|
Hornsby Shire
Council |
Attachment
to Report No. PLN41/09 Page 0 |
ATTACHMENT 1
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT'S REPORT -
MODIFICATION TO MIXED COMMERCIAL
Development Application No: DA/1586/2001/B (Section 96(2)).
Description of Proposal: Section 96(2) application to amend
the approved mixed commercial and multi-unit housing development to, among
other things:
- extend
the basement car parking.
- increase
the amount of commercial floor space.
- reduce
the number of residential units from 95 to 70.
- delete
the approved gymnasium/meeting room.
- amend
the internal layout of some residential units.
- alter
the external appearance of the built form.
- increase
the overall height and floor space ratio.
Property Description: Lots 1 & 2, DP 606694,
Applicant: Mr Tony
Falcone.
Statutory Provisions: Hornsby Shire LEP - Residential
D (High Density) Zone.
Estimated Value: $23,240.221.
Ward: B
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Development Application
No.1586/2001/B to amend the approved mixed commercial and multi-unit housing
development by extending the basement car parking, increasing the amount of
commercial floor space, reducing the number of residential units, deleting the
approved gymnasium/meeting room, amending the internal layout of some
residential units, altering the external appearance of the built form, and
increasing the overall height and floor space ratio be refused.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The
application proposes to amend the approved mixed commercial and multi-unit
housing development to, among other things:
- extend
the basement car parking
- increase
the amount of commercial floor space
- reduce
the number of residential units from 95 to 70
- delete
the approved gymnasium/meeting room
- amend
the internal layout of some residential units
- alter
the external appearance of the built form
- increase
the overall height and floor space ratio.
2. The
proposal does not comply with the Design Quality Principles of State
Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat
Development, the Floor Space Ratio provisions of clause 15 of the Hornsby Shire
Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the height control, solar access and waste
management elements of Council's High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development
Control Plan.
3. Thirty
nine submissions were received during the exhibition of the proposed
development.
4. It is
recommended that the application be refused.
HISTORY OF THE
Council, on 19 November 2003,
considered a report dealing with DA 1586/2001.
The report recommended that:
"THAT Development Application
No.1586/01 for demolition of the existing structures and the erection of a
mixed Commercial and Multi-Unit Housing development comprising 95 units
residential units and 5 commercial units and associated facilities, and four
(4) levels of below ground level car parking, on Lots 1 & 2, DP 606694,
Nos.135-137 Pacific Highway and No.1 Pound Road, Hornsby, and part of the Pound
Road road reserve be approved subject to the closure of Pound Road.
It is further recommended that the
Council delegate authority to the General Manager to approve the proposal upon
the closure of
Council resolved:
"THAT determination of
Development Application No.1586/01 for demolition of the existing structures
and the erection of a mixed development comprising 95 units residential units
and 5 commercial units and associated facilities, and four (4) levels of below
ground level car parking, on Lots 1 & 2, DP 606694, Nos.135-137 Pacific
Highway and No.1 Pound Road, Hornsby, and part of the Pound Road Road reserve
be delegated to the General Manager to approve upon the closure of Pound Road
and subject to appropriate conditions."
Council, by Notice of
Determination dated 9 May 2005, notified the then applicant, Gelder
Architecture Group, that:
"Pursuant to Section 81 (1)
(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the development
application [DA 1586/2001] has been determined by approval
subject to the conditions specified in this notice and generally in accordance
with the stamped approved plans dated 26 July, 2002 (Reference: DWG Nos.DA01 to
DA11 issue C)."
The approved development was for:
"The erection of a part ten
(10) and part eleven (11) storey development comprising 95 residential units,
five (5) commercial units, gymnasium, common/meeting room and four (4) levels
of below ground car parking."
THE
The site is Lots 1 & 2, DP
606694,
The site is irregular in shape.
The plan of DP 606694 shows that the main body of the site has a frontage of
31.93 m to the
The site area comprises:
Total site area 2,675.9
m2
Land in the vicinity of the site
has been developed for commercial and high density multi-unit housing
development, generally in accordance with the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental
Plan 1994 and the High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan.
THE PROPOSAL
The proposed modifications
include:
- extending
the basement level car parking under the closed section of Pound Road and towards
the Pacific Highway to provide additional car parking spaces, storage areas,
plant rooms, stairs and disabled car parking.
