20 December 2018 - HLPP

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel. My name is Alison McCabe and I'm the chair of the panel. Before I get started, I'd just like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land and pay our respect to their elders past and present. The panel today comprises, to my immediate left, David Broyd; to my immediate right, Michael Harrison; and to my far right, Graeme Eds. Can I just ask whether we've got any apologies?

No .

Any declarations of interest?

No .

Okay. So today we've got three matters on the agenda that we'll be determining . We have an application for alterations and additions to an existing childcare centre at 114 March Street in Richmond. We have the addition of an ancillary outbuilding to an existing dwelling at 20 North Street in Windsor, and we have some internal alterations to an existing office premises in Christie Street in Windsor to put a disabled toilet into the existing premises. We'll be dealing with those matters in turn. Just for the record, so people understand, the panel's responsibility is to consider the material presented to us in an unbiased and transparent way, and we are here to make decisions in accordance with our responsibilities under the planning framework applicable to development applications.

So just a few housekeeping issues. If in the event of emergency, you're going to be directed to the nearest exit, which will be the door that you came in on. Just asking everyone to make sure their mobile phones are either turned off or turned to silent. And also just please be aware that these panel meetings are being recorded, so everything you say in a presentation will be on tape, and that the copy of the recording will be uploaded to Council's website. And again, just be aware that this may involve personal information because we might ask you where your site is and that type of thing. I don't have many people registered to speak, but I will ask at the beginning of each item whether there's anybody who wishes to speak.

But if you are speaking to the panel, it's just important that you understand there's a limit. That limit is five minutes, and we will give applicants a little bit longer if they need to respond to some issues that may have been raised. The panel may also ask questions of people. So just on that, we just expect people to observe basic common courtesy. Don't talk over each other. Don't make inappropriate comments. It's important that you address the panel. It's also important to understand this isn't a debate. It means that all presentations should be made to the panel, and the panel is interested in the issues, not interested in personalities or, you know, what's happened beforehand. It's actually our job is to understand the Issues at hand.

So with that, did I ask for conflict of interest? I did, good, thank you. Just with that, we may, in looking at these matters, so they're not terribly complex , we may hear from people and then we may adjourn to deliberate on a decision , and at the same time we may not, so I'm just letting you know that as well. So the first matter that we have in front of us is the alterations and additions to the Richmond, well, it's the Childcare Centre at March Street. Now I currently don't have anybody registered to speak, but is there anybody in the audience who is around? You are, and you are Barbara. Okay, so can Barbara come up so we can see you? So Barbara, you're the architect . Okay, do you want to have a seat?

Yep, so we can see you. Oh, there's a lectern. Is that where you go? Yeah, you'll be better there. Does that mic work? Yeah, it's fine. Just... Okay, that's good. All right, so Barbara, just so you know, we've been to the site, we've looked at the plans, we've read the Arborist report, we've read the structural engineer's report, and we've had a bit of a discussion about it. So did you want to make a presentation, or did you want to just be available to... You do have a recommendation for approval , but...

So I suppose that the rationale for where we decided to extend out the preschool was based on a number of factors. One of the main factors was that those trees were quite advanced in age, and there'd been some episodes where their big branches fallen down. And we've got a few sort of notes of, you know, correspondence between the preschool and council about concerns with branches breaking off, falling on roofs. And because of the spread of the trees, we're a bit concerned about the fact that, you know, if the branch did fall, they're quite big trees, that we've got preschool kids there. So we looked at that and thought that, you know, potentially if we could replace those trees with other trees, and then, you know, that could possibly help sort of resolve that issue.

There's other issues with those trees as well, that there's impacts on the drainage. So there's been a number of episodes where there's been a lot of the, I think they've had blockages of the toilets, so the drainage, all the plumbing and drainage has had issues. So those tree roots have actually impacted underneath the building already. So, I mean, the nearest bathroom is a bit of a way away from that external wall, so they're actually underneath. So there's already some potential damage to the existing structure with those trees. So the other reason is that we didn't want to take up any more of the open space for the kids. So it's a really beautiful preschool, and they've got a lot of open space that they can, you know, the unencumbered outdoor area.

But we didn't really want to impact on that too much. So, you know, any other area that we could have potentially extended would have been across that sort of... Garden that faces the road, but that would have impacted on overshadowing into the outdoor play areas and also just taking away more garden and more trees. So that's sort of where we sort of started with our first initial sort of design of working within that sort of area where those trees are.

Okay. Panel, questions?

I must say, as an urban designer, I am quite concerned about losing the visual amenity of the trees for the area because they're in a prominent location in the general area. And while I understand the issues that you've just raised, I do understand that the child play area is quite in excess of the regulations, and I would hope that — has there been a serious look at other locations for doing this expansion? Because for the sake of two offices and a fairly small foyer, we're losing substantial trees.

