BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ITEM NO: 2.3 – 16 ...€¦ · BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL - ITEM NO. 2.3- 16 SEPTEMBER 2019 . 2 of 34 . 2015. 5. It has not been demonstrated

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

ITEM NO: 2.3 – 16 SEPTEMBER 2019

1 of 34

ITEM No. 2.3

REPORT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION No. X/505/2019 for construction of a tourist hotel with 36 accommodation suites, basement car parking and landscaping at 198-204 Leura Mall, LEURA NSW 2780

Reasons for report The proposal contravenes a standard imposed by an environmental planning instrument by more than 10%, and

The proposal meets the definition of contentious development (10 or more unique submissions), and

The proposal is classified as sensitive development (demolition of a heritage item).

DETERMINATION That Development Application X/505/2019 for construction of a tourist hotel with 36 accommodation suites, basement car parking and landscaping at 198-204 Leura Mall, Leura, be determined in accordance with s4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, by the refusal of consent.

Reasons for refusal 1. The development does not comply with the floor space ratio of 0.4:1 applying to the land under Clause 4.4 of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015.

2. Consent cannot be granted as the development application is not supported by a clause 4.6 request to vary the floor space ratio control.

3. Consent cannot be granted as the development requires the concurrence of WaterNSW under Clause 11 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking water Catchment) 2011 and this concurrence has not been provided.

4. The development is not a satisfactory design response to the heritage and character attributes of the site and location, and does not meet or comply with:

a) Objectives 3(c) and 3(e) in Clause 7.8 of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 which relate to Leura Precinct R1-LE03

b) Clause 5.10 of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2019

c) Clause 6.19 of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2019

d) Part D1 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015

e) Clause G7.3 C12 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015

f) Clause G7.3 C13 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL - ITEM NO. 2.3- 16 SEPTEMBER 2019

2 of 34

2015.

5. It has not been demonstrated that the stormwater drainage system has a workable design, meets requirements for water sensitive urban design, and will avoid having an adverse impact on the local catchment. The development application does not therefore comply with Clause 6.9 of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 and Part C6 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

6. It has not been demonstrated the development will avoid having an adverse impact on the surrounding traffic network, intersections, parking and safe access, as required by Part D2 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

7. The development does not provide adequate on-site parking for the size of the development and does not comply with Part E2.2 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

8. It has not been demonstrated the extent and depth of excavation will avoid having an adverse impact on ground water and the structural integrity of the heritage dwelling. The development application is therefore inconsistent with Clause 6.14 of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 and Part C6.3 of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015.

9. It has not been demonstrated the development is suitably designed for waste storage and collection, in accordance with Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015 Part E6.4.

10. It has not been demonstrated the sewerage system has adequate capacity to service the development, in accordance with Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 Clause 6.23(1).

11. The proposed development is not in the public interest, having regard to the reasons above.

Disclosure Disclosure of any political donation and/or gift – No

Declaration of interest Nil

Report authors Brian Mercer, Senior Planner Alex Williams, Manager – Development & Building Services

Report authoriser William Langevad, Director – Environment & Planning Services

PART 1 Development proposal

PART 2 Council assessment

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL - ITEM NO. 2.3 – 16 SEPTEMBER 2019

3 of 34

PART 1: Development proposal

Applicant Kingsford Property Development Pty Ltd

Land owner Kingsford Property Development Pty Ltd

Location 198-204 Leura Mall, LEURA NSW 2780

Lot & DP L 1 DP 201282

Date lodged 25-Jun-2019

Value of works $5,921,907.00

Proposal in detail The development proposal seeks approval for the construction of a hotel for the primary purpose of tourist and visitor accommodation. The development comprises the following elements:

• 36 accommodation suites in a single building

• Contemporary / modern design

• 3 storeys over a basement car park

• 27 car parking spaces and 1 delivery / loading space

• Reception area

• Café with indoor / outdoor seating for 24 patrons / guests

• Lounge area for 50 guests

• Change of use of existing dwelling house for hotel accommodation, containing 4 bedrooms

• Total of 40 bedrooms / accommodation suites accommodating up to 80 guests

• Demolition of outbuilding

• Removal of 15 trees

• Landscaping

• 24/7 hotel operation, 6am to 8pm café operation

Departure or variation to LEP development standard

The proposal exceeds the floor space ratio development standard by 75%.

The applicant has not lodged a request to vary the development standard.

Departure or variation to DCP provisions

The applicant is seeking to vary the following provisions:

• Building width


4 of 34

• Cut and fill

Supporting documentation

The application is supported by:

o Architectural plans

o Architectural design statement

o Statement of environmental effects

o External colour schedule

o Concept stormwater drainage plan

o Landscape plan

o Heritage report

o Accessibility report

o Acoustic report

o National Construction Code Report

o Section J Report

o Traffic report

o Arborist report

o Geotechnical investigation report

o Shadow diagrams

o Site contamination report

o Waste management strategy

o Quantity surveyor cost report

Documentation online Plans to scale and key documents lodged with the application can be viewed online. Go to www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/development – Track and View applications. Search and select X/505/2019.

Reduced site and elevation plans are below.

https://www2.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/DATracking/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?os=y&

http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/development


5 of 34

Site plan


6 of 34

Elevation plan


7 of 34


8 of 34

PART 2: Council assessment 2.1 Overview and summary of issues

Location 198-204 Leura Mall, LEURA NSW 2780

Lot & DP L 1 DP 201282

Zoning Zone R1 General Residential under LEP 2015

Characterisation of use Hotel or motel accommodation

Permissibility The proposed development is permissible with consent within the zone

Existing use rights The proposed development does not rely on existing use rights

Type of development Local / concurrence

Applicable environmental planning instruments

o State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

o State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment)

o Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy 20: Hawkesbury-Nepean River

o Local Environmental Plan 2015

o Development Control Plan 2015

Applicable additional local provisions

o Heritage item LA008 – Culgoa

o Stormwater management

o Earthworks

o Consideration of character and landscape

o Sustainable resource management

o Essential services

Applicable additional local clauses – development in villages

o Development in villages

o Leura Precinct R1-LE03 – Southern Tourist Precinct

Bushfire prone land The site is not identified as “bushfire prone land” on the Bushfire Prone Land Map verified by the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service for the Blue Mountains Local Government Area

Heritage significance The property is listed as a local heritage item.

