blue mountains local planning panel item no: 2.1 ......b) objectives for the ‘r2 low density...

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

ITEM NO: 2.1 – 24 FEBRUARY 2020

1 of 33

ITEM No. 2.1

REPORT: Development Application No. X/846/2019, for the demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of a Seniors Housing development comprising of 15 dwellings, at ‘Greenhays’, 409-417 Great Western Highway, Springwood

Reason for report The Development Application meets the definition of ‘contentious development’ (10 or more unique objections) and therefore is to be determined by the Blue Mountains Local Planning Panel.

RECOMMENDATION That the Development Application X/846/2019, for the demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of a Seniors Housing development comprising of 15 dwellings, at ‘Greenhays’, 409-417 Great Western Highway, Springwood, be determined in accordance with Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, by way of refusing consent.

Reasons in support of the recommended decision

1. The proposal does not contribute to the quality and identity of the area, given the site is proposed to be flooded with built form and expansive hardstand areas. This design and the resultant inadequate landscaping and pervious areas means the proposal does not meet or comply with:

a) Clause 33(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

b) Objectives for the ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ zone, pursuant to Clause 2.3 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.

c) Clause 6.17 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.

d) Part B2.4(C3)(b) of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

2. The overall layout has not given sufficient regard to established major trees identified as suitable for retention in the accompanying Arboricultural Assessment Report. The proposal is therefore inconsistent:

a) the Seniors Living Policy – Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development.

b) Clause 33(f) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

c) Part C3.3 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

3. The setbacks provided to the northern site boundary and the configuration of the dwellings alongside such, are insufficient and do not maximise opportunities for soft landscape screening, as required by:

a) the Seniors Living Policy – Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development.

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL - ITEM 2.1 – 24 FEBRUARY 2020

2 of 33

b) Clause 33(e) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.


d) Part C3.5 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

4. The width of the building fronting the Great Western Highway and the associated setback is not considered to be in sympathy with the existing building line and does not meet or comply with:

a) Clause 33(d) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

b) Clause 6.17 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.

c) Part B2.3.1(C3) of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

d) Part B2.3.5 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

5. The setbacks to the northern site boundary (to residential premises), the eastern site boundary (to Buttenshaw Park) and to the Great Western Highway, are insufficient to maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate overall character, as required by:

a) Clause 33(c)(i) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.



6. The proposal does not adequately complement or harmonise with the adjoining Heritage Item (‘Buttenshaw Park and sandstone gate posts’), and does not meet or comply with:

a) Clause 33(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.


c) Part D1.5(C1) & D1.5(C2) of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

7. Given the absence of proposed fencing details it is unclear whether the private open space areas are to receive adequate sunlight, as required by Clause 35 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

8. The overall layout does not include a communal open space area with shared facilities, as recommended by the Seniors Living Policy – Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development.

9. The proposal fails to demonstrate that existing privacy levels within the locality will be adequately maintained, as required by Clause 34 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

10. While the proposal includes inter-allotment drainage works (through the adjoining property at No. 3 Churchill Place), a contractual agreement to grant a Drainage Easement burdening the associated property and the design for the associated pipe has not been provided.


3 of 33

11. The proposal includes insufficient pervious areas and insufficient information has been provided regarding stormwater management and impacts. Accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:

a) Clause 36 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

b) Part 3 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River.

c) Clause 6.9 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.

d) Part C6 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

12. The proposed fencing / gates and associated access management arrangements are unclear, and accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:


b) Part E5 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

c) Part F1.3.1 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

13. The proposal does not provide adequate waste facilities and the application does not demonstrate that waste collection vehicles will be able to adequately enter and leave the site in a forward direction, and accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:


b) Part E6 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

14. Full building elevations (i.e. all 4 elevations, of each building) have not been provided and the elevations provided do not include height details, and accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:

a) Clause 40(4)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People.


15. The proposed finished ground levels over the site and associated retaining wall design details are unclear, and accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:



16. The design plans do not incorporate the recommendations / requirements outlined within the accompanying Acoustic Report, and accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:

a) Clause 87 (3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

b) Clause 101 (2) (c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.


4 of 33

17. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with requirements for location and access to facilities, as required by Clause 26 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

18. The accompanying site analysis does not contain necessary information and has not been supported by a written statement, as required by Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

19. A BASIX Certificate has not been provided, and accordingly the proposal fails to satisfy the associated provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

20. The overall layout provides extensive hardstand areas (which involves the replacement of existing landscaped / vegetated areas), limited landscaping. and dark coloured roofs This potentially provides for a localised heat island effect and accordingly the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:

a) Clause 6.21 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.

b) Part C1.1 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

21. It is unclear whether consideration was given to the proposed landscaping and tree retention in preparing the accompanying Bushfire Assessment Report, accordingly it is unclear if the proposal satisfies the associated provisions of Part C4 of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

22. The application fails to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

23. The proposed development is not in the public interest, having regard to the reasons above.

Disclosure Disclosure of any political donation and / or gift – No

Declaration of interest Declaration of interest – No

Report authors Robert Walker, Senior Town Planner

Byron Tully, Acting Development Planning Program Leader

Alex Williams, Development & Building Services Manager

Report authoriser William Langevad, Director Environment & Planning Services

PART 1 Development proposal

PART 2 Council assessment

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL - ITEM NO. 2.1 – 24 FEBRUARY 2020