The proposed car parking is for 202 vehicles comprising 80 residential
spaces, 14 visitor spaces and 108 commercial spaces.
- providing
more commercial floor space in lieu of the gymnasium/meeting room and some
residential units.
- reducing
the number of residential units from 95 to 70.
- increasing
the floor plate of the lower levels of the development.
- including
larger terrace and balcony areas for the improved amenity of many of the
residential occupants.
- increasing
ceiling heights for the residential units to generally accord with the
requirements of the Residential Flat Design Code and, hence, increasing amenity
to the residential occupants.
- reduction
in the area of the floor plate of floors 8, 9 and 10.
- amending
the elevations of the building to enhance the appearance of the building and
provide for a more contemporary building in terms of materials, textures and
colours.
- amending
the external window and door patterns of the building to enhance the appearance
of the building.
- providing
for landscaping of the closed section of Pound Road to enhance the residential
amenity for those living in both the proposed development and other
developments in the vicinity of the site.
- activating
the closed section of
- increasing
the approved height of the ceiling of the topmost residential floor by 5.2m
from RL 219.8m to RL 225m which represents an additional two (2) residential
levels.
- increasing
the overall height of the development by 4.622m from RL 224.4m for the lift
overrun of the approved development to RL 229.022m which is an architectural,
corner, feature of the amended development.
- increasing
the Floor Space Ratio of the approved development from 3.91:1 to 4:43:1.
ASSESSMENT
The s.96(2) application has been
assessed having regard to the "2005 City of
1. STRATEGIC
CONTEXT
1.1 Metropolitan
Strategy - (Draft) North Subregional Strategy
The Metropolitan Strategy is a
broad framework to secure
The draft Subregional Strategy
sets the following targets for the Hornsby LGA by 2031:
- Employment
capacity to increase by 9,000 jobs, and
- Housing
stock to increase by 11,000 dwellings.
The proposed development would be
consistent with the draft Strategy by providing additional dwellings, albeit in
reduced number to that of the approved development, and would improve the
housing stock in the locality by providing for a better urban design both
externally and internally compared to that which has been approved by the
Council.
2. STATUTORY
CONTROLS
2.1 Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - Section 96(2)
Section 96(2) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states:
"A consent authority may, on
application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on
a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance
with the regulations, modify the consent if:
(a) it is
satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially
the same development as the development for which consent was originally
granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all)
under this section, and
(b) it has
consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within
the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement
of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an
approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority
or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the
modification of that consent, and
(c) it has
notified the application in accordance with:
(i) the
regulations, if the regulations so require, or
(ii) a
development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a
development control plan under section 72 that requires notification or
advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and
(d) it has
considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the
period prescribed in the regulations or provided by the development control
plan, as the case may be."
As stated in sub-section 96(2)(a)
the Council must be satisfied that the development to which the Consent, as
modified, relates is substantially the same development as that for which
consent was originally granted.
The approved development is for a
mixed commercial and multi-unit housing development. The amendments provide for a more
architecturally efficient design and seek to amend the residential and
commercial floor space of that development to better reflect the commercial
needs of the applicant. The amended
development would be substantially the same development as that which was
approved by the Council pursuant to Development Consent No.1586/2001.
With regard to sub-section
96(2)(b), there is no requirement to notify the Minister. The Council has, however, notified RailCorp
of the proposal to amend the approved development in accordance with State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. RailCorp has advised that it:
"... has decided to grant its
concurrence to the development proposed in application DA/1586/2001/B subject
to Council imposing the conditions provided in Attachment A."
Should the Council be of a mind to
approve the application, the conditions referred to by RailCorp must be
attached to the amended development consent.
The Council has also referred the
s.96(2) application to the Roads and Traffic Authority, however, at time of writing
this report, no reply has been forthcoming from that authority.
With regard to sub-section
96(2)(c), the Council has notified the s.96(2) application in accordance with
the regulation.
With regard to sub-section
96(2)(d), 39 submissions have been received objecting to the proposed
amendment. The submissions generally
raise concern with the development as a whole and not the amendments which have
been proposed.
Sub-clause 96(3) states:
"(3) In
determining an application for modification of a consent under this section,
the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred
to in section 79(C) (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of
the application."
