Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting
21 April 2021
PRESENT: Hon David Lloyd, Chairman, Mr Eugene Sarich, Planning Expert, Mr Kevin Hoffman, Planning Expert and Ms Mary Rawlings, Community Representative
ALSO PRESENT: Mr Mark Brisby, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager, Development Assessment, Mr Henry Burnett, 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.
That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 21 April 2021, exercising the functions of the Council as the Consent Authority pursuant to Clause 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:
i) Refuse a variation to the Floor Space Ratio prescribed by Clause 4.4 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as it is not satisfied that the applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that Plan, and the proposed development would not be in the public interest as it is not consistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone;
ii) Refuse Development Application DA1/21 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development on Lot 10 DP 574013, known as 47A Penrose Street, Lane Cove West, for the reasons outlined in Part B.
Density and Scale
1. 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)(a) 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)(a) 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 —
(a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form or residential accommodation permitted on the land.
(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 1:1.
(d) Pursuant to Clause 29(1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a maximum FSR of 1:1 is permitted on the subject development site.
(e) The maximum FSR of the proposed development when properly calculated is 1.28:1 which represents an exceedance of the development standard in Clause 29(1)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 of 28%.
(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)(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARH) 2009.
(g) The Panel, having the functions of the consent authority on behalf of Council, 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 B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in LCLEP 2009.
Character of the Local Area
2. 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 lower scale commercial buildings and single detached residential dwellings.
(c) The desired future character of the local area is established by the applicable planning controls which, pursuant to LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP 2010, anticipates commercial buildings within a neighbourhood centre setting on the subject site.
Density and Scale
(d) The Floor Space Ratio is unacceptable as outlined in Point 1 and would contribute to a building scale that is out of character.
(e) Pursuant to Clause 1.1.6 of LCDCP 2010 – Part D Commercial and Mixed Use Development, the building setbacks are required to be 6m to all boundaries at the third storey with the exception of Penrose Street. The proposal provides a 3m setback at the third storey which does not provide for an appropriating stepping back of the built form. The proposal also encroaches the 3m setback zone for balconies at the second storey. Both contribute to a building massing that is not compatible with the character of the local area.
(f) Pursuant to Clause 1.1.4(b) of LCDCP 2010 – Part D Commercial and Mixed Use Development the maximum horizontal dimension of the residential component parallel to the street frontage is to be 40m.The proposed building length is 50m and would contribute to a building massing that is not compatible with the character of the local area.
Ground Floor Residential Uses
3. The Development Application should be refused because it provides for residential uses at the ground floor level in a commercial zone contrary to Clause 30(1)(g) of SEPP (affordable Rental Housing) 2009.
(a) Clause 30(1)(g) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:
A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the follow:
(g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use.
(b) The proposal provides for a manager’s dwelling and boarding room fronting a street. Given the wording of Clause 30 the consent authority cannot vary that clause, noting no Clause 4.6 written request has been provided, and the provision of residential uses at the ground floor would undermine the commercial zoning of the site.
Front Setback Landscape Treatments
4. The Development Application should be refused as it does not provide for a landscape treatment of the front setback compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located contrary to Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. In addition insufficient landscaping documentation and softening of the built form is provided contrary to LCDCP 2010 Part J – Landscaping.
(a) Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provides as follows:
A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:
(b) landscape area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.
(b) The proposed landscaping to Johnston Lane is minimal and tokenistic. The proposed landscaping to Penrose Street while of a higher quality is largely taken up by paving. The proposed landscaping treatment is not considered to satisfy Clause 29(2)(b) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 particularly given its sensitive interface to adjacent low density residential properties.
(c) The proposal is contrary to LCDCP 2010 Part J – Landscaping specifically the following objective outlined in Clause 1.4:
The proposed landscape treatment should assist in ensuring that the development is not visually intrusive by providing visual softening of buildings, driveways and car parking areas.
(d) The proposal fails to provide Item 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22 or 24 of Council’s Landscape Checklist
Protection of Street Trees
5. The Development Application should be refused because insufficient arborist reporting detail has been submitted demonstrating the proposal would allow for the retention of existing street trees to Penrose Street.
6. The Development Application should be refused as the consent authority cannot be satisfied that compliance with SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land is achieved. No contamination report was provided despite a requesting being made, excavation works being proposed and the site adjoining a service station.
7. The Development Application should be refused as insufficient information has been submitted to provide for a complete assessment of the application on environmental health grounds (in addition to contamination) including the following assessment detail:
- Air Quality Assessment: for boarding rooms given proximity to service station and classified road;
- Light Pollution Assessment: for exposed undercroft parking areas onto adjoining residential land, as well as from the service station to boarding rooms;
- Construction Noise Management Plan: given proximity to existing residential receivers;
- Construction Management Plan: dust, sediment, erosion and water management plan for construction.
8. The Development Application should be refused because on-site waste collection is not provided in accordance with LCDCP 2010 Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation despite the site conditions warranting on-site waste collection noting the following:
(a) The proposal does not provide for on-site waste collection including insufficient detail of vehicle manoeuvring, loading zone and clearance height; and
(b) The location on Johnston Lane warrants the provision of on-site waste storage and collection.
Parking and Servicing
9. The Development Application should be refused because simultaneous vehicle entry/exit is not provided for despite there being capability (site width) to provide for a wider driveway contrary to LCDCP 2010 Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking.
10. The Development Application should be refused because no assessment has been provided by the applicant as to any heritage impacts to No. 1 Wood Street, Lane Cove West, despite the property being listed in Schedule 5 of LCLEP 2009 as an item of heritage significance. The Statement of Environmental Effects erroneously states there is no heritage item within the vicinity of the site. Accordingly the consent authority could not be satisfied as to what level of heritage assessment is required under Clause 5.10(5)(c) of LCLEP 2009:
Heritage Assessment: The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development on land that is within the vicinity of land on which a heritage item is located require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item concerned.
11. 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, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development as amended in its current built form, having regard to the above matters. 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.
12. 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 76 submissions received from surrounding residents raising concerns with the proposed development.
Bushfire Prone Land
13. The site being bushfire prone land, compliance with Section 4.14 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has not been demonstrated.
The Panel supports the findings contained in the Assessment Report and endorses the reasons for the approval contained in that Report.
The decision of the Panel was unanimous
The meeting closed at 5.15pm.
********* END OF MINUTES *********