HSC_100K_NEW

 

 

BUSINESS PAPER

 

Local Planning Panel meeting

 

Wednesday 31 July 2019

at 6:30pm

 

 

 

 


Hornsby Shire Council                                                                                           Table of Contents

Page 1

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL BUSINESS

Local Planning Panel

Item 1     LPP15/19 Development Application - Construction of a Telecommunications Facility Comprising a 30m monopole, panel antennas, ancillary equipment and landscaping........................ 1

Item 2     LPP19/19 Development Application - Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling and use as a child care centre - 44 Malsbury Road Normanhurst.................... 33

Item 3     LPP21/19 Development Application - Dwelling House - 57 Berowra Waters Road and Lot 29 DP 232641 Berowra Waters Road, Berowra..................................................................... 59  

 


 

LPP Report No. LPP15/19

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 31/07/2019

 

1        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - CONSTRUCTION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY COMPRISING A 30M MONOPOLE, PANEL ANTENNAS, ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT AND LANDSCAPING     

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:

DA/257/2019 (Lodged 5 March 2019)   

Description:

Telecommunications facility comprising a 30m monopole, panel antennas ancillary equipment and landscaping

Property:

Lot 2 DP 586331, Asquith Golf Course, No. 2-46 Lord Street, Asquith

Applicant:

Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (C/o Urbis Pty Ltd)

Owner:

Asquith Golf Club Pty Ltd

Estimated Value:

$300,000

Ward:

A

·              The application involves the construction of a 30m monopole, ancillary telecommunication equipment and landscaping.

·              The proposal generally complies with the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure 2007), Telecommunications Act 1997, NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline 2010 and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013.

·              A total of 17 submissions have been received in respect of the application with 15 by way of objection, 1 neutral and 1 in support.

·              The application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Council Local Planning Panel as 10 or more unique submissions were received by way of objection.

·              It is recommended that the application be approved.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/257/2019 for the construction of a telecommunications facility comprising a 30m monopole, panel antennas, ancillary equipment and landscaping at Lot 2 DP 586331, No. 2-46 Lord Street, Asquith - Asquith Golf Course be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Local Planning Report No. LPP15/19

 

BACKGROUND

On 24 July 2017, Council provided pre-lodgement advice (PL/57/2017) for a telecommunications facility within the northern portion of the Asquith Golf Course. Council advised that a heritage assessment, visual assessment and arborist report should be submitted with any formal development application.

On 9 April 2018, Development Application DA/316/2018 was lodged for a telecommunications facility within the northern portion of the site. The application proposed the construction of a 30m monopole, 3 panel antennas and ancillary equipment. On 26 July 2018, the applicant wrote to Council seeking withdrawal of the application.

On 20 December 2018, Council provided pre-lodgement advice (PL/102/2018) for a telecommunications facility within the south-western portion of the site. Council advised that a heritage assessment, visual assessment and arborist report should be submitted with any formal development application.

On 5 April 2019, the subject application was lodged.

SITE

The 40.16ha site is located on the southern side of Lord Street, the eastern side of Royston Parade   and the western side of the Pacific Motorway (M1). The site contains a golf course, club house and three dams and is known as “Asquith Golf Club”. The primary vehicle access point to the site is from Lord Street.

The site comprises four allotments and is irregular in shape.

The subject allotment, Lot 2 DP 586331 is burdened by an easement for electricity and an easement to drain water adjacent to the eastern boundary.

The site is listed as a heritage item (No. 579 – Asquith Golf Course) of local significance under Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The site varies in topography and experiences and average fall of 5-7% south-easterly.

The north-eastern portion of the site is mapped as being bushfire prone.

The site is mapped to contain a natural watercourse traversing the site south-easterly as well as various overland flow paths and dams.

The site is mapped as containing remnant trees from Silvertop Ash-Scribbly Gum Woodland, Blackbutt Gully Forest and Scribbly Gum Open-Woodland.

The site immediately adjoins low density residential to the north, low density residential and a place of worship to the south, the Pacific Motorway (M1) to the east and the Main North Railway line to the west of Royston Parade.  

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the construction of a mobile network base station (telecommunications facility) and ancillary equipment within the south-western corner of the site adjacent to Royston Parade.

The documentation submitted with the application states that the facility would provide network coverage to the southern areas of Asquith stretching from the southern end of Asquith Golf Club to the train sheds south of Asquith Station.

The development would comprise the following:

·              A 30m metre monopole with a turret mount atop the pole;

·              Three panel antennas measuring 2600mm (H) x 548mm (W) x 150mm (D) to an overall height of 33.26m;

·              An equipment store measuring 1905mm (H) x 2126mm (W) x 750mm (D) coloured pale Eucalypt;

·              Fifteen non-electromagnetic energy emitting remote radio units;

·              Underground power and fibre connection to the facility from Royston Parade; and

·              Landscaping works including tree planting surrounding the equipment store.

One shrub would be re-located, and 3 trees and 108 shrubs would be planted as part of the development. 

ASSESSMENT

The development application has been assessed having regard to the ‘The Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities’, the ‘North District Plan’ and the matters for consideration prescribed under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The following issues have been identified for further consideration.

1.         STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1        Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities and North District Plan

The Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities has been prepared by the NSW State Government to guide land use planning decisions for the next 40 years (to 2056).  The Plan sets a strategy and actions for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth and identifies dwelling targets to ensure supply meets demand.  The Plan also identifies that the most suitable areas for new housing are in locations close to jobs, public transport, community facilities and services.

Although not providing either long term employment opportunities or the provision of housing stock, the proposed development would be generally consistent with the strategy as it would provide additional infrastructure to support a growing population.

The NSW Government will use the subregional planning process to define objectives and set goals for job creation, housing supply and choice in each subregion.  Hornsby Shire has been grouped with Hunters Hill, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde, Northern Beaches and Willoughby to form the North District.  The Greater Sydney Commission has released the North District Plan which includes priorities and actions for Northern District for the next 20 years. 

Planning priority N1 of the North District Plan is to provide infrastructure that supports forecast population growth. In this regard, the proposed telecommunications facility is considered consistent with the plan.

2.         STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 4.15(1)(a) requires Council to consider “any relevant environmental planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments, development control plans, planning agreements and regulations”.

2.1        Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the provisions of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP).

2.1.1     Zoning of Land and Permissibility

The subject land is zoned RE2 (Private Recreation) under the HLEP.  The objectives of the zone are:

·              To enable land to be used for private open space or recreational purposes.

·              To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

·              To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

The proposed development is defined as a “telecommunication facility” and is a prohibited land use under the HLEP within the RE2 zone. Notwithstanding, the proposal is permitted pursuant to Clause 115(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 which states:

development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than development in clause 114 or development that is exempt development under clause 20 or 116, may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 prevail to the extent of any inconsistency with the HLEP.

2.1.2     Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP states that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height show for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. There is no maximum building height control for the subject site as it is zoned RE2 Public Recreation. 

The proposed 30m monopole (33.26m with antennas) is considered a communication device and is excluded from the maximum building height control under the HLEP.

The proposed equipment shelter would be approximately 1.9m in height and is considered acceptable as it would not be highly visible from surrounding land uses. 

2.1.3     Heritage Conservation

The subject site is listed as a heritage item (Item No. 579 – Asquith Golf Course) of local significance under Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the HLEP. The Council heritage inventory sheet notes that numerous patches of remnant indigenous bushland, trees and native shrubs define its significance. 

The site is also located near several heritage items including; No. 466A Pacific Highway Asquith – House (Built Item No. 23), No. 480 Pacific Highway Asquith – House (Built Item No. 24), and No. 21 Queens Road Asquith – Garden Tree (Landscape Item No. 25), all of which are listed as items of local significance in Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the HLEP.

Clause 5.10(4) of the HELP states that “the consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned”.

The telecommunications facility is proposed for the south-west corner of the Golf Course, adjoining Royston Parade.  The Main North Rail Line is to the west of Royston Parade and the Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah’s Witness at Property No.48 Royston Parade is immediately to the south.  The south-west corner of the golf course is characterised by intermittent boundary shrub planting, well-spaced mature native trees (8-20m high) and areas of open grass.  The golf course is fenced by a 2.4m galvanised chain wire fence.

Screen landscaping would be provided outside the compound on three sides within the golf course (north, south and east). Landscaping would include the removal and relocation of one existing shrub, several new indigenous trees, grass plantings and shrubs. 

A Council site inspection and review of the DA documentation and its supporting reports indicate that varying portions of the monopole would be visible from some near and distant locations within the golf course, as well as some near and surrounding properties. The proposed compound and the structures within it would not be visible on the three golf course sides to be screened by new plantings however, they would be visible from Royston Parade public as a security gate and an access point is proposed.

While some elements of the proposal would be readily visible, the golf course is extensive, and its heritage values are demonstrated by and embodied in multiple landscape elements across the entire site and its overall collective landscape character. The proposed development would directly affect only a small, peripheral part of the course and only one existing shrub that would be relocated on site, would be removed from its current location.  All other landscape elements in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works would be retained and the proposed screen planting regime would obscure and screen the compound from within the golf course itself. 

Consequently, while the proposal would be visible to varying degrees from several locations and alter some views within the golf course and from a section of Royston Parade, it is considered that its impact would not substantially detract from the open and treed landscape quality of the site. Nor would the proposal adversely directly impact key contributory elements of the site’s landscape heritage significance.

Upper sections of the monopole may be visible from Property No. 466A Pacific Highway Asquith – House (Built Item No. 23) and Property No. 480 Pacific Highway Asquith – House (Built Item No. 24).  However, this visibility, should it occur, would be at some distance and would not impact the heritage significance of either house or its setting, as both properties are at a substantially higher elevation than the golf course and separated from the subject site by Royston Parade and the Main North Rail Line.

The development in the whole would not be visible from No. 21 Queens Road Asquith which is separated from the proposed location of the facility by 2-3 rear properties and a substantial portion of the golf course green itself.  Some upper parts of the monopole could be visible from the rear of the property, where the hoop pine is located, however, its presence at that distance would not impact the tree’s heritage significance or its setting.

In summary, while some elements of the proposal would be visible to varying degrees and alter views from within the golf course and from Royston Parade, it is considered that its impact would not substantially detract from the open and treed landscape quality of the golf course site or adversely impact its landscape heritage significance. The proposal would not adversely impact the heritage values of heritage items in the vicinity and is considered acceptable in regard to Clause 5.10 of the HLEP.

 

 

 

2.1.4     Earthworks

The objective of Clause 6.2 Earthworks of the HLEP is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

The documentation submitted with the application notes that either a borehole (8m deep by 1.5m wide) or a concrete pad footing (1.5m deep by 5.5m wide) would be required to be constructed in order to support the monopole. Further, minor excavation would be required to provide fibre cable to the facility from Royston Parade.

Accordingly, an assessment of the requirements listed under Clause 6.2(3) of the HLEP is required to be undertaken before development consent is granted. An assessment of these requirements is provided in the table below:

Matter for Consideration

Comment

a)     the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development

The proposed excavation is confined to that which is required for the monopole and the underground fibre cable connection. The site is relatively level and the development is unlikely to detrimentally impact existing drainage patterns or the soil stability in the locality of the development.

b)     the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land

The excavation required would not limit the future redevelopment of the land.

c)     the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both

Conditions are recommended that all excavated material removed from the site must be classified by a suitably qualified person and disposed of at an approved waste management facility. No fill is required.

d)     the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties

The earthworks would have minimal impacts on adjoining properties.

e)     the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material

No fill is proposed to be imported onto the site and a condition is recommended that no fill be imported to the site.

f)      the likelihood of disturbing relics

No known relics are located on the subject site or near the proposed earthworks.

g)     the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area

The site is not located within proximity to any natural watercourse, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area.

h)     any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development

Appropriate measures to mitigate any sediment impacts arising from the development have been proposed in Schedule 1 of this report.

Council’s assessment of the proposed works and excavation concludes that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions requiring excavated material to be disposed of at a licenced facility.

2.1.5     Flood Planning

Clause 6.3 of the HLEP notes that consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies to unless Council is satisfied that the development is compatible with flood hazard.

The site contains various dams and is mapped as containing 1 in 100-year average recurrence interval (ARI) overland flow paths. The proposed telecommunications facility would not obstruct the mapped overland flow path and accordingly no objections are raised regarding Clause 6.3 of the HLEP.

2.2        Telecommunication Act 1997

Under Division 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 a carrier has the right to install a telecommunications facility for purposes connected with the supply of a carriage service if:

“(i)        The carrier is authorised to do so by a facility installation permit

(ii)         The facility is a low impact facility

(iii)        The facility is a temporary facility for use by a defence organisation for defence purposes.