Section 79C(1)(a) requires Council
to consider “any relevant environmental
planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments, development
control plans, planning agreements and other prescribed matters.”
2.2 Hornsby
Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994
The site is zoned Residential D
(High Density). The use is permissible
pursuant to Clause 7 of the HSLEP.
The zone objectives are:
"(a) to
provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area.
(b) to
promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a high
density residential environment.
(c) to
provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a high
density residential environment."
The amended development will
provide additional housing for the population of the Hornsby area, albeit with a
reduction in the number of units from the approved 95 to proposed 70 units, and
will assist in the requirement of the Council for the provision of a variety of
housing types in the high density Pound Road Precinct. As discussed in a later section of this
report, however, the bulk and scale of the amended development is considered to
be excessive and, hence, will not provide that housing within the environmental
capacity of the high density residential area.
The proposed development is inconsistent with objective (c) of the zone.
Sub-clause 15(1) of the HSLEP
states that a Floor Space Ratio of 1.6:1 applies to the Residential D (High
Density) Zone. Sub-clause 15(2),
however, states that:
"In relation to land shown
edged heavy black on a Diagram in Schedule B, subclause (1) is subject to the
provisions of Schedule B that apply to that land."
The subject land is within the
area of land shown in Diagram 11 of Schedule B of the HSLEP. Schedule B states, among other things, that:
"The Council may consent to
development that results in a floorspace ratio greater than 1.6:1 in respect of
the land shown edged heavy black on Diagram 11 if the gross floor area that
results in a floorspace ratio in excess of 1.6:1 is used, or is proposed to be
used, exclusively for the purpose of multi-unit housing and if the total
floorspace ratio for the development does not exceed 4:1."
The approved development has a
floor space ratio of 3.91:1 where the area in excess of 1.6:1 is used
exclusively for multi-unit housing and, as such, complies with sub-clause 15(2)
of the HSLEP.
The proposed amended development,
however, has a floor space ratio of 4.43:1 which significantly exceeds the 4:1
development standard contained in the HSLEP.
Under circumstances where the proposal was submitted as a development
application, any variation to the 4:1 development standard would need to be
considered by the Council having regard to an objection to that development
standard in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development
Standards. The proposal now before the
Council is, however, a s.96(2) application to amend development consent
No.1586/2001.
The issue of whether State
Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards applies in the
assessment of a s.96(2) application was addressed in the judgement of Justice
Lloyd of the Land and Environment Court in the matter Gann and Anor v
Sutherland Shire Council (2008) NSWLEC 157 where Justice Lloyd concluded
that:
"The fact that s 96 is a
free-standing provision means that the restriction under s 76A which requires
development to be carried out in accordance with the development consent and an
environmental planning instrument, does not apply to an application under that
section. This conclusion is reinforced
by s 96(4), which states that the modification of a development consent in
accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development
consent..."
As such, State Environmental
Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards does not apply in the assessment
of the s.96(2) application now before the Council.
Notwithstanding, as stated above,
sub-clause 96(3) states:
"(3) In
determining an application for modification of a consent under this section,
the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred
to in section 79(C) (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of
the application."
The 4:1 floor space ratio
development standard is thus a matter for the consideration of the Council in
its general assessment of the s.96(2) application.
In an attempt to justify the non
compliance with the 4:1 floor space ratio development standard, the applicant
states:
"The changes are not
considered excessive or detrimental to the overall appearance of the
building/development, will not adversely impact on the amenity of the
surrounding area and will not adversely impact on the existing
streetscapes. The proposed changes are
necessary so as to provide a more contemporary building with modern materials,
textures and colours. In addition the internal layouts of the residential units
have been altered so as to improve the function of the units and enhance the
amenity for the occupants of the residential units.
The development satisfies the
Objective of the Floor Space Ratio Clause.
The Objective is "To control the intensity and scale of development
of land so that development will be in accordance with the land's environmental
capacity and zone objectives."
The term "environmental
capacity" is not defined in the HSLEP, however, in the matter of Shaw
v Hornsby Shire Council, the Land and
"Environmental capacity is
not defined in the LEP, but I understand this provision requires development to
be sensitive to its surroundings in terms of character and also in terms of
amenity impacts."