5 of 33

PART 1: Development proposal

Applicant Stimson & Baker Planning

Land owner Stuart & Joan Rowe

Location Greenhays, 409-417 Great Western Highway, Springwood

Lot & DP Lot 14 DP 615001

Date lodged 10 October 2019

Value of works $3,724,500

Proposal in detail The proposal seeks Development Consent for the demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of a Seniors Housing development comprising of 15 dwellings. The overall proposal includes the following notable elements:

o A pod of five (5) dwellings (part single and part 2 storey) and a pod of four (4) dwellings (part single and part 2 storey) addressing the Great Western Highway

o A pod of four (4) dwellings (single storey) in the north eastern portion of the site, alongside Buttenshaw Park and a residential property to the north

o A freestanding dwelling (single storey) alongside the north site boundary and residential properties to the north

o A freestanding dwelling (single storey) alongside the north site boundary and residential properties to the north, addressing Churchill Street.

o Eleven (11) of the dwellings are single storey and four (4) of the dwellings two (2) storey.

o All fifteen (15) dwellings include single car space garages.

o Vehicular access to the site is from Churchill Street, with the driveway extending across the width of the site.

o Six (6) open ‘visitor’ type spaces are located adjacent the driveway.

The overall development also includes the following associated works:

o Removal of trees.

o Earthworks.

o Stormwater works, including inter-allotment drainage works (through the establishment of a Drainage Easement burdening the adjoining property at No. 3 Churchill Place).

o Erection of fencing.


6 of 33

Departure or variation to a development standard

The application is not supported by any request to vary a Development Standard.

Supporting documentation

The plans and documents lodged are considered sufficient to enable assessment of the application. The application is supported by:

o Design plans

o Schedule for external finishes and colours

o Landscape Plan

o Plan of Survey

o Arboricultural Assessment Report

o Stormwater Drainage Plan

o Acoustic Report

o Access Report

o Waste Management Plan

o Bushfire Assessment Report

o Traffic and Parking Assessment Report

o Statement of Environmental Effects

Documentation online Plans to scale and key documents lodged with the application can be viewed online. Go to www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/development – Track and View applications. Search and select X/846/2019.

Reduced site and elevation plans are below.

https://www2.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/DATracking/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?os=y&

http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/development


7 of 33

Site Analysis


8 of 33

Elevations


9 of 33

PART 2: Council assessment 2.1 Overview and summary of issues

Location Greenhays, 409-417 Great Western Highway, Springwood

Lot & DP Lot 14 DP 615001

Zoning ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ (pursuant to the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015)

Characterisation of use ‘Seniors housing’

Permissibility The proposed development is permissible within the zone.

Type of development Integrated – Requiring authorisation (of the NSW Rural Fire Service) under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

Applicable planning provisions

o State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

o State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability)

o State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

o State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

o Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy 20: Hawkesbury-Nepean River

o Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015

o Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015

Bushfire prone land The property is mapped as bush fire prone land.

Heritage significance The property is not listed as a heritage item nor is it within a heritage conservation area.

Aboriginal significance No Aboriginal objects are recorded or Aboriginal places declared in or near the subject property.

Potentially contaminated land

The land is not listed on the Council’s potentially contaminated land register and none of the activities that may cause contamination, listed in Table 1 of Planning NSW’s Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines, are being or are known to have been carried out on the site.

Site description The site consists of a single irregular shaped allotment, located on the north eastern corner of the intersection of the Great Western Highway and Churchill Street, with a site area of approximately 4,817m².

Improvements to the site consist of a dwelling house and an in-ground swimming pool. The site is relatively flat, with a fall of approximately 6m, from the splay


10 of 33

corner adjacent to the intersection of the Great Western Highway and Churchill Street, to north eastern corner of the site, over a distance of approximately 90m.

Development history / background

o 2 November 2017 – Pre-Development Application lodgement advice (Land Use Advice No. O/1889/2017) issued, in relation to a Seniors Housing development, comprising of 17 dwellings.

o 23 August 2018 – Development Application No. X/797/2018, made for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a Seniors Housing development, comprising of 16 dwellings. The Development Application was withdrawn (by the Applicant) on 29 November 2018.

o 13 February 2019 – Complying Development Certificate (reference No. X/121/2019) issued by Urban Approvals, for the demolition of a dwelling house and a swimming pool.

o 13 June 2019 – Pre-Development Application lodgement advice (Land Use Advice No. O/552/2019) issued, in relation to a Seniors Housing development, comprising of 16 dwellings.

o 10 October 2019 – Subject application lodged.

o 10 December 2019 – Detailed letter issued to Applicant advising of issues with the proposal / application. Given the issues identified by Council Officers, the letter recommended that the application be withdrawn.

o 23 December 2019 – Follow up email to applicant from assessing officer seeking information on applicant’s proposed response to issues raised.

o It is noted at time of writing this report that no formal response has been


11 of 33

provided in response to Council’s letter of 10 December 2019.

City wide infrastructure contribution

A contribution under the Blue Mountains Citywide Infrastructure Contribution Plan would need to be imposed in the event of the application being approved, as the proposed works are of a value more than $100,000.

Referrals o NSW Rural Fire Service (Integrated Development, pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997)

o Transport for NSW (formerly Roads and Maritime Services)

o Sydney Trains

o Council’s Principal Development Engineer

o Council’s Program Leader Waste & Sustainability

o Council’s Landscape / Environmental Officer

o Council’s Environmental Health Branch

It is also noted that consultation was had with Council’s Aged & Disability Services Development Officer

Notification period The application was advertised in the Blue Mountains Gazette for 14 days, from 6 November 2019 until 20 November 2019. Written notification was also sent to adjoining and nearby properties.

Number of submissions 16 submissions were received as a result of this notification process.

