Agenda of General Meeting - 10 February 2016

General Manager's Report No. GM2/16

Office of the General Manager

Date of Meeting: 10/02/2016

1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM - FIT FOR THE FUTURE UPDATE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· In November 2015, Council resolved that its first preference for a merger with its neighbouring councils was the whole of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils together with changes to Hornsby’s boundaries at Carlingford, Eastwood, Epping, Marsfield and Macquarie Park; and its second preference was for a merger of the whole of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils.

· In December 2015, the Government announced 35 merger proposals across the State including that the Hornsby Shire Council area, north of where the M2 Motorway crosses the Shire, be merged with Ku-ring-gai Council (the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal) and the area south of the M2 Motorway become part of Parramatta Council (the expanded Parramatta proposal.

· The proposals are now subject to review by delegates who are required to hold public inquiries (in the first week of February 2016) and consider written submissions (due by 28 February 2016) before providing a report to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister will consider the delegate report, and any comments on such from the Boundaries Commission, before deciding on whether to progress the proposals.

· This Report provides a staff assessment of the proposals affecting Hornsby and in particular, the impact on a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council of the excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway. The preliminary assessment indicates that the excision of the subject area would see the merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council $6.4 million per annum worse off (in years 1-3) or $5.0 million per annum worse off (from year 4 onwards) than if the two whole councils were merged. Such an impact would negate the projected savings in the Government’s Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai merger proposal as well as the funding that has been promised by the Government to assist with the merger costs of the councils.

· It is recommended that Council’s submission on the Government’s proposals be based on the information contained in this Report and state Council’s continued support for mergers as part of the Government’s local government reform process. The submission should argue for a merger of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils to proceed, but without the excision to Parramatta Council of the area south of the M2 Motorway.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Acting General Manager be delegated authority to finalise a submission to the delegates appointed to consider the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai and expanded Parramatta merger proposals in line with the information contained in General Manager’s Report No. GM2/16.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with an update on the NSW Government’s announcement on 18 December 2015 of its proposals for council mergers across the State under the Fit for the Future (FFTF) umbrella; to explain the process that will be followed by delegates in assessing the Government’s proposals; and to seek Council’s endorsement of the contents of a submission to be made to the delegates by the due date of 28 February 2016.

BACKGROUND

At the 11 November 2015 General Meeting, Council considered General Manager’s Report No. GM3/15 – Local Government Reform – Fit for the Future Update - and resolved:

THAT in the apparent absence of any interest from our neighbouring councils to investigate a voluntary merger with Hornsby, and in line with its adopted position from the 10 June 2015 General Meeting, Council provide the following responses (shown in italics) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet in respect of the NSW Government’s release of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART) report titled Assessment of Council Fit for the Future Proposals:

· In respect of IPART’s assessment of Council’s submission

o IPART’s assessment of Council’s submission was in line with Council’s expectations and understanding of the process.

· In respect of preference/s for merger partner/s

o Preference 1 – A merger of the whole of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils together with changes to Hornsby’s existing boundaries at Carlingford, Eastwood, Epping, Marsfield and Macquarie Park as proposed in Council’s letter to the Minister for Local Government dated 30 June 2015.

o Preference 2 – A merger of the whole of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils.

In line with the resolution, actions were taken to provide Council’s responses to the Department of Premier and Cabinet by 30 June 2015.

DISCUSSION

General

On 18 December 2015, the Premier and Minister for Local Government briefed all council Mayors and General Managers on the next stage of the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future (FFTF) local government reform process. Formal public announcements by the Premier and Minister followed later that day.

In metropolitan Sydney, the Government has proposed a large number of council mergers which will see the number of councils being reduced from 43 to 25. Across the whole of NSW, the proposed mergers will see the number of councils being reduced from 152 to 112.

In respect of Hornsby, the Government has proposed that the Hornsby Shire Council area (north of where the M2 Motorway crosses the Shire) be merged with Ku-ring-gai Council (the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal) and that part of the Hornsby Shire south of the M2 become part of Parramatta City Council (the expanded Parramatta proposal).

The Government formally referred its proposed council mergers (35 in total across the State) to the Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government on 6 January 2016 in line with one of the two statutory options available to it. The Chief Executive subsequently referred individual merger proposals to delegates for examination and report on whether the mergers should go ahead.

The delegate for the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal is Garry West, a former member of NSW Parliament. The delegate for the expanded Parramatta proposal is Richard Colley, a former general manager of Bankstown City Council. Both of the delegates visited Council on the evening of Tuesday 19 January 2016 to meet Councillors and senior staff and provided a briefing on the process to be followed by the delegates in assessing the proposals.

Each of the delegates is required to hold a public inquiry in respect of their allocated proposal to give councils and members of the public a chance to have their say on the proposals. The delegates will also accept written and online submissions until 28 February 2016. Following the public consultation period, the delegates are required to prepare and submit a report to the Minister for Local Government and also provide a copy of the reports to the Boundaries Commission for comment. It is noted that the public inquiry for the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal is scheduled for Wednesday 3 February 2016 and the public inquiry for the expanded Parramatta proposal is scheduled for Tuesday 2 February 2016.