Having regard to the approved
development and the now proposed amendments to that development, it is clearly
the case that, on balance, the amendments proposed, in terms of urban design
and amenity to the occupants of the amended development is an improvement on
that which was approved by the Council in 2005.
With regard to the character of
its surroundings, however, Council, in adopting the 4:1 floor space ratio
development standard for the High Density Residential Zone, considered that a
building of such density, and hence bulk and scale, would be that which would
define the character of the Pound Road Precinct. Indeed, previous development applications
approved by the Council in the Pound Road Precinct have generally been approved
in compliance with that development standard.
The floor space ratio development standard has also been confirmed by
the then Chief Justice of the Land and
The applicant is of the opinion
that the proposed exceedence of the 4:1 development standard is "...
necessary so as to provide a more contemporary building with modern materials,
textures and colours". It is
considered that this is not a well founded reason to vary a development
standard which has been consistently applied in the Pound Road Precinct. It is considered that a "more
contemporary building with modern materials, textures and colours"
could equally be provided by a development which complied with the 4:1 floor
space ratio development standard.
The reasoning provided by the
applicant to vary the development standard, a control which has been
consistently applied by the Council and the Land and Environment Court to
define the character of the Pound Road Precinct, is not well founded and should
not be supported by the Council.
2.3 State
Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat
Development
State Environmental Planning
Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development has been devised to:
- provide
the strategic and statutory framework for the State government Design Quality
Program.
- give
legal force to the government's initiative to improve the design quality of
residential flat development.
- explain
why design quality is important and how it can be better achieved.
Part 2 of SEPP 65 contains 10
Design Quality Principles. Those
principles deal with the following issues:
- Context
- Scale
- Built
form
- Density
- Resource,
energy and water efficiency
- Landscape
- Amenity
- Safety
and security
- Social
dimensions
- Aesthetics.
The following comments are
provided with regard to the relevant Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65.
Context
SEPP 65 states:
"Good design responds and
contributes to its context. Context can
be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.
Responding to context involves
identifying the desirable elements of a location's current character or, in the
case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as
stated in planning and design policies.
New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the
area."
The desired future character of
the Pound Road Precinct is depicted in the High Density Multi-Unit Housing
DCP. The approved development was
considered by the Council to accord with that desired future character in that
it generally complied with the requirements of the DCP and, hence, the context
design principle.
The proposed amendment, with a
floor space ratio of 4.43:1 compared to the maximum 4:1 and height significantly
in excess of that consistently applied by the Council in the Pound Road
Precinct, is considered to be inconsistent with the desired future character,
and, hence, inconsistent with the context design principle.
Scale
SEPP 65 states:
"Good design provides an
appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the
street and the surrounding buildings.
Establishing an appropriate scale
requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition,
proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired
future character of the area."
The height of the approved
development is consistent with other development approved in the Pound Road
Precinct and accords with the controls which have been applied to other
development in the precinct.
On the other hand, the amended
development is significantly non compliant with the RL 220m height limit
consistently applied by the Council to the habitable areas of the approved
development in the precinct. This,
coupled with the 4.43:1 floor space ratio of the amended development,
contribute to an excessive bulk and scale with the result that the amended
development is inconsistent with the scale design principle.
It is considered that the design
of the amended development is such that, with a reduced floor space ratio and
height to reflect the applicable controls, would better accord with the scale
design principle than the approved development.
Built form
SEPP 65 states:
"Good design achieves an
appropriate built form for a site and the building's purpose, in terms of
building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of
building elements.
Appropriate built form defines the
public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks,
including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and
outlook."
The proposed amendment, in
isolation to the bulk, height and scale of that development, is clearly a more
appropriate built form when compared to that which was previously approved by
the Council and, hence, accords with the built form design principle.
Density
SEPP 65 states:
"Good design has a density
appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or
number of units or residents).
Appropriate densities are
sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in
precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired
future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context,
availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and
environmental quality."
The approved development meets the
density requirements of the Council controls for the site. As stated elsewhere in this report, however,
the amended development is significantly non compliant with those density
controls and, hence, is inconsistent with the density design principle.
Amenity
SEPP 65 states:
"Good design provides amenity
through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.
Optimising amenity requires
appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural
ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space,
efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age
groups and degrees of mobility."
The design of the amended
development will generally provide better amenity to the occupants of the
development compared to that attained by the approved development.