The property is not located within a heritage conservation area.

Aboriginal significance No Aboriginal objects are recorded or Aboriginal places declared in or near the


9 of 34

subject property.

Potentially contaminated land

The land is not listed on the Council’s potentially contaminated land register.

Site description The site comprises a single allotment of land having an area of approx. 2453m². The land is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage of 41.45m to Leura Mall. The rear section of the lot is approximately 3.5m wider than the front section of the lot due to an irregular lot configuration. The rear boundary has frontage to a public pathway linking Megalong Street and Craigend Street.

Erected on the land is a single story weatherboard cottage having local historical and heritage value. The land falls approx. 4m in height from the front north-western corner to the rear south-eastern corner. Vegetation consists of formal landscaped gardens with mature exotic trees.

The site is located approx. 60m south of the Leura Mall shopping precinct and approx. 275m south of Leura Railway Station. Surrounding land uses consist of a mix of single dwelling residential, commercial and retail developments, a place of worship, a fire brigade station and the Ritz Nursing Home.

The local character is predominantly late 19th and early 20th century residential buildings in established landscaped settings and commercial buildings.

Development history / background

“Culgoa” is one of the earliest residences in Leura, constructed in 1896 as a country retreat by Sir William Cullen, politician, Federalist, barrister and Chief


10 of 34

Justice of New South Wales.

The current allotment containing Culgoa was created by a subdivision in 1960 which divided the original land parcel to create Lot 1 & Lot 2 DP 201282 having areas of approx. 2453m² and 455m² respectively. In 1963 Lot 2 was incorporated into a re-subdivision of the St Albans Church land to form the current church land holding at 137A Megalong Street.

Development consent D96/0785 was granted on 26 September 1996 for change of use of the dwelling to a dental surgery.

Development consent X/570/2006 was granted on 15 December 2006 for change of use to a general store.

Development consent X/30/2018 was granted on 20 March 2018 for alterations and refurbishment to convert the use back to a dwelling.

Pre-lodgement advice application O/1909/2018 was made on 30 October 2019 for a hotel proposal. The application was held pending receipt of advice from the applicant’s heritage consultant. The advice was not provided and the applicant subsequently withdrew the application on 2 April 2019.

City wide infrastructure contribution

The Citywide infrastructure contribution applies.

Referral authorities o WaterNSW

o Sydney Water

Notification period The application was notified to adjoining owners and published in the local paper for the period 10 July 2019 to 24 July 2019.

Number of submissions 11 submissions were received.

Summary of issues raised

Issues raised:

o Architecturally out of character

o Over-development of site

o Traffic

o Parking

o Operational noise

o Tree removal

Summary of assessment issues

Key issues determined in the assessment are:

o LEP savings provisions

o Floor space ratio


11 of 34

o Building form, scale, bulk and character

o Building width

o Heritage impact

o Traffic, parking and vehicle access

o Stormwater management

o Geotechnical investigation

o Sewer capacity

Assessment issues are detailed below.

Correspondence to applicant

Following a preliminary assessment of the proposal the applicant was formally notified by letter on 26 July 2019 that the application could not be supported in its present form due to the significant nature of non-compliances and inadequacies in design and documentation. Determinative non-compliances were found to be present in floor space ratio, and building width, form and character. Inadequacies in information were found to include traffic, parking, vehicle access, stormwater design and management, geotechnical investigation and waste management.

Substantial amendments were found to be necessary to progress the proposal towards a development suitable for a positive recommendation. Council therefore requested the application be withdrawn by 2 August 2019 while amendments to the proposal were in negotiation.

The applicant has not withdrawn the application as of the date of this Report.

2.2 Discussion of issues

Discussion of Issues

The following issues are determinative for the application.

1. LEP Savings Provisions

When the application was lodged on 25 June 2019 Blue Mountains LEP 2005 was the in force planning instrument applying to the land. At the same time Draft Amendment 1 to LEP 2015 applied to the land as a Deferred Matter. Then on 28 June 2019, three days after the application was lodged, Amendment 1 was gazetted and the in force planning instrument applying to the land became LEP 2015.

The NSW Court of Appeal decision in Wingebarribee v De Angelis on 1 August 2016 found that, unless an amending LEP includes its own savings clause, LEP clause 1.8A applies only to those development applications lodged before the commencement of the original LEP (in this case 15 February 2016 for LEP 2015). Amendment 1 to LEP 2015 does not contain its own savings provisions and an alternative mechanism is not in place or intended to enable the proposal to be determined under LEP 2005. The application must therefore be assessed and determined according to the provisions of LEP 2015.

The proposed development does not address the provisions of LEP 2015. Unfortunately the proposal does


12 of 34

Discussion of Issues not comply with LEP 2015 in terms of floor space ratio and other standards.

The breach of the FSR development standard under LEP 2015 (see below) needs to be supported by a clause 4.6 request. No such request has been provided.

2. Floor Space Ratio

The LEP 2015 Floor Space Ratio Map shows a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.4:1 applies to the land. Clause 4.4(2) of LEP 2015 provides that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the ratio specified. An FSR did not previously apply to the land under LEP 2005.

Clause 4.5 of the LEP defines floor space ratio as meaning the ratio of the gross floor area of all buildings within the site to the site area. Gross floor area is defined in the LEP Dictionary.

The application’s Project Information Plan shows the combined FSR of the new building and existing building is 0.7:1. Council’s measurement of the gross floor area on the plans indicates the stated FSR is accurate.

The proposed FSR varies significantly from the development standard and the application does not include a variation request under clause 4.6 of the LEP. The variation represents a significant over-development of the site with no clearly evident environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard.

Compliance with the development standard in clause 4.4(2) is not unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case having regard to the following:

a) Compliance with the development standard ensures that the bulk of the development is not excessive and relates well to the local context;

b) The visibility of the site from surrounding public places and neighbouring properties; and

c) Maintaining established trees and a landscape setting consistent with the locality.