(iv)        The facility is installed before 1 July 2000 for the sole purpose of connecting a building, structure, caravan or mobile home to a line that forms part of a telecommunications network that was in existence on 30 June 1997.”

Under Division 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act, 1997 the proposal does not qualify as a ‘low impact facility’ installation. Therefore, the development is not exempt and requires consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997.

2.3        State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

2.3.1     Development Adjacent to Rail Corridors

The telecommunications tower would be located approximately 26.5m east of the rail corridor and separated by Royston Parade. Clause 85 “Development Adjacent to Rail Corridors” of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP Infrastructure) applies to the development as it involves erecting a structure with a metal finish within land adjacent to a rail corridor (the proposed fencing and the metal shed). 

Clause 85 requires referral to Sydney Trains for comment. The application was referred to Sydney Trains to comment on 4 June 2019. No objections were received by Sydney Trains within 21 days and as per Clause 85(2)(b)(i), concurrence is assumed.

2.3.2     Excavation Adjacent to Rail Corridors

Clause 86 of SEPP Infrastructure applies to works where more than 2m of excavation is required within 25m of a rail corridor. The proposed mono-pole would require up to 8 metres of excavation. Notwithstanding, the applicant has demonstrated that all excavation exceeding 2m in depth would be located more than 25m from the rail corridor.

As a precaution, the application was referred to Sydney Trains to comment on 4 June 2019. No objections were received by Sydney Trains within 21 days and as such, concurrence is assumed.

2.3.3     Telecommunications Facilities

SEPP Infrastructure contains provisions that allow telecommunications carriers to install telecommunication facilities as either exempt or complying development subject to a range of criteria including health and amenity considerations.  Under Clause 116 and 116A, the proposed development is not exempt or complying development as the facility is not existing and the development is not carried out on land in Zone IN1, IN2, IN3, RU1, RU2, RU3 or RU4 or an equivalent land use zone.

Notwithstanding, the proposal is permitted with development consent pursuant to Clause 115(1) of SEPP Infrastructure which states:

development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than development in clause 114 or development that is exempt development under clause 20 or 116, may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.

Under Clause 115 (3), when determining a proposal for a telecommunications facility, Council “must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette”. Consequently, the telecommunication facility is required to be assessed against the ‘NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline including Broadband – July 2010’. An assessment is provided below.

2.3.4     NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline (including Broadband) 2010

Principle 1:      A telecommunications facility is to be designed and sited to minimise visual impact.

Comment:        The application is supported by a visual impact assessment, prepared by Urbis. Three photomontages of the proposed facility were prepared and included which demonstrates an approximation of the facilities height and location from residential viewpoints on Salmon Close, Lord Street and Pacific Highway.   

The report notes that a key consideration in determining the extent of a visual impact is not whether an item is visible or not, but rather how it fits in the context of the setting. The report concludes that with the exception of immediately adjacent uses, the proposal is not visually prominent from surrounding residential viewpoints due to the presence of tall tree canopies. Furthermore, the report suggests that views of the monopole would be in line with the visual character of the area which includes power poles and rail gantries.

Council acknowledges that a telecommunications facility is required to be a certain height and distance away from other telecommunication facilities to provide the necessary coverage objectives and avoid interference. Often this means they are required to be located at high elevation points and therefore may be visible from some adjoining locations.

It is considered that the location of the proposed monopole, ancillary equipment and storage shed has been designed and sited on the land to minimise visual impact to a reasonable extent. The location of the facility has been selected to avoid tree loss and be accessible, whilst also meeting coverage objectives for the southern portion of Asquith. The existing and proposed vegetation would help to screen the facility from most elevations and the proposed colour of “pale eucalypt” would help soften its visual impact. Council also notes that re-locating the tower to within the centre of the site further away from Royston Parade would result in a higher structure with a similar visual impact.

In accordance with the Land and Environment Court judgement Telstra Corporation Limited v Clarence Valley Council [2012] NSWLEC 1125, the fact that the facility would be visible from some adjoining areas is not sufficient grounds to refuse consent. The facility would not obstruct any high-quality views to water, significant landmarks or significant scenic areas.

Principle 2:      Telecommunications facilities should be co-located wherever practical.

Comment:        The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) prepared by Urbis lists 7 other facilities within a 1.6km radius of the proposed facility. The sites include a Telstra rooftop facility on Pacific Highway Asquith (a), a Sydney Trains monopole within the rail corridor (b), monopole on the corner of Galston Road and Pacific Highway (c), an in-building coverage facility (d), a Telstra monopole on the M1 on-ramp(e), a private rooftop on Leighton Place Hornsby (f) and a Telstra monopole on King Road Hornsby (g).

The application notes that candidate (a) is currently at capacity, candidate (b) is unviable due to potential interference with the Sydney Trains network and the remaining sites would not meet the required coverage objectives.

Co-locating the proposed development would not be practical as it would result in interference with existing telecommunications infrastructure or the desired network service for the locality would not be achieved.

Principle 3:      Health standards for exposure to radio emissions must be met.

Comment:        In 2002, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) published the standard: Radiation Protection Standard - Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The ARPANSA RF Standard sets limits for human exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (RF EMR) in the frequency range 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The Standard also includes requirements for protection of the general public and the management of risk in occupational exposure, together with additional information on measurement and assessment of compliance. This Standard was most recently reviewed in 2014 by an independent panel who found that the exposure limits in the RF Standard continue to provide a high degree of protection against known health effects of RF electromagnetic fields.

The proposal has been designed so that the maximum human exposure levels to radiofrequency emissions comply with the Radiation Protection Standard.  The EME report submitted with the development application shows that the maximum radiofrequency signal strength from the facility would equate to a maximum of 4.83 V/m, equivalent to 61.81 mW/m2 or 0.98% of the public exposure limit.

This is considered to be low impact, noting that carriers are permitted to operate base stations with EME levels up to 100% of the ARPANSA Standard. Based on the information submitted, the predicted EME exposure falls well within acceptable levels.

Further, the application acknowledges that the 0.98% exposure is a worst-case scenario and would likely be less given the facility would not operate at full capacity for extended periods of time.

In addition, the EME report displays the maximum cumulative EME levels at nearby sensitive uses including Asquith Oval and Asquith Public school with a maximum exposure limit of 0.62% and 0.3% respectively.

Principle 4:      Minimise disturbance and risk and maximise compliance.

Comment:        The proposal has been designed to minimise disturbance of the locality and is located within a location that is easily accessible for construction. Conditions are recommended to control construction activities and minimise disturbance of the locality. 

It is considered that the applicant has had regard to the above principles and the development is consistent with the matters outlined within the guidelines.

2.4        State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP) commenced 25 August 2017 and aims to protect the biodiversity and amenity values of trees within non-rural areas of the state.

Part 3 of the Vegetation SEPP states that a development control plan may make a declaration in any manner relating to species, size, location and presence of vegetation. Accordingly, Part 1B.6.1 of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) prescribes works that can be undertaken with or without consent to trees.

No trees would be removed as part of the development and accordingly no further assessment under the Vegetation SEPP is required.

2.5        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury – Nepean River

The site is located within the catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River.  Part 2 of this Plan contains general planning considerations and strategies requiring Council to consider the impacts of development on water quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.

Subject to the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater management to protect water quality, the proposal would comply with the requirements of the Policy.

2.6        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55) requires that consent must not be granted to the carrying out of any development on land unless Council has considered whether the land is contaminated or requires remediation for the proposed use.

A search of Council’s records and aerial photos indicates the portion of the site where the facility would be located has a history of private recreation and use as a golf course. Accordingly, it is not likely that the site has experienced any significant landfill or contamination and further assessment under SEPP 55 is not required for the proposed use as a telecommunications facility.

2.7        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 Koala Habitat Protection

The provisions of SEPP 44 apply to the development as the site is greater than one hectare in size.

The site is not known by Council to be koala habitat and no koalas or evidence of the species were detected on the site during a site inspection. Further, no trees would be removed by the development. Accordingly, a Koala Plan of Management is not required, and no further assessment is required in this regard.

2.8        Section 3.42 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

Section 3.42 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that a DCP provision will have no effect if it prevents or unreasonably restricts development that is otherwise permitted and complies with the development standards in relevant Local Environmental Plans and State Environmental Planning Policies. 

The principal purpose of a development control plan is to provide guidance on the aims of any environmental planning instrument that applies to the development; facilitate development that is permissible under any such instrument; and achieve the objectives of land zones.  The provisions contained in a DCP are not statutory requirements and are for guidance purposes only.  Consent authorities have flexibility to consider innovative solutions when assessing development proposals, to assist achieve good planning outcomes.

2.9        Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant desired outcomes and prescriptive requirements within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). The proposed development generally complies with the prescriptive measures within the HDCP.  A discussion on compliance with relevant requirements of Part 1 General, Part 7 Community and Part 9 Heritage is provided below.

2.9.1     Telecommunications

Part 7.3 of the HDCP relates to telecommunications and promotes the co-location of facilities in order to limit visual impact and the careful selection of sites in order to minimise the impact of electromagnetic radiation on sensitive land uses.

An assessment regarding the prescriptive measures of Part 7.3 of the HDCP is provided below:

HDCP Control

Comment

7.3.1(a) 

The facility should be consistent with the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) Code, including consideration of alternative locations and infrastructure to minimise electromagnetic radiation.

 

The submitted documentation confirms that the facility is designed as per the industry code. The application satisfactorily addresses alternative locations and demonstrates compliance with RF EME exposure limits.

7.3.1(b)

Telecommunications facilities should be located:

·             on business and industrial sites, or

·             on existing infrastructure sites, and

·             to avoid locations within or at the termination of a significant vista or focal point of a streetscape, and

·             to avoid heritage conservation areas or items.

 

As per Part 2.4 of this report, alternative locations have been considered however were found not viable.

The site is listed as a landscape heritage item of local significance. This matter is discussed in Part 2.1.3 of this report.

7.3.1(c)

Where practical, antennae and similar structures should be co-located or attached to existing structures, such as buildings, public utility structures, poles, towers or other telecommunication facilities to minimise visual impact.

 

As per Part 2.4 of this report, alternative locations have been considered however were found not viable.

 

7.3.1(d)

If a facility is proposed not to be co-located, the proponent should demonstrate that co-location is not practical or desirable considering the ACIF Code exclusions.

 

As per Part 2.4 of this report, alternative locations have been considered however were found not viable for reasons including interference, site capacity issues and coverage objectives.

7.3.2(a)

Telecommunications facilities should be designed in accordance with industry best practice.

 

The submitted documentation states that the facility will be designed and installed in accordance with industry best practice.

7.3.2(b)

Telecommunications facilities should be integrated with the design, appearance and scale of the building or structure on which it is located with regards to colour, texture, material and built form.

 

The proposed tower would be a concrete monopole which would provide less of a visual impact than a similar height lattice tower. The structure would be painted “Pale Eucalypt” in order to better integrate with the surrounding environment. This matter is further discussed in Part 2.4 of this report.

7.3.2(c)

Ground level ancillary structures (such as equipment huts) should be screened with native landscaping.

 

Landscaping and tree planting are proposed surrounding the facility to soften the visual impact.

2.9.2     Access

Vehicular access to the site is available via Royston Parade where there is a stopping area for vehicles. There is also a security gate available for limited vehicle movements associated with maintenance.

It is considered that access to the site is satisfactory.

2.9.3     Traffic and Parking

The proposed facility would not generate traffic volumes above the capacity of the local road network and would have little impact on the level of service of the local roads.

2.9.4     Landscaping

The submitted landscape plan proposes the planting of the following trees and shrubs surrounding the northern, eastern and southern aspects of the facility:

·              3 x Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) trees with a mature height and spread of 15m x 15m;

·              15 x Banksia integrifolia (Costal Banksia) shrubs with a mature height and spread of 10m x 6m;

·              64 x Callistemon citrinus (Common red Bottlebrush) shrubs with a mature height and spread of 6m x 3m;

·              12 x Grevillea banksia (Silky Oak) shrubs with a mature height and spread of 4m x 3m; and

·              17 x Westringia fruticosa (Costal Rosemary) shrubs with a mature height and spread of 2x by 2m.

Council raises no objections to the proposed landscaping as it would provide a low and medium height visual landscape barrier surrounding the facility. Additionally, the proposed landscape would integrate well with the existing indigenous vegetation on site.

2.9.5     Waste Management

The proposed facility would not generate ongoing waste and therefore would not require regular waste collection.

2.9.6     Heritage

As per Part 2.1.3 of this report, Council considers that the facility would not have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of Asquith Golf Course.

2.10      Section 7.11 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2014 – 2024 applies to the development as the estimated costs of works is greater than $100,000.  Should the application be approved, an appropriate condition of consent is recommended requiring the payment of a contribution in accordance with the Plan.

