A proposed boarding house at Jannali has been given the green light after initial refusal.
Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel reversed the previous decision after the project in Charles Place was scaled back from 10 to seven boarding rooms, to accommodate a maximum of seven lodgers.
The panel imposed a range of conditions covering the management of the facility, the car stacker parking system and preservation of a tree.
The panel said it was “of the view that the building presents similar to a two storey dwelling house, and therefore will fit comfortably within the street, and considers that the design is generally consistent with the character of the local area”.
It agreed with the council’s assessment report, and acknowledged that, with the increased cost of housing and rent, there was a need for affordable housing in the area.
“In that regard, the panel also agrees with the council’s assessment report, that the proposal will provide an option aimed at low to moderate income households who experience housing stress in the private rental market.”
Earlier
An application for a boarding house in one of Jannali’s top streets was not rejected because of its location.
The main reason for refusal was “the proposed governing management regime for the proposed use is wholly inadequate, which is a crucial aspect to ensure that social impacts are acceptable”.
Residents who campaigned against the proposed 10-room boarding house in Charles Place were delighted when the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) announced the decision immediately after a hearing in March.
However, the panel’s reasons, which were given later in writing, differed in several respects from the objections put by residents and a council staff report.
IHAP’s main reason was the proposed management scheme for the boarding house was inadequate.
Other reasons were the proposal did not comply with solar requirements for the common room and vehicle manoeuvring at the end of the cul-de-sac was likely to lead to conflicts with pedestrian movements.
IHAP said it did not agree with objections the site was unsuitable because it was in a residential cul-de-sac and close to a church and childcare centre.
“The panel was of the view the site is suited to a boarding house, despite being within a residential cul-de-sac,” IHAP said.
“The site is close to services and a train station.
“The use is permissible in the zone, and it was not agreed that ‘sensitive uses’ [as set out in legislation] in the wider area made the use unsuitable for the site.
“Residential uses should not be considered ‘sensitive’ in the context of the governing SEPP (state environmental planning policy), as if this was the case no boarding house could be accommodated in a residential area, where they are permissible.
“There was a church nearby, although not adjoining, while the separation and orientation between the uses was relevant.
“Similarly so for a childcare centre some distance from the site, to the south-east.
“This is not to say that potential social impacts did not exist if the use was not managed well, which was a key theme in the objections to the proposal and concerns expressed by local residents, and a concern shared by the panel.”
Earlier
A proposal for a 10-room boarding house in one of Jannali’s top streets has been refused after a community backlash.
The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) announced the decision after hearing from the applicant and residents.
“We are all relieved,” said one of an estimated 50-60 residents, who attended the hearing at Sutherland Shire Council chambers.
“We thought good sense prevailed.”
The IHAP will release its reasons findings in writing at a later date.
The applicant has the option of appealing to the Land and Environment Court.
Under the proposal, a two-storey development would have replaced a single house at the southern end of Charles Place, which adjoins the shopping centre car park and is a five minute walk to the train station.
The site is zoned R2 low density residential, where boarding houses are permitted under a state government affordable housing policy introduced in 2009, which is under review.
Council planning staff assessed the development application (DA) and recommended refusal.
The council report said submissions from 113 households raised matters such as the suitability of site / locality, patronage, sensitive land uses and safety of the young children, car parking and traffic generation.
Urban design issues, such as streetscape, character of the neighbourhood, privacy, bulk and scale and property devaluation were also discussed in submissions.
The report concluded the application would result in significant impacts on the environment and the amenity of nearby residents.
“In particular, the design of the development is not compatible with the character of the local area,” the report said.
“The application has failed to demonstrate an appropriate built form or scheme for the management of social impacts...
“In addition, the application has failed to address non-compliances with respect to privacy, solar access, car parking, traffic and streetscape character issues.
“The Plan of Management that has been submitted does not ensure that the development would not contribute to the locational disadvantage of the area in order to appropriately manage the external impacts or mitigate any social impacts in the locality.”