Part D.2.6 of Willoughby Development Control Plan (Open Space).
6. Solar Access
Inadequate solar access is available for the proposed open space and play areas for the child care centre.
Particulars
Section 7(i)(c) of Council's Guidelines for the Development of Child Care Facilities (Solar Access for Outdoor Play Areas).
7. Amenity Impacts.
The proposal will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to neighbours in terms of noise, overshadowing, privacy, bulk and scale and inadequate landscaping.
Particulars
(a) Clause 2(b),(c),(d),(l) of Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Objectives of WLEP);
(b) Clause 13D of Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Amenity);
(c) Clause 14A(a),(b),(c) of Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 1995 (General Objectives for Low Density Residential Areas); and
(d) Clause 14B(1) of, Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 1995 (Specific Objective of Residential 2(a) Zone).
The evidence.
14 The respondent's evidence came from:
· Mr C. E. Hallam, consultant traffic engineer.
· Mr P. R. Johnson, objector and neighbour of 5 Donnelly Rd
· Mr R Manning objector of No. 1 Donnelly Rd.
· Ms V Marsden objector 1A Donnelly Rd.
· Mr J Savage objector of 6 Merrenburn Ave that is a neighbour at the rear of the site. Mr Savage had been appointed spokesperson for 12 other objectors in Merrenburn and Palmer and Dodds Streets. Their submission is in Exhibit 10.
· Mrs J Savage objector of 6 Merrenburn Ave.
· Mrs K Scott objector of 9 Merrenburn Ave
· Mrs A Stevens objector of 8a Merrrenburn Ave that is a neighbour at the rear of the site.
15 The applicant's evidence came from:
· Mr J.E. Coady, consultant traffic engineer.
16 A report from A.D. Envirotech Australia was tendered showing no soil contaminants that would make the site unsuitable. An air quality report by the same consultant was tendered taking into account the freeway proximity and it concluded the air would be acceptable for children. A report from Acoustic Logic Consultancy was tendered assessing the freeway noise levels, and those that might be generated by children at play; it found that subject to noise absorptive materials being installed as previously mentioned, plus window sealing, air-conditioning and other noise control works, there was no reason sufficient for refusal. It also concluded the noise environment in the play areas would be acceptable for the children. The hydraulic engineering report and installations proposed by Complete Consultants was also tendered. An arboricultural assessment was tendered from Urban Forestry Australia. The Statement of Environmental Effects assessment by Mike George Planning Pty Ltd was tendered and it found the impacts to be suitably ameliorated by the final design of the proposal and draft conditions.
17 None of these consultants were called for cross-examination by the respondent.
18 The parties agreed on a single acoustic expert, Mr N. Gross who was appointed by the Court.
19 The final design of the proposal is in plans in Exhibit Q with landscape plans in Exhibit E. The updated draft conditions are in Exhibits 14 and 15.
20 The objectors' concerns are in summary:
· The only legal way to enter Donnelly is northbound on Brooks and left into the proposal. The only legal way out of Donnelly is left into Brook heading north. The consequence of this is that parents, no matter where they come from, have to "go around most of the block" of Brooks, Merrenburn, Willoughby, Chandos and Brooks. It is a very congested route in peak traffic with long queues at the four (4) sets of traffic lights involved. This is frustrating for drivers in a hurry, and tempts them to do unusual or unsafe or illegal manoeuvres.
· Staff and parents coming and going must generate 120-200 extra movements in Donnelly and Brook St, and many in Merrenburn Ave each day. Already residents notice many unsafe U-turns in Merrenburn for those who come out of Marks St where it is "no right turn" into Brook………..they go south on Brook and turn right into Merrenburn then do a U-turn to go back and north on Brook. The proposal will have a lot of parents who want to go to work in the city after dropping-off kids, and will do the same U-turn rather than go "around the block". There are traffic queues in Merrenburn at the lights so drivers swerve across into private driveways and then reverse into the traffic. The proposal will add to this.
· Residents are tired of drivers using private driveways for this manoeuvre, and it is unsafe for all.
· Merrenburn and Dodds and Palmer streets are already parked out by commuters. The "White Rabbit" play school in Merrenburn has little on-site parking and parents manoeuvring in the street cause further congestion. Some then park all day in the above streets to commute to work by bus. This adds even more congestion and safety problems. Since there is "no Parking" in Brook and little in Donnelly, parents using the proposal may well drop off the kid, park in one of the above streets and commute by bus to the city, making it all worse.