3.         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Act requires Council to consider “the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality”.

3.1        Natural Environment

3.1.1     Tree and Vegetation Preservation

The submitted arborist report, prepared by eco logical Australia identifies 5 trees and 2 shrubs within the vicinity of proposed facility.

One existing Callistemon citrinus (Common red Bottlebrush) shrub (No. 6) would be relocated as it is located within the footprint of the facility. No objections are raised in this regard.

All other trees and shrubs would be retained as their tree protection zones would not be disturbed or would be disturbed by less than 10% representing a minor encroachment.

Conditions of consent are recommended that tree protection fencing be installed, and a project arborist be appointed to the project to provide monitoring and assistance throughout construction. Council’s arborists have prepared a tree protection plan included in Schedule 1 of this consent detailing tree protection fencing locations.

3.2        Built Environment

3.2.1     Built Form

The location, design and visual impact of the proposal are discussed in the report above under Part 2.4 of this report.  The location, design and visual impact of the proposed structure and ancillary buildings are considered acceptable in the context of the site.

3.3        Social Impacts

The proposed telecommunication facility would have a positive social impact in that it would significantly increase the level of service to the local community in terms of telecommunication services.

3.4        Economic Impacts

There would be negligible economic impacts resulting from the proposed development.

4.         SITE SUITABILITY

Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider the suitability of the site for the development.

The Statement of Environmental Effects and Visual Impact Assessment which accompanies the application, when discussing site selection, states, among other things:

There are no existing telecommunications sites in the Asquith area upon which Optus’ antennas can be installed to provide the coverage improvements required. However, it was identified that a monopole at the southern end of the golf course would be the most suitable candidate. This candidate was considered most appropriate because it was possible to make an agreement with the landowner and would have the least potential impact upon visual and adjoining amenity.

The site is currently used predominately as a golf course and club house. The site has several buildings and access tracks on it, used for the club house and maintenance of the course. The area of the property is 40.16 Hectares (ha) and the land use is RE2 Private Recreation.

The site is easily accessible from Lord Street. There is an existing service road that provides access to the site, and a new access track will not need to be cut. The golf course is private property and not accessible by the public. The nearest dwelling to the proposed facility is about 85 metres (m) away.

The proposed location of the facility is adjacent to a service road within the golf club. The location is well shrouded by existing mature vegetation and will not affect the use of the golf course. The location was selected as minimal vegetation will need to be disturbed to site the facility.

Council considers the site is both suitable and capable of accommodating the proposed development. The telecommunications facility would not result in tree loss, diminished landscaping or significant earthworks. Whilst the facility would be partially visible from nearby residential developments, it is considered that the proposal would not cause a significant adverse impact to the amenity of residents in the immediate area by loss of significant views.

4.         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 4.15(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

4.1        Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 9 April 2019 and 3 May 2019 in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP.  During this period, Council received a total of 17 submissions with 15 by way of objection, 1 neutral and 1 in support. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are near the development site.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

 

•       PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

 

 

X      SUBMISSIONS

         RECEIVED

Wide upward diagonal

          PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

 

11 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED OUT OF MAP RANGE

15 submissions objected to the development, generally on the following grounds:

·              Negative heritage impacts

Comment: While some elements of the proposal would be visible to varying degrees, it is considered that its impact would not substantially detract from the open and treed landscape quality of the golf course site or adversely impact its landscape heritage significance. This matter is further discussed in Part 2.1.3 of this report.

·              Conflicting statements with DA/316/2018

Comment: Objections have been received stating that there are contradictory statements contained within the current development application and the information submitted with DA/316/2018. In particular, the objections note that DA/316/2018 discounted the proposed location for the facility adjacent to Royston Parade due to heritage and visual concerns.

The applicant has provided the following response regarding this concern:

The proposal currently under consideration by Hornsby Shire Council would have an impact on surrounding properties and upon views. That is readily acknowledged in the statement of environmental effects (chapter 9.3.7) and the accompanying visual impact assessment (VIA) as appendix K. For example, regarding the proximate viewpoints, VP1, the VIA states:

“From this location, the high visual sensitivity in conjunction with a moderate level of visibility and a contrasting character, will result in a moderate to high level of visual impact”.

However, the VIA goes on to conclude that:

Apart from a limited number of immediately adjacent uses, the proposal is not visually prominent from surrounding, sensitive residential viewpoints due to the presence of a mostly tall, well distributed tree canopy;

Views to the proposal from aligned roads are typically screened by a continuous band of roadside canopy vegetation;

It is an appropriate form given the current surrounding visual character of the setting, which includes power poles and rail gantries; and

The proposal is immediately adjacent to a land use which is not considered to be of a high level of sensitivity given its occasional occupation.

Regarding the potential impact upon the nature and character of the heritage item, this seems to have been an oversight in the statement of environmental effects submitted for DA/3162018 and provided without the benefit of a heritage impact statement. The proposal, currently under consideration by Council, would not have a detrimental impact upon the nature and character of the heritage item. For more details please see chapter 9.3.5 of the statement of environmental affect and the heritage impact statement as appendix J.

Council acknowledges that the assessment of the subject application is undertaken on a merit bases and can only rely upon the information submitted with it and not previous withdrawn applications. A discussion regarding heritage is provided under Part 2.1.3 of this report and a visual impact assessment is provided under Part 2.4.

·              Negative visual impacts and the visual impact study is misleading

Comment: As discussed in Part 2.4 of this report, Council considers that the facility has been designed to limit visual impact to an acceptable extent.

A submission notes that Figure 10 of the submitted visual impact assessment is misleading as it is not oriented toward the proposed telecommunications facility. In response to this concern, Figure 11 (view point 1) is taken at the same location and oriented toward the facility.

A different submission notes that the visual impact assessment is misleading as Figure 12 (view point 2) does not display the tower. In response to this concern, visual simulations have only been provided for residential locations (view point 1, 3 and 8). A written discussion was provided for view point 2.

·              Detrimental health impacts for children, pregnant woman and surrounding residents.

Comment: As discussed in Part 2.4 of this report, the submitted Environmental EME report calculates the maximum cumulative EME level because of the development to be 0.98% of the public exposure limit at a 100-200m distance from the tower. This is 102 times under the maximum limit and considered acceptable.

In accordance with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles established in Telstra Corp Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133, there must be a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage for the precautionary principle to be applied. Given the proposal would comply with ARPANSA standards, there is no basis on which the precautionary principle could be applied to this proposal as there is no evidence of such a threat.

·              The development would be too close to residents and Asquith Public school

Comment: The proposed development would be located approximately 350m north of Asquith Public school. As discussed in Part 2.4 of this report, the submitted Environmental EME report calculates the maximum cumulative EME level for the school to be at 0.3% of the public exposure limit, which is 333 times under the maximum limit and as prescribed by ARPANSA.

In accordance with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles established in Telstra Corp Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133, there must be a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage for the precautionary principle to be applied. Given the proposal would comply with ARPANSA standards, there is no basis on which the precautionary principle could be applied to this proposal as there is no evidence of such a threat.

·              The tower should be co-located with Telstra

Comment: The submitted SEE details Telstra sites located at 385 Pacific Highway, Asquith (A), M1 on-ramp Ku-Ring-Gai Chase Road, Mount Colah (E), 42 Leighton Place Hornsby (F) and 39a King Road Hornsby (G).

It is explained that the only site capable of providing coverage objectives would be the site located at 385 Pacific Highway, Asquith (A) however as it is at capacity, it cannot be co-located.

·              The development fails to consider alternative locations

Comment: The SEE details two alternative locations being the Asquith Park (A) and the northern portion of Asquith Golf Course (C).

The SEE notes that Asquith Park would not be a suitable location as it would be located in close proximity to more dwellings than the current proposal. The northern portion of Asquith Golf Course is also discounted given its proximity to dwellings and a large degree of community objection through initial consultation and by way of objection during the notification of DA/316/2018.

·              The tower should be located at the 18th hole with access from the expressway exit

Comment: The applicant has provided the following response regarding locating the facility near the 18th hole with access from the expressway exit:

It assumed that “expressway exit” means land close to the slip-road off the Pacific Motorway. This is approximately 800 metres from the current location for the proposed facility and this distance would have a substantial and significant detrimental impact upon the coverage objectives. The primary target coverage area stretches from the southern end of Asquith Golf Club to the train sheds south of Asquith Station and a facility that far east or north and close to the Pacific Highway would mean that a facility would not meet its coverage requirements.

In addition, the subject property is identified as a Landscape Heritage Item, “Asquith Golf Course” (Item 579) under the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013. The site’s significance is vested in its remnant natural bushland sharing a connection with the surrounding Ku Ring Gai Chase National Park. A proposed facility to the eastern side of the site amongst trees would result in the loss of this remnant bushland to the detriment of the quality of the heritage item contrary to the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013.

Council concurs with the response from the applicant noting that land adjacent to the expressway exit is heavily vegetated and would potentially result in the loss of trees.

·              The site not suitable for the development

Comment: It is considered that the site is both suitable and capable of accommodating the proposed development. The telecommunications facility would not result in tree loss, diminished landscaping or significant earthworks. This matter is further addressed in Part 4 of this report. 

·              Optus already has a large number of facilities in close proximity to Asquith Golf Course

Comment: The application notes that existing facilities do not meet the current coverage objectives of southern Asquith.

·              Asquith golf course and its members do not want the tower

Comment: Council are in receipt of a signed application with owners’ consent from the golf club. 

·              The height of the tower is not appropriate for the surrounding area

Comment: The application notes that the height of the facility is required in order to achieve coverage objectives. The height of the tower is further discussed in Part 2.1.2 of this report.

·              Negative ecological impacts on the surrounding area including loss of habitat and migratory birds

Comment: Regarding vegetation, the development would not result in the loss of any trees and proposes the planting of 3 canopy trees and 108 shrubs.

Regarding loss of habitat and migratory birds, a submission suggests that the proposal does not demonstrate enough evidence that the proposal would not impact migratory bird species in accordance with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD).

In accordance with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles established in BGP Properties Pty Limited v Lake Macquarie City Council [2004] NSWLEC 399, the principles of ESD are not expressly a matter of consideration under Part 4.1.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The Act), however they are listed as one of one of the Act’s objects and therefore should be considered as they are in “the public interest”.

The Act defines ESD as having the same meaning as it has in Clause 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. This definition includes principles and programs to promote ESD with the most relevant being the precautionary principle.

The Land and Environment Court Planning Principles established in Telstra Corp Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133, sets out the need to consider the precautionary principle subject to the satisfaction of two conditions precedent or thresholds: “a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage” and provides guidance on the assessment approach that should be undertaken by the consent authority.

In the circumstances of this case, Council considers that the application of the precautionary principle is not required in line with Telstra Corp Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 as the development would not result in the direct loss of bird habitats as no trees or vegetation would be removed from the site. Further, whilst the objection notes that there is scientific uncertainty regarding the impact of EME on migratory bird species, the development maintains compliance with the ARPANSA guidelines on EME and at its maximum, would be more than 100 times under the prescribed limit. Given the development would comply with current standards of EME, it is not considered that this specific development poses “a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage”.  

5.         THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

The public interest is an overarching requirement, which includes the consideration of the matters discussed in this report.  Implicit to the public interest is the achievement of future built outcomes adequately responding to and respecting the future desired outcomes expressed in environmental planning instruments and development control plans.

The application is considered to have satisfactorily addressed Council’s and relevant agencies’ criteria and would provide a development outcome that, on balance, would result in a positive impact for the community.  Accordingly, it is considered that the approval of the proposed development would be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application proposes the construction of a mobile network base station (telecommunications facility) and ancillary equipment within the south-western corner of the site adjacent to Royston Parade.

A total of 18 submissions have been received in respect of the application with 16 by way of objection, 1 neutral and 1 in support.  The matters raised have been addressed in the body of this report.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, approval of the application is recommended.  The reasons for this recommendation are:

·              The proposed development generally complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013.

·              The proposal would provide infrastructure services for the Asquith area.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is Stephen Dobbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessments

Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Cassandra Williams

Major Development Manager

Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Locality Plan

 

 

2.

Plans

 

 

3.

Landscape Plan

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           DA/257/2019

Document Number:     D07683564

 


SCHEDULE 1

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The conditions of consent within this notice of determination have been applied to ensure that the use of the land and/or building is carried out in such a manner that is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant legislation, planning instruments and council policies affecting the land and does not disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood or impact upon the environment.

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, the term ‘applicant’ means any person who has the authority to act on or the benefit of the development consent.

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to an Act, Regulation, Australian Standard or publication by a public authority shall be taken to mean the gazetted Act or Regulation or adopted Australian Standard or publication as in force on the date that the application for a construction certificate is made.

