact upon the traffic of Pacific Highway.
Comment: Council’s
parking code requires 107 car parking spaces. RTA has stated that if the total parking provision be at an amount
that is noticeably higher than the suggested 46 spaces, then RTA would raise
concerns with regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on the
operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.
Council’s requirement of 50% landscaping has
not been provided.
Comment: It is agreed that Council’s requirement of 50% landscaping has
not been provided. The proposal includes full basement with no setbacks from
the site boundaries. Therefore, there is no soft landscape area available and
will require the removal of trees on adjoining sites.
Submission From Resident – 13/200 Pacific Highway
The proposal does not meet the requirements of
LEP, DLEP and DCP
Comment: The proposed does
not meet the requirements of Council’s Code for Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels & Draft
Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan
2007.
As per Council’s Code minimum area requirement for the site should be
2000 sq. m.
Comment: There
concerns have already been discussed above.
The DCP requires the proposal to be
sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings and the height of the
development should be same or less than the adjoining or nearby developments.
Comment: The height is much in excess of the adjoining
buildings.
Concern has been expressed regarding loss of city views.
Comment: It is considered
that the proposed building will impact upon city views.
Council’s requirement of 50% landscaping has not been provided.
Comment: There
concerns have already been discussed above.
Council’s DCP requirement of 107 car spaces has not been provided.
Comment: The
proposal does not meet Council’s Code minimum car parking requirement.
Provision has been made of only 46 car parking spaces.
Concern has been
expressed regarding generation of additional noise because of the proposed
development.
Comment: The proposal would increase the capacity of
the building substantially. There is a possibility of the additional noise
being generated from the proposed building.
Concern has been expressed regarding loss of privacy because of the
balconies on all sides.
Comment: The proposed
balconies have a potential to overlook adjoining properties.
Submission From Resident – 25
Wisdom Road, Greenwich
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
excessive height, overshadowing, loss of privacy, increase in noise, increase
in traffic flow, impact upon traffic, inadequate landscaping, height size and
bulk.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission From Resident – 17/7-15 Bellevue St
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
excessive height and loss of privacy.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission – Accor Hotels
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
excessive height and number of storeys.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission From Resident – 10/7-15 Bellevue St
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
excessive height, overshadowing, loss of privacy, increase in noise, increase
in traffic flow, impact upon traffic, inadequate landscaping, height size and
bulk.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission from Unit
14/200, 7/200, 8/200, 15/206, 16/206, 6/206, 7/198, 2/206, 18/206, 1/198,
6/198, 12/200, 9/200, 3/200, 2/200, 1/200
Pacific Highway, 20 Pymble Ave,
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
minimum lot size for motel, excessive height, inadequate car parking, loss of
privacy, increase in noise, inadequate landscaping.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission from H & T Jones– 9/7 Bellevue St
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
lack of adequate rear setback, excessive height, inadequate car parking and
traffic impact, overshadowing, loss of privacy, inadequate landscaping.
Comment:
It is agreed that the rear setback provided is less than that of the adjoining
properties. Other concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission From Flordeliza
West
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
loss of privacy, excessive height, inadequate parking and increase in traffic
flow, increase in noise and streetscape.
Comment: There concerns have
already been discussed above.
Submission From BR & LM Cole
Concerns have been expressed with regards to non compliance with Councils
codes, traffic issues, increase in noise, loss of privacy, overshadowing, and
excessive height.
Comment: There concerns have
already been discussed above.
Submission From Resident of 2/198 Pacific Highway
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
excessive height, increase in noise and increase in traffic flow.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission From Resident – 13/200 Pacific Highway
The applicant states that the reason for the
redevelopment of the hotel is that the extra rooms were necessary to cope with
the increased need of RNSH. A newspaper extract has been provided which says
that the contract for rooms at a commercial hotel near RNSH has ended.
Therefore, the requirements of RNSH are not relevant.
Comment:
Noted.
Submission From Resident – 10/7-15 Bellevue St
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
excessive height, overshadowing and inadequate landscaping.
Comment:
There concerns have already been discussed above.
Submission From Greenwich Community
Association
Concerns have been expressed with regards to
minimum lot size for motel, excessive height, inadequate landscaping and
inadequate parking.
Comment:
These concerns have already been discussed above.
Section 79C (1) (e) - The
public interest.
The proposed development is
not considered satisfactory with respect to design objectives and provisions
under Council’s Code for Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels & Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007.
It is not considered compatible with the scale of adjoining buildings in
particular the 3-4 storey motel development and the 5 story motel development.
It is considered that the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the
site. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development is not in the
public interest.
CONCLUSION
The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning
Instruments and Council controls, as well as public good and suitability of the
site. The matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered
and the proposal is not considered to be satisfactory. Accordingly the proposal
is not supported.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That pursuant to Section 80(1) (b) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to
Development Application D65/08 for Demolition of the existing building and
construction of a ten (10) storey, one hundred (100) bed room motel with
three (3) levels of basement parking, restaurant, conference rooms, roof top
SPA & entertainment area at 196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich for the
following reasons: -
1. The proposal does not comply with the
provisions of Council’s Draft Lane
Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007 with regards to maximum permissible height limit. The maximum height requirement is 15m (approx 5 storeys above ground). The proposal is for
a maximum height of 30m (approx 10
storeys above ground) which is much in excess of the maximum permissible
height limit.