Make sure you

Yep. Okay, sorry .

The area, the extensions I think altogether is about 90 square metres. So if we took 90 square metres into the existing outdoor area, we're going to, you know, take quite a lot of space out of it. And yeah, there is excess of open space, but it's actually a really nice thing to have in the middle of Richmond, a really nice preschool with a beautiful garden like that. Like, to have that sort of garden is pretty special for a preschool. So I think that's one of the things that is particularly good about this preschool, is that, you know, it's got nice spaces for the children and lots of space. So, you know, it's quite unique. And those trees, yes, when I first went there, I looked at those trees and I went, they are beautiful trees.

But then there's also the practicality of, well, they're at an age where they're actually very advanced and they do drop branches, and that's probably the biggest concern, that, you know, they do drop fairly large branches, and there's been a lot of record with that. And with the issues with the drainage and things like that, I think that, you know, they're already doing damage to the existing building now. So, you know, to retain those trees is going to be detrimental to the preschool in the long term. And I think that we could replace some of those trees.

If I can just have a follow-up question. The arborist report, I understand, having had a look at it, is that it doesn't really say that the trees are super aged. It just says they're mature and in good health. And the issue of drainage, I think that's really a sort of technical issue that ought to be able to be resolved. Certainly the issue of dropping branches and that sort of thing, maybe rather the front of the preschool, maybe more—to me, that's more of an issue that we need to think about. So it's actually quite a conundrum for thinking about this extension.

There was, I think in the report, there was also mention that some of the trees are reliant on the other trees. So if we did have to actually cut some of the root systems of the existing trees there to stop any damage to the existing infrastructure, it could compromise the other trees as well. So they're all kind of reliant, so that's something that needs to be considered as well

So I can ask you, you're fully aware of the arborist report and the conclusion about structural strength and high retention value, and that didn't lead to any reconsideration of the building footprint?

There was three trees which had high and there was two that had low. It did have some weight, but it was also, to me, I just thought that there is a lot of history, even back in 2002 there was issues about trees, the branches falling and correspondence between the preschool. So back in 2002 they were having issues. So I think that, you know, it's just going to be an ongoing problem. And if the tree's, that's another, well, 16 years later, you know, they're a lot older, so there's more potential for more tree branches to break. So, and they're such big trees. Like if you look at the spread of them, the drip zone's way outside the footprint of that garden, so it's going out into the roadway. So there's actually some of the bitumen's lifting a little bit.

So those roots are quite aggressive. So I just think that sometimes it's better to look at whether we can replace a tree than keep something that could be doing more damage than good. So I do like trees.

It won't be the first time that Council's been asked to keep trees that are lifting up the bitumen pavement. And I'd say the tree was there before that building, so we've built a building in close proximity to quite mature trees. And I hear what some of the stuff that you're saying, but it's not backed up in what we have in front of us. So frankly , the arborist report has, I think, looked at the trees and then said they've got to go because there's a building there. Notwithstanding that it does actually identify three, definitely three of the trees in , well, four of the trees in very good health, but three of the trees in quite good health, having maturity, having significance in terms of amenity value, and having a retention value very high.

So I think what you're hearing from some of our questionings, we're having great difficulty and just wonder whether there was any serious consideration of any other alternative in terms of, you know, where you would bring children in as an entry point, whether you would split the offices, given that, you know, it looks like it's, you know, presuming the office facilities are for staff and interviewing. So you've got an entry function that I understand, and then we've got an office function and a gathering space, I think by the look of it. Whether that, you know, could have been kind of looked at elsewhere. When you first came up with your design, did we look at different ways of thinking about the building using existing undercroft area, looking at the other side where the staff room is, whether that had opportunities for putting some offices there?

I think that the main issue is that what we wanted to do is create an entry foyer at the front of the building, and we wanted to have the admin support at the front of the building to create a secure entrance point. So to put the staff areas at the back of... The site wouldn't be appropriate for maintaining a secure entrance point. They need to have a lot of visual sort of see who's coming and going, basically, and they need to have a secure point. So that was where we sort of put it because it was going to—it was a smaller footprint. We could reduce the footprint of the building, and it was also about economy as well, to look at how we could work within the roof structure. And, yeah, and then, you know, looking at working to the north of the existing building and creating the administration area there, that was also a thought.

But what it was going to do was impact on the private open space. But it was also— it's north. It's going to actually overshadow all the outdoor area, or a lot of it, so it wasn't a favourable position. So that was the rationale as to where we put the new admin area.

We understand that childcare centres need both sun and shade, and even this childcare centre, we know, has got shade cloth, and that's specifically for shade So the fact that part of the outdoor space is overshadowed by a building isn't going to be —is actually something, in terms of outdoor space, you do need spaces that are shaded.