1.         Approved Plans and Supporting Documentation

The development must be carried out in accordance with the plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by Council and/or other conditions of this consent:

Plan No.

Plan Title

Drawn by

Dated

Council Reference

S6000-P1

Draft Site Layout

Nokia

16/05/2019

 

S6000-P2

Draft Site Elevation (Northern Elevation)

Nokia

16/05/2019

 

S6000-P3

Draft Site Elevation (Western Elevation)

Nokia

16/05/2019

 

NNS0001A

Landscape Plan

Urbis

01/05/2019

 

 

Document Title

Prepared by

Dated

Council Reference

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (19SUT-7949)

Eco Logical Australia

26/02/2019

D07650742

Tree Protection Fencing Location DA/257/2019 Asquith Golf Course

Hornsby Council

06/06/2019

D07689605

2.         Section 7.12 Development Contributions

a)         In accordance with Section 4.17(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Hornsby Shire Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 - 2024, $3,000 must be paid towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services, based on development costs of $300,000.

b)         The value of this contribution is current as at 31 May 2019. If this contribution is not paid within the financial quarter that this condition was generated, the contribution payable will be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan and the amount payable will be calculated at the time of payment in the following manner:

$CPY   =   $CDC  x CPIPY

CPIDC

Where:

$CPY    is the amount of the contribution at the date of Payment

$CDC   is the amount of the contribution as set out in this Development Consent

CPIPY is the latest release of the Consumer Price Index (Sydney – All Groups) at the date of Payment as published by the ABS.

CPIDC is the Consumer Price Index (Sydney – All Groups) for the financial quarter at the date applicable in this Development Consent Condition.

c)         The monetary contributions must be paid to Council:

(i)         Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate where the development is for subdivision; or

(ii)         Prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate where the development is for building work; or

(iii)        Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate or first Construction Certificate, whichever occurs first, where the development involves both subdivision and building work; or

Prior to the works commencing where the development does not require a Construction Certificate or Subdivision Certificate.

Note: It is the professional responsibility of the Principal Certifying Authority to ensure that the monetary contributions have been paid to Council in accordance with the above timeframes.

Council’s S94A Development Contributions Plan may be viewed at www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au or a copy may be inspected at Council’s Administration Centre during normal business hours.

3.         Appointment of a Project Arborist

a)         To ensure the trees that must be retained are protected, a project arborist with AQF Level 5 qualifications must be appointed to provide monitoring and supervision of the site throughout the construction period.

b)         Details of the appointed project arborist must be submitted to Council and the PCA with the application for the Construction Certificate.

4.         Tree Pruning

a)         This development consent only permits the pruning of tree numbered 7 as shown in the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Ecological Australia dated 26 February 2019.

b)         Works can be undertaken in the form of canopy modification as prescribed in Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees.

c)         All specified pruning works must be less than 10 percent.

d)         All pruning work must be undertaken by an arborist with minimum AQF3 qualifications.

e)         Certification of the tree pruning must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) within 7 days of the works being undertaken, confirming compliance with the relevant requirements of Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees.

Note: The pruning of any other trees from the site requires separate approval by Council in accordance with Part 1B.6 Tree and Vegetation Preservation of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

5.         Construction Certificate

a)         A construction certificate must be approved by either Council or a Private Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to the commencement of any works on the site approved under this development consent.

b)         The plans submitted with the application for the construction certificate must not be inconsistent with the plans approved under this development consent.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

6.         Building Code of Australia

All approved building work must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

7.         Erection of Construction Sign

a)         A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which any approved work is being carried out:

i)          Showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work;

ii)          Showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any demolition or building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

iii)         Stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

b)         The sign is to be maintained while the approved work is being carried out and must be removed when the work has been completed.

8.         Protection of Adjoining Areas

A temporary hoarding, fence or awning must be erected between the work site and adjoining lands before the works begin and must be kept in place until after the completion of the works if the works:

a)         Could cause a danger, obstruction or inconvenience to pedestrian or vehicular traffic;

b)         Could cause damage to adjoining lands by falling objects; and/or

c)         Involve the enclosure of a public place or part of a public place.

d)         Have been identified as requiring a temporary hoarding, fence or awning within the Council approved Construction Management Plan (CMP).

Note:  Notwithstanding the above, Council’s separate written approval is required prior to the erection of any structure or other obstruction on public land.

9.         Toilet Facilities

a)         To provide a safe and hygienic workplace, toilet facilities must be available or be installed at the works site before works begin and must be maintained until the works are completed at a ratio of one toilet for every 20 persons employed at the site.

b)         Each toilet must:

i)          be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer; or

ii)          be a temporary chemical closet approved under the Local Government Act 1993; or

iii)         have an on-site effluent disposal system approved under the Local Government Act 1993.

10.        Erosion and Sediment Control

To protect the water quality of the downstream environment, erosion and sediment control measures must be provided and maintained throughout the construction period in accordance with the manual ‘Soils and Construction 2004 (Bluebook)’, the approved plans, Council specifications and to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.  The erosion and sediment control devices must remain in place until the site has been stabilised and revegetated.

Note:  On the spot penalties may be issued for any non-compliance with this requirement without any further notification or warning.

11.        Tree Protection

a)         Tree protection fencing must be established around the perimeter trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 must have tree protection measures for the ground, trunk and canopy installed in by the project arborist as prescribed in the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Ecological Australia dated 26 February 2019 and shown in the Tree Fencing Location Plan, prepared by Hornsby Council dated 06/06/2019.

a)         All tree protection zones must have a layer of wood-chip mulch at a depth of between 150mm and 300mm that complies with the relevant requirements of Australian Standard AS 4454 Composts, Soil Conditioners and Mulches installed prior to works commencing.

b)         Where fencing cannot be installed inside the TPZ the wood-chip must be covered with a layer of geotextile fabric and rumble boards to allow for small plant movement and/or placement of storage of material.

c)         Any additional construction activities within the TPZ of the subject trees must be assessed and approved by the project arborist and must comply with AS 4970-2009 - Protection of trees on development sites.

d)         To ensure that all tree protection measures are correctly installed, a certificate from the appointed project arborist must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming compliance with the tree protection requirements of this consent.

12.        Sydney Water – Approval

This application must be submitted to Sydney Water for approval to determine whether the development would affect any Sydney Water infrastructure, and whether further requirements are to be met.

Note:  Building plan approvals can be obtained online via Sydney Water Tap inTM through www.sydneywater.com.au under the Building and Development tab.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

13.        Construction Work Hours

All works on site, including demolition and earth works, must only occur between 7am and 5pm Monday to Saturday.

No work is to be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

14.        Council Property

To ensure that the public reserve is kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during construction works, no building materials, waste, machinery or related matter is to be stored on the road or footpath. 

Note:  This consent does not give right of access to the site via Council’s park or reserve.  Should such access be required, separate written approval is to be obtained from Council. 

15.        Prohibited Actions Within the Tree Protection Zone

a)         In accordance with the AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, the following be prohibited within the fenced area of the tree protection zone:

i)          Soil cut or fill including excavation and trenching;

ii)          Soil cultivation, disturbance or compaction;

iii)         Stockpiling storage or mixing of materials;

iv)         The parking, storing, washing and repairing of tools, equipment and machinery;

v)         The disposal of liquids and refuelling;

vi)         The disposal of building materials;

vii)        The siting of offices or sheds; and

viii)       Any action leading to the impact on tree health or structure.

16.        Works Near Trees

a)         No consent is granted for any works within the Structural Root Zone of trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7.

b)         To maintain tree health and condition for trees retained, the appointed project arborist must monitor and record all necessary remedial actions required. 

c)         The maintenance and monitoring of all tree protection techniques must be recorded by the appointed project arborist during the period of construction for submission with the application for the occupation certificate.

d)         The Tree Protection Zone must be maintained by the project arborist in accordance with section 4.6 requirements of AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

17.        Works within Tree Protection Zones

a)         Any root pruning must be undertaken in accordance with the relevant requirements of AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites Sections 3.3.4, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5.

b)         Any necessary excavations within the Tree Protection Zone of trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7 on the approved plans not associated with installation of services must be undertaken manually as prescribed in the AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites Section 4.5.5.

c)         All grades within the Tree Protection Zone of trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7 on the approved plans, must remain unaltered.

d)         To minimise impacts within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7 on the approved plans the installation of services must be undertaken as follows:

i)          The project arborist must monitor the installation of any underground services which enter or transect the tree protection zone of trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7.

ii)          The installation of any underground services which either enter or transect the designated TPZ must utilise sensitive methods such as directional drilling.

iii)         For manual excavation of trenches, the project arborist must advise on roots to be retained. Manual excavation may include the use of pneumatic and hydraulic tools.

18.        Works near trees certification

a)         The project arborist must submit to the principal certifying authority a certificate that all works have been carried out in compliance with the approved plans and conditions or specifications for tree protection. 

b)         Certification should include a statement of site attendance, the condition of retained trees, details of any deviations from the approved tree protection measures and their impacts on trees.

            Note: Copies of monitoring documentation may be required by the PCA and/or Council.

19.        Environmental Management

To prevent sediment run-off, excessive dust, noise or odour emanating from the site during the construction, the site must be managed in accordance with the publication ‘Managing Urban Stormwater – Landcom (March 2004) and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

20.        Disturbance of Existing Site

During construction works, the existing ground levels of open space areas and natural landscape features, including natural rock-outcrops, vegetation, soil and watercourses must not be altered unless otherwise nominated on the approved plans.

21.        Landfill

This development consent does not permit the importation of any fill material for the purposes of structural and engineering construction or landform modification.

Any fill material required to be imported to the site requires additional approval from Council.

22.        Excavated Material

All excavated material removed from the site must be classified by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW Waste Classification Guidelines and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 prior to disposal to an approved waste management facility and be reported to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, a reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall not be taken to mean an ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

23.        Damage to Council Assets

To protect public property and infrastructure, any damage caused to Council’s assets because of the construction or demolition of the development must be rectified by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Specifications. Rectification works must be undertaken prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, or sooner, as directed by Council.

24.        Arborist Final Certification

The AQF 5 Project arborist must submit to the principal certifying authority a certificate that states the following:

a)         All the tree protection requirements comply with the tree protection plan;

b)         All completed works have been carried out in compliance with the conditions of consent and approved plans;

c)         Dates and times and reasons for site attendance;

d)         The post development condition of the health for the retained tree number 1;

e)         Details necessary work to maintain tree health;

f)          Details of tree protection zone maintenance;

g)         Tree replacements meet NATSPEC guidelines and the approved landscape plan;

Note: Copies of monitoring documentation may be requested throughout DA process.

25.        Completion of Landscaping

A certificate must be submitted to the PCA by a practicing landscape architect, horticulturalist or person with similar qualifications and experience certifying that all required landscaping works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan prepared by Urbis dated 01/05/2019.

26.        Preservation of Survey Marks

A certificate by a Registered Surveyor must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority, certifying that there has been no removal, damage, destruction, displacement or defacing of the existing survey marks in the vicinity of the proposed development or otherwise the re-establishment of damaged, removed or displaced survey marks has been undertaken in accordance with the Surveyor General’s Direction No.11 – “Preservation of Survey Infrastructure”.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

27.        Noise

All noise generated by the proposed development must be attenuated to prevent levels of noise being emitted to adjacent premises which possess tonal, beating and similar characteristics or which exceeds background noise levels by more than 5dB(A).

28.        EME Report

A report is to be submitted to Council with measurement of EME levels at the nearest resident to the site. The EME levels are to comply with the standard specified in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 2002 ‘Radiation Protection Standard: Maximum exposure levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3 kHz to 300 GHz’, Radiation Protection Series No 3. Mitigation measures are to be proposed to Council for implementation if levels are found to not comply with the standard. The report is to be submitted to Council within 30 days of commissioning the facility and be prepared by a suitably qualified person with relevant experience in EME measurement. 

29.        Telecommunication Facility

The telecommunications facility on the site must be operated in compliance with, but not limited to:

a)         Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) ‘Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3kHz to 300 GHz’, (2002).

b)         The Australian Communication Industry Forum Code (ACIF), Industry Code C564:2004, Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure, (2002).

c)         The Australian Communications Authority (ACA), Radiocommunications (Electromagnetic Radiation – Human Exposure) Standard, (2003).

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, other relevant legislation and Council’s policies and specifications.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 4.17 of the Act.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Requirements

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires:

·              The issue of a construction certificate prior to the commencement of any works.  Enquiries can be made to Council’s Customer Services Branch on 9847 6760;

·              A principal certifying authority to be nominated and Council notified of that appointment prior to the commencement of any works;

·              Council to be given at least two days written notice prior to the commencement of any works;

·              Mandatory inspections of nominated stages of the construction inspected; and

·              An occupation certificate to be issued before occupying any building or commencing the use of the land.