· Donnelly Street is a 30m long dead end street that is 7.5 metre wide kerb to kerb with no turning bulb at the end, and the entry to the site is directly off the dead end.
· There is on-street parking in Donnelly on the south for 4 cars and on the north one space directly adjacent the proposal's driveway. No. 5 has no drive entry and that is its only space to park its car, except for mounting the footpath and parking in its front yard. The on-street car spaces will be competed for by parents against the commuters parking there now.
· Anyone trying to turn in the street to use the car space outside No. 5 will block any others trying to enter or leave the site. Those parked on the south side will restrict movement.
· The driveway is one car wide, so 2 cars cannot enter and leave at the same time. One will have to wait causing queues in the narrow street that is 7.5 m wide kerb to kerb.
· With a car parked outside No. 5, the carriageway is 5 m wide, and the driveway of the proposal being at the very end of the street any car queued to await an exiting car will prevent that car from turning and passing. It will not take long for a queue to back up to Brook. The 30 m of Donnelly is only 5 cars long. If that happens no one will get in or out of the site, or the residents houses, the street will be a traffic jam.
· The driveway to the site has to be crossed in two places by any pedestrians coming or going from the street to the proposal. This adds to safety and driving problems.
· Putting young children in the noisy and polluted proximity of the freeway is not a good idea.
· Will the basement carpark be enough? There are only 7 spaces for parents to drop-off/pick-up. What about "parents meetings" or "parents interviews" or "family functions" such as Christmas concerts. There will be far more than 7 parent-cars wanting to park. Will they jam into Donnelly St and the proposal's driveway? Donnelly will be impassable for residents. There is "no Parking" in Brook, so the only alternative is for parents to park in Merrenburn and walk several hundred metres to the site. This is impractical.
· Emergency services. If there is a fire, where do the children go? Donnelly St will be full if only one fire-truck comes in, and the children cannot be mixed with that and the firemen. There is no safe place to take the children, Brook St is too busy.
21 Mr Johnson had additional concerns about:
· his backyard and living room west windows being overshadowed by the large new building uphill from his house and yard in winter.
· Also the high fence along the entry driveway had to be raised to the height of his window tops to achieve the acoustic consultants noise reduction requirements.
· Parents' cars for 72 children going uphill in the driveway to the basement carpark would reverberate between the buildings. The approved development on No.7 for 2 flats and 4 cars gave acceptable noise impact, but say, 72 cars each morning and each night is completely unacceptable 1 m from his windows.
· The Perspex top section of the fence said to maintain solar and daylight access to his windows would discolour in time and be quite ugly and enclosing to his rooms. In any case how could anyone rely on the Perspex being kept clean. It would get dirty and need weekly maintenance. If that is not done does he have to complain to council to get cleaning, and how long would that take?
· At the moment he has a 6 m separation building to building for light and air to his windows. This would become just 1 m wide. The reduction in amenity is unacceptable.
· Currently he uses the only on-street car space for his car. It is directly adjacent the entry to the site with the maneuvering difficulties referred to above, the potential is high for his car or anyone else's to be damaged by 120-200 car movements per day passing so close.
· He had an application to council to put a driveway in and a parking space in his front yard. He did not need it now, but he would if the proposal went ahead. If approved that would put his drive crossing beside the proposal's. The congestion likely at the single car width drive entry to the site would still create hazards for him and the proposal's visitors. Drivers would most likely take a diagonal route over this crossing.
· Donnelly is currently quiet enough amenity for his children to play there. That will disappear if the proposal goes ahead. Congestion and hazard will replace quiet amenity.
· There must be an adverse effect upon the value of his property.
22 Mr Savage had additional concerns about the privacy and noise for residents of Merrenburn whose properties backed onto the site. He said the plans they had seen did not have the play area directly adjoining the boundary. The tall acoustic and privacy fence now proposed with Perspex on the top section would not be pleasant to look at especially when the Perspex discolors or gets dirty.
23 The traffic engineers had a joint report in evidence, and gave oral evidence at the hearing. They agreed the stub of Donnelly St is about 30m long and 7.5m kerb to kerb. They agreed with a car parked outside No. 5 in the on-street space, any car trying to enter the site would have to wait for an exiting car some distance back so the exiting car could have clearance to manoeuvre. This would reduce the queuing space in the street to 4 cars.
24 They said the north side of the street would have to be changed to "No Parking". This would provide very restricted 2-way movement in the 5 metre width left once cars parked on the south side are allowed for.