2. The proposal does not
comply with the provisions of Council’s Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007 with regards to maximum permissible floor space ratio. The maximum permissible floor space
ratio is 0.8:1. The proposed floor space ratio is 4.29:1 which is much in
excess of the maximum permissible.
3. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to the objective. The
proposal should enhance the existing high
standard of residential development in the 2(c) Zone. The proposal does not enhance the existing standard of residential development.
The proposal would dominate the adjoining developments.
4. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Minimum site area.
Minimum site area required for a motel development is 2000sq. m. The area of
the subject site is 696.18 m2
which is much less than the minimum requirement.
5. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Building Design and
Scale. The proposal should be sympathetic to
the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, the materials
used, roof pitch, and overall building character. The adjoining building, ‘Urban’ motel is 5
storey and the adjoining residential flat building is 2-3 storey. The
proposed building is 10 storeys, which is much in excess of the adjoining
buildings. Therefore the proposal is not considered sympathetic to the
adjoining buildings.
6. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Building Design and
Scale. The area of the site devoted to
driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised. A substantial portion of the front setback area
is devoted to driveway and vehicle turning areas.
7. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Building Design and
Scale. Designs which include an excessive
paved area are not acceptable. The
entire site is paved because the basement extends across the entire site.
8. The proposal does not comply with
Council’s Residential Zones Development
Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to the height of the building. The height of motel developments are to match, or be less
than, the heights of adjoining or nearby residential flat development. The height of the proposed building would be
nearly double the height of the adjoining building.
9. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Views and
Overshadowing. The proposal would impact adversely upon the city views of the
adjoining building towards the north. The proposal would significant impact
upon the adjoining buildings in terms of overshadowing. 1-15 Bellevue and ‘Urban’
hotel would not receive reasonable solar access.
10. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to building setbacks. Building setbacks from a public street are to match that
of neighbouring residential development. The adjoining RFB has a front setback of 9.0m. The proposed building
has a front setback of 7.325m measured from the edge of the balcony which is
less than that of the adjoining building.
11. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to side boundary
setbacks. Side boundary setbacks should not
be less than that of neighbouring or nearby flat development. The adjoining RFB has a side setback of 3.0m
and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a side setback of nearly 5.0m. The proposed
building has a side setback of 2.0m for external walls and only 1.5m measured
from the edge of the balcony towards the southern side which is less than
that of the adjoining building.
12. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to rear boundary
setback. Rear boundary setbacks should not
be less than that of neighbouring or nearby flat development. The adjoining RFB has a rear setback of nearly
8.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a rear setback of nearly 13.0m. The proposed
building has a rear setback of 3.0m for external wall and only 1.2m measured
from the edge of the balcony which is less than that of the adjoining
building.
13. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Landscaping. Fifty percent (50%) of the site should be landscaped. The basement extends across the full area of
the site. Therefore, there is no landscape area on the site.
14. The proposal does not
comply with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to off street car
parking requirement. The car spaces required are 107. This does not take into
consideration the spaces required for restaurant/ convention/ conference. The
car spaces provided are only 46 which are much less than the minimum
required.
15. The proposal does not comply
with Council’s Residential Zones
Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to off street car
parking requirement. The provision of car
parking spaces shall not be permitted within 10 metres of the road to which
the site has frontage. Two car
spaces have been provided within the front building line.
16. The following information
has not been submitted to Council for the assessment of the application.
· An acoustic report
carried out in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.
· Detailed plans
showing the fitout of the kitchen and storage areas in relation to the Food
Safety Standards.”
17. The proposed excavation
works for the basement floor R.L will impact on the structural integrity of
mature screen trees on neighbouring properties to the north and south of the
site. The proposed development will necessitate the removal of 22 of the
aforementioned trees and the possible retention of five (5) trees which is
not supported.
18. No provision has been made for delivery/service vehicles as detailed
in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments other than by using the guest waiting spaces (C1 and C2).
Concerns are raised regarding vehicle access and the ability of
delivery/service vehicles to perform a 3-point turn internally to exist the
property in a forward direction.
19. The RTA raises concerns regarding the design of the ground floor
parking area as there is limited room for manoeuvring, particularly if
delivery/service vehicles and waiting cars are present simultaneously. The
proposed development would need to provide two waiting area parking spaces
plus a service vehicle space plus a vacant space to be used as a turn around
area.
20. A management plan, which would address how the vehicles entering the
site will be managed should the car lift become in-operable or the car
parking area is full has not been provided. The plan requires approval
by the RTA.
21. If provision of car parking spaces is made at an amount as per
Council’s parking code which requires 107 spaces, then RTA would raise
concerns with regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on
the operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.
22. The proposed driveway is
not in accordance with AS2890.1 – 2004 as the requirement is 6 metres. The
proposal provides a 5 metre wide two – way driveway. The driveway narrows to
4 metres on approach to the existing car park at the rear of the site. The
driveway can be narrowed up to 5.5 metres internally. In this aspect the
driveway does not comply.
23. The internal design of
the carpark and layout does comply in relation to the configuration and
position of some parking spaces.
24. Car Spaces No’s 19 &
20 are not acceptable in that location as they block other parking spaces.
25. There is no adequate
manoeuvring around car spaces No’s 18 and 15.
26. The car spaces between
the wall and the Car Lifts require an additional 600mm for door openings.
27. Bicycle
parking area has not been provided.
|
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
|
AT‑1 View
|
Site Location Plan
|
2 Pages
|
|
|
AT‑2 View
|
Neighbour Notification
Plan
|
1 Page
|
|