Long Service Levy 

In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, a ‘Long Service Levy’ must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation or Hornsby Council.

Note: The rate of the Long Service Levy is 0.35% of the total cost of the work.

Note: Hornsby Council requires the payment of the Long Service Levy prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Dial Before You Dig

Prior to commencing any works, the applicant is encouraged to contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au for free information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth)

If you are aware of any works or proposed works which may affect or impact on Telstra’s assets in any way, you are required to contact: Telstra’s Network Integrity Team on Phone Number 1800810443.

Asbestos Warning

Should asbestos or asbestos products be encountered during demolition or construction works, you are advised to seek advice and information prior to disturbing this material. It is recommended that a contractor holding an asbestos-handling permit (issued by SafeWork NSW) be engaged to manage the proper handling of this material. Further information regarding the safe handling and removal of asbestos can be found at:

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.adfa.org.au

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Alternatively, telephone the SafeWork NSW Asbestos and Demolition Team on 8260 5885.


 

LPP Report No. LPP19/19

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 31/07/2019

 

2        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HERITAGE LISTED DWELLING AND USE AS A CHILD CARE CENTRE - 44 MALSBURY ROAD NORMANHURST   

 

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:

DA/94/2018 (Lodged on 7 February 2018)   

Description:

Alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling house and change of use to a 58-place child care centre

Property:

Lot X DP 413792, No. 44 Malsbury Road Normanhurst

Applicant:

Mr Sam Rockwell

Owner:

Oaktwig Pty Ltd

Estimated Value:

$1,484,769

Ward:

B

·              The application involves alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling house and change of use to a 58-place child care centre.

·              The proposal does not comply with the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 with respect to safety, access, landscaping, setbacks, acoustics, streetscape and heritage impacts.

·              Thirty-seven (37) submissions have been received in respect of the application.

·              The application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Shire Council Local Planning Panel as 10 or more unique submissions were received by way of objection.

·              It is recommended that the application be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/94/2018 for alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling house and change of use to a 58-place child care centre at Lot X DP 413792, No. 44 Malsbury Road Normanhurst be refused subject to the reasons detailed in Schedule 1 of LPP Report No. LPP19/19.

 


BACKGROUND

On 7 February 2018, Development Application No. DA94/2018 was lodged for the alterations and additions of an existing heritage listed dwelling and change of use to a 67 place child care centre.

On 15 March 2018, Council requested additional information regarding a Road Safety Audit prepared by a certified Road Safety Auditor to address the safety issues associated with the proposed driveway and details of traffic volumes at all intersections.

On 10 April 2018, Council requested the applicant to address issues regarding waste management.

On 8 May 2018, Council requested additional information and raised concerns regarding the bulk and scale of the development, floor area exceedance, concerns regarding the design being unsympathetic and uncharacteristic to the setting of the heritage listed federation dwelling, amount of hard surface within the front setback, lack of landscaping proposed, non-compliance to setbacks, tree removal and tree impact concerns, contamination and BCA concerns.

On 4 May 2018, the applicant submitted a Road Safety Audit report.

On 28 May 2018, the applicant submitted a traffic survey report to address the traffic volumes at the intersections.

On 16 July 2018, the applicant submitted amended plans showing the following changes:

·              Reduction in child numbers from 67 to 58.

·              Reduction in parking from 17 to 16 car spaces.

·              A reduction in height of the rear addition to single storey.

·              Provision of a conventional hipped roof design to complement the heritage dwelling.

·              Relocation of the bin storage area to the basement.

In addition, the applicant submitted a revised Heritage Impact Assessment outlining changes to the existing eaves and windows of the existing building proposed to address BCA requirements.

On 19 September 2018, Council wrote to the applicant raising concerns regarding the amended plans lodged in July 2018. The applicant was requested to address issues relating to heritage impacts, landscaping and waste management. In addition, the applicant was requested to submit engineering plans detailing the installation of a concrete median in Malsbury Road to restrict right turn movements and a detailed contamination report.

On 12 October 2018, the applicant submitted amended architectural plans, engineering plans, a structural adequacy report and contamination report.

On 1 November 2018, Council’s wrote to the applicant raising concerns regarding the inadequacies of the engineering plans showing the median in Malsbury Road.

On 8 Nov 2018, the applicant submitted amended an engineering plan showing the median and traffic signage.

On 12 November 2018, Council wrote to the applicant raising concerns that the tree issues have not been adequately addressed. The applicant was advised that Council raises significant concerns regarding the impacts associated with trees numbered 5 and 9, the proposed loss of tree 6, and lack of an adequate tree protection plan.

On 12 December 2018, a site meeting was held between Council’s tree management officer and the applicant’s arborist and a revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment was lodged on 20 December 2018.

On 24 December 2018, Council wrote to the applicant raising concerns that the proposed works would have a substantial negative impact on the significance and setting of the heritage item.

On 11 February 2019, Council notified the engineering plans showing the median and traffic signage in Malsbury Road between 11 February to 25 February 2019. Council received four submissions objecting to the proposed installation of the concrete median island in Malsbury Road.

On 6 March 2019, Council wrote to the applicant raising concerns that the heritage issues have not been resolved and proposed median would be required to be relocated and road widening works would be required to be undertaken along the railway side in Malsbury Road.

On 2 April 2019 a meeting was held between the applicant and Council officers. At the meeting Council officers outlined numerous outstanding concerns relating to the design of the median design, impacts of the basement, driveway and parking areas on the heritage significance of the building, impact on trees and lack of landscaping.

On 5 June 2019, the applicant advised Council in writing that no further amended plans would be lodged.

SITE

The subject property is located on the western side of Malsbury Road, Normanhurst between Clarke Road to the north and Woodbine Avenue to the south. The site is directly opposite the Northern Railway Line. The site lies 550m north of Normanhurst Railway Station.

The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of 1,581m2. The frontage to Malsbury Road is 27.64m and the average site depth is 58.6m. The rear boundary has a width of 26.41m. The site is generally level and has a slight slope in a north easterly direction with a differential across the site of less than 1m.

The improvements on the site includes a single storey brick and tile dwelling with several metal sheds scattered throughout the property. There is a detached brick and tile garage adjacent to the southern side boundary. Access to the site is gained via an existing driveway fronting Malsbury Road.

The subject site is listed as a heritage item No.600 (House) under Schedule 5 of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP).  The site is located in the vicinity of heritage listed No.40 Malsbury Road (Item No. 599 – Federation timber house) and heritage listed trees in Malsbury Road (item No. 598 – street trees) under Schedule 5 of the HLEP. 

PROPOSAL

The application proposes internal and external alterations to the existing dwelling house for use as a 58-place childcare centre.

The 58 child places would include the following mix of age groups:

·      0-2 years – 8 children

·      2-3 years – 20 children

·      3-5 years – 30 children

Nine permanent childcare staff are proposed.

The proposed operating hours of the centre are 7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday

The development would have the following elements:

Basement Level

·              Basement carpark would contain a total of 9 car spaces including 1 accessible space, one motorcycle parking, bin store, lift and stairs to upper level.

Ground Floor Level

·              The internal layout of the childcare centre would include an entry lobby, office and staff room, kitchen, cot area, bathroom with a nappy change room, bathroom, laundry and three indoor play rooms.

·              The front of the site would be converted into a 6-space staff car parking area.

·              Pedestrian access to the centre would be via a pathway parallel to the northern boundary of the site.

·              A new 6.4m wide driveway would be installed fronting Malsbury Road to allow vehicles to the at grade car parking spaces and the basement car park level.

·              The rear of the site would comprise shaded and unshaded play areas, two sandpits and an equipment store.

A 2.1m and 2.2m high acoustic barriers would be installed to the rear portion of the western and southern side boundaries and 1.8m fence along entire length of the northern boundary.  The existing boundary fences which are constructed from 1.8-metre-high ‘lapped and capped timber’ would be utilised. However, to achieve the acoustic requirements, a transparent 10mm thick Perspex cantilevered sheeting would be attached to the upper portion of the fence.

A concrete median is proposed to be installed to restrict traffic movements at the child care facility to left in and left out. In addition, parking would be restricted in Malsbury Road, along the western side for the length of the median island, to allow for left turn lane into the child care facility.

The proposal would involve the removal of five trees T1-T4 and T6 from the site.

No signage is proposed as part of this application.

ASSESSMENT

The development application has been assessed having regard to the ‘The Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities’, the ‘North District Plan’ and the matters for consideration prescribed under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The following issues have been identified for further consideration.

1.         STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1        Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities and North District Plan

The Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities has been prepared by the NSW State Government to guide land use planning decisions for the next 40 years (to 2056).  The Plan sets a strategy and actions for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth and identifies dwelling targets to ensure supply meets demand.  The Plan also identifies that the most suitable areas for new housing are in locations close to jobs, public transport, community facilities and services.

The NSW Government will use the subregional planning process to define objectives and set goals for job creation, housing supply and choice in each subregion.  Hornsby Shire has been grouped with Hunters Hill, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde, Northern Beaches and Willoughby to form the North District.  The Greater Sydney Commission has released the North District Plan which includes priorities and actions for Northern District for the next 20 years.  The identified challenge for Hornsby Shire will be to provide an additional 4,350 dwellings by 2021 with further strategic supply targets to be identified to deliver 97,000 additional dwellings in the North District by 2036.

Over the 20 years to 2036, projections show an expected increase of 6,150 children aged four years and under. The identified challenge for Hornsby Shire would be to provide additional infrastructure for students and young people. The proposed child care centre would generally be consistent with the objectives of the strategy by providing 58 additional child care places.

2.         STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 4.15(1)(a) requires Council to consider “any relevant environmental planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments, development control plans, planning agreements and regulations”.

2.1        Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the provisions of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP).

2.1.1     Zoning of Land and Permissibility

The subject land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the HLEP.  The objectives of the zone are:

·              To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low-density residential environment.

·              To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposed development is defined as a “child care centre” and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

Whilst the use of the land as a child care centre may be a permitted in the zone, the impact of the works to achieve a childcare centre, particularly the car parking requirements, result in an adverse and substantial impact on the setting of the item and its significance as a residential Federation dwelling with typically large landscaped front yard. The loss of the garden setting of the listed Federation dwelling would have an adverse impact on the significance of the item and its understanding on a residential property. The proposal is not supported on heritage grounds.

2.1.2     Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.  The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 8.5m.  The proposal would have a height of 5.7m and complies with this provision.

2.1.3     Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the HLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire.  The subject site is listed as a heritage item No.600 (House) under Schedule 5 of the HLEP.  The site is located in the vicinity of heritage listed No.40 Malsbury Road (Item No. 599 – Federation timber house) and heritage listed trees in Malsbury Road (item No.598 – street trees) under Schedule 5 of the HLEP. 

With respect to the heritage significance, the site contains a single storey fine representative example of an intact and idiosyncratic early 20th century face brick Federation dwelling with a terracotta hip roof, ridge ornamentation and chimneys.  A unique bricked archway located at the corner leads up to a truncated verandah/porch facing the adjacent property.  The site contains no front fencing, a wheel strip driveway, grassed front lawn, trees and pathway to the front entry from the footpath.  The setting of the item includes the landscaped garden and low scale residential development on adjoining properties in a tree lined street.

Initial heritage concerns were raised regarding the proposed lift tower, roof height/scale of the rear addition, the fire safety and acoustic upgrades on original fabric and the substantial works within the front yard and setting of the heritage item. 

In July 2018, the applicant submitted amended plans to address the abovementioned concerns.  Whilst the amended design of the rear addition (single storey) reduced the impact and concerns previously raised regarding the two-storey element, the applicant provided no substantial changes to the extensive works within the front yard to alleviate the impact on the visual residential setting of the heritage item.

Further amended plans were lodged in October 2018 to address the heritage concerns. Council’s heritage assessment has concluded that the heritage concerns remain regarding the impact on the heritage item and its setting. The proposed works are not supported on heritage grounds for the following reasons:

·              To date the detailed design of the proposed fire-resistant material and fixtures has not been provided; as such no heritage assessment on the impact of these works can be made.

·              The visual impact of the basement, driveway and loss of front yard to extensive car parking across the site would greatly reduce the significance of the item and would have an adverse impact on the landscaped residential setting. The proposed use of grass between concrete block pavers would not mitigate Council’s landscaping and heritage concerns.

·              The minimal landscaping proposed in the bio-retention strip at the front of the site does not mitigate or adequately reduce the impacts.

2.1.4     Earthworks

Clause 6.2 of the HLEP states that consent is required for proposed earthworks on site.  Before granting consent for earthworks, Council is required to assess the impacts of the works on adjoining properties, drainage patterns and soil stability of the locality.