2.2 Evaluation The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Only those provisions relevant to the proposed development have been addressed.

State Environmental Planning Policies – s4.15(1)(a)(i)

The following table provides for an assessment against the provisions applicable State Environmental Planning Policies.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

Consideration has been given to whether the land is contaminated, as required by Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55.

Potentially contaminated land

The land is not listed on the Council’s potentially contaminated land register and none of the activities that may cause contamination, listed in Table 1 of Planning NSW’s Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines, are being or are known to have been carried out on the site.


12 of 33

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

Clause 4 of the Seniors Housing SEPP, outlines that the Policy applies to land that is zoned primarily for urban purposes or that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, but only if any of the following is permitted:

• dwelling houses

• residential flat buildings

• hospitals

• development of a kind identified in respect of land zoned for special uses, including (but not limited to) churches, convents, educational establishments, schools and seminaries

or the land is being used for the purposes of a registered club.

The site is zoned ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’, pursuant to the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 (being land zoned primarily for urban purposes). Accordingly, the Seniors Housing SEPP applies to the subject land.

It is noted that the proposed development is specifically defined as follows by Clause 13 of the Seniors Housing SEPP, as an ‘infill, self-care housing’ development,

(1) General term: ‘self-contained dwelling’

In this Policy, a ‘self-contained dwelling’ is a dwelling or part of a building (other than a hostel), whether attached to another dwelling or not, housing seniors or people with a disability, where private facilities for significant cooking, sleeping and washing are included in the dwelling or part of the building, but where clothes washing facilities or other facilities for use in connection with the dwelling or part of the building may be provided on a shared basis.

(2) Example: ‘in-fill self-care housing’

In this Policy, ‘in-fill self-care housing’ is seniors housing on land zoned primarily for urban purposes that consists of two (2) or more self-contained dwellings where none of the following services are provided on site as part of the development: meals, cleaning services, personal care, nursing care.

It is noted that Clause 15 of the Seniors Housing SEPP allows … development on land zoned primarily for urban purposes for the purpose of any form of seniors housing,…if the development is carried out in accordance with this Policy…and …despite the provisions of any other Environmental Planning Instrument.


13 of 33

Clause 18 of the Seniors Housing SEPP outlines that:

(1) Development allowed by this Chapter may be carried out for the accommodation of the following only:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under this Policy.

(2) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless:

(a) a condition is imposed by the consent authority to the effect that only the kinds of people referred to in subclause (1) may occupy any accommodation to which the application relates

(b) the consent authority is satisfied that a restriction as to user will be registered against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, limiting the use of any accommodation to which the application relates to the kinds of people referred to in subclause (1).

Accordingly, a condition satisfying such would need to be imposed in the event of the application being approved.

Criteria Proposed Compliance

Clause 26 – Location and Access to Facilities

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with subclause (2) to:

(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and

(b) community services and recreation facilities, and

(c) the practice of a general medical practitioner.

(2) Access complies with this clause if:

(b) in the case of a proposed development on land in a local government area within the Sydney Statistical Division—there is a public transport service available to the residents who will occupy the proposed development:

(i) that is located at a distance of not more than 400m from the site of the proposed development and the distance is accessible by means of a suitable access pathway, and

(ii) that will take those residents to a place that is

While the site is located within 300m of multiple bus stops, where direct access is provided throughout each weekday to the Springwood Town Centre, where necessary facilities are available, it is unclear whether the Access Consultant has reviewed the associated routes. Review of the accompanying detailed survey routes indicates that the ‘pram-ramp’ on the southern side of Churchill Place, and the driveway crossing at No. 5 Plateau Road and the adjacent street tree, are not access compliant and accordingly require reconstruction.

No


14 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance located at a distance of not more than 400m from the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1), and

(iii) that is available both to and from the proposed development at least once between 8am and 12pm per day and at least once between 12pm and 6pm each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive),

and the gradient along the pathway from the site to the public transport services (and from the public transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) complies with subclause (3).

(3) For the purposes of subclause (2) (b) and (c), the overall average gradient along a pathway from the site of the proposed development to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) is to be no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable:

(i) a gradient of no more than 1:12 for slopes for a maximum of 15m at a time,

(ii) a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5m at a time,

(iii) a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5m at a time.

(4) For the purposes of subclause (2):

(a) a suitable access pathway is a path of travel by means of a sealed footpath or other similar and safe means that is suitable for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, and

(b) distances that are specified for the purposes of that subclause are to be measured by reference to the length of any such pathway.

Clause 27 – Bush fire prone land

A consent authority must take into consideration the general location of the proposed development, the means of access to and egress from the general location and other relevant matters, including the following:

The proposal is a ‘Special Fire Protection Purpose’ (Integrated Development), requiring a 'Bush Fire Safety Authority' from the NSW Rural Fire Service (pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997). The application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service

Yes


15 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance

(a) the size of the existing population within the locality,

(b) age groups within that population and the number of persons within those age groups,

(c) the number of hospitals and other facilities providing care to the residents of the facilities within the locality, and the number of beds within those hospitals and facilities,

(d) the number of schools within the locality and the number of students at those schools,

(e) existing development within the locality that has been carried out under this Policy or State Environmental Planning Policy No 5—Housing for Older People or People with a Disability,

(f) the road network within the locality and the capacity of the road network to cater for traffic to and from existing development if there were a need to evacuate persons from the locality in the event of a bush fire,

(g) the adequacy of access to and from the site of the proposed development for emergency response vehicles,

(h) the nature, extent and adequacy of bush fire emergency procedures that are able to be applied to the proposed development and its site,

(i) the requirements of New South Wales Fire Brigades.

and a 'Bush Fire Safety Authority' has been issued, which included various conditions, such as requiring the provisions of a Bush Fire Emergency Management and Evacuation Plan.