Aesthetics
SEPP 65 states:
"Quality aesthetics require
the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and
colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the
development. Aesthetics should respond
to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the
existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the
desired future character of the area."
The amendments proposed by the
applicant will clearly be an improvement on the aesthetics of the built form
compared to the approved development.
Clause 115 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 states, among other things:
"... an application for the
modification of a development consent under section 96 (2) or 96AA (1) of the
Act, if it relates to residential flat development for which the development
application was required to be accompanied by a design verification from a
qualified designer under clause 50 (1A), must be accompanied by a design
verification from a qualified designer, being a statement in which the
qualified designer verifies that:
(a) he or
she designed, or directed the design, of the modification of the residential
flat development, and
(b) the
residential flat development, as modified, achieves the design quality
principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 -
Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, and
(c) the
modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise
the design intent, of the development for which the development consent was
granted."
The s.96(2) application has not
been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement. If the Council is of a mind to approve the
proposed amendment, it is recommended that the decision be deferred to enable
the applicant to provide a suitable Design Verification Statement.
Notwithstanding, the amendments
proposed by the applicant, in terms of urban design, will clearly provide for a
more contemporary built form than that which was approved by the Council in
2005.
The amended design also provides
for an activation of the
The internal layout of the
residential units has been generally improved compared to those of the approved
development, and, where able, accords better with the Residential Flat Design
Code than many of the approved units.
2.4 State
Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land
The original application was been
assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No.55
- Remediation of Land This Policy
provides State-wide planning controls to ensure that land use is not affected
by contamination.
Suitable conditions of consent
were attached to development consent No.1586/2001.
2.5 State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
The application has been assessed
against the requirements of clause 87 "Impact of rail noise and
vibration on non-rail development" of State Environmental Planning
Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Clause 87
of the SEPP deals with the impact of rail noise and vibration on non-rail
development and states:
"(1) This
clause applies to development for any of the following purposes that is on land
in or adjacent to a rail corridor and that the consent authority considers is
likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration:
(a) a
building for residential use,
(b) a place
of public worship,
(c) a
hospital,
(d) an
educational establishment or child care centre.
(2) Before
determining a development application for development to which this clause
applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines that
are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and
published in the Gazette.
(3) If the development
is for the purposes of a building for residential use, the consent authority
must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that
appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are
not exceeded:
(a) in any
bedroom in the building - 35 dB(A) at any time between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am,
(b) anywhere
else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) - 40
dB(A) at any time."
The Council has consulted with
RailCorp as part of the assessment of this application. As noted elsewhere in the report, RailCorp
has advised that it:
"... has decided to grant its
concurrence to the development proposed in application DA/1586/2001/B subject
to Council imposing the conditions provided in Attachment A."
Should the Council be of a mind to
approve the application, the conditions referred to by RailCorp must be
attached to the amended development consent.
In addition, a condition requiring compliance with clause 87 of State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 should be applied.
2.6 High
Density Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan
The proposed development has been
assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design
standards within Council's High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development Control
Plan. The following assessment is
provided.
2.6.1 Gateway
and Corner Treatments
The DCP provides for certain
intersections to be treated with distinct architectural features to promote
definition to the precinct and signify entry to the Town Centre. The proposed development site is not affected
by this provision of the DCP.
Nonetheless, the proposed amended development provides for a significant
gateway feature at the intersection of the
2.6.2 Traffic
Management, Vehicle Access and Car Parking
The amended development maintains
vehicular ingress and egress from
The Traffic Engineer raised the
following points:
- A car
park management plan should be provided which prevents long term parking by
motorists not using the development.
- Access
for waste vehicles should meet the requirements of the Waste Team.
- Vehicles
used in delivery or collection of goods shall not wait or queue upon the public
roads.
- All
vehicles shall enter and exit the site in a forward direction with the exception
of any 12.5m removalist vehicles.
- All
deliveries shall be made within the site.
Under no circumstances are delivery vehicles to be loaded and or
unloaded upon the public roads.
- Parking
bays are not to be used as storage bays.
- There
remains a shortfall of 2 car parking spaces, however, this is not significant
subject to the shortfall being from the staff parking component of the parking
allocation.