Compliance with the standard is necessary to achieve Precinct objectives for appropriate scale, bulk and architectural character.

The proposed FSR therefore cannot be supported in the circumstances.

3. Building form, scale, bulk and character

3.1 Design excellence

The development does not deliver a form and external appearance that is compatible with the built character of the traditional building forms in the locality, and as a consequence does not meet the objective for design excellence in LEP 2015 Clause 6.19(1).

3.2 Precinct objectives

The proposal does not meet Objectives 3(c), 3(e) and 3(g) of Leura Precinct R1-LE03 of LEP 2015 Clause 7.1 and 7.8 as commented on below:

3(c) To maintain and enhance the historical distinctive pattern of detached pattern cottages that are surrounded by gardens…

Comment: The scale and bulk of the proposed 3 storey building does not fit this pattern.

… by conserving existing trees that provide visually significant streetscape features…

Comment: The proposal intends to remove most of the established trees.

…and ensuring that landscape complements and extends the established pattern of tall canopy trees that are located primarily along side and rear property boundaries.


13 of 34


Comment: The built footprint from boundary to boundary will not allow for any complementary large trees.

3(e) To promote new buildings that are consistent or compatible with the scale, bulk and architectural character of existing houses and cottages.

Comment: The proposed new building is inconsistent with the scale, bulk and architectural character of existing historic houses and cottages in the area.

3(g) To provide on-site parking that does not dominate the street frontage.

Comment: The proposed underground car parking entry point will dominate the street frontage.

3.3 DCP 2015 Precinct character controls

Clause G7.3 C12 requires that:

… new development is to be sympathetic to nearby traditional building forms and materials.

Comment: The form of the new building and its external materials are significantly different to the neighbouring buildings which exhibit a traditional early 20th century form and external construction.

Clause G7.3 C13 requires that

Buildings are not to exceed 18m width or depth in any direction.

Comment:

The proposed hotel building has a width of 19m and a length of 35m.

Control C13 works together with control C12 which requires that new development is to be sympathetic to nearby traditional building forms, for the purpose of meeting Objective 3(e) of Leura Precinct R1-LE03 of LEP 2015 Clause 7.8, which is to promote new buildings that are consistent or compatible with the scale, bulk and architectural character of existing houses and cottages.

The applicant seeks a variation to the provision on the basis that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

• The length of the building is a contextual response to the site owing to the location of the heritage listed dwelling.

• The location of the building to the rear of the site minimises visual impact of its length on the street and neighbouring properties and on the heritage curtilage of the dwelling.

It is considered the excessive bulk and scale arising from non-compliance with the standard does not achieve a better outcome for and from the development by allowing flexibility of the control. The application is not supported by a detailed site analysis and design options however the location of the existing dwelling does not appear to be an impediment to compliance with the standard. The location of the building at the rear of the site is not sufficient reason to justify the variation, particularly as the length of the building is highly visible from adjoining properties, some of which are heritage listed, and from the public walkway. The length of the building is uncharacteristic of neighbouring development within the Precinct.

It is considered a variation in the order of 94% cannot be supported and there are good planning and


14 of 34

Discussion of Issues character reasons why the control should be observed in this instance.

It has not been demonstrated that the development is a satisfactory design response to the built character of the location as required by LEP 2015 Clause 6.19 and DCP 2015 Part B3.1.

5. Heritage Impact The application contains a Statement of Heritage Impact which has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Adviser.

The Statement of Heritage Impact notes in its introduction that it follows the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) guideline document Statement of heritage impact which is part of the Heritage Manual, however this is not followed through within the Statement. The OEH guideline document includes 3 key questions that should be answered and a tabulation of specifics against which to weigh up the development proposal.

The submitted Statement does not address any of the 3 specific questions which include pertinent questions such as:

(i) ‘The following aspects of the proposal respect or enhance the heritage significance of the item or conservation area for the following reasons…’

(ii) ‘The following aspects of the proposal could detrimentally impact on heritage significance. The reasons are explained as well as the measures to be taken to minimise impacts…’ and

(iii) ‘The following sympathetic solutions have been considered and discounted for the following reasons: [List alternatives (especially those identified in a conservation management plan or other study) and clearly argue why these cannot be implemented.]’.

The latter is an important step to demonstrate that real efforts have been made in the design process to explore options in recognition of the significance of ‘Culgoa’, Leura Mall and the Leura village. This should have been included in the DA documentation.

The basis of the Statement and its conclusions relies on the opinion that the proposed development is located behind the existing house, trees and landscaping and will therefore not be visible. This is repeated a number of times throughout the Statement. However, the physical reality appears to be as follows:

• The majority of the existing established trees and screen planting will be removed:

o at the rear of ‘Culgoa’ resulting from the scale and siting of the new development

o on the southern side of the property resulting from the large vehicle entry and underground carpark and

o on the Leura Mall frontage of ‘Culgoa’ as shown in figure 5.1 within the Statement.

• The frontage of ‘Culgoa’ is approximately 14m wide however the width of the new building is approximately 35m wide. It is clear that ‘Culgoa’ will not conceal the proposed new development if placed “behind”.

• The frontage of 198-204 Leura Mall is 42m wide and as noted above the frontage of ‘Culgoa’ is only 14m wide. It is clear that ‘Culgoa’ will not conceal the new development when viewed from Leura Mall. The new development will be visible for more than 50% of the entire width of the allotment onto Leura Mall. The loss of landscaping will impact this issue further.

• The removal of most of the existing boundary plantings and the new landscaping will result in insufficient screening to conceal the development.


15 of 34


The heritage statement touches on the proposed design aesthetic on p24 of the document. The assessment states that “The design aesthetic of the new building is clearly contemporary and it does not seek to imitate the style or features of ‘Culgoa’. However is contrary to the Leura Precinct R1-LE03 objectives which require new buildings that are consistent or compatible with the architectural character of existing houses and cottages. The suggestion on p24 that the recessed balconies and the mansard metal roof are “subtle reflections of its context on the site of late nineteenth century residence and the rooms in the roof of the upper level reference a feature commonly associated with mountain cottage design” does not understand the Blue Mountains.

