21 June 2018 - HLPP

The panel's had the opportunity to, as I said, consider this matter, and we've heard from a lot of people today, and that's been very helpful in terms of our understanding of the application. Very early on, the panel has had a number of concerns with the application and the way it's been formulated, and probably around, one, the intensity of the development, but the way traffic and parking, the actual conservation outcomes, the safety of the site, and how this actually functions as a use in what is quite a constrained site . We do understand that the application has been in for some time, but what has come in front of us has just raised far too many questions from our point of view. So today we're not in a position to adopt the recommendation that Council officers have put in front of us.

In fact, our view is that the current application really isn't suitable for the site, and that our view is that the application in its current form should be refused, mainly because there's a lot of question marks over whether or not the site can actually accommodate a function centre of 100 people and do that safely from an amenity point of view, from a traffic and parking point of view, and from a conservation and heritage point of view. I think the application as currently lodged raises a whole heap more questions than it answers at the present time. So having regard to those comments, I'm going to put a resolution that the panel unanimously resolve that Development Application DA 07/03/17 for construction of a car park and the use of the former St Joseph's Church as a function centre at 1029 St Albans Road, Lower McDonald be refused for the following reasons.

One, the proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Clause 5.10.10 of the Hawkesbury LEP 2012.

Two, that the site is not suitable for the scale or intensity of the development proposed. Three, that the proposed development fails to demonstrate sufficient parking to meet the requirements of the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2002 or Australian Standards. Four, the location of the car park to the east of the church adversely impacts upon the curtilage and heritage value of the site. Five, that the application fails to demonstrate a safe means of entry to and egress from the site to St Albans Road. Six, the intensity of development results in unacceptable amenity impacts. Seven, insufficient information has been provided in respect to road works and earthworks required, car parking layout and construction, swept paths for vehicles entry and exiting the site, including delivery and service vehicles, plans of management, including traffic plan of management, bushfire plan of management and flood management, and means of effluent disposal.

This means that the impacts of the development cannot be properly assessed. And eight, the plans provided with the application do not provide sufficient information in relation to the extent of conservation works proposed, the operation of the function centre and the integration of the previous consent DA 0642/15 . I'm just going to put that resolution to the panel. All those in favour? Aye. That resolution is carried, and the application in its current form has been refused for those reasons. As I said previously, this is a difficult decision for the panel, but based on the information in front of us at the moment, as I said, the application in its current form just raises a whole heap of questions and actually doesn't answer those fundamental aspects of understanding the exact impacts of the development and whether or not the site can actually accommodate the scale and form and the functions that are needed for that development to occur.

So that's the reasons for our decision. Thank you very much. Thank you to Council officers for all their assistance, and thank you for the patience and submissions made by everyone to the panel today. And with that, I will close the meeting. Thank you.