Substantial excavation is proposed adjacent the heritage item to accommodate the basement and entry driveway. The applicant submitted a “Structural Design Statement’ prepared by Mark Boudib, Director of United Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd dated 27 February 2018. This Statement states that with the ‘necessary and correct construction methodology the existing footings can be protected against movement and damage.’

Concern were raised that the detail provided is insufficient and out of date to ensure that the heritage item would not be ‘inadvertently demolished’ due to the demolition and construction works proposed around it.

An amended Structural Design Statement has been submitted, dated 9 October 2018. The letter states that the recommendations of the report, if followed, would not result in any vibration or movement which could affect the existing structure. The updated statement addresses the previous concern, subject to the recommendations of the structural engineer being followed.

Accordingly, the development complies with Clause 6.2 of the HLEP.

2.2        State Environmental Planning Policy No.  55 – Remediation of Land

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land under which consent must not be granted to the carrying out of any development on land unless the consent authority has considered whether the land is contaminated or requires remediation for the proposed use.

An Asbestos Management Plan dated 11 July 2018, prepared by Luke Meadows of CETEC Pty Ltd has been submitted. In addition, a Stage 1 Site Investigation was prepared by NG Child and Associates dated 11 July 2018. The investigation included soil analysis data from four sampling locations, which is appropriate for a preliminary investigation.

Council advised the Applicant that an updated site investigation including further soil sampling data would be required. NG Child & Associates provided an updated site investigation which includes soil data from an additional three sampling locations, bringing the total number of soil sampling locations to seven, which is consistent with NSW EPA soil sampling design guidelines for a detailed or Stage 2 site investigation.

The overall findings of the site investigation are that the underlying soils at the site are not contaminated, and that soil quality at the site is appropriate for the proposed land use. Based on the findings of the detailed site investigation, and in accordance with relevant NSW EPA site assessment guidelines, it has been found that no further or more detailed assessment or investigation of the site is required.

2.3        State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Applications involving more than 2m of excavation within 25m of a rail corridor require referral to Sydney Trains pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. As the application proposes more than 2m of excavation, the application was referred to Sydney Trains. Sydney Trains reviewed the application and raised no objections to the development.

Malsbury Road is a regional road which links Normanhurst and Hornsby. As the road is “unclassified” no referral is required to the Roads and Maritime Services.

2.4        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury – Nepean River

The site is located within the catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River.  Part 2 of this Plan contains general planning considerations and strategies requiring Council to consider the impacts of development on water quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.

Subject to the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater management to protect water quality, the proposal would comply with the requirements of the Policy.

2.5        State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP) commenced 25 August 2017 and aims to protect the biodiversity and amenity values of trees within non-rural areas of the state.

Part 3 of the Vegetation SEPP states that a development control plan may make a declaration in any manner relating to species, size, location and presence of vegetation. Accordingly, Part 1B.6.1 of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) prescribes works that can be undertaken with or without consent to trees.     

Part 3.1.1 of this report provides an assessment in accordance with Part 1B.6.1 of the HDCP.

2.6        State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 (Education SEPP) commenced on 1 September 2017.

Clause 23 of the SEPP states that before determining a development application, the consent authority must take into consideration any applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 (CCPG), in relation to the proposed development.

The CCPG would generally take precedence over the HDCP with the exception of building height, side and rear setbacks and car parking rates. An assessment of the application against the relevant parts in the guideline being Part 1.3 Planning objectives, Part 2 Design quality principles, Part 3 Matters for consideration and Part 4 Applying the National Regulations to development proposals is provided below:

·              What are the planning objectives

The planning objectives contained within Part 1.3 of the CCPG include requirements that child care facilities are compatible with the existing streetscape, context and neighbouring land uses and that they seek to minimise adverse impacts of development on adjoining properties and the neighbourhood.

As per the discussion provided in response to Part 3 of the CCPG, the proposal is considered contrary to these objectives as the development would create visual conflict and not be consistent with the existing streetscape.

·              Design quality principles

As per the discussion provided in response to Part 3 of the CCPG, the proposal is considered contrary to the design quality principles of Part 2 in relation to built form, landscaping, safety and amenity.

·              Site selection and location

Child care centres are a permissible land use within the subject R2 Low Density Residential zone. The site is located within 600m of Normanhurst Station and is generally level. The site is not bushfire or flood prone, does not adjoin a state road and is not within close proximity to incompatible development. The site is not located within the vicinity of any known heavy or hazardous industries, waste depots, service stations or the like.

An objective of CCPG is “to ensure that the site selected for a proposed child care facility is suitable for the use.”  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development on traffic and safety grounds. 

·              Local, character, streetscape and the public domain interface

New development should appropriately consider identified heritage items. An objective of the CCPG is “to ensure that the child care facility is compatible with the local character and surrounding streetscape.”

The proposed alterations to the existing dwelling is inconsistent with the traditional residential character of the heritage item due to the extensive use of hard stand area. The basement, driveway and extensive car parking basin the front yard would have negative impact on the visual residential setting of the heritage item. The reduction in the number of children and removal of the basement level would assist in reducing the visual impact of the development on the landscaped residential setting of the heritage-listed item.

·              Building orientation, envelope and design

The objectives is “to ensure that the built form, articulation and scale of development relates to its context and buildings are well designed to contribute to an area's character.” The design of the proposed child care centre results in unacceptable heritage impacts that could be avoided with a better design and a reduced number of children. In this regard, the proposal does not comply with Section 3.3 of the CCPG.

·              Landscaping

The objectives of Part 3.4 CCPG include providing landscaping that contributes to the streetscape and amenity.

C18 of the guideline states:

  “Provide a high quality landscape area by reflecting and reinforcing the local context”

C19 of the guideline states;

          Incorporate carparking into the landscape design by:

·      Taking into account the street scale, local character and context when siting carparking areas within the front setback”

The Applicant’s Heritage Impact Statement acknowledges the impact of the loss of landscaping and states that there is a landscape strip at the front of the site and grass between concrete pavers would be used so that the area in front of the house appears to be grassed.

The loss of soft landscaping at the front of the existing house would diminish the landscape setting for the heritage item and have an adverse effect. The front setback would be dominated by concrete driveways to the basement carpark, low concrete walls related to the on-site detention area and the biofiltration basin and a paved carpark area. These hard concrete elements would create an in inappropriate setting for the heritage item. It is considered that the use of grass-crete is unlikely to sustain a grass landscape, in particular car parking spaces that are used daily, have not proven successful.

Screen planting has not been provided along the northern boundary where the planting is mostly groundcovers. The southern boundary within the front setback is also only groundcovers with no screen planting. The replacement trees are small and no canopy trees are to be provided. In addition, the proposed small Elaeocarpus tree shown on the landscape plan would conflict with proposed gas and water meters and would not have sufficient space to grow. 

Council considers that the proposal does not comply with the landscaping objectives of the CCPG.

·              Visual and Acoustic Privacy and 3.6 Noise and air pollution

A 2.1m and 2.2m high acoustic barriers would be installed to the rear portion of the western and southern side boundaries and 1.8m fence along entire length of the northern boundary.  The existing boundary fences which are constructed from 1.8 metre high ‘lapped and capped timber’ would be utilised. However, to achieve the acoustic requirements, a transparent 10mm thick Perspex cantilevered sheeting would be attached to the upper portion of the fence.

Council’s assessment of the applicant’s acoustic report raised issues with the submitted information. This matter is discussed in detail in Section 2.9.6 of this report.

·              Hours of operation

No objections are raised to the proposed hours of operation as they are consistent with Objective C29 of the CCPG which limits hours of operation between 7am to 6pm on weekdays.

·              Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation 

Objective C1 of the CCPG encourages Council to consider the traffic and parking impacts on residential amenity.

The proposal provides for 15 car spaces in total within the basement car park which complies with the minimum car parking rates of 1 space per 4 children as prescribed in Objective C31.

Council’s Traffic Engineers have reviewed the proposal’s engineering plans for the concrete median on Malsbury Road and concluded that the plan is inadequate as insufficient information has been shown.  Following the review of submissions, the applicant was advised that the median would be required to be relocated to avoid restricting access to the adjoining property at No. 46 Malsbury Road and road widening would be required along the railway side with appropriate tapers. To date, revised engineering plans have not been submitted to address Council’s concerns.

The shifting of the median to the north would require the relocation of the proposed driveway and a complete redesign of carparking area at the front of the site. It is considered that to address the access, safety and heritage issues, the child care numbers would have to be significantly reduced.

Council considers that the development fails to meet key objectives of Part 3 of the CCPG and cannot be supported.

The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the measures of Part 4 of the CCPG.

Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 – Part 4

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

Unencumbered indoor space

240m2  

3.25m2 per child (188.5m2)

Yes

Unencumbered outdoor space

517m2

 

7m2 per child (406m2)

Yes

Storage

-     External

-     Internal

 

0.3m2 per child

0.2m2 per child

 

0.3m2 per child

0.2m2 per child

 

Yes

Yes

On site laundry

Provided on site

Provided on site

Yes

Child toilet facilities

Provided on site

Provided on site

Yes

Administration space

Provided on site

Provided on site

Yes

Nappy change facilities

Provided on site

Provided on site

Yes

Solar Access for outdoor play

30-60% solar access

30-60% solar access

Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development generally complies with Part 4 of the CCPG.

Clause 25 of the SEPP contains non-discretionary development standards. This prevents the consent authority from imposing more onerous standards or refusing an application on the basis that they have not been complied with. An assessment of the application against Clause 25 of the SEPP has been carried out below:

25 Centre-based child care—non-discretionary development standards

(a)        location - the development may be located at any distance from an existing or proposed early childhood education and care facility;

Comment: There is a recently approved child care centre in close proximity to the site at No. 34 Malsbury Road. This approved centre has not been constructed. 

(b)        indoor or outdoor space

(i)         For development to which clause 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements) or 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations applies—the unencumbered area of indoor space and the unencumbered area of outdoor space for the development complies with the requirements of those clauses, or

(ii)        For development to which clause 28 (unencumbered indoor space and useable outdoor play space) of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 applies—the development complies with the indoor space requirements or the useable outdoor play space requirements in that clause;

Comment: The regulations require a minimum of 3.25m2 of unencumbered indoor play area per child and the proposal complies with this requirement. The regulations require a minimum of 7m2 of unencumbered outdoor play area per child. In this instance the development complies with this requirement.

(c)        Site area, site coverage and site dimensions—the development may be located on a site of any size, cover any part of the site and have any length of street frontage or any allotment depth;

Comment: The site has an area of 1,581m2 and is considered acceptable.

(d)        Colour of building materials or shade structures—the development may be of any colour or colour scheme unless it is a heritage item or in a heritage conservation area,

Comment: The materials in the new section of the development would be dark grey brickwork and have aluminium-framed fenestration in white. The proposed roof would be comprised of corrugated steel roof sheeting. Generally, no objections are raised in this regard.

In summary, the proposed centre-based child care centre would not comply with key Childcare SEPP provisions and is assessed as non-satisfactory in this regard.

2.7        Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012

NSW Education and Communities regulates the licensing and operation of child care centres in accordance with the above Regulation. Clause 28 of the Regulation provides for the functional space requirements for child care centre premises. The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the Regulation:

Control

Proposal

Compliance

Consultation Room

Staff room / Foyer area

Yes

Respite Staff Room

Staff room

Yes

Sleeping Room 0-2 yr

Cot Rooms

Yes

Min 3.25m2 Indoor Play Space per child

>3.25m2 per child

Yes

Min 7.0m2 Outdoor Play Space per child

>7m2 per child

Yes

Max 40 places 0-2 year old

Maximum of 8 places

Yes

Laundry

Laundry

Yes

Separate Sink Craft Area

Two craft sink areas

Yes

Food Preparation Facilities

Kitchen

Yes

Toilets and Washing Facilities

Separate toilets for children/staff

Yes

Nappy Change Facilities

Nappy Change Room

Yes

Storage Facilities

Storerooms

Yes

As per the above table the proposal would meet NSW Education and Communities regulatory space requirements for the operation of a child care centre.

If approval were recommended, a condition would be included requiring outdoor play space be adequately shaded in accordance with The Shade Handbook, published by the New South Wales Cancer Council in 2008 prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

The ‘Staff to Child Ratio’ requirements within the Regulation indicate that at least 9 staff members would be required for this facility. If approval were recommended, a condition would be included requiring compliance with the provisions of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulations 2012, in this regard.

2.8        Section 3.42 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

Section 3.42 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that a DCP provision would have no effect if it prevents or unreasonably restricts development that is otherwise permitted and complies with the development standards in relevant Local Environmental Plans and State Environmental Planning Policies. 