Clause 28 – Water and Sewer

A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage.

The site is served by a reticulated water system and is sewered.

A condition would be imposed in any consent requiring the provision of a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney Water.

Yes.

Clause 30 – Site analysis The accompanying site analysis does not contain the required information and has not been supported by a written statement.

No

Clause 31 – Design of in-fill self-care housing

In determining a development application made

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines,

No


16 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance pursuant to this Chapter to carry out development for the purpose of in-fill self-care housing, a consent authority must take into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004.

specifically in relation to the:

o Design principles of Part 4, given the insufficient setbacks provided to the northern site boundary and the configuration of the dwellings alongside such, which does not maximise opportunities for soft landscape screening.

o Design principles of Parts 2 & 5, given that the overall layout has not given sufficient regard to existing established / major trees and the retention of such across the site.

o Given the number of units proposed, the provision of a communal open space area with shared facilities should be provided.

Clause 32 – Design of residential development

A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the principles set out in Division 2.

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of Clauses 33 to 39 (detailed below) and it is considered that the proposal does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to the principles of Division 2.

No

Clause 33 (a) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

It is considered that the proposal does not contribute to the quality and identity of the area. Concern is raised in relation to the expansive built form and expansive hardstand areas resulting from the development.

No

Clause 33 (b) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any heritage conservation areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a Local Environmental Plan.

It is considered that the scale and character of the proposal does not adequately complement or harmonise with the adjoining Heritage Item (‘Buttenshaw Park and sandstone gate posts’), given that it involves a hard edged interface with built form, solid fencing and retaining walls, replacing mature trees and soft landscaped areas.

No

Clause 33 (c) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should maintain

It is considered that the setbacks to the northern site boundary (residential premises), the eastern site boundary

No


17 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

(i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing, and

(ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form, and

(iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and

(iv) considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours.

(Buttenshaw Park) and to the Great Western Highway, are insufficient to maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character.

Clause 33 (d) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should be designed so that the front building of the development is set back in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line.

It is considered that the proposed 11m setback to the alignment of the Great Western Highway is not in sympathy with the existing building line, having regard to the expansive built form of the overall development.

No

Clause 33 (e) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape.

It is considered that overall layout does not provide for planting which is in sympathy with the streetscape. The site and Buttenshaw Park combine to provide a strong and multi layered landscape character, which is not achieved in the proposed development.

No

Clause 33 (f) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should retain, wherever reasonable, major existing trees.

It is considered that the overall layout has not given sufficient regard to existing established / major trees and the retention of such across the site.

No

Clause 33 (g) – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should be designed so that no building is constructed in a riparian zone.

The site does not contain any a riparian type areas.

NA

Clause 34 – Visual and Acoustic Privacy The submitted detail does not provide proposed finished ground levels over the site. Concern is raised whether the proposal maintains existing privacy levels to the north as well as whether it achieves accessible and usable spaces.

No

Clause 35 – Solar access and design for climate While overshadowing of adjacent properties by the proposal is minimal and

Unclear


18 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance the northerly orientation of the site has been utilised where possible, given the absence of proposed fencing details it is unclear however the private open space areas receive adequate sunlight.

Clause 36 – Stormwater The associated disturbance and impacts of stormwater runoff as a result of the proposal are unclear, specifically in relation to:

o A contractual agreement to grant a Drainage Easement burdening the adjoining property at No. 3 Churchill Place and the design for the associated pipe have not been provided.

o The inter-allotment drainage pipe, detention tank in the north eastern corner and the pipework along the eastern boundary, all have the potential to affect trees on Council land and within the adjoining property. The submitted Arborist Report does not address the potential impact of the proposed stormwater works.

o The proposed landscaping does not appear to have taken into account the proposed stormwater works. The accompanying Landscape Plan shows significant shrub and other planting over a detention tank, which is designed to have a concrete slab top.

No

37 – Crime prevention

The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by:

(a) site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and

(b) where shared entries are required, providing

The proposed fencing / gates for the site has not been clearly detailed. Concern is raised in relation to appropriate access management arrangements (i.e. gates / intercom etc.) to the site.

No


19 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance shared entries that serve a small number of dwellings and that are able to be locked, and

(c) providing dwellings designed to allow residents to see who approaches their dwellings without the need to open the front door.

38 – Accessibility

The proposed development should:

(a) have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and

(b) provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.

The local area is relatively flat, and the site is located approximately 230m from bus stops.

Yes

Clause 39 – Waste Management

The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.

The proposal fails to provide appropriate waste facilities, given that:

o The garbage bin collection points adjacent to Dwelling Nos. 7 and 8 are not suitable. Sufficient space is not provided for the arch of the bin when collected and returned.

o A bin storage area has not been provided for Dwelling No. 12.

No

Clause 40 (2) – The size of the site must be at least 1,000m2.

4,817m2 Yes

Clause 40 (3) – The site frontage must be at least 20m wide, measured at the building line.

Both street frontages are more than 20m wide.

Yes

Clause 40 (4) (a) – The height of all buildings in the proposed development must be 8m or less.

Full building elevations (i.e. all elevations of each building) have not been provided and the elevations that have been provided do not include adequate height details. Concern is raised whether the proposed meets this requirement.

No

Clause 40 (4) (a) – A building that is adjacent to a boundary of the site must be not more than two (2) storeys in height.

