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

Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council - 26 April 2005 20 / 32
1 & 1A Lamond Drive, 1444 &
1444A Pacific Highway,
Turramurra
Item 20
DA1099/04
13 April 2005
This fails <strong>to</strong> satisfy the development standard contained in Clause 25I 1(2) <strong>of</strong> LEP 194 which
requires sites with an area <strong>of</strong> 1,800m 2 or more <strong>to</strong> have deep soil landscaping for at least 50% <strong>of</strong> the
site area.
A SEPP 1 objection has not <strong>be</strong>en submitted <strong>to</strong> justify why it is unreasonable and unnecessary <strong>to</strong>
apply the standard in this instance. Accordingly, in the absence <strong>of</strong> a SEPP 1 objection, Council
cannot legally approve the application even it were considered <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> acceptable in this regard,
notwithstanding the non-compliance. (See Reason for Refusal No 1.1)
Maximum num<strong>be</strong>r <strong>of</strong> s<strong>to</strong>reys and ceiling height (Clause 25k)
Clause 25k allows a concession in height (up <strong>to</strong> an additional 3 metres) and up <strong>to</strong> 1 additional
s<strong>to</strong>rey over not more than 75% <strong>of</strong> the footprint <strong>of</strong> the development on sites that have slopes greater
than 15%.
The proposal satisfies this standard as only 20.6% <strong>of</strong> the footprint utilises this height and s<strong>to</strong>rey
concession.
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:
(b)
(c)
(e)
<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;
<strong>to</strong> provide side setbacks that enable effective landscaping, tree planting <strong>be</strong>tween buildings,
separation <strong>of</strong> buildings for privacy and views from the street <strong>to</strong> rear landscaping,
<strong>to</strong> provide built upon area controls <strong>to</strong> protect the tree canopy <strong>of</strong> Ku-ring-gai, and <strong>to</strong> ensure
particularly the provision <strong>of</strong> viable deep soil landscaping in order <strong>to</strong> maintain and improve the
tree canopy in a sustainable way, so that tree canopy will <strong>be</strong> in scale with the built form,
The above objectives have not <strong>be</strong>en met due <strong>to</strong>:
• The front and side setbacks <strong>be</strong>ing inadequate <strong>to</strong> allow for the replenishment <strong>of</strong> the tree
canopy; (Refer Reasons for Refusal Nos 2.3 and 2.5)
• The insufficient amount <strong>of</strong> deep soil landscaping; (Refer Reason for Refusal No 2.1)
• The impact on significant trees; (Refer Reason for Refusal No 3)
• The use <strong>of</strong> the front setback <strong>to</strong> Lamond Drive and the Pacific Highway for courtyard areas
and (Refer Reasons for Refusal Nos 2.4 and 2.5)
• The length <strong>of</strong> the front elevation (at 72 metres) without substantial articulation. (Refer
Reason for Refusal No 2.2)
POLICY PROVISIONS
N:\050426-OMC-PR-03122-1 1A LAMOND DRIVE 1444.doc/cswanepoel/32