Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

3 November 2020  

LC_WebBanner


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 3 November 2020

Minutes

 

 

 

PRESENT:                                         Hon David Lloyd, QC (Chairman). Mr Kevin Hoffman, Planning Expert, Mr Steve Fermio, Environmental Expert, Ms Jane Blackmore, Community Representative

 

ALSO PRESENT:                              Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager, Development Assessment, Mr Greg Samardzic, Senior Town Planner and Ms Angela Panich, Panel Secretary

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:    Nil

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

The Chairperson advised those present that the Meeting was being webcast.

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Report

 

28 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

 

DETERMINATION

 

That the Lane Cove Planning Panel refuse the proposed variations to the Building Height and FSR development standards in Clause 4.3(2) & 4.4(a) in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and Clauses 29(1)(c) & (2)(a) in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as the applicant’s written request does not adequately address the matters required to be demonstrated. The proposed development would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the particular standards, the objectives for development in the zone and there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation and the proposed development does not provide a better planning outcome than an otherwise compliant development.

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, in exercising its duties as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse the subject Development Application DA91/2020 for the demolition of existing structures and constructing of a boarding house development containing 44 boarding rooms housing on land at 28 Longueville Road Lane Cove for the following reasons:-

Building Height

1.         The Development Application should be refused because the height of the proposed development is excessive, does not comply with the development standard or objectives of Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 and the written request submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(2)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is inadequate.

(a)       Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 provides as follows:

4.3   Height of buildings

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a)        to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas,

(b)        to ensure that privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, are reasonable,

(c)         to seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain,

(d)        to relate development to topography.

(2)        The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

(b)       Clause 29(2)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

 

                                     “29        Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

                                   (2)        A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds—

                                     (a)       building height

                                                 if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land,”

(c)       Pursuant to the Height of Buildings Map referred to in Clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP 2009, the site is subject to a maximum building height of 12 metres.

(d)       The maximum height of the proposed development is 15.8 metres which represents an exceedance of the development standard in Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 of 3.8 metres or 31.6%.

(e)       The applicant has submitted a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 seeking to justify the contravention of the height of buildings development standard in Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

(f)        The Court, having the functions of the consent authority for the purposes of hearing and disposing of this appeal, would not be satisfied that:

(i)         The Applicant’s written request under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 has adequately addressed the following matters required to be demonstrated:

(A)       That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(B)       That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard in Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

(ii)        The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 and the objectives for development in Zone R4 High Density Residential in LCLEP 2009.

Floor Space Ratio

2.         The Development Application should be refused because the floor space ratio (FSR) of the proposed development is excessive, does not comply with the development standard or objectives of Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(1)(c) in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the written request submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 is inadequate.

(a)       Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 provides as follows:

4.4   Floor space ratio

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a)        to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

  (2)      The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

(b)       Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:

           “29   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1)            A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:-

 

                                        (c)   if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that  is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus

                                               (i)         0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or  less, or

                                               (ii)        20% of the existing maximum floor space atio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

(c)       Pursuant to the FSR Map referred to in Clause 4.4(2) of LCLEP 2009, the site is subject to a maximum FSR of 0.8:1.

(d)       Pursuant to Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a maximum FSR of 1.3:1 is permitted on the subject development site.

(e)       The maximum FSR of the proposed development is 1.41:1 which represents an exceedance of the development standard in Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 of 0.11:1 or 8.5%.

(f)        The applicant has submitted a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 seeking to justify the contravention of the FSR development standards in Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and Clause 29(1)(c) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARH) 2009.

(g)       The Court, having the functions of the consent authority for the purposes of hearing and disposing of this appeal, would not be satisfied that:

(i)         The Applicant’s written request under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 has adequately addressed the following matters required to be demonstrated:

(A)       That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(B)       That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standards in Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009.

(ii)        The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 and the objectives for development in Zone R4 High Density Residential in LCLEP 2009.

Character of the Local Area

3.         The Development Application should be refused because the design of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the local area.

(a)       Clause 30A of SEPP ARH provides as follows:

30A   Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

(b)       The local area is currently characterised by a mix of residential developments however the existing developments to the east contain substantial building setbacks, landscaped/deep soil and tree canopy areas to Longueville Road.

(c)       The desired future character of the local area is established by the applicable planning controls which, pursuant to LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP, anticipates residential flat buildings on the subject site and the adjoining developments to the east, west and north. The proposed development would be contrary to the relevant zoning objectives.