The proposed buildings are single storey and two (2) storeys in height.

Yes

Clause 40 (4) (c) – A building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed one (1) storey in height.

The built form in the rear 25% of the site is limited to single storey in height.

Yes

Clause 41 – Standards for hostels and self-contained dwellings

A consent authority must not consent to a

The proposed finished ground levels over the site have not been provided and accordingly it is unclear whether the overall layout can comply with all

Unclear


20 of 33

Criteria Proposed Compliance development application made pursuant to this Chapter to carry out development for the purpose of a hostel or self-contained dwellings unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in Schedule 3 for such development.

Schedule 3 outlines provisions in relation to interior and exterior accessibility, circulation as well as specified facilities.

necessary standards specified in Schedule 3 (particularly from an accessibility perspective).

It is noted that Clause 50 of the Seniors Housing SEPP, outlines various Standards that cannot be used to refuse Development Consent for self-contained dwellings. Regard has been given to such where relevant.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Criteria Comment Compliance

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to rail corridors

(1) This clause applies to development on land that is in or adjacent to a rail corridor, if the development:

(a) is likely to have an adverse effect on rail safety, or

(b) involves the placing of a metal finish on a structure and the rail corridor concerned is used by electric trains, or

(c) involves the use of a crane in air space above any rail corridor, or

(d) is located within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line that is used for the purpose of railways or rail infrastructure facilities.

Note. Clause 45 also contains provisions relating to development that is within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line.

(2) Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must:

(a) within 7 days after the application is made, give written notice of the application to the rail authority for the rail corridor, and

(b) take into consideration:

(i) any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given, and

(ii) any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

(3) Land is adjacent to a rail corridor for the purpose of this clause even if it is separated from the rail corridor by a road or road related area within the meaning of the Road Transport Act 2013.

Written notice was given to Sydney Trains on 23 October 2019, however final comments have not yet been provided.

Noted


21 of 33


Criteria Comment Compliance

Clause 87 (2) – Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development

Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies (which includes residential accommodation), the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

The application has been accompanied by a detailed Acoustic Report, which has considered the Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads Interim Guideline.

Yes

Clause 87 (3) – Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development

If the development is for the purposes of residential accommodation, the consent authority must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a) in any bedroom in the residential accommodation – 35 dB(A) at any time between 10pm and 7am,

(b) anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) – 40 dB(A) at any time.

The design plans do not incorporate the recommendations / requirements outlined within the accompanying Acoustic Report. Furthermore the design plans have not been endorsed by the Acoustic Consultant confirming such.

Unclear

Clause 101 (2) (a) – Development with frontage to classified road

The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that, where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road.

The proposal provides vehicular access to the site from Churchill Street (not from the Great Western Highway).

Yes

Clause 101 (2) (b) – Development with frontage to classified road

The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that, the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land.

The proposal provides vehicular access to the site from Churchill Street, away from the intersection with the Great Western Highway.

The proposal does not provide for the emission of smoke or dust.

Any increase to the volume and frequency of vehicles using the Great Western Highway is to be negligible.

Yes

Clause 101 (2) (c) – Development with frontage to classified road

The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied

The design plans do not incorporate the recommendations / requirements outlined

Unclear


22 of 33


Criteria Comment Compliance that, the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.

within the accompanying Acoustic Report. Furthermore the design plans have not been endorsed by the Acoustic Consultant confirming such.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX Certificate has not been provided, accordingly the proposal fails to satisfy the associated provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River

Standard Discussion Compliance

Part 3 – Development controls

The impacts of associated stormwater management are unclear and accordingly associated water quality and quantity impacts are unable to be fully considered.

Unclear

Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 – s4.15(1)(a)(i)

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015, with significant points identified and discussed below.

Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development

Clause Standard Discussion Compliance

2.3 Land Use Table

The subject site is zoned ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ (pursuant to the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015).

The proposal is categorised as ‘seniors housing’, which is permissible within the ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ zone.

Yes

2.3 Zone objectives

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with an objective of the zone, being:

• To ensure that development maintains and improves the character of residential areas in a manner that minimises impacts on existing amenity and environmental quality.

Inconsistent

Part 4 Principal development standards

Clause Standard Requirement Proposed Compliance


23 of 33

Part 4 Principal development standards

4.3 Height of buildings

A maximum building height of 8m applies to the site.

Full building elevations (i.e. all 4 elevations, of each building) have not been provided. Furthermore in this regard, the elevations do not include height details.

Unclear

4.4 Floor space ratio

A maximum floor space ratio of 0.35:1 applies to the site.

The proposal provides for a floor space ratio of less than 0.35:1.

Yes

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions


5.10 (4) & (5)

Heritage conservation

The site is located in the vicinity of a Heritage Item (listed within Part 1 of Schedule 5), identified as ‘Buttenshaw Park and sandstone gate posts’ (item No. SP009).

It is considered that the overall layout does not complement the adjoining Heritage Item, nor does the interface of the proposal integrate with Heritage Item.

Furthermore it is noted that a Heritage Impact Statement has not been provided.

No

5.10 (8)

Aboriginal places of heritage significance

A search of the AHIMS register on the OEH website shows no aboriginal sites or places are identified on or within 50m of the land.

Yes

Part 6 Additional local provisions


Impact on natural environment

6.1 Impact on environmentally sensitive land

The site does not contain any ‘environmentally sensitive land’, nor does any immediately adjacent land. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to represent an adverse impact on ‘environmentally sensitive land’.