The principal purpose of a development control plan is to provide guidance on the aims of any environmental planning instrument that applies to the development; facilitate development that is permissible under any such instrument; and achieve the objectives of land zones.  The provisions contained in a DCP are not statutory requirements and are for guidance purposes only.  Consent authorities have flexibility to consider innovative solutions when assessing development proposals, to assist achieve good planning outcomes.

2.9        Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant desired outcomes and prescriptive requirements within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).  The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the Plan:

Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 – Part 7 Community Uses

Control

Proposal

Requirement

Compliance

Site Area

1,581m2

N/A

N/A

Height

5.7m

8.5m

Yes

Floor Area

377.2m2

 Max. 430m2

Yes

Site Coverage

28.5%

50%

Yes

Number of Children

58

Max. 30

No

Recreation Space

-     Indoor

-     Outdoor

 

>3.25m2  per child

>7m2 per child

 

3.25m2 per child

7m2 per child

 

Yes

Yes

Landscaping

36% (570m2)

40% (632m2)

No

Car Parking

15 spaces

15 spaces (1 space per 4 children)

Yes

Setbacks (To buildings)

-     Malsbury (front)

-     Northern (side)

-     Southern (side)

-     Western (rear)

 

Existing retained

2m

2m-9m

2.5m-10m

 

6m

2m

2m

3m

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Car parking setback

2m

2m

Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development does not comply with a number of prescriptive requirements within the HDCP. The matters of non-compliance are detailed below, as well as a brief discussion on compliance with relevant desired outcomes. It is also noted that the CCPG would take precedence over the HDCP with the exception of building height, side and rear setbacks and car parking rates.

2.9.1     Scale

Table 7.1.2(b) of the HDCP provides intensity controls to limit the size of child care centres. In residential zones, a maximum of 30 children is permitted for dwelling house conversions. The controls permit a capacity of 60 children when at least 33% of places are provided for 0-2 year olds. The application proposes up to 58 children which does not comply with the above HDCP requirement.

As a consent authority cannot apply more onerous standards than required under the Education SEPP, the intensity controls of the HDCP as detailed above have no effect since commencement of the SEPP. The ages, age ratios, or numbers of children is not a matter for consideration in the SEPP or Guideline.

2.9.2     Setbacks

The desired outcomes of Part 7.1.3 Setbacks of the HDCP are to encourage “setbacks that are compatible with adjacent development and compliment the streetscape” and “setbacks that allow for the retention of significant landscape features and respect site constraints”.

Table 7.1.3(a) of the HDCP notes that setbacks for dwelling house to child care centre conversions within an R2 Low Density Residential Zone should be assessed in accordance with Part 3.1 controls. An assessment in accordance with these controls is provided below:

Front boundary

The HDCP requires a 6m setback from the front boundary for buildings. The existing dwelling house has a front setback of 13.8m and complies with the control.

However, the majority of the front yard is proposed to be paved and provision has been made for staff car parking across the frontage of the existing building. The existing wheel strip driveway is to be removed and replaced by a double width concrete driveway accessing a basement level car park. The entrance to the basement directly adjoins the brick and sandstone wall of the heritage dwelling. There would be no separation between the basement concrete walls and the sandstone/brick wall of the item. The concrete support walls surrounding the basement entrance would dominate the front of the property, creating an unsympathetic and uncharacteristic setting to the Federation dwelling. Minimal screen planting has been proposed within the front yard.  The landscape plan submitted with application proposes minimal landscaping at the front of the site, due to the proposed paving and onsite detention system within the front yard.

Rear boundary

The HDCP requires a 3m setback from the rear boundary for buildings. The proposed fire stairs and storeroom building would have a setback of 2.5m from the rear boundary and would not comply with this measure. However, the structure would be single storey and subject to screen planting within the rear of the site, the setback encroachment is not anticipated to be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring sites.

2.9.3     Landscaping

The application would not comply with the minimum required landscaped area of 50% in the HDCP. Notwithstanding, there is no minimum required landscaped area contained within the CCPG and therefore this control has no effect. However, Council considers that a more appropriately designed centre could incorporate more landscaping as discussed in Section 2.6 of this report.

2.9.4     Car Parking

The applicant would comply with the numerical requirements of the HDCP being 1 space per 4 children. The plans include a separate pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary and a lift from the basement which provides accessible entry to the child care centre.

2.9.5     Waste

The application proposes a bin storage area located within the basement car park. The bin storage room in the basement has been increased in size to accommodate the bins and aisle space to access to manoeuvre the bins.

Regular garbage collection for the site is proposed to be undertaken by a private waste contractor using a small rigid vehicle (SRV). The SRV would collect outside of peak hours and on site within the staff only parking area located at grade. Council would accept a small rigid vehicle for waste collection. The swept path diagrams provided by the applicant indicates that an SRV can ingress and egress the site in a forward direction.

Council’s waste management assessment raises concerns regarding the bin carting route from the basement bin storage room to the ground level parking area where the truck is to park. The 660L garbage bins cannot be carted up a 1:5 ramp safely and the alternate route using the lift includes stairs, and 660L bins cannot be carted over stairs. To avoid the stairs the bins would have to be carted along the public footpath which is not acceptable. Alternatively, the plans would need to be amended to replace the stairs along the path from the lift to the ground level car park with a ramp.

2.9.6     Noise and Vibrations

Submissions have been received objecting to the proposal based on noise emissions of the outdoor play area on adjacent residential development.

In accordance with the provision of Part 1C.2.5 of the HDCP, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Noise Assessment report dated 31 January 2018 prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd detailing predicted noise levels of the centre. The acoustic assessment adopted noise limit for the adjacent developments to be (46 + 5 =) 51 dBA in the early morning; and (44 + 5 =) 49 dBA during the day. The report acknowledges that based on the original expected maximum 67 children that the centre would exceed recommended noise limits.

In order to limit noise, the report recommended limiting the maximum number of children to 37 in the outdoor play area at any one time as follows:

·       0-2-year-old = 12

·       2-3-year-old = 10 and

·       3-6 year old = 15.

In addition, the acoustic report recommended barriers along the western and southern boundaries, including a 1.8m high lapped and capped fence, plus a 10 mm thick UV resistant polycarbonate cantilevered inwards at 45 degrees on top of the fence.

The acoustic report allows all the 0-2 year old and only half of 2-3 year old and 3-6 years old to be outside at any one time. Notwithstanding, the recommendations of the acoustic report it is considered impractical to limit the number of children to 37 children and only allow half of the older age groups to play outside at any one time.  However, the applicant was not requested to address the acoustic report recommendations, as the level of amendments required in order to address the other issues raised would result in a substantial reduction in number of children at the centre.

2.10      Section 7.12 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2014 – 2024 applies to the development as the estimated costs of works is greater than $100,000.  Should the application be approved, a condition of consent would be recommended requiring the payment of a contribution in accordance with the Plan.

3.         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Act requires Council to consider “the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality”.

3.1        Natural Environment

3.1.1     Tree and Vegetation Preservation

The subject site is listed as a heritage item No. 600 (House) and is close to the heritage item No.598 (Street trees) in Malsbury Road under Schedule 5 of the HLEP. 

An amended Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and an addendum prepared by NSW Tree Services P/L was submitted with the application. The submitted arborist reports determined that there are 10 trees on or near the adjacent to the site and five trees (T1-T4 and T6) would be removed to facilitate the development.

Council’s tree assessment determined that the trees proposed for removal are identified as Camphor Laurels, a Native Daphne and a Bracelet Honey Myrtle. None of these trees are good specimens and no objection is raised to their proposed removal. Tree number T6 is a mature Silky Oak of moderate retention value marked for removal. The addendum adequately addresses the requirement to remove this tree. Council’s assessment considers loss of this tree acceptable subject to adequate replacement planting.

Tree number T5 a Jacaranda located on the neighbouring property, flush against the fence with significant canopy overhang onto the subject site. The consultant Arborist has adequately addressed clearance of the proposed structure and describes how construction activities can be achieved with minor pruning of lower secondary branches no greater than 40mm in diameter. The consultant Arborist recommends preparation of a tree protection plan which addresses retention and protection of this tree.

Tree number T9 is a mature Sydney Red Gum (Angophora costata) in very good condition. This tree is located on the subject site and proposed to be retained. The proposed basement level has been amended to address the incursion into the Tree Preservation Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of this tree.

Concerns raised previously regarding branches possibly dropping from T9 Sydney Red Gum over of the proposed outdoor play area. The Applicant’s arborist has recommended the installation of a shade structure and regular inspections by a qualified arborist. However, concern is maintained that the positioning of the play area under the canopy of this tree is likely to lead to on-going maintenance issues and risk of falling branches regardless of the presence of a shade structure. In addition, installation of proposed turf area under T9 would inevitably affect tree surface roots and increased foot traffic and activity within the root zone is likely to increase soil compaction. These two factors individually and combined are likely to stress the tree and may make it more prone to branch drop and potentially reduce the tree’s life expectancy.

Tree number T10 is an English Oak on the neighbouring property about 6.5 metres from the boundary. The calculated TPZ for this tree is 10.8 metres radius. The incursion of the proposal into the TPZ is minor and not expected to be a problem. There is no overhang from the canopy from this tree onto the subject site.

Whilst the applicant has addressed most tree related issues, due to the likely on-going issues associated with possible branch drop from tree number T9 Sydney Red Gum onto the proposed outdoor play area, the proposal is not supported in its current form.

3.2        Built Environment

3.2.1     Traffic

The majority of submissions raise concerns about the impact of the development on the local traffic network and road safety.

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RMS Guide) recommends application of a rate of 0.8 trips / child during the 7:00-9:00am peak period and 0.7 trips / child during the 4:00-6:00pm peak period, for long-day child care centres. Application of this rate to the 58 children proposed, results in a trip generation of 37 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 32 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. Council’s traffic engineering assessment, concluded that the traffic volumes generated by this development would be low and that trips to childcare centres are typically ‘linked trips’ whereby a driver is already accounted for on the network (travelling to a destination such as work or dropping an older sibling to school).

However, Council raised concerns relating to the proposed driveway with respect to safety.  The applicant submitted a Road Safety Audit (RSA) prepared by DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd to address the safety issues. The RSA recommended mitigation measures to ‘restrict the subject property to a left-in-left-out access/ egress arrangement with no right- turns into or out of the property’ and ‘to implement a section of NO STOPPING zone along the western shoulder of Malsbury Road.’

Based on the recommendations of the RSA, Council requested the submission of engineering plans showing the construction of a 600mm wide concrete median island on Malsbury Road to restrict any right turns movements to/from the site, with the median extended 6m past the proposed driveway. In addition, the applicant was requested to include details of “No Stopping, 7am – 9am, 3pm – 7pm, Mon – Fri” signs to be installed between driveways of No. 46a Malsbury Road and the proposed centre to allow vehicles to queue and turn left into the site without disrupting the traffic flow on Malsbury Road.

The applicant submitted engineering plans which were notified to affected property owners. Following the review of public submissions, the applicant was requested to submit revised engineering plans to relocate the proposed driveway to the north so that the proposed median would not impede access to the adjoining property at No. 46 Malsbury Road and to provide a 3.5m wide travel lane along the eastern side to accommodate buses due to the varying horizontal and longitudinal road geometry. This would require road widening along the railway side with appropriate tapers and any road widening would require the submission of detailed engineering plans, survey plans and an arborist report.  The applicant subsequently advised Council that they would not be providing Council the requested information. Therefore, Council considers that the application does not provide sufficient information in order to undertake an appropriate assessment of potential road safety impacts of the location of the proposed driveway.

3.3        Social Impacts

The proposed modification to the child care centre would provide 58 child care spaces in the locality which is considered to be a positive social contribution to the wider local community. Notwithstanding, Council considers that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the significance of the heritage item as described previously in this report.

3.4        Economic Impacts

The proposal would have a minor positive impact on the local economy by generating an increase in demand for local services.

4.         SITE SUITABILITY

Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider “the suitability of the site for the development”.

The subject site has not been identified as bushfire prone or flood prone land.  The site is considered to be capable of accommodating a child care centre.  However, the design of the proposed development is not considered consistent with the capability of the site.

