Ku-ring-gai panel refuses 7 units at Gordon site

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel has unanimously refused development consent for seven independent living units at 59 Rosedale Road, Gordon, at its 15 June meeting.

The proposal was for demolition of existing structures and construction of 7 independent living units and associated works. The panel refused consent under section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

In its amended reasons for refusal, the panel said the proposal failed to demonstrate compliance with section 84(2)(c)(i) and (iii) of SEPP Housing on building height. It also said the project exceeded the maximum floor space ratio in section 4.4(2A) of the KLEP and the non-discretionary standard in section 108(2)(c) of SEPP Housing (2021).

The minutes say the amended proposal did not clearly demonstrate compliance with the 9.5 metre building height standard. The panel said the architectural plan, Plan No. DA 17, was unclear, and that no clause 4.6 variation request had been submitted for the height provisions.

On floor space ratio, the panel said the applicant had not calculated gross floor area in accordance with SEPP Housing (2021). It said the proposal incorrectly excluded the ground floor lobby, storage areas at lower ground floor level, subfloor areas above 1.4 metres, and internal walls between multi-unit dwellings and around voids.

The Gordon application drew 10 submissions. Stuart Gelder, of Gelder Group Architects, addressed the panel as the applicant before the public meeting closed at 1:05pm.

The panel said those submissions and the address were considered in the determination. The refusal was unanimously adopted at the determination meeting, which closed at 1:20pm.

The same meeting also saw the panel approve alterations and additions, plus a change of use and fit-out as a medical centre, at 27A Babbage Road, Roseville Chase. No submissions were received on that application.

For 59 Rosedale Road, the panel said the refusal was based on Council’s Development Assessment Report, with Reasons 2 and 3 amended. The minutes say the applicant may revise the proposal or pursue other planning options after the refusal.