Yeah

I don't think the regulations even, you know, talk about that.

Yeah, well, there's—I mean, they've got lots of shade structures around the area, but the area that is open, where they do get a little bit of sunlight, would be overshadowed by a building there. The other reason was to also, with T4, which is tree four, which is one of the significant ones, that's the one that's impacting on all the existing drainage. And T4 is the supporting tree for T2, I think. So I think T1, T3 and T4 are supporting T2, T3. So if we remove T4, T2 is going to be compromised. So, but T4 is probably one tree that does need to go regardless of whatever we do with this approval. So even if we do move and redesign it, T4 is probably something that we need to remove.

Well, at the moment that's not being backed up by the document that we have in front of us, so I've missed something.

It's more in probably some of the council work orders and requests.

Yeah. So again, we've been asked to look at a development application with an arborist report that seems to have formed a view that the trees can go because the building's there , and as I said, we're trying to bring together the fact that at least three of them, and they're going out to the site, it's clear that there's an amenity issue with those trees. So I think you can see where, as from our questioning, where our concern is. Just panel, is there any other discussion? Graham, did you—

Yeah, I wouldn't mind having a comment. Look, I think, Barbara, that the general gist of the conversation that you're having from the panel is that those trees are perceived as being of high value to the neighbourhood, certainly around the preschool and adjoining spaces, and it actually gives a bit of relief to that whole area rather than it just being a car park as such and intermixed with a few buildings. Certainly, I take your point in regard to tree roots and things, and those things can become controlled. There are tree root systems that can be put in, and we've done those or recommended for those in other historic sites and other locations. But I think, yes, there are potentially other alternatives as far as design goes that would actually allow for the retention of— Those significant trees and also fulfil the requirements that you're talking of.

And I guess the only other thing, as Allison was saying, we've got to look at the documents in front of us, and the sort of explanation that I believe you're giving now isn't really reflected in the documents that we have in front of us to form part of the assessment.

So unless, Les, did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Because I'm inclined to start to wrap it up and for us to make a decision.

I think that, yeah. So, I suppose one of the issues as well is that we have to look at the preschool and the development of the preschool, and the preschool is actually... Yeah, so. Yeah, we're not going to go through, like basically they're natives, they're gums, it's fairly obvious that they contribute to the character of that area. So, and, you know, you'd appreciated working in the development

Industry that . . You know, it's incumbent on applications to kind of try and retain significant vegetation, and that doesn't mean they have to be threatened species or ecologically endangered in any way, shape or form.

I ask my just comment. I think it's worthwhile putting on record that there's elements of submissions here for justification that we have not got before us, and maybe it wasn't part of the original application either. So there's more information come forward from you than we have before us, and that's important for us to obviously have on the record to make a decision.

I

Think the other thing is that, again, part of the design can also deal with the safety of children and where you place buildings and where you place entrances to the facility as well. And as I said, those trees have probably been there before the building was built, so it's been located in a particular way. And branch drop from gums, I don't think is a new thing. So

I think we just, as I said, got to be a bit careful about that and dealing with that

In terms of a design function as well .

The actual parking area for the preschool to get to the actual existing entrance, there's a pathway under those trees. So if— If we are going to keep those trees there, maybe we have to relook at the entrance. There's a lot of impact on doing that for a safety issue, so it means that we have to basically revisit and look at budgets and how we're going to actually deal with the whole development of that preschool. So it's fairly substantial.

Okay, thanks for that. Panel, are you any other comments, or? No. Okay, well, I'm going to move something from the chair in terms of, I think from my point of view, we haven't got in front of us any exploration of other options. We seem to be losing five very healthy trees, or three, sorry, three very healthy and significant trees, and not a lot of documentation in terms of how any attempt has been made to keep any of them. It just seems to be an approach that we've got an identified area of where an extension to a building would go in perhaps in a most cost-effective way, and as a result of that, five trees have to come out. So at this stage, I'm going to put a recommendation as follows. One, that DA 0225/18 for alterations and additions to the existing childcare facility at 114 March Street, Richmond, be deferred for the submission of amended...

Plans that: A , provide for the retention and ongoing health of T1 to T4. This will require the relocation of the proposed additions. Two, on receipt of the amended plans, a further report be prepared and submitted to the local planning panel. The reasons for this motion is that, one, T1 and T4 are in good health, mature trees, and have a high amenity and retention value that contributes to the visual amenity of the area and are worthy of retention. And two, the development as proposed adversity impacts upon this amenity. So that's the motion. Do I have a seconder?

