Objectors to the five-storey DA for the old Palm Beach General Store site were informed last week by the lawyer for the Northern Beaches Council that the council and the developer had reached an agreement to pass the DA.
The matter is before the Land and Environment Court.
An on site hearing of the Land and Environment Court is planned for Wednesday 19th February at 9:30am. However Residents were advised:
‘’ We note that a number of residents have previously indicated that they wished to make submissions at the on-site view on 19 February, 2025. If residents still wish to do so, we propose that the on-site view will take place to enable such submissions to be made, following which the proceedings will be concluded by way of a conciliation conference rather than a contested hearing.’’
Although such a statement would state there is little to be gained by having an on-site hearing of the court when a decision has been made by the council and the developer, the contempt with which those it was sent to feel they and the community have been treated has only resolved residents to attend.
Residents state the council has completely ignored the objections of the community. The amended DA still has many non-compliant issues, such as being metres over the height restriction.
Prof. Richard West AM, President of the Palm Beach Whale Beach Residents Association told the news service on Friday;
''There is great concern in the Palm Beach community that this multi-storey building has been supported by NBC despite the breaches of controls set out in the LEP and DCP. It is totally out of character with the seaside village atmosphere, with Pittwater Park and the Palm Beach Wharf precinct. It will totally dominate the area and overwhelms the adjacent Barrenjoey House which is a heritage listed building. It totally covers the whole block. It is excessive in bulk and scale and still breaches the height control set out in the LEP.
Additionally we believe the Community is being discouraged from presenting oral submissions to the proposed L&E Court s34 meeting as approval appears to be a fait accompli. The Community has submitted numerous written submissions which do not support the development for valid reasons.
The NBC has not produced any evidence that the new amended plans have overcome the many non-compliant issues with this development.''
Prof. Richard West AM, President of the Palm Beach Whale Beach Residents Association, states;
‘’The Community relies on the legislated planning instruments and Northern Beaches Council (NBC) to ensure that DAs comply with the current Pittwater LEP2014 and DCPs, particularly landscaping, preservation of tree canopy, building height, bulk, scale, privacy and design which enhances the streetscape and complements the Palm Beach seaside village feel.
We have reviewed the amended documentation dated 15 October 2024, submitted by the applicant, which responds to the issues raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) filed by Council. We are pleased to note that the 5th storey has been removed, apartments reduced in number from 7 to 5, a different facade treatment applied to level 3 to break up the visual mass, external finishes updated, curved elements removed from the facade and that additional landscaping and native groundcovers, shrubs and trees have been added. However, we still consider the proposal to be inappropriate within the streetscape, the bulk, scale and height of the proposed development is still excessive and inconsistent with the established and desired future streetscape character of the locality and there are still adverse acoustic and visual privacy impacts on neighbouring dwellings. Other breaches are the shortfall of parking and retail space at less than 25% of the gross floor area of the building.''
There are multiple problems with the proposed permanent relocation of the bus stop to outside residences to the north of the site. These have not been addressed in the conditions of consent.
We strenuously object to the proposed relocation of the existing bus stop and shelter from its current location in the E1 Zone close to the driveway beside Barrenjoey House to a location outside the residential properties in an E4 Zone at 1124, 1126, 1128, 1130 and 1134 Barrenjoey Rd in order to accommodate the proposed access driveway for the development. In this location is a major sewerage pit which often overflows and requires Sydney Water servicing and maintenance (hence the current NO PARKING zone outside 1126). This area is also prone to flooding and water pooling owing to runoff along and across Barrenjoey Road.
The parking outside No 1122-1134 Barrenjoey Road is signposted ‘No Stopping’ and is not unrestricted parking as stated. This error has also been repeated in two projected montages in the proponents report.
The proposed relocation will impact 5 residential residences and add to congestion across both entrances to Pittwater Park North and South and the Palm Beach Wharf pedestrian flow. This area is already very congested, especially at weekends and holidays.
''The developer has made no effort to address the bus-stop issue. The Court has been misled about it by being told that the issue has been solved. For that reason alone we need to be at the conciliation hearing and it should not be a consent hearing. It’s not just a question of convenience - it’s a matter of public safety. Both the Council and the Department of Transport will be well aware of long process of finding the safest location and the Court should be instructed truthfully about the issues.'' Prof. West stated
Whilst NSW road rules states that a vehicle must not stop within 20 metres before a pedestrian crossing and for 10 metres after, a bus stop in the newly proposed position would severely impact many pedestrians trying to access a clear vision of the crest of the hill to the north on Barrenjoey Road. This road is designated a 40kph zone, however this speed is ignored by many, especially those coming down the hill from north with some doing 50-60kph or more, including the buses.
The crossing is well used by many school children and drivers will not be aware of them waiting at the crossing until the last minute. This new proposal will only exacerbate this situation and impact five residential driveways with owners already struggling to reverse out of their homes to access the road. There is no valid reason to move the bus stop from its current position, only the bus shelter needs to be moved. This is in line with The Engineers report, 10th January 2024 which states "the relocated bus shelter should be sited as near as possible to the existing location potentially just north of the proposed driveway but it shall remain on the frontage of the development site".
''Residents are also very concerned that the extensive excavation proposed will pose a significant risk to the neighbouring properties all of which are in the highest rated slip zone (H1). We are concerned that there has been insufficient geotechnical examination of the hillside which will be heavily excavated to a maximum depth of 17 metres, back to a line 3 metres inside the eastern boundary of the site. The report does not deal with the possibility of ‘floaters’ which are known to exist in this hillside and measures to deal with them if they are found. Any movement of ‘floaters’ in the hillside at the rear of the site would place the adjoining neighbours at considerable risk. In these respects, the report may not give a comprehensive picture of the risks of construction on this site.