- All
parking spaces shall be marked and numbered on the ground with white paint in
accordance with the approved drawings.
- All off
street car parking including the provision of aisle, ramps and access driveways
shall comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1:2004 Off-street Car Parking and
AS 2890.2 - 2002 Off-street Commercial Vehicle Facilities.
- Parking,
loading and manoeuvring areas are to the used solely for such purposes.
- Prior to
occupation, car parking spaces are to be allocated to each unit in accordance
with Hornsby Shire Council's Car Parking DCP and a corresponding Compliance Certificate
is to be obtained.
If the Council is of a mind to
approve the proposed amendments, it is recommended that the conditions of
development consent No.1856/2001 be amended where appropriate to accommodate
the above requirements of the Traffic Engineer.
2.6.3 Waste
Minimisation and Management
Council’s Waste Team has made the
following comments:
"With regards to the amended
plans (dated 04/05/09):
1. The
additional commercial retail area of 107.27 m2 significantly
encroaches on the turning path of the heavy rigid vehicle. This is not
acceptable.
2. The
revised Waste Management Plan for Use and On-going Management is lacking in
detail regarding residential waste management and omits commercial waste. There
is insufficient information to assess whether waste facilities and management
systems will be adequate for this development.
3. The
architect previously advised "The majority of the space designated for
vehicular maneuverability for trucks to enter and leave the loading bay areas
are double height spaces (void spaces with a floor to floor height of 8m; while
a small section of this space has a floor to floor height 3m. The entire space
required for vehicle maneuverability into and out of loading space 2 can be
adjusted during the construction stage to ensure a clearance of 4.5m height.
This would be achieved by altering the configuration of the fire stair
(adjacent to loading 2) and adjusting part of the level of the commercial space
on the ground floor above the loading bay. This issue can be resolved by
incorporating a condition into the consent for the S96 application." How
do the amended plans impact on the clearance height for service vehicles which
require a minimum 4.5 metres floor to ceiling height?
Since 2001 when the original DA
was submitted, there have been major changes in the way waste is managed in
high rise residential and mixed use premises. In particular, residential
recycling meets 2001 requirements but to meet 2009 requirements the proposal
would need a recycling cupboard/facility on every residential floor and a
caretaker to move recycling bins to and from each floor and the collection
point. A useful source of information on waste management in high rise
buildings is the Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-Unit
Dwellings by the Department of Environment and Climate Change ....
Note that Council's Garbage Code
(referred to in the original DA consent condition No. 81) has been superseded
by the Waste Minimisation and Management Development Control Plan...."
If the Council is of a mind to
approve the amended development, it is recommended that the decision be
deferred until such time as the requirements of the Waste Team are satisfied.
2.6.4 Solar
access
The performance criteria of the
control element include:
"New buildings should not
unreasonably obscure sunlight to habitable rooms, solar collectors or open
space of adjoining development during the winter months.
New buildings should not
unreasonably obscure sunlight to pedestrian and public open space areas including
parks and recreational facilities during the winter months."
The amended plans submitted by the
applicant provide simple shadow diagrams for 9:00am, 12 noon and 3:00pm in mid
winter. The information provided in
those shadow diagrams does not provide details of the additional shadow cast by
the amended development compared to that of the approved development. As such, it is not possible to provide a
definitive assessment of the impact the proposed development will have on the
solar access received by existing development in both the Pound Road Precinct
and on the eastern side of the
If the Council is of a mind to
approve the proposed amendment, it is recommend that it defer its decision
until such time as suitable vertical shadow diagrams have been provided which
demonstrate the additional impact of shadow cast by the amended development
compared to that of the approved development.
2.6.5 Height
The DCP does not contain any
controls on the height of the development within the control element, however,
controls are contained in the Pound Road Precinct Masterplan which provides for
a 9 storey building on this site.
As discussed in this report, and
in the report which considered the approved development, the history of
development in the Pound Road Precinct is such that it is considered that the
controls which have been consistently applied to other developments in the
precinct should also apply to this development.
The Council, when considering the assessment of the approved development,
adopted RL 220m as the appropriate height of the topmost ceiling of the
residential component of the approved development, thus being consistent with
the height control applied to other development in the precinct.
The proposed development seeks to
significantly exceed that consistently applied control and, as discussed in
other sections of this report, there has been no well founded argument provided
by the applicant as to why a development of the height proposed is appropriate
when compared to that which has been approved by the Council.