Okay,

David seconded. Any other discussion? The only point there, that's — I'm going to put that to a vote, but there is the opportunity for you to demonstrate, to do further information. But at the moment, based on our assessment of the site and the proposal, is we think that T1 to T4 probably should be kept. And as I said, we're looking at you coming back to us with a revised plan. So with that, I'll put that recommendation. Those all those in favour? Aye. All those against? I declare that carried. So that application's been deferred for amended plans to address the tree retention issue. So moving on to...

Item 2, which is the proposed outbuilding at 20 North Street in Windsor. Now, Rebecca Zirk— Rebecca, did you want to—I've got you registered to speak. Did you want to come up to the table ? That's fine. Yep, yep, that's fine. You just get a name change, did you? Okay. So, as I said at the beginning, we've been out to the site and had a good look at the plans and understand what's being proposed. We've also had council prepare—and there may be a question on this—but we've also had council prepare an addendum for us to deal with a SEPP 55, which is remediation of land for potential contamination. So we'll be taking that into consideration as well. So did you want to tell us anything or make a presentation? No,

All I really wanted to say was that—

Can you just make sure that is on.

We agree with the report and the recommendations and have read through and accept the conditions of consent, and we're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay. Rightio. Panel, any questions? Just, yep.

I'd just ask Donna, please, if there's clarification about the colour schedule and its dating and record ID that we can incorporate into the consent conditions.

It was just noted for the colour schedule, because I list that in the approved plans, that it wasn't dated or authored. So the panel had suggested that the date that I use is the date that it was lodged. Probably it might be a recommendation or a good practice that from now on that we look at having a date on all the documentation as well as the plans, so that when we do reference them, like the waste management plan and the colour schedule, that it just provides a bit more clarification when it goes into the report. So I'm happy to run with the date that it was lodged if you guys are happy with that.

Any other questions? Graham.

I don't have a question as such, rather than a statement, I suppose. I've actually discussed this within the panel and I guess as an outbuilding, it is what it is. It doesn't excite me as far as its architecture is concerned. But I guess in an R2 zone, then we really can't, I don't think we have the means to request anything, any amendment in that regard. I'll leave it to other panel members and to discuss that further.

Okay, well I think the issue here is the majority of the site is zoned RU2, which is the rural landscape, so it actually is a rural landscape zone, and having been to the site, its context is pretty rural. The residential area is to the, and I won't get my directions right, it's probably to the west, yeah, west, west, to the west. So its context is actually rural in character. Yes, the building's not going to win any architectural awards, but it is fairly typical of, I would say, a farm shed. Probably, just what, in terms of the storage, what's it going to be storing?

Fair enough. Other than, as I said, it's a building that is pretty typical of a rural area. So, as I said, it's not going to win awards, but as I said, it's not particularly offensive. So unless there's any other discussion, what I'm going to do is, again, I'll move the recommendation in the report subject to condition 1B in terms of the colour schedule referencing the date that it was received, which is the 20th of the 3rd, 2018. So it's clear that the proposal is to be in a woodland grey, so we don't finish up with a white building or something like that. And I do note that there is a landscape plan that is actually looking at putting landscaping on the residential side and along the street frontage, which is important as well.

So with that, I'm moving the recommendation with that amendment, but also just the amendment at the end of the conditions that there's some proposed statements of reasons for the determination. And I'll say that we would accept four of the five ones. I would say that we would delete the reference to the reason being the proposal was not determined to be notified under Hawkesbury Development Control Plan and no community submissions were received. That's not a reason that we would have included. Just because something doesn't get submissions doesn't mean it's necessarily always appropriate to approve. So that would be another amendment to the document. So with that, moving the recommen

Yeah,

I think it's, yeah, we know, we know. It said , I'm prepared to move the recommendation subject to the amendment to condition 1B referencing the date received and the deletion of that reason being no submissions. Do I have a seconder? Yep. Okay, Michael seconded it. I'll put that. Any other discussion? All those in favour? Aye. All those against? I declare that carried. You have an approval for your shed and outbuilding Thank you. Moving on to item...

Three, which is the disabled toilet internal alterations to the Johnson Wing in Christie Street, Windsor, for a disabled or accessible toilet at the first floor level. I don't have anybody registered to speak. This is very straightforward. I don't think there's any need to have an in-depth discussion about it. We've been to the site, we understand what it is. The report dealt with the issues. I think with that, I'm probably just going to, again from the Chair, move the recommendation in the report, subject to, again, the change to the reasons and deleting the reference. The last reason being it wasn't required to be notified and no community submissions were received. Other than that, move the recommendation with that change.

Do I have a seconder? Thank you, David, seconded. All those in favour? Aye. All those against? I declare that carried. So that's approved the internal changes to allow for the accessible toilet. So with that, that was a fairly short and sharp agenda. Most of the matters, or two of the matters, were fairly straightforward. I'll thank Council staff for their assistance, and I will declare the meeting closed. Thank you.