MATTER DETERMINED
DA-2020/240 at 99 Beaconsfield Road & 22B Greville Street, CHATSWOOD NSW 2067. Demolition of two (2) existing
dwellings and construction of Seniors Living consisting of seven (7) self-contained dwellings, tree removal, car-parking and associated works.

PANEL CONSIDERATION AND DECISION
The Panel considered: the matters listed at item 6, the material listed at item 7, the material presented at the meeting
and briefings and the matters observed at site inspections listed at item 8 in Schedule 1 of this Determination and
Statement of Reasons. The Panel adjourned at the end of the meeting to deliberate on the matter and formulate a resolution.

Development application
The Panel determined to refuse the development application pursuant to section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The decision was unanimous.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The reasons outlined in the Council assessment report, specifically:

1. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposal is
   unsatisfactory in respect to the matters for consideration under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for
   Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors SEPP) and the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012
   (WLEP) for the following reasons:
   a) The proposed development is non-compliant with Clause 40(4) of the Seniors SEPP with respect to the
   height of buildings, the number of storeys for buildings adjacent to a boundary and buildings located in the
   rear 25% of the site being more than one storey. The applicant has not provided a Clause 4.6 written
   request with respect to any of the three non-compliances with Clause 40(4) of the Seniors SEPP;
   b) The subject site does not comply with Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP with regards to access to facilities
   and public transport. The applicant has not provided a Clause 4.6 written request to justify non-compliance
   with Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP;
   c) The proposed floor space ratio exceeds the maximum threshold stipulated in Clause 50 of the Seniors
   SEPP and the floor space ratio development standard within Clause 4.4 of the WLEP and is found to be
   excessive and not compatible with the surrounding locality. The applicant has not provided a Clause 4.6
   written request to justify non-compliance with the floor space ratio;
   d) The proposal does not meet Clause 33(f) of the Seniors SEPP or the aims in subclause 1.2(c)(i) and
   1.2(c)(ii) of the WLEP 2012 as the removal of thirty-five (35) trees (of which five (5) trees are listed on the
   Willoughby Natural Heritage Register) is found to result in adverse impacts on the neighbourhood amenity
   and landscape character of the locality;
   e) The proposed landscape plan is unsatisfactory as it lacks well-sized deep soil areas for suitable canopy
   trees and planting and therefore does not meet the neighbourhood amenity and streetscape requirements
   stipulated in Clause 33 of the Seniors SEPP;
   Reference: DA-2020/240 Page 2 of 3
   f) The Development Application has not provided adequate parking for disabled persons in accordance with
   Schedule 3, Clause 5(a) of the Seniors SEPP;
   g) The Development Application has not provided sufficient information with regards to stormwater
   management, vehicular access and parking.
2. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is not in the
   public interest.
   CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY VIEWS
   In coming to its decision, the Panel considered written submissions made during public exhibition and heard from all
   those wishing to address the Panel. The Panel noted that key issues of concern included:
   Seniors SEPP requirements not met:
   Non-compliance with standards of Clause 40 and 50 of the Seniors SEPP
   o Access to facilities requirements not met – Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP;
   o Vegetation and tree removal;
   o Flora and fauna;
   o Removal of trees listed on the Willoughby Natural Heritage Register;
   o Inadequate landscaping;
   o Design excellence not achieved;
   o Excessive FSR;
   o Traffic and parking;
   o Visual privacy;
   o Solar access;
   o Stormwater management;
   o Site works;
   o Management plans;
   o Acoustic impacts;
   o Design is not in character with the surrounding character and streetscape.
   The Panel considered that concerns raised by the community have been adequately addressed in the assessment report
   and that no new issues requiring assessment were raised during the public meeting.