JRPP Decision about DA 1305

The following is the full text of the JRPP's decision on this applcation:

The task of the panel at this meeting is to consider both the planning merits of this application and the relationship to character and amenity and the significant need for affordable housing. The Panel has visited the site and notes the existing character of the area and the zoning that supports it. The Panel notes that this site has particular attributes for the supply of affordable housing and accepts the pressing need for this accommodation, a true public interest application supported by the State government and it’s SEPP. Whilst the Panel's view is that the application is not approvable in its current form, it may, with amendments be capable of addressing the unsatisfactory planning design issues.

By following the topography of this site, Building 3, stepping the building down from 5 storeys, to 3, to 2 - the design has dealt better with height and bulk. This design feature has not been employed for Building 2 which places 5 storeys across the site, in the vicinity of 2 and 1 storey neighbouring residences which is unsatisfactory in terms of the relationship with the neighbouring Hannah Street properties.

The Panel will defer the determination to allow the applicant to amend the application, should it choose to do so, by submitting plans within one month which address the above issues and will make a determination upon receipt of these plans once assessed by council.

We recommend that the applicant meet with council planning officers to consider how the above matters of concern might be addressed and in addition to look at the following specific matters:

1. The relationship between Building 1 and 15 Hannah Street - the impact of the driveway, the batter, the height and materials of the fence and where it is to be placed, and the position of screen planting;

2. The relationship between Building 2, and 15 and 17 Hannah Street properties in

terms of overlooking of house and garden - the Panel also finds the rear balconies

where now placed to be unsatisfactory in those terms;

3. Reconsideration of the need for the through site driveway for the traffic and the

ability for increased landscaping in that area of the eastern side of Buildings 2 and

3;

4. The Panel remains concerned about disabled access to the shops and require it to

be further considered and improved.

5. The Panel notes the dissatisfaction of the council engineer with the information

provided about drainage matters.

6. Overlooking from lobbies and corridors of Building 3 to the rear of properties in

Copeland Road remains unsatisfactory and impact should be ameliorated.