|
Panel
Decision
|
Having
regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Local Planning Panel
refuse development application DA/4077/2022, for construction of
a 5-storey mixed use development comprising of shop top housing (4
dwellings), food and drink premises and basement level car parking to 12 Beach Parade,
Canton Beach
for the reasons detailed in Attachment 1 to the Council Assessment Report
to the Local Planning Panel meeting of 3 October 2024, subject to
additional reasons as outlined below, which shall appear as Reasons 1 and 2
of the refusal, with other reasons outlined in the Council assessment report
to follow:
1 In accordance with Clause 4.6 of
Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, the Panel is not satisfied
that the applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the maximum
Building Height development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the
circumstances of this case, nor that there are sufficient environmental
planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development
standard. The constraints of the site do not give rise to an
automatic assumption of non-compliance. Given the non-provision of
communal open space, the proposal could achieve height compliance, or much
greater height compliance, by removal of the top level and replacement with
a rooftop communal open space area. The Panel also did not agree with
the urban design analysis that the top level is visually recessive.
2 There are several non-compliances
with design guidelines within the Apartment Design Guide,
“ADG”, (given effect through SEPP (Housing) 2023), and these
are a direct result of the site constraints, particularly its size and
shape. The proposed parking access points to both streets also
results in the removal of a significant tree. The non-compliance with
the side setback/building separation controls within 3F of the ADG is not
supported. While the objectives of this guideline relate to visual
privacy, the control is also important for spatial separation between
buildings and landscaping opportunities. The resulting defensive
design compromises the design and presentation, which is likely to be
visible for some time, and even after assumed surrounding redevelopment, likely
to take some time. While the Panel notes there is no minimum
site area or site width control (nor amalgamation controls) within the
Council’s planning controls which apply to the site, which are not
uncommon elsewhere, the site constraints, various non-compliances, context
and design issues, as well as other issues outlined in Reasons for Refusal below,
would favour amalgamation of the site with the adjoining similar vacant
site to the south.
|
|
Reasons
|
As the
application is refused, the reasons for refusal are contained in the terms
of the decision, as outlined above.
The
Panel included additional reasons for refusal having regard to the nature
and constraints of the site, the surrounding context, the applicable
planning controls, the proposal itself and associated impacts.
|
