Determination
Pursuant to
Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as
amended, Development Application No. DA2016/0219 for the demolition of
existing structures and construction of a mixed retail and residential
development at 279-281 Belmore Road, Riverwood, is determined by refusal
for the following reasons:
1.
Strategic Vision and Urban Context - The site is not suitable for the proposed development as there is currently no urban form study, vision
statement or strategic review which would justify the proposal’s major change to the built form of Riverwood Town Centre and
locality. Specifically as the proposed building’s
density, height and floor space ratios are:
a)
out of context with the existing urban form;
b)
out of context with the permitted heights and
floor space ratio controls permitted on adjoining, adjacent and nearby sites;
c)
not consistent with the known desired future
character having regard to economic performance of the town centre, transport
(including road network capacity, public transport capacity, parking) and
amenity;
d)
considered unsuitable for the subject site;
and
e)
inappropriate given the vehicle access
arrangements for the site.
2.
Failure to meet State Environmental
Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment
Development (SEPP 65) requirements - The
proposed development fails to meet the design quality principles as set under
the Clause 28(2) of SEPP 65 as follows:
a)
Principle 1: Context and
neighbourhood character: The proposed development has
been not been designed to respond to the surrounding built form context and
existing neighborhood character.
b)
Principle 2: Built form and
scale: The proposed development provides an
inappropriate scale, proportion, bulk and height in relation to the existing
built form and scale of the surrounding buildings in the Riverwood Town
Centre.
c)
Principle 3: Density: Proposed development is considered to achieve an inappropriate
density based on the existing context of the Riverwood Town Centre.
3.
Failure to meet Hurstville Local
Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) requirements - The proposed development fails to meet the requirements set under
HLEP 2012 as follows:
Height
a)
Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings sets a
height limit for the portion of the development on land at 279 Belmore Road
Riverwood at 18m. The proposal development exceeds this height seeking
18.5m on eastern elevation and 21m on western elevation.
b)
The applicants written request seeking to vary the Development Standard
under Clause 4.3 of HLEP 2012 has not:
i.
adequately justified the
contravention
ii.
the variation to the standard
is neither reasonable or necessary in the circumstances of the case; and
iii.
there is insufficient
environmental planning grounds for the variation
Floor Space
Ratio
a)
Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio sets a
Floor Space Ratio limit for the portion of the development on land at 279
Belmore Road Riverwood at 2:1. The proposal development exceeds this
ratio seeking 2.8:1
b)
The applicants written request seeking to vary the Development Standard
under Clause 4.4 of HLEP 2012 has not:
i.
adequately justified the
contravention
ii.
the variation to the standard
is neither reasonable or necessary in the circumstances of the case; and
iii.
there is insufficient
environmental planning grounds for the variation
Floor Space Ratio (Commercial Floor Area)
a)
Clause 4.4A – Exceptions to Floor Space
Ratios for Buildings on Land in Certain Zones sets a control that development
consent must not be granted for development on land in zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre
or zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space ratio is at
least 0.3:1. The proposed development provides 0.246:1.
b)
No written request under Clause 4.6 to vary
the control has been submitted to justify the departure from the development
standard.
4.
Failure to meet Hurstville Development
Control Plan No 1 (DCP1) Requirements - The
proposed development fails to meet the requirements set under DCP 1 as
follows:
Height
a)
The proposal does not meet the objective that
development will be compatible with the existing built form, streetscape and
scale of development.
b)
Control PC3 (Appendix 1 Clause 10) that
buildings in the B2 Local Centre fronting the railway shall be 13m and a
maximum of 4 storeys.
Car parking
a)
The proposal provides 63 car parking spaces
which does not meet the minimum parking requirement of 65 spaces as
stipulated under Clause 3.1
|