Yes

6.9 Stormwater management

The impacts of associated stormwater management are unclear, given specifically including in relation to:


o The inter-allotment drainage pipe, detention tank in the north eastern corner and the pipework along the eastern boundary, all have the potential to affect trees on Council land and within the adjoining property, though the accompanying Arborist Report does not refer to the

Unclear


24 of 33


Clause Standard Discussion Compliance proposed stormwater works.


6.14 Earthworks The effects of associated earthworks are unclear, given specifically including in relation to:

o The proposed finished ground levels over the site are unclear.

o Comprehensive details of the proposed retaining walls have not been provided.

o The raising of ground levels in the vicinity of the northern and eastern site boundaries.

Unclear

Impact on built environment

6.17 Consideration of character and landscape

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the established character and landscape of the locality, including in relation to the:

o The overall scale of the buildings.

o The location and relationship to the Great Western Highway, including the setback and building width.

o The form and design is incompatible with adjacent dwellings and Buttenshaw Park.

o The setbacks to the northern site boundary (to residential premises) and the raising of ground levels, provide for amenity impacts upon adjoining residential premises.

o Incompatibility with the immediate landscape setting, including Buttenshaw Park, and failure to provide adequate deep soil zone areas alongside the northern and eastern site boundaries.

No

6.21 Sustainable resource management

The overall layout provides an expansive built form and associated hardstand areas (which involves the replacement of existing landscaped / vegetated areas), and provides for associated potential for heat island effects on a local scale.

It is considered that the proposal fails to demonstrate that the design satisfactorily achieves ecologically sustainable development


25 of 33


Clause Standard Discussion Compliance practices.

6.23 Essential Services

All relevant services are available to the site. Yes

Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015 – s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015, with significant points of consideration identified and discussed in the table below.

Part B Context, site analysis and design


B1 Site and context analysis

The accompanying plans provide sufficient site analysis information (as required by the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015)

Yes

B2.3.1 (C3)

Setbacks For land within the ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ zone, the maximum width across an allotment of any building that has a street frontage is not to be greater than 80% (of the greatest width of the allotment at any one point).

The proposal provides a building width of approximately 83% of the width of the site, addressing the Great Western Highway.

No

B2.3.5 Setback from a Classified Road

Where land adjoins a Classified Road (other than a Tourist Road), the setback of any buildings from the alignment or proposed alignment of the road is to be (a minimum of) 18m within the ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ zone.

The proposal provides a building setback approximately 11m from the alignment of the Great Western Highway.

No

B2.4 (C3) (a)

Site Coverage For land within the ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ zone, the maximum site cover for buildings, including buildings ancillary to the main building, is 40% of the total allotment area or 160m2, whichever is greater. Which equates to approximately 1,927m2 for the site.

The overall layout comprises of approximately 1,394m2 of building site coverage, which equates to approximately 29% of the site area.

Yes

B2.4 (C3) (b)

Pervious Area For land within the ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’ zone, the minimum area to be retained pervious is 40% of the total allotment area. Which equates to approximately 1,927m2 for the site.

The overall layout comprises of approximately 1,715m2 of pervious area, which equates to approximately 35% of the site area.

No


26 of 33

Part B Context, site analysis and design


B3.2.1 Context considerations

While the proposal provides an articulated layout, it is considered that the scale and form of the overall development is inconsistent with the existing streetscape qualities, including in relation to the:

o The overall layout, which provides an expansive built form and associated hardstand areas.

o The location and relationship to the Great Western Highway, including the setback and building width.

Poor

Part C Environmental management


C1.1 Biodiversity and Natural resources


No

C3.2 (C1)

Landscape Plan A detailed Landscape Plan has been provided. Yes

C3.3 Retention and protection of trees and other vegetation

The overall layout has not given sufficient regard to existing established / major trees and the retention of such across the site. Furthermore, a combined demolition and tree removal plan has not been provided, which clearly indicates all trees to be removed (and retained), and it is noted that the accompanying Site Plan and Landscape Plan contain inconsistent details in relation to tree removal / retention.

No

C3.4 Landscape design, scale and amenity

It is considered that given the insufficient setbacks provided between the northern and eastern site boundaries, in conjunction with the configuration of retaining walls, that the layout does not maximise opportunities for soft landscape screening or provide adequate deep soil zone in these areas.

No

C3.5 Plant Material Selection

The overall layout does not provide for an appropriate range (including from a height and foliage density perspective) of plant / tree types having regard to the overall scale of the development.

No

C4 Bush fire The proposal is a ‘Special Fire Protection Purpose’ (Integrated Development), requiring a 'Bush Fire Safety Authority' from the NSW Rural Fire Service (pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997). The application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service and a 'Bush Fire Safety Authority' has been issued.

While a 'Bush Fire Safety Authority' has been issued, it is unclear whether consideration was given to the proposed landscaping and associated tree retention in preparing the

Unclear


27 of 33

Part C Environmental management

Clause Standard Discussion Compliance accompanying Bushfire Assessment Report. This means that compliance with the conditions imposed by the RFS may have implications for landscaping and tree retention that have not been assessed.

C6 Water management A ‘water sensitive urban design strategy’ has not been provided and the impacts of associated stormwater management are unclear, given specifically including in relation to:


o The inter-allotment drainage pipe, detention tank in the north eastern corner and the pipework along the eastern boundary, all have the potential to affect trees on Council land and within the adjoining property, though the accompanying Arborist Report does not refer to the proposed stormwater works.


No

Part D Heritage management


D1.5 (C1) & (C2)

Development in the vicinity of heritage items or conservation areas

It is considered that the overall layout does not complement the setting of the adjoining Heritage Item (Buttenshaw Park, identified as item No. SP009), nor does the interface of the proposal integrate with Heritage Item.