It is considered that the proposed
development is inconsistent with the height control element.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Section 79C(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
The proposed development will have
no unacceptable impact on the natural environment.
3.2 Built
Environment
The proposed development will have
no impact on the built environment.
3.3 Social
Impacts
There would be no additional
social effects resulting from the proposed amendments.
3.4 Economic
Impacts
There are no economic impacts
resulting from the proposed amendments.
4.
Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act
requires Council to consider "the suitability of the site for the
development".
The site is suitable for the
proposed development.
5. PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
Section 96(2)(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 22 January 2009 and 5 February 2009, and for a further period between
17 February 2009 and 3 March 2009 in accordance with Council's Notification and
Exhibition Development Control Plan.
During this period, Council received 39 submissions, one of which
incorporated a petition with 21 signatures.
|
NOTIFICATION PLAN |
|
||
|
• PROPERTIES
NOTIFIED |
X SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED |
PROPERTY SUBJECT OF
DEVELOPMENT |
|
|
One submission from Two submissions from Eleven submissions from Twelve submissions from Thirteen submissions received out of map range |
|||
Whilst the submissions were
comprehensive in nature, the vast majority of the issued raised were issues
which related to the generic form of the approved and amended development. As such, those issues were canvassed by the
Council when it considered the original development application.
Issues raised which relate to the
proposed amendment to the approved development relate to overshadowing, height,
bulk and scale all of which have been dealt with in detail in this report.
5.2 Public
Agencies
The development is not Integrated
Development under the Act.
Notwithstanding, because the site
is located adjacent to the rail corridor, RailCorp was consulted and provided
information requesting conditions of consent which, if the application is to be
approved, must be attached to the conditions of development consent.
6. PUBLIC
INTEREST
Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act
requires Council to consider "the public interest".
The public interest is an
overarching requirement, which includes the consideration of 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, while providing
for an amended development which will clearly achieve a better urban design
outcome when compared to that of the approved development, is considered to be
excessive in terms of its height and floor space ratio such that the proposal
is not in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development is for
modification of an approved mixed commercial and high density multi-unit
housing development in the Pound Road Precinct at Hornsby.
The proposed amendments will
clearly provide for a more appropriate urban design of the development and will
provide for an improved amenity for many of the residential units of the
development.
The proposal is, however,
inconsistent with the context, scale and density design principles of State
Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat
Development, is inconsistent with objective (c) of the Residential D (High
Density) Zone and clause 15 of the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994
and, is inconsistent with the waste minimisation and management, solar access
and height control elements of the High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development
Control Plan.
It is recommended that the Council
refuse the amendment to development consent No.1586/2001 subject to reasons for
refusal detailed in Schedule 1 of this report.
SCHEDULE 1
THAT pursuant to Section 96 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Development Consent No.
1586/2001 for modification of an approved mixed commercial and high
density multi-unit housing development in the Pound Road Precinct at Hornsby be refused as on the
following grounds:
1. The
proposed development, with its excessive height and floor space ratio, will be
inconsistent with objective (c) of the Residential D (High Density) zone in
that it will not be within the
environmental capacity of the Pound Road Precinct.
2. The
proposed development will be inconsistent with the context of its setting and
hence contrary to the Context Design Principle of State Environmental Planning
Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.
3. The
proposed development will be inconsistent with the scale of existing
development in the Pound Road Precinct and hence contrary to the Scale Design
Principle of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of
Residential Flat Development.
4. The
proposed development will be inconsistent with the density controls which have
been consistently applied by the Council in the Pound Road Precinct and hence
contrary to the Density Design Principle of State Environmental Planning Policy
No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development and Clause 15 of the
Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994.
5. The
proposed development will be inconsistent with the height controls which have
been consistently applied by the Council in the Pound Road Precinct and hence
contrary to the requirements of the High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development
Control Plan.
6. The
proposed development will be inconsistent with the waste minimisation and
management controls of the High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development Control
Plan.
7. The
proposed development contains insufficient information to allow a considered
assessment of the impact the proposed development will have on the amenity of
the occupants of existing development by shadow cast by the amended development
and hence is contrary to the requirements of the Solar Access Control Element
of the High Density Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan.
- END OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL -