Jen Drysdale submission 17 Dec 15

 

Code Objective

Developer’s Assessment

Objectors’ Assessment

 

there considered that 10
spaces is appropriate.

The Applicant furthermore provides
no justification for its derived value of
10 other than it is what will fit on the

site given its proposed configuration.

Furthermore the Applicant provides
no data or objective evidence by way
of survey, industry statistics or
otherwise to justify its assessment of
the likely number of users of the
service station to refuel vehicles
versus to use the retail facility. The
number is simply derived to fit with
the number configurable on the
Property and within the design
proposed by the Applicant.

It is the Applicant’s responsibility to
provide a compliant design - the
current design is clearly non-
compliant and must be rejected.

 

O9 Parking areas are located
where they will not unduly
conflict with pedestrians and
will not dominate the
streetscape.

O09 Complies

Car parking is located at the
front of the building, the most
suitable location for a service
station use.

Does not Comply

The Applicant states that the car park
is located to be “the most suitable
location for a service station use”
which is not the requirement but a
function of the proposed design.

The Applicant has failed to address
the requirement and demonstrate
that Parking areas are located where
they will not unduly conflict with
pedestrians. The Applicant has failed
to address the requirement and
demonstrate that parking areas are
located where they will not unduly
conflict with pedestrians and will not
dominate the streetscape.

 

 

O11 Access and egress
points do not impact on the
safety and operations of the

 

 

Does not Comply
Given the nature of the development
and proximity to the School the

 

22