December 1 - 31, 2024: Issue 637

 

Ruining Palm Beach - Council support of Fish & Chip site DA approved in Court: Community has sought advice with the Intention to appeal Decision

Palm Beach fish & Chips, 2021, just before the site was demolished. Photo supplied

The Council's lawyers, on Friday September 27 2024, advised residents who had lodged an objection to the proposal for the former Palm Beach fish and chip site that;

'Council’s experts were satisfied that amended plans, together with the proposed Conditions of Consent, resolve the issues that were raised in the Statement of Facts & Contentions (SOFAC), in regards to the proposal for the former Palm Beach fish and chip site.'

Accordingly, residents were told;

''Council will advise the Court that the issues raised by Council have been resolved and, as such, the hearing may proceed by way of a Consent Orders hearing.''

However, the amended plans were the same plans from June 2022 that the council's own planning panel had rejected and the issues raised by the community were not resolved.

On Wednesday December 11, with the Council again supporting the DA, development consent was granted by the Land and Environment court as 'the position adopted by government officials (the Council) and the sworn evidence provided by the parties’ experts was all in the same direction, according to the judgement'. 

Accordingly, the Land E judge hearing the matter decided 'I prefer that evidence to the contrary arguments submitted by the objectors'.

Residents and the local residents association, 'the contrary ones', given notice the Council was not going to support the community, the local zoning, the height restrictions, the amenity of and vision for Palm Beach, the LEP and DCP or the decision of its own planning panel, had already sought advice.

They are now aware that if you are an 'interested party' you can appeal a decision and are exploring the avenues to do so.

'Because we believe there are many inconsistencies, still.' a spokesperson for the Palm Beach Whale Beach Association told Pittwater Online on Saturday December 14

'Residents have been completely ignored in this process, even treated with contempt.' the spokesperson stated.

The judgement allows the 8.5 metre height limit to be ignored in regards to:

  1. The street-facing dormer windows breach to have a height of 10.3 metres, resulting in a breach of 1.8 metres or 21.1%;
  2. The street-facing parapet to have a height of 11.5 metres, resulting in a breach of 2.65 metres or 31.1%;
  3. The clerestory windows to have a height of 11 metres, resulting in a breach of 2.5 metres or 29.4%; and
  4. The roof-top plant enclosure to have a height of 10.8 metres, resulting in a breach of 2.3 metres or 27%

The bulk and scale of the development would not only introduce the ugliness of Dee Why to Palm Beach, it would overshadow the heritage listed Barrenjoey House, deny neighbours sunlight for all but 3 hours of each day, and make Palm Beach look like that eyesore viewable from space that was allowed on the Central Coast.

 

Roof parapet above height limit diagram, and Shadow diagram from proponents Council approved plans of September 2024 (although dated June 2022 on the drawings and 'Amended' and dated 18/6/2024) show scale of development alongside Barrenjoey House

Buildings in Pittwater are supposed to not be visible but a part of the landscape when viewed from the water.

The judgement by A Thorpe, Acting Commissioner of the Court, may be read in full at: HERE 

The height control is set out in Section 4 of the Pittwater LEP and it is important to understand the planning objectives behind the imposition of the control, as set out in Section 4.3. Most important is objective (a) which is “ To ensure that any building, by virtue of its height and scale, is consistent with the desired character of the locality”; the second objective is also important – “To ensure that buildings are compatible with the height and scale of surrounding and nearby development”; also relevant is (f) “To minimise the visual effect of development on the natural environment, heritage conservation areas and heritage items”.

The development breaches the Pittwater Development Control Plan (DCP) in relation to setback from adjoining properties and the roadway.

Because the development adjoins E4 a low-density residential zoning on part of its north side (against the historic Barrenjoey House), its whole east side (rear) and its whole south side, setback is required to be 9 metres, instead of 0-3 metres on the north, 0-5.5 metres at the rear and 0-2 or 3 metres on the south. 

Excavation for the car park on the Barrenjoey Road frontage goes right to the boundary so that no landscaping is possible; the ground floor setback is 2 metres but Clause D12.5 of the DCP requires a setback at the ground floor level of at least 3.5 metres.

Respondents have again noted that no geotechnical investigation data has been acquired for the eastern boundary of the site, therefore the design and modelling are still based on assumptions.

The development will interfere with the views from the pre-existing adjoining immediate residential neighbours at 1100 Barrenjoey Road, 1110A, 1110B and 1110C Barrenjoey Road and other properties on the eastern side of the proposed site.

The damage to views is exacerbated by the failure to relocate plant and equipment from the top of the roof of the development, despite requests to do so.

The bulk and scale of the proposal breaches the DCP density control for a block of this size. 

The DCP requires planting of vegetation to minimise bulk and scale of the built form. It also requires canopy trees between the building and its front boundaries where the property faces a waterfront reserve as this does. The DA and modifications do not comply with the DCP in these respects. 

The design of the building is not compatible with the design of the immediate surrounding area. It is located between Barrenjoey House, a heritage listed building, and 1100 Barrenjoey Road, a classic Palm Beach weekender, and opposite a number of classic houses. 

The Council support of such a proposal is yet another reason Pittwater residents want Pittwater Council restored and looking after Pittwater and Pittwater residents.

Previous PON updates:
Related