The report’s overview of potential impacts on p22 and repeated on p30 underestimates the visual impacts of the proposed development as noted above, but also places undue emphasis on the only ‘mitigating’ efforts of the project being to ensure monitoring the excavation work during construction. Mitigation of negative impacts of the architectural design has apparently not been considered as part of the assessment.

The development fails to meet Objectives (1)(a) and 1(b) of LEP 2015 Clause 5.10 which are: 1(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of the Blue Mountains,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views.

It has not been demonstrated that the development is a satisfactory design response to the heritage attributes of the site and location and will avoid having an adverse impact on heritage significance.

6. Traffic and vehicular access The application is supported by a Traffic Report which has been assessed by the Council’s Development Engineer. The Report was found to contain insufficient information on some matters and indicates some design issues, as follows:

1. The Report states that the development will not adversely impact the surrounding network or reduce the Level of Service of the intersection but no traffic counts or modelling were included to support these statements.

2. The traffic report does not address sight distance for vehicles leaving the site, given that perpendicular parking in this section of Leura Mall is likely to obscure views in both directions.

3. Inadequate information is included regarding servicing and waste removal. No laundry is shown on the plans, so pick up and drop off of significant quantities of linen will be required, as well as deliveries to the café. A van is unlikely to be adequate for these.

4. The bicycle storage facility referred in the Report is not evident on the architectural plans.

5. The Waste Management Strategy indicates that it is proposed to back the truck down the driveway and bring the bins from the waste storage area. This is not a suitable strategy, as it is unlikely that collection personnel will haul bins over 30 metres on a long term basis.

6. The application does not demonstrate compliance with DCP 2015 Part F4.3.4 Controls C3, C4, C5 and C6. The proposed vehicular crossing width of 10 metres is excessive. Because no longitudinal section through the driveway crossing from the road to inside the property was provided, it is not clear that safe vehicle movement would be possible to and from the site without vehicles scraping.

7. The documentation does not demonstrate that headroom can be maintained to the basement carpark given the load of soil over and the need for beams for bracing where there is no building over (this issue is also identified below in relation to the geotechnical report and would require advice from a structural engineer).

It has not been demonstrated that the development will avoid having an adverse impact on the surrounding


16 of 34

Discussion of Issues traffic network, intersections, parking and safe access.

7. Parking The development proposes 28 basement car parking spaces to service 36 accommodation suites, the existing dwelling, hotel staff, café patrons (guest accommodated and non-accommodated) and loading arrangements. Whilst the application describes the development as a hotel, the primary purpose of the use is accommodation for tourists and the development would be more accurately described as a motel for the purpose of calculating parking rates in the DCP. DCP 2015 Part E2.2 requires 2 spaces per 3 accommodation suites for a hotel, 1 space per accommodation suite for a motel, 2 spaces per 3 employees on duty at any time, 15 spaces per 100m² café gross floor area, 1 space for the dwelling, 1 bicycle space per 8 staff and 1 bicycle space per 40 rooms, and parking for service / delivery vehicles. The number of café parking spaces could be discounted down as complementary to the accommodation suite parking, however the application provides no details of how the cafe operates and how this might be calculated. It is highly likely that more than 2 out of 3 or 66% accommodation suites will require car parking when the establishment is at full occupancy. The Statement of Environmental Effects, on page 35, states a total of 4 employees but not their specific positions. It could be reasonably assumed a receptionist, manager, cleaner / gardener and café operator might be present on site at any one time. Council’s calculation for the required minimum number of parking spaces to Part E2.2 of the DCP is:

Accommodation suites 24 as a hotel, or 36 as a motel

Staff 3 (manager, reception, café, cleaner) Dwelling 1

Café 8 (for a gross floor area of approx. 55m²) TOTAL 36 to 48 spaces The Traffic Report incorrectly calculates the minimum number of required spaces as 28 and compliant. The Statement of Environmental Effects, on page 35, calculates 38 spaces discounted to 28 spaces on the basis the development is located in a Tourist Precinct. However Tourist Precincts generally have a high parking demand. The location experiences high parking demand in the street during business hours due to its close proximity to the Leura Town Centre and limited public parking. This has the effect of commercial staff and patron parking encroaching beyond the commercial precinct and into the neighbouring residential areas. In this case it is considered adequate on-site parking is of high importance in this location to ensure overflow parking does not contribute to existing street parking congestion. A shortfall of approx. 8 to 20 car parking spaces will result in unacceptable traffic and parking impacts in the area surrounding the proposed development, as presently occurs with respect to overflow car parking in the surrounding streets from the nearby town centre.

It has not been demonstrated that the development provides adequate on-site parking for the size of the development and does not result in overflow parking into the street.

8. Stormwater management The application is supported by a Stormwater design layout and management plan which has been assessed by the Council’s Development Engineer. The Report was found to contain insufficient information on some matters and indicates design and compliance issues, as follows: 1. The proposal does not comply with the objectives of LEP 2015, specifically Clause 6.9(2)(c), and (d)(i)

and (ii), and does not comply with many of the DCP controls, including but not limited to the following:


17 of 34

Discussion of Issues a) Does not maintain the natural hydrologic behaviour of the catchment - Part C6.1.1 O1(b).

b) Does not minimise demand on the reticulated water supply system (no rainwater retention and re-use is proposed) - Part C6.1.1 O1(d) and Part 6.1.3 C2.

c) Does not maximise on site retention and re-use of stormwater runoff - Part C6.1.3 C1.

d) Does not replicate the natural water cycle or maintain the site’s natural drainage patterns - Part C6.1.3 C6.

e) Does not preserve the natural interactions between surface and groundwater – Part C6.1.3 C6(d).

f) Does not minimise environmental impacts by ensuring measures (including subsoil drains) do not extend below the groundwater table or into bedrock - Part C6.1.3 C7(a).

g) The quantity and flow characteristics of stormwater leaving the site will be adversely altered by diverting flow into the street system, which has not been sized to accommodate this runoff. The road is higher than the properties in this section of Leura Mall, so additional flow in the gutter could cause street water to enter the properties between the site and Craigend Street.

h) The site falls naturally in a south easterly direction. The alignment of the western boundary of 6 Craigend Street may indicate the path of a former watercourse (this is shown as a blue line on two topographic maps in the Phase 1 site assessment report – sheets 93 and 96 of the document – pages 39 and 42 of Appendix C).

i) The optimum ultimate discharge point for the development would be via an interallotment drainage easement over 6 and 8 Craigend Street, connecting to the street drainage pit outside No. 4.

j) If a drainage easement could not be obtained over 6 and 8 Craigend Street, an alternative may be to seek Council’s permission to lay a pipe in the pathway at the rear. The pathway from Megalong Street to Craigend Street appears to have been intended for drainage purposes.