No

Part E Site development and management


E1 Services All relevant services are available to the site. Yes

E2 Traffic, parking and access

While there are no specific car parking space rates for ‘seniors housing’ development (within the Blue Mountains Development

Yes


28 of 33

Part E Site development and management

Clause Standard Discussion Compliance Control Plan 2015), it is noted that Clause 50 of the Seniors Housing SEPP outlines various Standards that cannot be used to refuse Development Consent for such development. The specific car parking space rate Standard, is 0.5 of a car space for each bedroom (where the development application is made by a person other than a social housing provider).

The overall layout includes 34 bedrooms, thereby constituting a car parking space rate requirement of 17 spaces. The overall layout includes a total of 21 car parking spaces, comprising of 15 single space garages and six (6) open ‘visitor’ type spaces.

E3.1 Accessibility The proposed finished ground levels over the site are unclear, and accordingly the proposal fails to demonstrate whether the dwellings are accessible from the street boundary and whether the overall layout provides for compliance with the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 and the National Construction Code.

Unclear

E4 Site management

Associated conditions would need to be imposed in the event of the application being approved.

NA

E5 Safety and security

In the absence of a detailed Fencing Plan and access management arrangements (i.e. gates / intercom etc.), it is unclear whether the overall layout satisfies associated ‘principles for minimising crime risk’ (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design).

Unclear

E6 Waste management

The proposal fails to provide appropriate waste facilities, given that:

o Details have not been provided demonstrating that garbage trucks can enter and exit in a forward direction.

o The garbage bin collection points adjacent to Dwelling Nos. 7 and 8 are not suitable, as sufficient space is not provided for the arch of the bin when collected and returned.

o A bin storage area has not been provided for Dwelling No. 12.

No

Part F Specific development types


Residential development

F1.3.1 (C1)

Fences The maximum height of a fence in ‘Residential’ zones is, 1.2m for the primary frontage, 1.2m for the secondary road frontage between the front boundary / front building line and 1.8m between the front building line / rear boundary.

The proposed overall fencing is unclear, as a detailed Fencing Plan has not been provided, clearly depicting all proposed fencing.

Unclear


29 of 33

Part F Specific development types


F1.3.1 (C2)

Fences Fences installed on a primary road frontage shall be open for at least 20% of the area of the fence that is more than 400mm above ground level, with any individual solid element of the fence above this height being no more than 350mm in width with a minimum aperture of 25mm.

The proposed overall fencing is unclear. A detailed Fencing Plan has not been provided, clearly depicting all proposed fencing.

Unclear

F1.3.1 (C3) & (C5)

Fences If a lot has a frontage to a secondary road(s), C2 applies to 50% of contiguous secondary road boundaries, measured from the corner with the primary road boundary.

While long sections of fencing on a secondary road frontage are to include recessed portions located at regular intervals along the length of the fence for the purpose of additional landscaping.

The proposed overall fencing is unclear. A detailed Fencing Plan has not been provided, clearly depicting all proposed fencing.

Unclear

Planning Agreement – s4.15(1)(a)(iiia)

There are no planning agreements that apply to the proposed development or the subject site.

Regulations – s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

There are no matters prescribed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 that apply to the proposed development.

Likely impacts – s4.15(1)(b)

Streetscape and character

The proposal is considered to represent a considerable over development of the site and be likely to have an adverse impact on the built and landscape character of the locality. The overall development provides for an expansive built form and expansive hardstand areas, and it is considered that the setbacks to the northern site boundary (to residential premises), the eastern site boundary (to Buttenshaw Park) and to the Great Western Highway, are insufficient to maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character.

It is considered that the proposed setback (of approximately 11m to the alignment of) the Great Western Highway, is not in sympathy with the existing building line (including having regard to the expansive built form of the overall development).

The application fails to demonstrate, given the history and (potential) character contribution of the existing dwelling, that retention of components of such has been explored.

Heritage It is considered that the proposal does not adequately complement or harmonise with the adjoining Heritage Item (‘Buttenshaw Park and sandstone gate posts’), including in relation to having adequate consideration to the interface and integration with


30 of 33

Likely impacts – s4.15(1)(b) Buttenshaw Park.

Vegetation removal and landscaping

The overall layout has not given sufficient regard to existing established / major trees and the retention of such across the site. Furthermore, a combined demolition and tree removal plan has not been provided, which clearly indicates all trees to be removed (and retained), and it is noted that the accompanying Site Plan and Landscape Plan contain inconsistent details in relation to tree removal / retention.

The overall development includes expansive hardstand areas (which involves the replacement of existing landscaped / vegetated areas), and does not maximise opportunities for landscaped areas, including around the perimeter of the site.

Neighbourhood amenity

The overall design does not appear to have given adequate consideration to the edge of the site alongside residential properties to the north. Furthermore, given the absence of proposed finished ground levels over the site, it is unclear whether the proposal maintains existing privacy levels within the locality.

Internal amenity A detailed Fencing Plan has not been provided, clearly depicting all proposed fencing. Accordingly, the level of amenity to be afforded by the ‘private’ courtyards / private open space areas is unclear.

Given the absence of proposed finished ground levels over the site, the level of amenity to be afforded by each of the residences is unclear.


Access management arrangements (i.e. gates / intercom etc.) to the site are unclear.

Stormwater drainage

A contractual agreement to grant a Drainage Easement burdening the adjoining property at No. 3 Churchill Place and the design for the associated pipe have not been provided.

