ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council - 26 April 2005 19 / 39
2 <strong>to</strong> 4A Finlay Road, Turramurra
Item 19
DA1270/04
6 April 2005
even if the exceedence <strong>of</strong> the development standard were <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> acceptable on merit (see
recommended reason for refusal No.(xiv)).
Num<strong>be</strong>r <strong>of</strong> car parking spaces (cl.25J):
Only 10 visi<strong>to</strong>r parking spaces have <strong>be</strong>en provided. LEP194 requires the minimum provision <strong>of</strong> 11
visi<strong>to</strong>r parking spaces.
It is likely that the above is an error and can <strong>be</strong> amended easily, however, at present Council
requires a SEPP 1 justification for such a departure and is not able <strong>to</strong> grant consent <strong>to</strong> the
development in its absence, even if this were <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> acceptable on merit (see recommended reason
for refusal No.(viii)).
Heritage /conservation areas (cl.61D – 61I):
The site is located adjacent <strong>to</strong> a heritage listed residential dwelling at 1458 Pacific Highway. The
application is accompanied by a heritage statement addressing the impact upon this listed building.
Due <strong>to</strong> the separation distance from this heritage item (at no point closer than 25 metres) and due <strong>to</strong>
the slope <strong>of</strong> the land away from the Pacific Highway, the development will not impact upon this
item.
The only matter for concern in this regard is the proposed materials <strong>of</strong> the development. As was
noted by Council’s Urban Design Consultant, the materials proposed for the development are stark
by contrast with the surrounding, darker, brick buildings. It is therefore recommended that, should
any consent <strong>be</strong> given, the materials <strong>of</strong> the building <strong>be</strong> changed <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> more in keeping with the area
and contrast less sharply.
The application meets with the controls <strong>of</strong> 61 D – 61 I <strong>of</strong> the KPSO as amended by LEP194.
Residential zone objectives:
The development fails <strong>to</strong> satisfy the objectives for residential zones as prescri<strong>be</strong>d in clause 25D. In
particular, the following objectives have not <strong>be</strong>en met:
(a) <strong>to</strong> provide rear setbacks that ensure rear gardens are adjacent <strong>to</strong> rear gardens <strong>of</strong> other
properties and that sufficient ground area is available for tall tree planting, consistent with
the objectives <strong>of</strong> this Part;
(b) <strong>to</strong> encourage the protection <strong>of</strong> existing trees within setback areas and <strong>to</strong> encourage the
provision <strong>of</strong> sufficient viable deep soil landscaping and tall trees in rear and front gardens
where new development is carried out;
The above objectives have not <strong>be</strong>en met due <strong>to</strong>:
• The limited front and rear setbacks, which will not provide for adequate tall tree canopies;
• The insufficient amount <strong>of</strong> deep soil landscaping;
• The use <strong>of</strong> the front setback for courtyard areas; and
N:\050426-OMC-PR-03090-2 TO 4A FINLAY ROAD TURRA.doc/klithgow/39