Other anomalies are: 2. No hydraulic grade analysis was submitted to demonstrate that the system could function.

3. The system would surcharge at the grated pits; it is not good practice to have a top water level above habitable floor level; the basement pump-out pit has not been correctly sized and it is possible that groundwater will be constantly being pumped into the gutter which is not acceptable.

4. The roof plans are not consistent with the stormwater plans, or some detail is missing. The plans do not seem to show a roof over the north eastern corner of the building (rooms 29 and 30). The stormwater plans show spreaders, but there is no lower roof shown for the discharge to spread onto. A downpipe cannot be located at the south eastern corner because the upper surface is a planted area.

5. No management of paved surface runoff is shown, which could result in water entering the lower ground floor lounge and the southern stairwell.

6. No treatment of driveway runoff is shown. This is likely to be more polluted than roof runoff (sediment, oils and grease etc).

7. The detention tank should not be modelled as a rainwater tank.

8. The first floor planters appear to have a triangular cross-section and be accessed only by a window (or externally). This is likely to be problematic in terms of maintenance and waterproofing.

It has not been demonstrated that the stormwater drainage system has a workable design, meets requirements for water sensitive urban design, and avoids having an adverse impact on the local catchment as required in LEP 2015 Clause 6.9 and Clause 6.23(1)(d).

9. Geotechnical and contamination investigation


18 of 34

Discussion of Issues The application is supported by a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report and a Phase 1 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment Report which have been assessed by the Council’s Development Engineer. The Geotechnical Report is inadequate and does not provide the information listed below. The Phase 1 Site Assessment also appears to contain conflicting groundwater information. 1. The geotechnical report has not addressed Part C6.3 of the DCP – Groundwater. It is possible that the

basement excavation would intercept a water table and require temporary and possibly permanent dewatering. The requirement for an aquifer interference approval would make the development integrated to WaterNSW.

2. The depth of investigation is insufficient (less than 1.5 metres, when up to 5 metres of excavation is proposed).

3. Proximity of excavation to the heritage building and site boundaries is not addressed.

4. Protection of the southern wall of the heritage building by underpinning may not be practicable due to the proximity of excavation.

5. The Geotechnical Report does not state that the excavation (including installation of any temporary or permanent anchors) can be carried out without adverse effect due to vibrations (the residence is weatherboard, but the substructure is masonry).

6. The documentation does not demonstrate that headroom can be maintained to the basement carpark given the load of soil over and the need for beams for bracing where there is no building over.

7. The Phase 1 site assessment report includes groundwater monitoring data in Appendix C which does not seem to have been reproduced in the body of the Geotechnical Report. Standing water levels of around 6 metres depth are given on page 49 of Appendix C for the monitoring bores at 126-128 Leura Mall but on page 10 the report states that “no available date was recorded” for those boreholes (assumed to be a typographical error and intended to read “data”).

8. The report also states that “there were no boreholes with groundwater data within a 500m buffer of the site“, however GW057398 is shown as being 371 metres from the site and recorded a standing water level of 5.0 metres depth.

It has not been demonstrated that the extent and depth of excavation will avoid having an adverse impact on ground water and the structural integrity of the heritage dwelling, as required in LEP 2015 Clause 6.14.

10. Services

Hotels are identified by Sydney Water as a type of development having high demand on sewer and town water infrastructure capacity. The application has been referred to Sydney Water for comment in accordance with their referral requirements.

Advice had not been received from Sydney Water at the date of this Report. The Council therefore cannot be satisfied adequate sewer and water services are available, as required in LEP 2015 Clause 6.23(1).

11. Operational waste management The Waste Management Plan contains insufficient information on the following matters: 1. The volume of waste that will be generated by the development and that the storage facility is adequate,

in accordance with the provisions in E6.4.3 (C2) & (C6) of the Blue Mountains DCP 2015.

2. The type and size of waste containers to be provided in the development including the collection frequency and evidence that the nominated containers are compatible with the nominated waste contractor. The bins and collection frequency must provide adequate capacity for the waste and recycling generated by the site in accordance with E6.4.3 (C8) of the Blue Mountains DCP 2015.

It has not been demonstrated that the development is suitably designed for waste storage and collection, as


19 of 34

Discussion of Issues required in DCP 2015 Part E6.

2.3 Evaluation The application has been assessed in accordance with s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Only those provisions relevant to the proposed development have been addressed.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) – s4.15(1)(a)(i)

The following table provides for an assessment against the provisions applicable State Environmental Planning Policies.

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

Consideration has been given to whether the land is contaminated, as required by cl.7 of the SEPP.

Potentially contaminated land

The land is not listed on the Council’s potentially contaminated land register and none of the activities that may cause contamination, listed in Table 1 of Planning NSW’s Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines, are being or are known to have been carried out on the site.

The application includes a Phase 1 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment Report which identifies potential hazardous materials, such as asbestos and heavy metals, in the construction of the dwelling and outbuildings. The Report concludes the site does not require any further testing and that it is suitable for the proposed land use.

SEPP (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment)

Standard Discussion Compliance Y/N

Impact of development on drinking water catchment

The land is located in the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. The development requires the concurrence of WaterNSW under Clause 11 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking water Catchment) 2011 before development consent can be granted.

On 3 July 2019 WaterNSW requested additional information, including a MUSIC model. Adequate information had not been provided by the applicant as of the date of this Report and concurrence has not been issued.