(d)       Notwithstanding that the development is not a residential flat building, it takes on the form of a commercial in appearance boarding house development in a precinct that is to contain residential flat building developments. Approval of the proposed development would be inconsistent with desired future character of the area sought to be achieved in LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP because it does not comply with the controls applicable to a comparable residential flat building development that would be carried out in the zone.

Setbacks

(e)       The objectives of Clause 3.5 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP are as follows:

3.5 Setbacks

Objectives

The objectives for setbacks are:

1. To establish the desired spatial proportions of the street and define the street edge and provide a transition between public and private space.

2. To assist in achieving visual privacy to dwellings from the street.

3. To allow for street landscape character.

(f)        The proposed development does not provide front and side setbacks that are in keeping with Clause 3.5.2 of Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP. A comparable and compliant residential flat building on the site would be required to provide 7.5m front setbacks and 6-9m side/rear setbacks, being a building of between 4 and 5 storeys.

(g)       The proposed development provides a nil setback at basement level and 3m at ground floor and above which is inconsistent with the minimum setbacks required of surrounding residential flat buildings by Clause 3.5 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP. The inadequate setbacks contribute to a site coverage which:

i.          is disproportionate to the size of the subject site, and

ii.          prevents adequate landscape planting, contributes to excessive excavation and adverse privacy impacts from the northeastern elevation and rooftop terrace/lounge room and is therefore inconsistent with Clauses 3.1 Objective 1, 3.2(a), 3.3, 3.5, 3.8, 3.9(b), 3.11(a), 3.17 Objectives, 3.18 and 3.19 of Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP.

(h)       Clause 3.5.3 of the LCDCP 2010 states:

a)   In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone.  Exceptions are:

i.    Encroachments in the setback zone of up to 2m may be permitted for underground parking structures no more than 1.2m above ground level (existing), where there is no unreasonable effect om the streetscape.  Refer to diagram 10.

(i)         The basement parking structure for the proposed development extends to the front and secondary street boundary line and as a result reduces the area available for landscaping and adversely impacts on the streetscape.

Separation Distances

(j)         Pursuant to Clause 3.6 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building of 4 storeys would be required to achieve separation distances of 12m between habitable rooms/balconies; 9m between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable room; and 6m between non-habitable rooms and blank walls to any wall to another window, light or balcony. 5 storeys would require 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies, 13 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms and 9 metres between non-habitable rooms and blank walls to any other window, well and balcony.

(k)       The objectives of Clause 3.6 in Part C are as follows:

3.6 Building Separation (within developments)

Objectives

The objectives for building separation are:

1.         To provide visual and acoustic privacy for existing and new residents.

2.         To allow for the provision of appropriately sized open space for recreational activities. 3 To provide deep soil zones for stormwater management and tree planting, where contextual and site conditions allow.

(l)         The proposed development provides side or rear boundary setbacks of 3m which does not allow for the required separation distances in clause 3.6 in Part C of LCDCP to be achieved.

(m)      The reduced separation results in impacts to visual and acoustic privacy between the proposed development and existing and future adjoining development and is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 3.6 in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP.

 

Density and Building Depth

(n)       The objectives of Clause 3.1 in Part C of LCDCP are as follows:

3.1 General Objectives

Objectives

The objectives for residential flat buildings are:

1.         To achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the residential flat buildings, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

2.         To achieve sustainable development whilst providing a concentration of residents close to public transport and facilities.

3.         To create entrances which provide a desirable residential identity for the development, orient visitors and contribute positively to the streetscape and building facade design.

4.         To provide opportunities for lifestyle choice and dwelling mix.

(o)       Pursuant to Clause 3.2 in Part C of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building can only be carried out on a site with a minimum area of 1,500m2.

(p)       Pursuant to Clause 3.3 in Part C of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building would be limited to a building depth of 18 metres.

(q)       A relevant objective of Clause 3.3 in Part C of LCDCP 2010 is to “ensure that the bulk of the development is in scale with the existing or desired future context.

(r)        The proposed development has a building depth of approximately 26.4 metres on a site of approximately 851.4m2 in area, resulting in a building that is out of proportion with the spatial characteristics of the site and is not in keeping with the existing or desired future context of the precinct.