The inter-allotment drainage pipe, detention tank in the north eastern corner and the pipework along the eastern boundary, all have the potential to affect trees on Council land and within the adjoining property, though the accompanying Arborist Report does not refer to the proposed stormwater works.

The proposed landscaping does not appear to have taken into account the proposed stormwater works. The accompanying Landscape Plan shows significant shrub and other planting over a detention tank, which is designed to have a concrete slab top.

Suitability of the site for the development – s4.15(1)(c)

Site suitability The site is considered to be unsuitable for the scale of the overall development as proposed.

Submissions – s4.15(1)(d)

Notification and / or exhibition

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part H (Public Participation) of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015 and the requirements under the Environmental Planning and


31 of 33


Notification and / or exhibition Assessment Regulations.

Notification The application was advertised in the Blue Mountains Gazette for 14 days, from 6 November 2019 until 20 November 2019. Written notification was also sent to adjoining and nearby properties. 15 submissions were received as a result of this process.

Following is a summary of the issues raised and comments in response to such.

Issue Comment

1. Inadequate site analysis documentation

The accompanying site analysis does not contain the information required by Clause 18 of the Seniors Housing SEPP.

2. Demolition of a dwelling of high historical value and character contribution

Given the history and (potential) character contribution of the existing dwelling, it is expected that retention of components of such need to be explored and that any redevelopment of the site examine the ability to incorporate central portions of the existing dwelling. The application fails to demonstrate that retention of components of the existing dwelling has been explored and it is considered that this issue is a valid concern.

3. Heritage related impacts

While the site does not consist of a Heritage Item and is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area, the site is located in the vicinity of a Heritage Item (listed within Part 1 of Schedule 5), identified as ‘Buttenshaw Park and sandstone gate posts’ (item No. SP009).

It is considered that the proposal does not adequately complement or harmonise with the adjoining Heritage Item (‘Buttenshaw Park and sandstone gate posts’), including in relation to having adequate consideration to the interface and integration with Buttenshaw Park.


It is considered that this issue is a valid concern.

4. Streetscape and character

The proposal is considered to represent a considerable over development of the site and is likely to have an adverse impact on the built and landscape character of the locality. The overall development provides for an expansive built form and expansive hardstand areas, and it is considered that the setbacks to the northern site boundary (to residential premises), the eastern site boundary (to Buttenshaw Park) and to the Great Western Highway, are insufficient to maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character.


5. Loss of trees and associated impacts

It is considered that the overall layout has not given sufficient regard to existing established / major trees and the retention of such across the site and the overall layout does not maximise opportunities for landscape plantings.



32 of 33


Notification and / or exhibition


6. Interface with Buttenshaw Park

It is considered that the proposal does not adequately complement, harmonise or integrate with Buttenshaw Park, including given that the proposed overall fencing, finished ground levels and retaining wall details have not been provided. Accordingly, it is considered that this issue is a valid concern.

7. Uncertainty regarding boundary fencing

The proposed overall fencing is unclear. A detailed Fencing Plan has not been provided, clearly depicting all proposed fencing. Accordingly, it is considered that this issue is a valid concern.

8. Privacy impacts of adjoining residential premises to the north

The proposed finished ground levels over the site are unclear and associated details of the proposed retaining walls have not been provided. Accordingly associated privacy impacts upon the adjoining residential premises to the north are unable to be determined.

Furthermore in this regard, it is noted that the raising of ground levels in the vicinity of the northern boundary is has the potential to significantly compromise the privacy levels afforded to the adjoining residential premises to the north.


9. Potential ongoing noise related impacts


10. Impact upon traffic flows and associated traffic / pedestrian safety matters

The application was referred to both Transport for NSW (formerly Roads and Maritime Services) and Council’s Principal Development Engineer for comment, and it is noted that no concerns were raised in relation to impacts upon traffic flows or associated traffic safety matters.

Furthermore it is noted that the proposal provides vehicular access to the site from Churchill Street, away from the intersection with the Great Western Highway, and assessment of the proposal has found such to be consistent with relevant traffic safety and traffic efficiency requirements of Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

11. Vehicular access / driveway crossing

While the location of vehicular access to the site (being from Churchill Street, away from the intersection with the Great Western Highway) is considered to be suitable, it is noted that the existing vehicular crossing requires widening / reconstruction. Despite this it is noted that details through the vehicular crossing and driveway from the centreline of Churchill Street to at least 6m inside the property boundary, have not been provided.

12. Garbage truck manoeuvring

Turning path diagrams have not been provided demonstrating that waste collection vehicles will be able to adequately enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

13. Lack of on-site car parking

In accordance with Clause 50 (h) (i) of the Seniors Housing SEPP, Development Consent cannot be refused (on car parking grounds), if at least 0.5 of a car space for each bedroom (where the development application is made by a person other than a social housing provider) is provided. The overall layout includes 34


33 of 33


Notification and / or exhibition bedrooms, thereby constituting a car parking space rate requirement of 17 spaces, and a total of 21 car parking spaces are provided.

14. Ability to drain (the proposed development) from the site across a downstream private property

A contractual agreement to grant a Drainage Easement burdening the adjoining property at No. 3 Churchill Place and the design for the associated pipe have not been provided. It is considered that this issue is a valid concern.

15. Construction related impacts

Associated construction management related conditions, including having regard to the requirements of Part E4 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015, would need to be imposed in the event of the application being approved.

Public interest – s4.15(1)(e)

Public interest The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal is in the public interest for the reasons outlined within this report.

blue mountains local planning panel item no: 2.1 ......b) objectives for the ‘r2 low density...

Documents