N

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River


20 of 34


Impact of development on drinking water sub catchment

The land is located in the Cox’s River sub catchment.

The application contains insufficient geotechnical information and conflicting groundwater information in regard to the excavation for the proposed basement. The Council cannot be satisfied the development meets the specific planning policies and recommended strategies in Clause 6 are met.

N

Local Environmental Plan 2015 [LEP2015] – s4.15(1)(a)(i)

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of LEP 2015 with significant points identified and discussed below.

Part 1 Preliminary

Clause Standard Discussion Compliance Y/N

1.2

Aims of Plan

The development does not meet the following objectives in subclause (2):

(e) to conserve and enhance, for current and future generations, the ecological integrity, environmental heritage and environmental significance of the Blue Mountains,

(f) to identify and conserve the distinct Aboriginal and European cultural heritage of the built forms and landscape of the Blue Mountains,

(g) to preserve and enhance watercourses, groundwater, riparian habitats, wetlands and water quality within the Blue Mountains, the Hawkes-bury-Nepean River catchment and Sydney’s drinking water catchments,

(j) to identify and retain the diverse built and landscape elements that contribute to the character and image of the Blue Mountains.

N

1.8A Savings provisions

Savings provisions do not apply.

See Section 2.2 Discussion of Issues above.

NA

1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments

A title search on 27 June 2019 shows no registered covenants, agreements or instruments.

Y

Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development


21 of 34


Land Use Table

Permissibility The proposed use is categorised as hotel or motel accommodation.

Hotel or motel accommodation is defined in the Dictionary to the LEP as meaning a building or place (whether or not licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007) that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis and that:

(a) comprises rooms or self-contained suites, and

(b) may provide meals to guests or the general public and facilities for the parking of guests’ vehicles,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation.

Hotel or motel accommodation is permissible with development consent in Zone R1 General Residential, and is a type of tourist and visitor accommodation.

Y

2.3 Zone objectives The following objectives of the Zone R1 are not met:

• To ensure that building form and design does not unreasonably detract from the amenity of adjacent residents or the existing quality of the environment due to its scale, height, bulk or operation.

• To enhance the traditional streetscape character and gardens that contribute to the attraction of the area for residents and visitors.

The following zone objectives are met:

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To provide opportunities for the development of a variety of tourist-oriented land uses within a predominantly residential area.

N


22 of 34

Part 4 Principal development standards

Subdivision

4.1 – 4.2A Subdivision controls The application does not include subdivision of the land.

NA

Building

4.3 Height of buildings The Height Buildings Map shows a maximum building height of 8m applies to the land.

Building height is defined in the LEP Dictionary as meaning

(a) in relation to the height of a building in metres—the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building, or

(b) in relation to the RL of a building—the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building,

including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.

The Sections Plans and the Height Plane Analysis Plan shows the building below an 8m height plane above natural ground level. The building height is verified by reduced levels from the survey plan.

Y

4.3A Exceptions to the maximum floor space ratio and building height

Applies to certain land that does not include this site.

NA

4.4 Floor space ratio The Floor Space Ratio Map shows a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.4:1 applies to the land.

The combined FSR of the new and existing buildings is 0.7:1.


N

4.4A Site coverage and landscaped area

Applies only to Zones E3 and E4. NA

4.4B Principal development area

Applies only to Zones E3 and E4. NA

Exceptions to development standards (cl.4.6)

Exception requested The application does not include a request for an exception to the development standard for floor space ratio.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions


23 of 34


5.3 Development near zone boundaries

NA

5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses

NA

5.8 Conversion of fire alarms NA

5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

Repealed NA

5.10 Schedule 5

Heritage conservation The development does not meet the relevant objectives for heritage conservation.


N

5.10.8 Aboriginal places of heritage significance

A search of the AHIMS register on the OEH website on 27 June 2019 shows no aboriginal sites or places on or within 50 m of the land.

Y

5.12 Infrastructure development and use of existing buildings of the Crown

NA

5.13 Eco-tourist facilities NA

Part 6 Additional local provisions


Impact on natural environment

6.1 Impact on environmentally sensitive land

The site does not contain land defined in the LEP Dictionary as environmentally sensitive land.

NA

6.2 Assessment of certain environmentally sensitive land

NA

6.3 Terrestrial biodiversity NA

6.4 Protected Area – slope constraint area

NA

6.5 Protected Area – landslide risk

NA

6.6 Protected Area – vegetation constraint area

NA


24 of 34



6.7 Protected area – ecological buffer area

NA

6.8 Protected area – riparian lands and watercourses

NA

6.9

Stormwater management

The application does not demonstrate a workable stormwater drainage solution for the development.


N

6.10 Flood Planning The land is not mapped as flood liable. NA

6.11 Floodplain risk management

NA

6.12 Protected area – escarpment

NA

6.13 Protected area – land between towns

NA

6.14

Earthworks

The application does not demonstrate that the extent and depth of earthworks will not have a detrimental impact on groundwater and heritage items as required by the Objective in subclause (1).


N

6.15 Bush rock removal NA

Impact on built environment

6.17

Consideration of character and landscape

The development does not meet the objective in subclause (1) for design that is consistent with the established character of buildings, gardens and streetscapes of the Leura village.


N

6.18 Period housing area The land is not within a Period housing area. NA

6.19

Design excellence

The land is edged heavy blue on the Built Character Map.

The development does not exhibit design excellence for the following reasons:

(a) The form and external appearance of the new building will not improve the quality and amenity of the public domain.

(b) The character of the building does not respond well to the heritage character of

N


25 of 34



buildings on the site and neighbouring sites.

(c) The bulk and scale of the new building is significantly greater than neighbouring buildings.


6.20 Active street frontages NA

6.21

Sustainable resource management

The application includes a Report that addresses the energy efficiency requirements in Section J of the Building Code of Australia. The development generally meets or is able to meet the DCP sustainable resource management principles.

Y

6.22 Incentives for providing affordable housing

NA

6.23

Essential Services

The site has all services necessary to service the development, however sewer and town water may not have sufficient capacity for the size of the development.