Landscaped Area

(s)        The objectives of Clause 3.18 in Part C – LCDCP 2010 are as follows:

3.18 Landscaped Area

Objectives

The objectives for landscaping and deep soil zones are:

1.         To provide privacy and amenity.

2.         To retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees and to provide continuous vegetation corridors.

3.         To conserve significant natural features of the site.

4.         To assist with management of the water quality and water table.

5.         To conserve and create buildings in a landscaped setting.

(t)        Pursuant to Clause 3.18 in Part C of LCDCP, a comparable and compliant residential flat building would be required to provide a minimum of 40% of the site area as planted area, comprising of a minimum of 25% landscaped area and 15% planting on structures.

(u)       The proposed development has not demonstrated compliance with the above requirements.

 

(v)       The proposed development does not provide the amount of planted and landscaped area envisaged to maintain the character of the locality as a result of its insufficient setbacks and particularly the extension of the basement slab to the side boundaries and is therefore inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

Site Amalgamation and Isolation

4.         The Development Application should be refused as it has not been supported by information to demonstrate that sufficient efforts have been made to purchase the adjoining land at Nos.26/26A Longueville Road.

(a)       While early attempts were made to purchase Nos.26/26A Longueville Road, there is no evidence to demonstrate that independent valuation was obtained and presented to the adjoining owners of that land.

(b)       The application has not been supported with information to demonstrate that Nos.26/26A Longueville Road can be developed on its own for a development.

(c)       A viable development of 26/26A Longueville Road would likely take a similar form to that as proposed by the subject development site. Noting the inconsistencies with the provisions of the LCDCP as contended above, this would result in a number of developments that are inconsistent with the desired character of the locality.

Tree Retention, Replacement and Landscaping

5.         The Development Application should be refused as the proposed development makes insufficient provision for the retention and replacement of trees. The proposed development fails to retain any existing planting on the land. The proposed plantings are not satisfactory for the proposed landscaping areas given the lack of soil depth available as a planting medium. Insufficient arborist and landscaping information has been submitted to address Part J – Landscaping section of LCDCP as follows:

Tree Management

·    The proposal seeks to retain just one tree of the seventeen assessed in the Arborist report. The proposed retained tree is identified as tree 1 and is located on the neighbouring site to the east. The Arborists assessment of the tree states the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) used to calculate the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) was measured at 590 millimetres. The measurements taken on site during Councils site inspection showed there to be two stems that would dictate the TPZ calculation measuring 480mm and 470mm creating a combined DBH of 670mm.

·    The Arborist report states that the TPZ radius is 7 metres when Council calculated the TPZ to be 8 metres. This renders the impact on a neighbouring tree from the root severance to install the basement at 21% as opposed to the 19% stated in the report. Both are major encroachments.

·    The Arborist report does recommend root mapping to be carried out to determine the trees viability, this appears not to have been carried out so the neighbour’s trees viability is still unknown at the point of DA submission.

·    The Arborist report states clearly in Clause 14.2 of LCDCP Part J that the tree may not remain viable post construction irrespective of mitigation measures. There is also a comment stating requiring the removal of up to 5 metres of the canopy to allow sufficient setback from the development. It is highly likely that, irrespective of the root mapping carried out, the tree will decline as a result of the development process.

·    Several higher value trees such as the Stenocarpus, Macrocarpa, Lagerstroemia and Magnolia have been recommended for removal along with all of the other trees on site. It is apparent that no attempt has been made to retain any of the trees on site particularly the higher value boundary trees noted above. All trees on site are considered to be retainable in situ for the medium to long term and are considered to be a material constraint to development.

·    LCDCP Part J Landscaping states in Clause 1.4 that the development should retain existing trees where reasonably possible and should not require unnecessary removal. Proposed development that does not comply may be refused or delayed.

·    The development is also conflicting with Clause 2.2.2 Tree Preservation Objective to retain the maximum number of trees, particularly native trees, within the municipality in healthy condition and natural form and shape.

·    The proposal makes no attempt at retaining any of the trees on site, particularly the trees on the boundary to Kimberly Street and Longueville Road. The one tree that has been proposed to be retained is highly questionable as to the validity of the of the proposed retention in the long term. The development is not supported.

