Decision details

The Panel refused consent for Development Application Number D/2024/471.

Reasons for Decision

The application was refused for the following reasons:

(A)      Pursuant to clause 4.47(4) of the EP&A Act, as Heritage NSW (the approval body) has informed Council that it will not grant approval under the Heritage Act 1977 for this integrated development application, which is required for the development to be lawfully carried out, the application must be refused by the consent authority.

(B)      Tresco, grounds and trees is a place of State heritage significance that is protected on the State Heritage Register for its historic, aesthetic, associative and rarity values. The proposed construction of two new dwellings, car parking, and subdivision will have a detrimental impact on its historic, aesthetic and rarity values.

(C)      The proposal exceeds the tolerance for change of a relatively intact designed mid-19th century garden that, along with the house and waterfront structures, makes an ‘important contribution to the character of the area’.

(D)      The form and associated extensive excavation works would cause adverse and permanent impacts on the significant garden setting, layout and character and the rock cliff face, which would compromise the rare historical setting of Tresco, grounds and trees.

(E)      In addition, the proposal would cause significant impacts on the structural and visual integrity of the natural rock and cliff face.

(F)      While partially concealed, the new houses will be visually intrusive from the Harbour, the main house and its garden setting.

(G)      It is not possible to mitigate or minimise these impacts through conditions of approval.

(H)      The application will result in a permanent detrimental impact to the overall significance of the State Heritage Register item.

(I)        The proposed development fails to exhibit Design Excellence pursuant to Clause 6.21C of the Sydney LEP.

(J)       The proposal fails to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage item on the site and the heritage conservation area, including associated fabric, settings and views, which is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 5.10 of the Sydney LEP.

(K)      The proposal fails to respect and protect the heritage significance of the heritage item on the site, in breach of the provisions outlined within Section 3.9.5 of the Sydney DCP.

(L)       The proposal includes subdivision of a site where the original subdivision pattern is still evident and contributes to the significance of the heritage item and heritage conservation area, in breach of the provisions outlined within Section 3.8.2 of the Sydney DCP.

(M)     The application fails to demonstrate that an acceptable level of residential amenity will be provided for future occupiers of the proposed new dwellings in the form of usable private open space, in breach of the provisions outlined within Section 4.1.3.5 of the Sydney DCP.

(N)      The development is unsatisfactory when assessed pursuant to the matters for consideration at section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act and is therefore not in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

D/2024/471