N

6.24 Council infrastructure development

NA

6.25 Dwelling houses on land in Zone E2

NA

6.26 Shops in Zones B1 and B2

NA

6.27 Drive-through take away food and drink premises

NA

6.28 Rural and nature-based tourist facilities

NA

6.29 Short term rental accommodation

NA

6.30 Horticulture in Zone E3 NA

6.31 Location of sex services premises

NA

Part 7 Additional local clauses – development in villages


26 of 34


7.1 Development in villages The Council cannot be satisfied that the development on the land is consistent with the objectives specified for the development proposed.

N

7.8(3)

Leura Precinct R1-LE03

Objectives The proposal does not meet the relevant objectives.


N

Proposed planning instruments – s4.15(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the site.

Amendment 3 to LEP 2015 – Strategic Tourist Sites

NA

Amendment 5 to LEP 2015 – Heritage Review

NA

Amendment 6 to LEP 2015 – Period Housing to Heritage Conservation

NA

Development Control Plan 2015 – s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the Development Control Plan 2015 with significant points of consideration identified and discussed in the table below.

Part B Context, site analysis and design


B1 Site and context analysis The site analysis is a generic analysis of the broader issues, such as climate and sunlighting issues.

As the property is heritage listed and within the vicinity of a number of sensitive heritage items there is a need for an analysis of those issues and how they have played a role in the proposed development outcome, its form, scale, massing and design. An analysis of views would also have been useful.

The architectural statement includes reference to

N


27 of 34

Part B Context, site analysis and design


the DCP 2015 but does not include an analysis of the outcomes and the objectives.


B2 Building envelope The development does not comply with the Precinct building envelope provisions in Part G7.3.


N

B3 Character and design The character and design of the building is not compatible with the location and the existing building on the site.

See Section 2.2 Discussion of Issues above

N

Part C Environmental management


C1 Biodiversity and Natural resources

The proposed development has no adverse impact on the nominated environmental attributes, including any threatened species, populations or ecological communities as assessed in accordance with s.1.7 of the EP&A Act.

Y

C2 Bushland and weed management

The site does not contain remnant bushland or environmental / noxious weeds.

Y

C3 Landscaping The development does not preserve existing canopy trees.


N

C4 Bushfire The land is not mapped as bush fire prone land. NA

C5 Tree and vegetation preservation

The development does not preserve existing canopy trees.


N

C6 Water management The development does not meet design principles for water sensitive urban design for small scale development in Part C6.1.3.


N


28 of 34

Part D Heritage management


D1 Heritage The development has an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the item.


N

Part E Site development and management


E1 Services The application was referred to Sydney Water for confirmation of sewer capacity, as required in their guidelines. A response had not been received at the time of this Report.

N

E2 Traffic, parking and access

The development does not satisfy parking and access requirements.


N

E3 Accessibility, adaptability and housing choice

The application includes an Access Assessment Report by an accredited building certifier. The Report has been assessed by the Council’s Principal Building Surveyor. The development complies or is able to comply with access requirements for people with a disability.

Y

E4 Site management Y

E5 Safety and security The development meets or is able to meet the principles of crime prevention through environmental design.

Y

E6 Waste management The application contains insufficient information on the waste storage and collection.


N

Part F Specific development types


Tourist Development

F4.1 General objectives The development does not meet or has not adequately addressed the following objectives:

O1 Tourist development that responds to the unique qualities of neighbourhood character.

N


29 of 34



O2 Tourist-based development that results in a net benefit to the condition of the land on which it is located.

O5 Adequate on-site parking

O6 Services and plant that does not result in visual clutter.


F4.3.1 Site planning and building design

The bulk and scale of the new building is not minimised.


N

F4.3.2 Building articulation and separation

Separation distance between the existing dwelling and hotel is greater than 6m (other than at one point at 5m which is considered inconsequential).

Y

F4.3.3 Site requirements and services

Sewer and town water infrastructure capacity for the development is not resolved.


N

F4.3.4 Parking and access The development does not meet parking and access requirements.


N

F4.3.5 Landscaping Most of the existing trees are proposed for removal.


N

F4.3.6 Visual privacy Y

F4.3.7 Acoustic privacy The application contains an Acoustic Report that addresses mechanical plant (air conditioning), lift plan room, on-site vehicles, and patronage of outdoor area of café as noise sources. The Report makes recommendations for attenuation measures which when implemented will result in no adverse noise impacts on neighbouring premises and the accommodation suites.

Y

F4.3.8 Sunlight access The application contains shadow diagrams that show the neighbouring dwelling at 137A Megalong Street will lose direct sunlight after 1pm on the winter solstice. The dwelling has a northern aspect and receives more than 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight before 1pm. Other neighbouring properties are not adversely affected. None of the submissions raised overshadowing as an issue.

Y


30 of 34



F4.3.9 Views The proposed development will impact on the outlook from neighbouring properties but distant views do not appear to be affected.

Y

Part G7.3 Locality management – Leura Precinct R1-LE03

Clause Standard & Discussion Compliance Y/N

C1 The development is not consistent with the precinct objectives in Clause 7.8(2) of LEP 2015.


N

C2 Building height complies with the maximum 8m set by clause 4.3 of LEP 2015 and the Building Height Map

Y

C3 Proposed floor space ratio is 0.7:1 which significantly exceeds the maximum 0.4:1 in clause 4.4 of LEP 2015 and the Floor Space Ratio Map.


N

C4 The section plans are unclear as to whether the accommodation suites at the south-eastern corner of the lower ground floor comply with the provision requiring the height above ground for the lowest habitable floor level is not to exceed 1m.

N

C5 The basement floor plan and section plans show the development does not comply with the provision requiring cut not to exceed a depth of 0.5m within 5m of any property boundary. In this case excavation of a depth up to 3m occurs within 3m of the northern boundary and 4m of the eastern boundary.

The applicant seeks a variation to the provision which is not supported.