Landscaping

·    The proposed landscape plans must be amended to demonstrate new and/or altered services. Site plan clearly showing percentage of landscaped area and deep soil planting   as hatching/shading; and a table showing the % of each calculation as well as the overall site area clearly labelled on landscape plan by Registered Landscape Architect. The proposed development requires sections showing the extent of excavation and earthworks in accordance with Part J Landscaping and the Landscape checklist. The current drawings do not show enough information on RLS and wall height levels. The current drawings do not show any information on proposed constructed landscape elements and only show ‘Typical’ sections. The current drawings do not provide enough information on the planter box over the basement housing the Elaeocarpus reticulatus or the planter boxes on the roof top level. The drawings will need to be amended to provide more information on all raised planter boxes in the design. The Landscape Package does not include a plan outlining the communal open space. This must be revised and included in the next issue. 

·    The Landscape Package does not adhere to the desired communal open space requirements in the following respects. No detail has been given (other than plant species) on the nature of the roof top communal open space area. There is no evidence of provisions for group or individual recreation activities. The visual amenity, privacy and outlook for this space poor. The low planting on the Longueville Road side will not provide any privacy or visual relief for residents. There is no communal open space co-located with deep soil areas on this development proposal. Although it is noted that the parameters of this block may not allow for communal open space on ground level, more thorough design should be considered for the roof top area to ensure it is an effective and usable space. The submitted landscape documentation package does not include a communal open space calculation diagram.

·    The communal open space outlined on the rooftop is not currently defined or designed in a manner to make it an effective and useable space. A revised communal open space calculation plan and a revised communal open space must be completed by the Landscape Architect and sent back to Council prior for further assessment.

·    The Landscape Package does not adhere to the desired deep soil requirements in the following respects. There is no landscape calculation plan to prove that it reaches the intended 25% deep soil area. The Landscape Architect would have to resubmit the plans with a landscape calculation plan attached for Council’s Landscape Architect to properly assess whether the site achieves the above outlined deep soil requirement.

 

·    The Applicant must ensure that planting on structures provides for adequate soil depth, volume and a suitable soil profile to support the number of trees and shrubs indicated on the approved DA plans in accordance with the table provided in LCDCP Part J 1.10 – Planting on Structures. A detailed landscape plan showing the construction methods of the proposed planter boxes shall be submitted and should include the following:

Type of wall

Dimensions of wall

Levels for both top of wall and bottom of wall

Material used for the wall

Drainage of information

Waterproofing information

Soil profile and depth for each plant type

Proposed soil volume

Sections and elevations clearly illustrating the design intent and how it pertains to the human scale

Plant materials specified foe each of the planter boxes

Certification from a practicing Structural Engineer

 

            It is noted that the existing trees onsite are worthy of retention. However, replacement trees are required for each tree that is removed. 16 endemic species of trees are required to be planted onsite to compensate this. These trees should be varied in species to encourage biodiversity.

 

                        The Communal Open Space area located on the rooftop shows planter boxes with insufficient details to ascertain the design intention. This area is to be fully documented in the revised landscape plan. The following are recommended as minimum standards for a range of plant sizes:

            (a) Large trees (canopy diameter of up to 16m at maturity)

I. minimum soil volume 150m3

II.   minimum soil depth 1.3m

III.  area 10m x 10m area or equivalent

(b) Medium trees (8m canopy diameter at maturity)

                  I. minimum soil volume 35m3

II.   minimum soil depth 1m

III.  approximate soil area 6m x 6m or equivalent

            (c)  Small trees (4m canopy diameter at maturity)

                  I. minimum soil volume 9m3

                 II. minimum soil depth 800mm

                 III.approximate soil area 3.5m x 3.5m or equivalent

 

            (d) Shrubs

                  I. minimum soil depths 500-600mm

           (e)  Ground cover

                    I.minimum soil depths 300-450mm

            (f)  Turf

                     minimum soil depths 100-300mm

              Any subsurface drainage requirements are in addition to the minimum soil depths

             mentioned above.

Waste Collection

6.         The Development Application should be refused as:

·    As a residential apartment or commercial style building with 4 and 5 storeys, the building should incorporate a waste chute, carousel and compactor system which has not been provided.

·    On site collection of waste and recycling is required, not on the kerb as described. Council would reject the presentation of 16 x 240L MGB’s on the kerb as this is contrary to Council’s waste management collection objectives and inconsistent with approvals/consents for other similar approvals since 2011.

·    Due to the itinerant nature of a boarding house, 30 square metres for the storage of bulky waste goods is required – note 9 square metres shown in architectural drawings.