5.         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 4.15(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

5.1        Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 16 February 2018 and 8 March 2018 in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP.  During this period, Council received 18 submissions.  The amended plans were notified to the affected property owners and objectors between 16 July 2018 to 10 August 2018.  During this period, Council received 19 submissions objecting to the amended proposal.  The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are in close proximity to the development site.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

 

•       PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

 

 

X      SUBMISSIONS

         RECEIVED

Wide upward diagonal

          PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

 

8 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED OUT OF MAP RANGE

 

A total of 37 submissions objected to the development, generally on the grounds that the development would result in:

·              Increased traffic generated by the proposed centre;

·              Safety issues with the ingress and egress from the centre;

·              Speeding issues along Malsbury Road;

·              On-street parking restricting sight distance for vehicles exiting driveways;

·              Insufficient off-street parking causing vehicles to park in local streets;

·              Provision a singular entry to the street for entrance and exit traffic;

·              Width of parking lane insufficient to exit vehicle safely;

·              Traffic counts were carried out outside peak periods;

·              Concern about lack of detailed design for proposed median;

·              Length of median impedes entry and exit from the adjoining driveway;

·              Proposed median would be a traffic hazard;

·              Parents will park on the east side of Malsbury Road and cross to the proposed centre;

·              Residents will not be able to park outside their property due to proposed ‘NO STOPPING’ restrictions;

·              A traffic incident report history should be provided to offer a real assessment of the road dangers;

·              Construction vehicle issues;

·              Unacceptable noise from activities at the centre;

·              Additions to the existing premises and a basement car park, would materially reduce the heritage values of the site;

·              Development is not compatible with (or sympathetic to) the residential character of the surrounding area;

The merits of the matters raised in community submissions have been addressed in the body of the report with the exception of the following:

5.1.1     Numerous crashes on this section of Malsbury Road

A submission has reported that there has been a number of crashes in the vicinity of the proposed centre. A review of RMS data shows that none of these crashes were in the vicinity of the proposed centre, however there has only been a recent crash at No.42 Malsbury Road which does not appear in RMS crash data at this time. 

5.1.2     Traffic counts were carried out outside peak periods

A submission has raised concern that the traffic counts were carried outside peak periods.  The traffic counts provided in the Traffic Report prepared by Traffix were carried out from 7 – 9am and 3 – 6pm on Monday 20 November 2017.  The morning peak hour was found to be 7:45 – 8:45am with the evening peak hour 4:15 – 5:15pm at College Crescent/Clarke Road and Clarke Road/Malsbury Road.  At Malsbury Road/Buckingham Avenue/Milsons Parade the morning peak hour was 7:30 – 8:30am and the evening peak 4:00 - 5:00pm.

5.1.3     Speeding along Malsbury Road

A submission raised concern regarding vehicles speeding along Malsbury Road.  Speed of vehicles along Malsbury Road were addressed in the Road Safety Audit (RSA). The RSA stated that “the impacts of the 60km/h operational (or free speed) have been addressed through specific areas such as sight distance implications and the suggested right-turn restrictions into and out of the site.”

5.1.4     On-street parking restricting sight distance for vehicles exiting driveways

A number of public submissions raised concerns that the on-street parking would restrict sight distance of vehicles exiting the proposed driveway.  This matter was addressed in the RSA which recommended that the “an appropriate array of No Stopping zone should be established on the western kerb line of Malsbury Road. If the subject site is restricted to left-in-left-out only, then the kerbside parking/ stopping would only need to be prohibited to the south of the egress driveway (not to the north).” 

Council’s traffic engineering assessment recommended that “No Stopping, 7am – 9am, 3pm – 7pm, Mon – Fri” signs be installed between driveways of No. 46a Malsbury Road and the proposed centre  to allow vehicles to queue and turn left into the site without disrupting the traffic flow on Malsbury Road. The installation of “No Stopping, 7am – 9am, 3pm – 7pm, Mon – Fri” signs. The applicant was requested to submit detailed engineering plans showing the location of the signage for referral to the Local Traffic Committee. The applicant has advised that no further plans would be submitted.

5.1.5     Width of parking lane insufficient to exit vehicle safely

Concern has been raised that the width of parking lane on Malsbury Road is insufficient to allow a vehicle to exit the site safely. Following an inspection of the site, it is noted that the parking lane appears to be less than 2m wide.  The AS2890.5-1993 requires a minimum width of 2.1m where the space would be used by “cars and light commercial vehicles, restricted roadway width, parking of wide vehicles unlikely and where a continuously marked narrow parking lane will aid traffic flow”. The installation of ‘No Stopping’ signage would mitigate this issue.

5.1.6     Lack of car parking provided on site

A number of submissions have raised concerns that the proposal provides insufficient off-street car parking causing vehicles to park in local streets. The proposed car parking provision satisfies the prescriptive requirements of the HDCP.

5.1.7     Question about Movement summary times

A submission has raised concerns regarding the reference to the movement summary times in the Applicant’s traffic report. The times referred to are the times at which the data was processed, not the time of the survey.

5.1.8     Design for proposed median

Several submissions have raised concerns regarding the design and length of the proposed median. The applicant has been requested to submit detailed design of the proposed median occurs for referral to the Local Traffic Committee. Following the review of the submissions in response to the preliminary design, the applicant was requested to consider relocating the driveway to ensure that the proposed median does not impede access to the adjoining property at No. 46 Malsbury Road.  The applicant has advised that no further plans would be submitted.

5.1.9     The proposed median would be a traffic hazard

Submissions have raised concern that the proposed median woold be a traffic hazard.  The detailed design would be required to include a 5m long advance warning median to alert north bound drivers to the presence of the median across the development driveway.  Southbound drivers will be alerted by the median associated with the approved child care centre at No. 36 Malsbury Road.

5.1.10   Traffic at Normanhurst Railway Bridge

Concerns have been raised about traffic at Normanhurst Railway Bridge (Buckingham, Malsbury, Milson intersection). The Traffic Impact Assessment states that “it was noticed that this intersection was prone to experiencing isolated congestion at points during the morning peak hour. Vehicles travelling westbound towards Thornleigh were observed to queue across this intersection limiting the effectiveness of the seagull arrangement resulting in potential delays for vehicles exiting Buckingham Street”.  Should the application be approved, “Keep Clear” intersection markings would be required to be installed across the intersection.

5.1.11   Parking on the eastern side of Malsbury Road

A submission has raised concern that parents would park on the eastern side of Malsbury Road and cross the road to the proposed centre. Due to road dimensions and the double barrier line, it is illegal to park on the eastern side of Malsbury Road.

5.1.12   Access to railway line could be used for parking for pick up/drop off

The railway access point is only about 50m from the proposed centre. If parents park here it would be possible to install and enforce ‘No Parking’ restrictions at this location to prevent the area being used by parents, should the application be approved. 

5.1.13   Residents will not be able to park outside their property due to proposed ‘No Stopping’ restrictions

The proposed ‘No Stopping’ restrictions would operate between 7-9am and 3-7pm, Monday to Friday.  It is anticipated that the restrictions would be across the frontage on No. 46 Malsbury Road to provide approximately 20m of queuing space for vehicles entering the centre.  Notwithstanding, the parking restrictions would be subject to public consultation and approval by the Hornsby Local Traffic Committee.

5.1.14   Singular entry width to the centre

Concern has been raised that the plans provide for a singular entry width to the centre. The plans show a 6.4m wide two way driveway.  Entering vehicles would not have to wait for exiting vehicles to depart the centre.

5.2        Public Agencies

The development application was referred to the following Agencies for comment:

5.2.1     Sydney Trains

The application was referred to Sydney Trains. Sydney Trains has reviewed the application under Clause 85 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

6.         THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

The public interest is an overarching requirement, which includes the consideration of the matters discussed in this report.  Implicit to the public interest is the achievement of future built outcomes adequately responding to and respecting the future desired outcomes expressed in environmental planning instruments and development control plans.

The proposed child care centre is contrary to Council’s planning controls, the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 and does not contain sufficient information. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would not be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application proposes alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and use for a 58 place child care centre. The centre would be single storey in height with a basement car park.

The proposed child care centre is contrary to Council’s planning controls and the considerations under the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017.

At a recent meeting with the applicant, Council officers outlined numerous concerns relating to the design of the median design, impacts of the basement, driveway and parking areas on the heritage significance of the building, impact on trees and lack of landscaping. To address Council’s concerns, the applicant was requested to consider relocating the driveway, reduce the number of child care places and remove the ramp and basement level. The applicant advised Council in writing that no further amended plans would be lodged. Due to the significance of the issues identified, the current proposal cannot be supported.

A total of 37 submissions have been received by Council objecting to the proposal. More than 10 of the submissions received are unique in respect to the concerns raised regarding the proposal. The Local Planning Panel is the determining authority for the application.

The application is recommended for refusal.

Note:  At the time of the completion of this planning report, no persons have made a Political Donations Disclosure Statement pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of the subject planning application.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is Caroline Maeshian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cassandra Williams

Major Development Manager

Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessments

Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Locality Plan

 

 

2.

Site Plan

 

 

3.

Floor Plans

 

 

4.

Elevations and Sections

 

 

5.

Landscape Plan

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           DA/94/2018

Document Number:     D07699687

 


SCHEDULE 1

1.         The proposal does not satisfy Clause 23 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 as follows:

1.1        The proposal is contrary to the planning objectives within Part 1.3 of the Guideline in that the proposal is not compatible within the existing context and neighbouring land uses and the proposal does not adequately minimise adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the neighbourhood.

1.2        The proposal is contrary to the design principles of Part 2 of the Guideline in relation to built form, landscaping, safety and amenity.

1.3        The proposal is contrary to the Part 3 considerations of the Guideline with respect to Part 3.1 Site Selection and Location, Part 3.2 Local Character, Streetscape and the public domain interface, Part 3.3 Building Orientation, Envelope and Design, Part 3.4 Landscaping, Part 3.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Part 3.6 Noise and Pollution and Part 3.8 Traffic, Parking and Pedestrian Circulation.

2.         The proposal does not satisfy the State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 and tree preservation provisions of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013, as sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on a tree to be retained within the outdoor play area.

3.         The proposed development does not satisfy the Heritage Provisions under Clause 5.10 of Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the proposal does not comply with Part 9 of Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013, in that the proposed basement, driveway and car parking result in an adverse and substantial impact on the setting and significance of the heritage listed dwelling.

4.         The proposal does not comply with the desired outcomes or the prescriptive measures of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 in respect to setbacks, landscaping, tree preservation, waste management and noise.

5.         The proposed development is deficient in information supporting the application regarding the traffic, access and road safety issues and the application is unable to be properly assessed in the absence of the following information:

5.1        Details of the extent of the proposed road works on Malsbury Road including the design of the proposed median, road widening and associated works; and

5.2        Sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed access arrangement and central median on Malsbury Road would not have an adverse impact to the property south of the site and their access.

6.         The proposed development would require unacceptable acoustic measures to be implemented.

7.         The development would not be in the public interest, as the proposal would have an adverse impact on the heritage listed dwelling and would not maintain the road network efficiency and road safety along Malsbury Road.

- END OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL -


 

LPP Report No. LPP21/19

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 31/07/2019

 

3        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - DWELLING HOUSE - 57 BEROWRA WATERS ROAD AND LOT 29 DP 232641 BEROWRA WATERS ROAD, BEROWRA

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:

DA/448/2018 (Lodged 15 May 2018)   

Description:

Dwelling House

Property:

Lot 1 DP 1102303 and Lot 29 DP 232641, No. 57 Berowra Waters Road, Berowra

Applicant:

Hudson Homes Pty Ltd

Owner:

Mr Daniel Bujosa, Ms Anabel Rivas and Hornsby Shire Council

Estimated Value:

$449,653

Ward:

A

·              The application involves the construction of a two-storey dwelling house on a vacant lot

·              Part of the site is owned by Council. Accordingly, the application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Local Planning Panel. An independent assessment of the development application has been undertaken by Octagon Planning Pty Ltd.

·              Three submissions have been received in respect of the application.

·              The report by Octagon Planning Pty Ltd is attached to this report for the Hornsby Local Planning Panels consideration.  The independent consultant’s report recommends that the application be approved as deferred commencement.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/448/2018 for construction of a dwelling house at Lot 1 DP 1102303 and Lot 29 DP 232641, No. 57 Berowra Waters Road, Berowra, be approved as a deferred commencement pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of this report.

 

 


ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the referral criteria and procedural requirements for Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels, the assessment of the development application has been referred to an independent town planning consultant as part of the subject site is land owned by Hornsby Shire Council. The report by Octagon Planning is held at Attachment 1 of this report.

CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR recommendation

The application proposes the construction of a dwelling house

Council has referred the application to an independent planning consultancy to carry out an assessment of the application.  The assessment concludes that the application should be approved.

Three submissions have been received in respect of the application.

It is recommended that the Hornsby Local Planning Panel approve the application in accordance with the recommendation in the report prepared by Octagon Planning Pty Ltd and the conditions of consent held at Schedule 1 of this report.

Note:  At the time of the completion of this planning report, no persons have made a Political Donations Disclosure Statement pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of the subject planning application.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is Nicola Stainton from Octagon Planning Pty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cassandra Williams

Major Development Manager

Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessments

Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Locality Plan

 

 

2.

External Consultants Report

 

 

3.

Architectural Plans

 

 

 

 

File Reference:           DA/448/2018

Document Number:     D07716426