|
Georges River Council – Minutes of Local Planning Panel - Thursday, 15 August 2019 |
Page 1 |
|
MINUTES Local Planning Panel
Thursday, 15 August 2019 4.00pm
Georges River Civic Centre, Hurstville
|
|
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Panel Members:
Mr Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)
Mr John Brockhoff (Expert Panel Member)
Mr Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)
Mr Cameron Jones (Community Representative)
Council Staff:
Meryl Bishop (Director Environment and Planning)
Ryan Cole (Manager Development and Building)
Nicole Askew (Coordinator Development Assessment)
Cathy Mercer (PA to Manager Development and Building)
Sue Matthew (Team Leader DA Admin)
Monica Wernej (Admin Assistant)
1. APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There were no apologies received
There were no declarations of Pecuniary Interest
2. PUBLIC SPEAKERS
The meeting commenced at 4.01pm and at the invitation of the Chair, registered speakers were invited to address the panel on the items listed below.
The public speakers concluded at 5.41pm and the LPP Panel proceeded into Closed Session to deliberate the items listed below.
3. GEORGES RIVER LOCAL PLANNING PANEL REPORTS
|
LPP026-19 7-11 Short Street South Hurstville (Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)
The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.
|
|
Speakers
● Ahmed Taleb (owner) ● Michael Kitmiridis (applicant)
|
|
Voting of the Panel Members The decision of the Panel was unanimous.
|
|
Refusal Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2017/0353 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building containing 41 apartments at 7-11 Short Street, South Hurstville, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:
1. A written request has not been submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 justifying that compliance with the maximum 2:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard that applies to the site is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, and therefore the Local Planning Panel has no power to grant consent.
2. A written request has not been submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 justifying that compliance with the maximum 21m building height development standard that applies to the site is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, and therefore the Local Planning Panel has no power to grant consent.
3. The proposal fails to satisfy Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) as it is inconsistent with various design quality principles of SEPP 65 with respect to its response to the site’s context and neighbourhood character and its built form and scale, density, landscape and aesthetics, and fails to comply with the corresponding design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide. The proposal does not achieve an acceptable built form with sufficient façade modulation, setbacks and separation to minimise the visual dominance of the building when viewed from both the public domain and adjoining properties and also respect the existing character of nearby Zone R2 land. The proposal should have a four (4) storey base (G–L3) that achieves compliant street and boundary setbacks, with the upper level setbacks above Level 3 being increased in order to reduce their visual impact. The south eastern elevation (ie the side wall of the corner units facing Short Street) and the north western elevation in particular both require better façade expression and thoughtful modulation in accordance with the 4M – Facades provisions of the Apartment Design Guide. In addition, the proposal should have a 6m wide deep soil landscaped area along the rear (south western) boundary to allow for canopy tree planting.
4. The proposal fails to satisfy Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development on the basis that it fails to either achieve or adequately demonstrate compliance with the design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide with respect to internal solar access, visual privacy from balconies, internal amenity to all units (including U001 and U002), internal living room widths, and amenity of the ground level COS area in relation to depth below natural ground levels at the boundaries.
5. The proposal exceeds the maximum 2:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) specified for the site pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 which would result in an unacceptably bulky building that is incongruous and out of character with the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character and is inconsistent with the desired future character of this Zone R3 precinct.
6. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013, C2 – Medium Density Housing, Part 6 Building setbacks. The proposal should achieve a 4.5m street setback from Grosvenor Road, a minimum 3m setback to the first four (4) levels (including any roofed driveway) from the north western boundary adjoining 5 Short Street, and at least 4.5m for Levels 4–6 from that same boundary.
7. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the relevant Regulations in terms of the following:
(a) The development application was not accompanied by a BASIX certificate that was issued no more than three (3) months before the date on which the application was made and therefore fails to satisfy Schedule 1, Part 1, Clause 2A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
8. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the following aspects of the environment:
(a) Natural environment – The proposal does not meet the deep soil zones design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide nor provide a sufficient setback (at least 3m to the first four (4) levels including ground level) from 5 Short Street, which precludes the planting of canopy trees around the perimeter of the site to provide a landscaped setting for the proposal and ameliorate the scale of the building. Furthermore, a minimum 1.5m landscaped boundary setback should be provided on the north western side of the vehicle driveway.
(b) Built environment – The proposal does not respond to the context of the site and its interface with adjacent R2 zoned land nor the neighbourhood’s character on the basis that it significantly exceeds the maximum permitted 2:1 Floor Space Ratio that applies to the site, encroaches on the minimum required street, side and rear setbacks expected on the site and does not have an appropriate expression of built, which would be achieved by the provision of a maximum four (4) storey base or podium, with further increased setbacks to the upper levels beyond the fourth storey and appropriate façade modulation to break down the 6–7 storey scale of the building.
9. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:
(a) The site cannot adequately accommodate the proposed built form without significant adverse impacts on the streetscape, neighbourhood character and the amenity of adjacent and nearby properties with respect to built form, visual dominance, bulk and scale.
10. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest and is likely to set an undesirable precedent within the locality.
|
4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The meeting concluded at 6.45pm
|
Paul Vergotis Chairperson |
|
John Brockhoff Expert Panel Member |
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Leavey Expert Panel Member |
|
Cameron Jones Community Representative |