·    On site collection is to be provided for an SRV and the applicant is to provide amended plans in accordance with Part Q of the LCDCP.

Traffic, Transport and Parking

7.         The Development Application should be refused for the following traffic, transport and car parking reasons:

 

In accordance with Clause SEPP ARH, the development is required to provide parking at a rate of 0.5 per room. This equates to 22 car spaces. The proposed development provides 12 spaces (including 2 car share spaces) which is a short fall of 10 car spaces. This is not supported.

The waste collection vehicle does not have a designated waiting bay. Turnaround of the waste vehicle to allow SRVs to enter/exit in a forward direction must be demonstrated through swept paths.

A scraping test for an SRV and B99 vehicle is to be provided from the driveway to the basement car park. The section plans are to also outline the vertical clearance for the path.

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has stated that the design of the development has not demonstrated that it would not compromise the integrity of the Lane Cove Tunnel. No information has been provided in relation to anticipated maximum depth of excavation and pile depth for the proposed development. The RMS has requested submission of a geotechnical report.

Environment and Health

8.         The Development Application should be refused as:

·           A construction noise management plan is to be provided at DA stage.

·           Contamination issues have been addressed via a Stage 1 Report.

·              An environmental plan addressing dust and deep excavation water management is to be submitted for assessment. Deep excavations fill up with ground water and rain water and need to be treated prior to disposal. Due to the proximity of the development to adjoining homes, a detailed dust management plan is to be provided, to ensure the amenity of the area is maintained and managed.

Accessibility

9.         The Development Application should be refused as the roof top Communal Lounge doesn’t appear to have any covering from the lift well or staircase. A detailed plan of the fit out would be required. The entry doorways and common use doorway are required to comply with the AS 1428.2 including turning circles in front of the doorways. One of the accessible rooms would require a LH transfer toilet. Currently they are all RH. The gradient of the ramp from the street to the accessible entrance would need to be confirmed with attention to the gradient as it turns to the right.

 

Precedent

10.       The Development Application should be refused because approval of the proposed development would create an unacceptable and undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate developments that are inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the local area.

 

Overdevelopment

11.       The Development Application should be refused pursuant to Section 4.15(b) of the EP & A Act 1979 because approval of the proposed development would represent as an overdevelopment due to the proposed bulk, scale and setbacks of the development located on a 851.4sqm lot. The Development Application should be refused pursuant to Section 4.15(b) of the EP & A Act 1979 because approval of the proposed development would represent as an overdevelopment due to the proposed bulk, scale and setbacks of the development located on a 851.4sqm lot.

The impacts of the development have been considered and it is considered that it would adversely impact the locality. It is noted Council has declared a Climate Emergency in which tree canopy is sought to be protected to improve the resilience of communities in the face of increasing temperatures. It is proposed to remove most of the site’s established tree canopy cover. Ideally the proposal would provide for a high-quality canopy across site however this has not occurred. Unfortunately, the SEPP limits landscaping considerations only to the front setback area. Within the front setback area there would be unreasonable tree and landscaping impacts. A total of 16 of the existing 17 trees are proposed to be removed due to the inappropriate design of the proposed built form of the development.

The Site

 

12.       The site in considered to be unsuitable for the development as proposed. Pursuant to Section 4.15(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act 1979), the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development as amended in its current built form, having regard to the above matters. The height, bulk and scale, building separation, rooftop common open space/lounge room and associated landscaped areas with parking/traffic conflicts issues have not been adequately resolved before the proposed development can be recommended for approval.

 

 

            The site suitability is not acceptable having regard to the large numbers of variations involved and with the character compatibility provisions under SEPP ARH 2009.

 

Public Interest

13. The Development Application should be refused because approval of the proposed development is not in the public interest pursuant to Section 4.15(d) and (e) of the EP & A Act 1979 having regard to the contentions raised above and 31 submissions received from surrounding residents raising concerns with the proposed development.

 

Panel Reasons

 

The Panel supports the findings contained in the Assessment Report and endorses the reasons for refusal contained in that Report.

 

Advisory Note

 

In my role as Chair of the Lane Cove Sustainability Advisory Committee and the State of Climate Emergency declared by Lane Cove Council in 2019, any new design should consider including aspects of sustainability, especially solar power and stormwater capture and reuse.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 5.15pm

 

 

********* END OF MINUTES *********