THE size of a seniors living development to be constructed in Burradoo remains unclear after a deferral by council.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Council granted consent in 2005 to the original development application for 10 dwellings to be constructed at Hurlingham Avenue.
A modification application submitted to council sought consent to increase the approved 10-dwelling development to 12 dwellings.
The request for modification is allowable under s 96, whereby an applicant can request modification to existing approval where the modifications don't "substantially" change the proposed development.
Scott Lee of Lee Environmental Planners spoke on behalf of the proponent at Wednesday night's ordinary meeting of council and said the proposed modifications would "improve on the original site layout with more appropriate building relationships and architectural features".
He said it was "substantially the same project" and there was already a "valid approval in place" for the 10-dwelling project on the site at Burradoo.
Speaking on behalf of objectors, neighbouring resident Stephen Boyd said the changes were "at the expense of the neighbourhood amenity".
"It takes advantage of the original consent to ramp up the project for the sole purpose of increasing the developer's profit," he said.
Mr Boyd also raised concern about changes to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in 2010 which meant a development of this kind would be prohibited on this land, if applied for today.
Since the original approval was granted, the changes to the LEP now prohibit seniors housing within R5 large lot residential zones.
Councillor Duncan Gair expressed sympathy for the objectors, but said the LEP changes were "irrelevant" to the request for modification.
"Whether the zoning has or hasn't changed is irrelevant - there is an approval given on the land," he said.
"This was approved by a previous council and the existing approval on the land means [the developers] can apply for a modification."
Mayor Larry Whipper said to refuse the request without clear and significant reason would likely see the case "going to court".
"The fact there is a valid approval in place means an s 96 is allowed and the question needs to be asked - are we in a position to be taking this to court and exposing the community to financial impost?" he said.
However, Councillor John Uliana said council shouldn't be "scared" of court proceedings.
"We've gone to court on everything else in this council, why not this?" he said.
Cr Gair moved a motion to defer the decision until the June 8 council meeting to allow a meeting between objectors and the applicant to "see if there's common ground".
"This has been lapsed for years so I don't think a few more weeks is too much of an ask to try and get a better result and move forward without ending up in court," he said.