It is not correct to describe the proposed development as “stepping down the site in response to the topography”. The proposed development is constructed on a flat base covering the entire excavated area at ground level of RL2 400. On this flat base is constructed a four-storey building where the top of the building is at RL17 350. The building therefore has a height of 14.95 metres, compared to the height control of 8.5 metres and it therefore breaches the height control by 75.9% from ground level, not the 32.9% quoted in the D.A. ''
.JPG?timestamp=1721510579747)
The cleared flat site on June 17 2024, as viewed from Barrenjoey House north-eastern perimeter. Image: AJG/PON
‘’It is necessary to point out that Drawings A0201 and A0203 refer wrongly to No 21A Palm Beach Road, immediately behind the proposed development, as a “Restaurant and Bar”. It is a private residence. Next door to it is Barrenjoey House and to the north east is "Winten" which are both heritage items under Schedule 5 of the Pittwater LEP. The proposed development therefore must be designed not to impact on it – its bulk and scale make this impossible. Both of these Drawings demonstrate graphically that the proposed development is substantially out of scale with the residential houses adjoining it to the east and north and with the heritage item, Barrenjoey House. Its height and scale, as required by Pittwater LEP, Clause 4.3.1(b) must be consistent in height and scale with surrounding and nearby development and this D/A is not in compliance. The development is clearly not in accordance with the desired character of the locality under any of the criteria and objectives of the development controls in the LEP for this locality.’’
The Statement of “Facts” contains lots of general statements and very few facts and no reasons as to why any of the Contentions (breaches) should be disregarded. It does not meet its purpose of justifying approval of the consent order by the Court.
This is another example of the Council administration being determined to approve a development without regard to the interests of the community which the Council are supposed to promote. The other breaches such as height bulk scale overshadowing remain and are glossed over. The building is totally out of character with the area.''
In short, the proposal represents an over-development of the site with numerous breaches of the Pittwater LEP and DCP and does not meet the objectives of the relevant controls as set out in the LEP. In view of the substantial quantum of the breaches, the Commissioner cannot be satisfied that sufficient environmental planning grounds to make compliance unnecessary or unreasonable have been established.''
The onsite court hearing next Wednesday the 19th at 9:30 is going ahead as there are a number of residents who wish to give evidence.
The Palm Beach and Whale Beach Association will be giving evidence.
Assoc.Professor Richard West AM, President of the Palm Beach & Whale Beach Assn. stated to Pittwater Online, ''It is imperative that as many of our members and community members attend so we can protest that this development has been passed without the views of the community being taken into consideration by NBC.''
Another resident has stated:
''This is Palm Beach, not Dee why''
Another also referred to an apparent attempt to impose the streetscape of Dee Why on Palm Beach through 'approval creep';
‘’This is Pittwater – NOT the northern part of the northern beaches – it is time what makes people want to leave Dee Why to spend a few hours in Palm Beach was acknowledged. They are NOT the same.’’
In related news, particularly in regards to height limits, at February 5th 2025 Meeting of the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel, the Minutes recorded:
PROPOSED AMENDED DELEGATION TO COUNCIL'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
(GENERAL MANAGER)
DETERMINATION OF PROPOSED DELEGATION
The Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel delegates the following:
A. Delegation of Appeal Functions from Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel to Northern Beaches Council’s Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel Pursuant to s2.20(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act), the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel (Panel) delegates to Northern Beaches Council's Chief Executive Officer (General Manager), and General Counsel:
the functions of the Panel referred to in s8.15(4) of the Act of control and direction of appeals under Division 8.3 of Part 8 of the Act (Appeal) against a determination or decision made by the Panel, subject to the conditions and limitations described below:
Conditions and Limitations Applying to Delegated Functions
In the case of an Appeal relating to a determination or decision of the Panel that is contrary to a Council officer's development assessment report, the Chief Executive Officer (General Manager), or General Counsel, or their delegate will consult with the Chair of the Panel that made the determination or decision (or the Chair's nominee) as to the conduct of the Appeal. In the case of all Appeals the Chief Executive Officer (General Manager), or General Counsel, or their delegate, will keep that Panel Chair (or the Chair's nominee) informed as to major developments in, and the outcome of, the Appeal.
B. Delegation of Functions relating to Height of Buildings, Floor Space Ratio and Heritage from Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel to Northern Beaches Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Director Planning & Place, and Executive
Manager Development Assessment
Pursuant to s2.20(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act), the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel (Panel) delegates to Northern Beaches Council's Chief Executive Officer (General Manager), Director Planning & Place, and Executive Manager Development Assessment:
the functions of the Local Planning Panel under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to development applications and modification applications in the following circumstances;
1. where there is a pre-existing non-compliance of more than 10% for a class 2-9 building under clause 4.3 Height of buildings of the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013, Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 or Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011, and the development does not result in any further overall/maximum non-compliance in height,
2. where there is a pre-existing non-compliance of more than 10% for a class 2-9 building under clause 4.4 Floor space ratio of Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013, Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 or Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the development does:
a. not result in changes to the extent of the building envelope; and
b. results in only a minor increase to the gross floor area (for example balcony enclosure or similar)
3. where development involving the demolition of a heritage item, and the works (including removal or pruning of trees):
a. will have no more than a minimal impact on the heritage integrity of the item, and
b. Council’s heritage advisor supports the proposal.
.JPG?timestamp=1721511740445)