N

C6 The development retains the existing dwelling and its front setback. Y

C7 The development complies with the minimum side boundary setback of 2m Y

C8 The development complies with the minimum rear boundary setback of 4m. Y

C9 The landscape plan shows all setback areas are landscaped. Y

C10 The land has an area of approx. 2453m². A maximum building site coverage of 40% of this area or 981m² is permitted. The existing dwelling and the proposed new building have a combined site coverage of 847m² or 35%.

Y

C11 A minimum area of to be retained as soft, pervious or landscaped area is 50% of the land area, or 1226m². The proposed development has a landscaped area of approx. 1169m² or 48% of the land area.

Y


31 of 34

Part G7.3 Locality management – Leura Precinct R1-LE03

Clause Standard & Discussion Compliance Y/N

C12 The new building is not sympathetic to the nearby traditional building forms, materials and details, including the use of traditionally pitched roofs, articulated layouts and forms, verandahs, timber joinery and vertically proportioned openings. The building does not achieve the required similar form and materials to quality older buildings.


N

C13 The proposed building has a width of 19m and a length of 35m which does not comply with the provision requiring buildings not to exceed 18m width or depth in any direction.

The applicant seeks a variation to the provision which is not supported.


N

C14 The new building does not demonstrate a residential scale and character.


N

C15 The development attempts to accommodate canopy trees along the rear boundary. Concern is raised that the combination of the 35m building length with a 4m setback is not sufficient area to retain existing trees or promote the growth of new trees.

N

C16 The basement garage opening and entry ramp dominates the frontage in the area between the existing dwelling and the southern boundary.

N

Planning Agreement – s4.15(1)(a)(iiia)

There are no planning agreements that apply to the proposed development or the subject site.

Regulations – s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, provides controls and regulations that relate to the management of the proposed development. These requirements are inherent in the assessment processes undertaken for the proposal.

Fire safety and other considerations


Fire safety The application was referred to Council’s Building Fire Safety specialist for consideration of whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the existing dwelling will be appropriate to the proposed use. No issues are raised to the new use on the grounds of fire safety.

Y


32 of 34

Likely impacts – s4.15(1)(b)

Likely impacts on the natural and built environment

Discussion

Vegetation removal and management

The application proposes the removal of 15 of 22 trees on the site. Many of the trees are mature and are identified in the arborist report as having moderate or high retention value. The removal of this number of trees is likely to have an adverse visual impact on the streetscape and setting.

Heritage The scale, bulk and character of the proposed new building does not provide a good design response to the heritage attributes of the site and location. The development is likely to have an adverse impact on heritage significance.

Character and amenity The proposal is an over development of the site and is likely to have an adverse impact on the built and landscape character and the visual amenity of the locality.

Stormwater drainage The application contains insufficient information and indicates design issues in the proposed system. The system as currently proposed is likely to have an adverse impact on hydraulic behaviour in the catchment of surface and ground water, on the site itself and neighbouring properties.

Access and traffic The application contains insufficient information to demonstrate the development will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding traffic network, intersections, parking and safe access.

Parking The development has a shortfall of 8 to 20 car parking spaces. Over flow parking into the street will increase competition for street parking which is already at capacity in this location during business hours. The likely consequence is creep of commercial patron and staff parking into the residential area south of the property, which will intensify and impact on residential amenity.

Noise The application contains an Acoustic Report that identifies construction activity and vibration, mechanical plant (air conditioning), lift plan room, on-site vehicles, and patronage of outdoor area of café as noise sources. The Report makes recommendations for attenuation measures which when implemented will result in no adverse noise impacts on neighbouring premises and the accommodation suites.

Likely social impacts

Discussion

It is considered that the proposed use would not have any adverse social impacts in this location.

Likely economic impacts

Discussion

It is considered that the proposed use would have a positive economic impact in this location. Employment benefits are likely to be achieved. However, the proposed design is likely to detract from the heritage and character attributes of Leura which make it a successful and vibrant visitor destination.


33 of 34

Suitability of the site for the development – s4.15(1)(c)

Site suitability The site is considered suitable for tourist and visitor accommodation but only when it is in a form and scale that does not impact adversely on the heritage significance and character of the site and location.

The position of the dwelling in the middle of the site and location of mature trees places constraints on further development including limitations on siting, maximum FSR and site coverage.

Submissions – s4.15(1)(d)

Notification and / or exhibition

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part H (Public Participation) of Blue Mountains Development Control Plan 2015 and the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations.

Notification The application was advertised in the Blue Mountains Gazette for 14 days from 10 July 2019 until 24 July 2019. Written notification was also sent to adjoining and nearby properties.

Eleven (11) submission were received. The following issues were raised in the submissions and have been addressed in this report.

Issue Comment

1. Architecturally out of character Most of the issues identified in the submissions are valid concerns for the community and are determinative matters for the development.

These issues are addressed in Section 2.2 Discussion of Issues above.

2. Over-development of site

3. Traffic

4. Parking

5. Operational noise

6. Tree removal

Public interest – s4.15(1)(e)

Public interest The development application should be refused because the proposed development is not in the public interest, having regard to the reasons in Section 2.2 Discussion of Issues above.

CONCLUSION

‘Culgoa’ is located in the centre of Leura and the property presents an opportunity for a well-considered development, which responds to the equally well-recognized character and historic values of the site and its village setting. The Blue Mountains, in particular the Upper Blue Mountains, with its World Heritage values


34 of 34

CONCLUSION attracts visitors from interstate and overseas. The need for design excellence in this premier setting warrants a development that respects and enhances the innate qualities of Leura village. The development as currently proposed does not achieve that outcome.

The expected development outcomes for the site are:

1. Architectural form, scale and character that is consistent and compatible with the traditional building forms and heritage attributes within the location.

2. Compliant floor space ratio.

3. Adequate parking arrangements for all guests and employees

4. Adequate arrangements for storage and collection of garbage.

5. Stormwater management that meets requirements for water sensitive urban design.

Documents

BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ITEM NO: 2.3 – 16 ...€¦ · BLUE MOUNTAINS LOCAL PLANNING PANEL - ITEM NO. 2.3- 16 SEPTEMBER 2019 . 2 of 34 . 2015. 5. It has not been demonstrated