If the Government decides to proceed with the proposals after considering the delegate reports and Boundaries Commission comments, it appears that new councils will be created and operate under interim arrangements from mid-2016 until elections are held, probably in March 2017. Under the interim arrangements, the Government would appoint either an administrator or some or all of the existing councillors from Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai to govern the new council; as well as an interim general manager.

Merger Proposals

Copies of the two merger proposals affecting Hornsby Shire Council are attached. The proposals are also available on the Government’s website www.councilboundaryreview.nsw.gov.au.

The Government believes the adoption of its 35 proposals will create councils that are better able to meet the future needs of the community. In particular, the Government has indicated that it is trying to create councils that are strong enough to address the challenges of population growth and housing development, while continuing to deliver services and improve local infrastructure. The increased population will provide an opportunity for the council to more effectively advocate with other levels of Government on behalf of their residents for better community services and urban outcomes.

In respect of the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal, a merged council is to be created with approximately 270,000 residents, noting that there are currently approximately 150,000 in the Hornsby Council area north of the M2 Motorway and approximately 120,000 in the Ku-ring-gai Council area. Figures supplied by the Government in the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal indicate a range of benefits would be achieved by the merger. These include an extra $70 million for local services and infrastructure over the next 20 years; a projected 34% improvement in annual operating results; and less need for rate increases through special rate variations.

In assessing the Government’s proposals, the delegates must consider the following factors which are specified in section 263 of the Local Government Act:

· the financial advantages or disadvantages (including the economies or diseconomies of scale) of any relevant proposal to the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned

· the community of interest and geographic cohesion in the existing areas and in any proposed new area

· the existing historical and traditional values in the existing areas and the impact of change on them

· the attitude of the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned

· the requirements of the area concerned in relation to elected representation for residents and ratepayers at the local level, the desirable and appropriate relationship between elected representatives and ratepayers and residents and such other matters as it considers relevant in relation to the past and future patterns of elected representation for that area

· the impact of any relevant proposal on the ability of the councils of the areas concerned to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities

· the impact of any relevant proposal on the employment of staff by the councils of the area concerned

· the impact of any relevant proposal on rural communities in the areas concerned

· in the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, the desirability (or otherwise) of dividing the resulting area or areas into wards

· in the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, the need to ensure that the opinions of each of the diverse communities of the resulting area or areas are effectively represented

· such other factors as it considers relevant to the provision of efficient and effective local government in the existing and proposed new areas

Council’s Submission

To assist in the finalisation of a Council submission in respect of the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai and expanded Parramatta proposals, some general information is provided below as well as responses in respect of each of the above factors. Because of the very short timeframes available, the intent is that the information contained in the Report, together with any other matters that Council determines when formally considering the Report, be used by the Acting General Manager to finalise the submissions to the delegates by the due date of 28 February 2016.

General

Council has been a willing participant in the local government reform exercise commenced by the State Government in 2011 and commissioned its own independent research during the intervening period to assist in its deliberations about reform. Council also proactively entered into discussions with its neighbouring councils about having an independent merger business case prepared which could be used to objectively consider amalgamation options and issues for Hornsby and those councils.

As no neighbouring council indicated a willingness to partner with Hornsby to have a merger business case prepared, Council’s only choice under the Government’s requirements at that time was to complete a “Council Improvement Proposal” and submit the Proposal to IPART by 30 June 2015 for formal assessment. As expected, Hornsby was found by IPART to be “not fit” under the “scale and capacity” (or population size) requirements of FFTF. IPART did recognise that Council was well placed in meeting all the financial sustainability, infrastructure and services and efficiency requirements of FFTF.

As a council assessed as “not fit”, Hornsby had the opportunity to comment on the IPART assessment as well as indicating to the Government by 18 November 2015 its preference/s for merger partner/s. From briefings provided by the Government following the release of the IPART report, it was understood that whole of council mergers were favoured by the Government at that point, although it was indicated that preferences involving boundary adjustments would be given some consideration.

In line with Council’s position on FFTF emanating from its June 2015 General Meeting, two merger option preferences were submitted to the Government for consideration. Council’s first preference was for a merger of the whole of the existing Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils together with changes to Hornsby’s existing boundaries at Carlingford, Eastwood, Epping, Marsfield and Macquarie Park; and its second (on the basis that the Government was looking at whole of council mergers) was for a merger of the whole of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils with no other boundary adjustments.

In respect of the first preference, Council’s intent was that the number of councils in northern Sydney be reduced from 11 to three – with the three comprising an “Upper North Shore Council”, a “Lower North Shore Council” and a “Northern Beaches Council”. By combining Hornsby with the existing Ku-ring-gai local government area and rationalising suburbs in the Parramatta and Ryde local government areas, an Upper North Shore Council would be well placed to deliver on the increased strategic capacity and improvements to services and infrastructure that the community in the combined area deserves. Such a proposal would also see the whole of the suburbs of Wahroonga, Epping, Eastwood, and a substantial part of the suburb of Carlingford, into a single local government area bringing significant improvements in the delivery of services and infrastructure to those communities. It would also bring the business hub at Macquarie Park into the same local government area as the feeder suburbs which it services and would enhance the viability of a strong Upper North Shore Council.

Based on the understanding that the Government was favouring whole of council mergers late last year, it came as a surprise that the Government’s proposal for the amalgamation of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils in December 2015 included the excision of the existing Hornsby area south of the M2 Motorway. Whilst the proposed excision was unexpected, it is recognised that the use of the M2 Motorway as a southern boundary of a Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council had been recommended to the Government by the Independent Local Government Review Panel a few years earlier but had not been further progressed by the Government.

Because of the above, and noting that to this point Council has not considered the financial and other impacts of losing the area south of the M2 Motorway to Parramatta, Council’s submissions to the delegates need to focus on how the proposed excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway will impact on the operation and future of a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council.

The financial advantages or disadvantages (including the economies or diseconomies of scale) of any relevant proposal to the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned

The Government has indicated that there are significant financial advantages to the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal which are in addition to the $20 million in funding that is being offered by the Government to assist the process. KPMG, who was appointed by the Government to undertake independent analysis and modelling of each proposal, have estimated economies of scale will provide a projected 34 percent improvement in annual operating results which will be achieved within 10 years. KPMG’s analysis predicts that this will achieve a net financial saving of $70 million over the next 20 years. It argues that the savings will allow for greater provision of services and/or help reduce the infrastructure backlog that exists across the two councils.

Over the past few years, Council, as a leader in the local government reform process, has commissioned its own research to supplement that being provided by the Government. In 2013, KPMG was engaged to undertake a high level strategic and financial assessment of options for structural reform. One of those options was for an amalgamation of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils. The research indicated that the financial benefit of a merged operation would be approximately $50 million over a 10 year period.

Whilst the Government has not released the detail of KPMG’s analysis for the current proposals, it has released KPMG’s Technical Paper – Outline of Financial Modelling Assumptions for Local Government Merger Proposals – which provides the basis for the financial projections. The main points to note from KPMG’s Paper are:

· Starting in the first year of a merger, and growing gradually over three years, an annual cost savings of up to 3% is applied to a council’s budgeted materials and contracts expenditure.

· Councillor fees are reduced as a result of the mergers. This will in part be offset by potential increases in annual fees paid to councillors.

· Staffing reductions are assumed to occur gradually with a modest level of voluntary attrition in the first three years of amalgamation. After the three year employment protection period, savings are generated by reducing back office, administration and corporate support staff functions. This approach assumed council mergers would not directly impact staffing allocations for council frontline service delivery roles. Overall staffing efficiencies were estimated at 7.4% for metropolitan mergers.

· Immediate information technology requirements will be focused on enhancing existing systems that will continue to operate in the background whilst introducing a “veneer” system across the councils.

· The cost of redundancies are a function of a council’s average salary, paid out for a standard number of weeks.

· In respect of councils that are split in a merger:

o A council that is split has its financial statements (operating revenue/expenditure) split on a per capita basis and apportioned accordingly to each new council.

o For metropolitan councils, the assumptions for savings from staff reductions are half (or 3.7 percent) of those savings achieved in a normal “whole” merger scenario. This reflects the reduced levels of duplication from merging only part of a council and, consequently, more limited scope for staffing reductions.

o Councils that are part of a merger but lose a portion of their area to another merger cluster (e.g. Hornsby or The Hills), will have their financial statement adjusted to reflect the reduced revenue/expenditure profile. These adjustments are generally made on a per capita basis.

o The asset base and infrastructure backlog of split councils has been apportioned by land area (square kilometres) rather than a per capita basis. This reflects the fixed and built nature of these assets (such as roads and footpaths).

The Government has indicated that it expects the financial benefits achieved through mergers will be passed on to the residents of the merging councils, with less need for the rate increases through special rate variations. The realisation of surplus assets are expected to provide additional funds to reinvest in future capital projects, reduce the need to borrow or allow for the redeployment of reserves for new projects. There would also be an increased ability to utilise assets by sharing resources and disposing of surplus or duplicated assets.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the analysis undertaken by KPMG for the Government was at a high level using publicly available information for the councils concerned, it should be understood that such an analysis creates difficulties where there is a proposal to split a council area (as in the case of the excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway in the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal). Where there is a split, it should not be assumed that there is a neutral financial effect on the council i.e. income from the excised area may not be equal to expenditure on the excised area.

To assist Council in forming its view in this regard, staff have calculated the estimated net financial impact of excising the area south of the M2 Motorway from the existing Hornsby Council area using actual and/or 2015/16 budgeted figures where possible, supplemented by KPMG projections as necessary.

From a recurrent perspective, whilst the income to Council generated from south of the M2 Motorway can be determined reasonably accurately e.g. rates, waste charges, etc., this is not the case with some types of expenditure in that same geographical area. For example, the costs associated with particular facilities such as the Epping Library, Epping Pool, particular community centres, etc. can be taken directly from Council’s financial systems. Where maintenance crews work across areas of the Shire including that south of the M2 Motorway, reliance needs to be placed on average spends over a number of years to determine what proportion of their costs should reasonably be allocated against the maintenance of the area south of the M2 Motorway. Where the services provided to the area south of the M2 Motorway are supported by a range of staff across Council in various capacities, it may be difficult to determine what proportion of those costs are attributable to the area south of the M2 Motorway. Another issue is how the loss of approximately 20,000 residents to the expanded Parramatta Council will lead to cost reductions in the short term (by natural attrition) for Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai in respect of the provision of general support services.

The following is a summary of the estimated annual recurrent financial impact associated with the proposed loss to the expanded Parramatta proposal of the area south of the M2 Motorway:

Recurrent Income and Expenditure – Area South of the M2 Motorway	Est - 2015/16
Rates income – based on average rates applied against properties in Epping and Carlingford	$8.2 million
Income from facilities e.g. Epping Aquatic Centre, Epping Library, community centres, parks and recreation, commercial leases	$1.2 million
Total Estimated Income – Proposed Excised Area	$9.4 million

Direct expenditure on facilities – Epping Aquatic Centre, Epping Library, community centres, parks and recreation, roads, footpaths, pits, pipes, bus shelters, etc.	$2.8 million
Indirect costs in budgets – Epping Aquatic Centre, Epping Library	$0.2 million
Indirect savings from Year 4 of new council – based on KPMG’s assumptions of 3.7% savings from staff reductions	$1.4 million

Based on estimated 2015/16 information, the table shows that the excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway from the proposed Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council would see the council $6.4 million per annum worse off (in years 1-3) or $5.0 million worse off (from year 4 onwards) than if the two whole councils were merged. Such an impact would negate the projected savings in the Government’s Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai proposal as well as the funding that has been promised by the Government to assist with the merger costs of the councils. The excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway to an expanded Parramatta City Council is, therefore, difficult for Council to support unless the Government is able to identify a method of compensating a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Council on an ongoing basis for the net financial loss associated with the excision of the area. It is worth noting that if North Epping was also lost to Parramatta as has been promoted by some, the net financial impact to Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai would be in the order of an additional $1.5 million per annum.

From a capital perspective, there are a number of points to make about the net financial impact on Hornsby. In respect of Council’s Section 94 Plan, the proposal to excise the suburbs of Carlingford and Epping south of the M2 Motorway would result in the loss of income from development within the Epping and Carlingford Precincts. This income funds roads specific to each suburb and facilities that would also service a wider catchment such as open space and community centres. This would potentially result in a funding deficit should the unspent funds on hand collected south of the M2 Motorway not be spent for regional facilities identified in the Section 94 Plan prior to any merger being implemented.

Furthermore, Council’s Section 94A Plan estimates income over 10 years of approximately $9.6 million. This equates to approximately $188,000 income per square kilometre of the Shire’s urban areas. According to the merger proposal report prepared for review by the delegate, the portion of the Shire to be excised south of the M2 Motorway equates to about seven square kilometres. Accordingly, a funding deficit of approximately $1.316 million would apply to the works within the Section 94A Plan if predicted income from Carlingford and Epping were removed.

In respect of the rationalisation of Council assets (some of which would be from the area south of the M2 Motorway), Council’s position has been that the net income achieved should be used to assist in funding the “the unfunded gap” in Council’s Section 94 Plan. As a consequence, the loss of the area south of the M2 Motorway will potentially impact negatively on the Section 94 Plan.

The community of interest and geographic cohesion in the existing areas and in any proposed new area

Council supports the Government’s view that the communities across the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai area share common characteristics and connections. The proposed new council will have enhanced scale and capacity and be better placed to shape and deliver the economic development, community service and infrastructure that underpin the lifestyle of local communities.

It is agreed that there is already strong cohesion between the communities of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai, with significant cooperation occurring through a number of organisations. These include the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Bushfire Management Service, the Northern Sydney Local Health District, the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Association for Mental Health and Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Community Transport. The two councils have also directly cooperated with each other in projects such as the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter.

Both communities are very similar in nature, as outer suburban areas in a bushland setting. The residents of both areas take great pride in the natural ecosystem they live amongst and both Councils have a strong track record of helping to maintain its health. Geographically, the cohesion of a new council would be maintained, with the Pacific Highway, Pennant Hills Road and two train lines linking all of the most populace areas.

As Hornsby Council has managed the area south of the M2 Motorway for over 100 years, and has worked closely with the State Government, community and development industry in respect of the plans for Epping to become an Urban Activation Precinct, there is an argument that the area south of the M2 Motorway would continue to be better managed by a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council rather than an expanded Parramatta Council. This would also ensure that the suburbs of Epping and North Epping remain in the same Council area rather than be split as per the Government’s proposal.

The existing historical and traditional values in the existing areas and the impact of change on them

Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils were both formed in 1906 and their communities share a common history, having been created as a direct result of the development of the Pacific Highway and North Shore Railway Line. The vast majority of residents came to the area along one of those two routes and usually settled here as a result of the opportunities they created. In the early years, both areas relied on timber-getting, which moved to orchard farming once the trees were cleared. Both areas had land grants that were given to men who captured bushrangers and then had areas named after them e.g. Samuel Horne in Hornsby and Robert Pymble in Pymble. Population growth for both areas ramped up in the 1950’s as the orchardists sub-divided their properties into the streets we now know.

Both communities have always had a strong connection to the surrounding bushland and value the traditional suburban lifestyle that includes a house and backyard. Both communities share a resistance to excessive high-rise development and an eagerness to maintain the suburban atmosphere. Throughout history, both areas have been places people came to escape inner city life, because they have been valued for their altitude and fresh air.

The economies of both areas are very similar, with higher than the greater Sydney average household income of $89,210 per annum. In Hornsby it is $105,056 per annum and in Ku-ring-gai it is $125,095 per annum. The workforce from the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Council areas predominantly works in the Sydney CBD rather than locally and the populace of both areas is highly educated, with 67 percent of Hornsby residents and 70 percent of Ku-ring-gai residents holding a post-school qualification (compared to 59 percent for greater Sydney). In history and values there is little difference between the communities and the merger of the two councils would not be expected to impact on this.

In respect of the expanded Parramatta proposal, the division of the Epping and North Epping suburbs into two councils is not in line with the intent of maintaining areas with similar historical and traditional values in the one council. If there was an argument for North Epping to join Epping as part of an expanded Parramatta Council, it is understood that the Government would need to make a new proposal and Council would have a further opportunity to comment. The financial implications would also need to be reviewed by Council.

The attitude of the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned

Throughout the merger proposal period, the attitude of residents and ratepayers across the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai areas will be able to be tested by the delegate. In particular, the attitudes of those who own property or live in the area south of the M2 Motorway will be able to be gleaned through the public inquiry and submission processes for both proposals. There will also be an opportunity to receive resident thoughts about the placement of the suburbs of Epping and North Epping into different council areas.

It is interesting to note that in 2013, Council engaged Crosby Textor to undertake independent, scientifically robust and informative research to assist Council in understanding community opinion about the local government reform process as it affects the community. The research drew on the views of residents of Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, The Hills, Parramatta and Ryde Councils and provided insights into the community’s views about local government reform, including amalgamations and shared services. The main messages emanating from Crosby Textor’s research at that time were that:

· Local issues are low on the order of local residents’ issues. Issues concerning matters of State Government rank higher on the top-of-mind agenda for the local residents of Hornsby, The Hills, Parramatta and Ryde. These issues predominantly include the provision of better public and social infrastructure and traffic congestion.

· There is a low level of awareness of local council amalgamation. Total awareness of the current local government reform process sits around 53%.

· There is a high level of indecision – “soft” support/opposition for reform. The recommended option from the ILGRP to amalgamate councils has a “soft” position of approximately 60% of surveyed people. This finding is particularly important because it shows that community members are neither genuinely in support or opposed to the proposed reforms.

· The shared services model is preferred over amalgamation. Total support for a shared services model sits at 73% with minimal “strong” opposition at 9%. Of the reform options proposed, a shared services model was the most readily accepted. A reduction in council costs and improved service delivery were viewed as the primary reasons to support the model.

· There are disparate Hornsby Ward views about amalgamation. The results show that the views of residents in A, B and C wards are different. The geographical distances between these wards and the change of community landscape shows that there is not homogeneity in their views.

· Attitudes are consistent amongst residents from all surveyed councils. There appears to be relative levels of parity in the views expressed by community members surveyed in neighbouring council areas. The results showed that varying levels of awareness, opposition and support were only marginal if any at all.

· There is potential to convince those who are undecided on amalgamations by explaining the arguments which support lower costs and improved efficiencies.

The requirements of the area concerned in relation to elected representation for residents and ratepayers at the local level, the desirable and appropriate relationship between elected representatives and ratepayers and residents and such other matters as it considers relevant in relation to the past and future patterns of elected representation for that area

Council supports the Government’s view that a new Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Council will be in a position to use its larger scale and capacity to more effectively represent local Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai communities. As the new council will represent a more significant share of Sydney’s population, and have a substantial economic base, it will be able to advocate more effectively to other levels of Government on behalf of its residents. Councillors will continue to represent local community interests and will have the opportunity to take a more regional approach to economic development and strategic planning.

Currently, the level of elected representation in Hornsby is 16,861 residents per councillor (for 10 councillors) and in Ku-ring-gai is 12,098 per councillor (for 10 councillors). In a merged council, with an estimated population of 270,060, the level of elected representation would be 18,004 residents per councillor (if the council was comprised of the maximum 15 councillors allowed under the Act). This would increase to 20,774 residents per councillor if the new council comprised 13 councillors, which would be the next available option noting that changes to the Local Government Act currently being promoted will require an odd number of councillors for each council (i.e. 14 councillors would not be allowed).

The level of representation associated with either 15 councillors or 13 councillors would still see a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Council with better residents per councillor representation than that which is experienced in the current Blacktown Council (i.e. 21,676 residents per councillor).

The impact of any relevant proposal on the ability of the councils of the areas concerned to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities

While both Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils exceeded the Government’s requirements for measures associated with financial sustainability; quality of infrastructure and services; and efficiency of operation, neither Council was considered large enough to meet the Government’s requirement for scale and capacity because the individual populations of the areas were not considered large enough.

A merged council should, therefore, be in a position to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities to the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai communities. As such, Council supports the Government’s view that the proposed merger will provide significant opportunities to strengthen the role and strategic capacity of the new council to partner with the NSW and Australian governments on major infrastructure projects, addressing socio-economic challenges, delivery of services and focus on regional priorities.

The major issue associated with the current proposals is the financial impact that the excision from the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council of the area south of the M2 Motorway will have on the operations of a merged council. This issue is dealt with under the financial advantages and disadvantages criteria discussed above. In this regard, the excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway has the potential to affect the maintenance of existing services and projects in areas north of the proposed M2 Motorway boundary.

The impact of any relevant proposal on the employment of staff by the councils of the area concerned

The Local Government Act provides employment protections to current staff (except those designated as Senior Staff under the Act i.e. the General Manager and Divisional Managers) of both Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils during the current proposal period. If the Government decides to proceed with the merger, the employment protections are extended for a period of three years after the creation of the new organisation.

It is noted that the Government’s proposal indicates that the removal of duplicate back office and administration functions in the longer term could, among other options relating to rates and/or infrastructure improvements, provide the opportunity to employ additional staff for frontline services in the merged council. This would obviously depend on the new information being put forward by Council under the financial advantages and disadvantages criteria discussed above.

The impact of any relevant proposal on rural communities in the areas concerned

There is no significant rural community in the current Ku-ring-gai Council and the rural areas in Hornsby Council are located mostly to the northwest of the Shire. The servicing arrangements for the rural areas would not be expected to change in a merged council. Any residents from the rural areas who have concerns about the proposed mergers will have the opportunity to raise those concerns at either the public inquiries or by making a submission to the delegate by the due date. It is noted that the servicing of the merged council’s rural and urban areas may be impacted as a consequence of the information being put forward by Council under the financial advantages and disadvantages criteria discussed above.

In the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, the desirability (or otherwise) of dividing the resulting area or areas into wards

Hornsby currently has 10 councillors – comprising a popularly elected Mayor plus three councillors elected from each of three wards. Ku-ring-gai also has 10 councillors – comprising two councillors elected from each of five wards. Ku-ring-gai’s Mayor is elected annually by the councillors.

As both Councils currently have wards, and both communities appear comfortable with such a model, it would seem appropriate that a merged council also have wards. From Hornsby’s perspective, the election of a popularly elected Mayor has worked successfully since 2004 and is the preferred model for a merged council.

Based on the proposed new Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council having a popularly elected Mayor and noting that the current councils have 20 councillors in total; having regard to the current statutory provisions that a council may have a maximum 15 councillors; and noting that the Government is proposing under new legislation that councils should have an odd number of councillors, it would appear that the preferable governance arrangement would be for either 15 councillors (i.e. a popularly elected Mayor and 14 councillors elected from either 14, seven or two wards) or for 13 councillors (i.e. a popularly elected Mayor and 12 councillors elected from either 12, six, four, three or two wards).

As Council’s experience with three councillors per ward has been positive over the past 100 years, and as a division of a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council into four wards would appear to be readily achieved, it is proposed that the delegate be advised that Hornsby’s preference would be for the merged council to have 13 councillors – comprising a popularly elected Mayor plus three councillors elected from each of four wards.

In the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas, the need to ensure that the opinions of each of the diverse communities of the resulting area or areas are effectively represented

The best way to ensure that diverse communities have a fair voice may be through the creation of wards as discussed above. Residents who have concerns about the proposed mergers will have the opportunity to raise those concerns at either the public inquiries or by making a submission to the delegate by the due date.

One of the main issues already raised with Council in respect of the current proposals is the split of the suburbs of Epping and North Epping into two local government areas. In this regard, it is understood that if, following the public consultation period, it was considered that the North Epping area also be included in the expanded Parramatta proposal, this would need to be put forward by the Government as a new proposal.

Such other factors as it considers relevant to the provision of efficient and effective local government in the existing and proposed new areas

The draft North Subregional Strategy identifies that Hornsby Council is required to provide sufficient zoned land to facilitate the provision of an additional 11,000 dwellings to meet Council’s obligations under the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy. As part of Council’s 2011 Housing Strategy, Council adopted a staged approach to the achievement of this target. The first stage included the rezoning of a number of precincts throughout the Shire to provide opportunities for increased housing densities. The rezonings included a precinct in Keeler Street, Carlingford with an anticipated dwelling yield of 828 dwellings. To meet the balance of the target, Council has been progressing a number of other initiatives including rezonings at Epping as part of the Epping Urban Activation Precinct providing opportunities for a further 2,900 dwellings. Recent development activity indicates that the estimate for the Epping Town Centre will be exceeded.

The Department of Planning and Environment is currently preparing a North District Plan which will provide updated dwelling targets to 2036. Modelling by the Department to inform dwelling targets for each local government area is based on historic and current growth trends arising from dwelling completions, migration and other demographic information. The proposal to excise lands south of the M2 Motorway would have a major impact on the forecast dwelling supply for Hornsby Shire in the short term as Epping is currently the focus of significant development activity. The anticipated dwelling numbers for the Epping and Carlingford area (approximately 4,000 dwellings) would, therefore, need to be discounted from any revised dwelling targets for a combined Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Council.

Council currently undertakes a number of planning, compliance, certification and health functions for lands south of the M2 Motorway. These functions include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Development application assessment

· Receipt of Section 94 Contributions

· Planning proposal evaluation

· PCA functions

· Essential service (Annual Fire Safety Register)

· Swimming pool inspections

· Section 194 Planning Certificates

· Food premises inspections.

Should the proposal to excise the lands south of the M2 Motorway be progressed, it will be necessary for the State Government to provide guidance to councils on the processes and procedures for the transfer of these functions. Specifically, consideration will need to be given to who will be the determining authority for development applications received but not yet determined, transfer of the PCA from council to council, transfer of current and historic records and statutory status of Section 94 Plans and planning controls until such time as the new relevant council has undertaken a review and established appropriate procedures and legislative framework.

CONSULTATION

As part of the gathering of information for this Report, the Mayor and Acting General Manager were provided with a briefing in a State-wide telephone conference with the Premier and the Minister for Local Government; Councillors and senior staff have been involved in meetings with the delegates responsible for assessing the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai and expanded Parramatta proposals; and staff have had discussions with relevant Department of Premier and Cabinet staff as well as some of our neighbouring councils.

BUDGET

The impact of the Government’s current proposal is discussed in detail under the financial advantages and disadvantages criteria heading above.

As part of FFTF, the Government is providing a new Stronger Communities Fund. Under that Fund, each new council will be provided with up to $15 million to invest in community infrastructure projects such as sporting fields, libraries and parks; as well as funding of up to $10 million for each new council to ensure ratepayers do not pay for the up-front costs of merging. It is noted that a Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai merger would be eligible for $10 million under the Stronger Communities Fund and $10 million to assist with up-front merger costs.

POLICY

As a responsible local government authority, Council has and continues to be committed to participating in an ongoing discussion with the NSW Government and its neighbouring councils about the reform of local government.

CONCLUSION

In line with Council’s position on FFTF emanating from its June 2015 General Meeting, two merger option preferences were submitted to the Government for consideration in November 2015. Council’s first preference was for a merger of the whole of the existing Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils together with changes to Hornsby’s existing boundaries at Carlingford, Eastwood, Epping, Marsfield and Macquarie Park; and its second (on the basis that the Government was looking at whole of council mergers) was for a merger of the whole of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils.

It was a surprise, therefore, that the Government’s December 2015 proposal for the amalgamation of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils included the loss of the existing Hornsby area south of the M2 Motorway. In this regard, all of the financial and other modelling undertaken by Council over the past few years had not taken into account the loss of such area. As a consequence, Council’s submissions to the delegates, whilst supporting the merger of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai, need to focus on the impact to a merged Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai council of the loss of the area south of the M2 Motorway.

This Report provides suggested inclusions in submissions about the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai and expanded Parramatta proposals. The information has been collated against the criteria under which the delegates are required to undertake their assessments. It is recommended that the contents of this Report, together with any other matters that Council determines when considering this Report, form the basis of Council’s submissions to the delegates for the Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai and expanded Parramatta proposals.

Whilst Council is and continues to be a supporter of mergers as part of local government reform, the excision of the area south of the M2 Motorway from the proposed Hornsby/Ku-ring/gai merged council is not considered appropriate unless appropriate additional funding can be provided to assist the new organisation. If that funding is unable to be provided, Council’s view is that the Government should vary its proposal for Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai to be in line with Council’s vision for an Upper North Shore Council as described in its November 2015 submission to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. If this is not possible, then Council’s request would be that the merger be of the whole of the existing Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils. Council does realise that if either of these two options were acceptable, a new proposal would most likely need to be prepared and exhibited by the Government.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Acting General Manager – Gary Bensley, who can be contacted on 9847 6604.

Gary Bensley

Acting General Manager

Office of the General Manager

Attachments:

1.View	Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Merger Proposal
2.View	Greater Parramatta Merger Proposal

File Reference: F2016/00007

Document Number: D06856599

Group Manager’s Report No. PL2/16

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/02/2016

6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - FIVE STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING COMPRISING 25 UNITS - 439-441 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ASQUITH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/1114/2013 (Lodged on 10 October 2013)
Description:	Demolition of existing structures and erection of a five storey residential flat building comprising 25 units with basement car parking and strata title subdivision
Property:	Lot 1 DP 14476, Lot 12 DP 669400 and Lot 61 DP 24120 Nos. 439 and 441 Pacific Highway, Asquith
Applicant:	Degree Constructions Pty Ltd
Owner:	Ms Serap Geybi
Estimated Value:	$4,973,253
Ward:	A

· The application involves demolition of existing structures and the erection of a five storey residential flat building comprising 25 units with basement car parking and strata title subdivision. The proposal involves road works and landscaping to Mittabah Road reserve in association with the development.

· The proposal generally complies with the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994, Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Development, Residential Flat Design Code and Council’s Housing Strategy Development Control Plan and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013.

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

· It is recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/1114/2013 for demolition of existing structures and erection of a five storey residential flat building comprising 25 units with basement car parking at Lot 1 DP 14476, Lot 12 DP 669400 and Lot 61 DP 24120 Nos. 439 and 441 Pacific Highway, Asquith be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL2/16.

BACKGROUND

The subject land was rezoned from Residential A (Low Density) to R4 (High Density Residential) on 2 September 2011 as part of Council’s Housing Strategy.

The subject application was lodged with Council on 10 October 2013.

Council raised concerns regarding access from the Pacific Highway, setbacks and landscaping issues relating to the initial proposal and sent a letter requesting additional information on 28 January 2014.

On 25 August 2014, Council received DA/956/2014 for a five storey residential flat building comprising 34 units with basement carpark at Nos. 433 – 437 Pacific Highway (southern side of the site). The development proposed access off Mittabah Road reserve located between the two development sites.

Meetings were conducted between the applicants for DA/1114/2013, DA/956/2014 and Council officers to discuss alternative access to the sites and required works on Mittabah Road in association with the two developments. Consequently, the applicant for DA/956/2014 submitted concept plans for landscaping Mittabah Road and Council provided comments regarding the proposed landscaping works in January 2015. Council subsequently provided details of road work standards to both the applicants in April 2015.

On 20 July 2015, amended plans were submitted to Council in regard to DA/1114/2013 including details of Mittabah Road reserve road works, landscaping works and associated drainage works.

On September 2015, the owner of No. 441 Pacific Highway purchased a triangular parcel of land (Lot 61 DP 24120) with an area of 16.5m², adjoining the site, from Roads and Maritime Services and consolidated the two parcels.

Further amended plans addressing concerns regarding the design of the development were lodged in November 2015. The application was renotified up to 18 December 2015.

On 23 December 2015, the applicant submitted amended plans incorporating the consolidated parcel of land for No. 441 Pacific Highway. The submitted plans address the concerns raised by Council.

SITE

The corner site comprises two allotments, Nos. 439 and 441 Pacific Highway located on the western side of the road at its intersection with an unformed section of Mittabah Road. The site is irregular in shape, has an area of 1570m² with a 30.85m frontage to the Pacific Highway and 42m frontage to Mittabah Road. The site has a slope of 6.6% from the north-eastern (front) corner to the south-western corner (Mittabah Road).

A triangular parcel of land known as Lot 61 DP 24120 (approximately 16m² in area), formerly owned by Roads and Maritime Services and located in front of No. 441 Pacific Highway, was zoned Special Uses B (Transport Corridor) Zone under Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994. This parcel of land was not initially included in the development site. The parcel was rezoned to R4 High Density Residential Zone pursuant to Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013. The owner of No. 441 Pacific Highway has recently purchased this parcel of land and consequently, No. 441 has been consolidated to include the additional 16m².

Existing improvements on the allotments include two dwelling-houses with associated garages and carports. Vehicular access to the site is via existing driveways from the Pacific Highway and Mittabah Road (No. 439).

The site and adjoining properties contain a large number of trees including locally native and exotic species. Significant groups of trees are located to the front and rear of the site and on the adjoining property to the north.

The footpath in front of the site is at a lower level than the Pacific Highway carriageway and slopes downward to the west (towards the site). The section of Mittabah Road fronting the site is an informal road at a lower level than the Pacific Highway with a grass verge separating the two roads. Currently, No. 437 and No. 439 Pacific Highway are accessed from this road.

The site is located in close proximity to Asquith Railway Station and the Asquith Commercial Centre. The surrounding developments include single and two storey residential dwellings. However, the site forms part of a redevelopment precinct which is zoned for five storey development and is undergoing transition. The following development applications, relating to properties in the near vicinity of the site, have been approved or, are under assessment:

· DA/956/2014 for construction of a five storey residential flat buildings comprising 34 units with 2 levels of basement car parking at Nos. 433 - 437 Pacific Highway (southern side of Mittabah Road) was approved by Council on 9 December 2015. The development proposes access off Mittabah Road.

· DA/727/2015 for construction of a five storey residential flat buildings comprising 26 units with 2 levels of basement car parking at Nos. 443 - 445 Pacific Highway is currently under assessment.

· DA/1671/2015 for construction of a five storey residential flat building comprising 45 units with 2 levels of basement car parking at Nos. 36 – 40 Lords Avenue (rear of the site) is currently under assessment.

PROPOSAL

The Development

The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey residential flat building comprising 25 units with 2 levels of basement car parking and strata title subdivision.

The unit mix would comprise 4 x 1 bedroom, 18 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom units. The units would be accessed via a lift centrally located in the building and would include balconies fronting the street, rear and side property boundaries.

The development would be accessed from Mittabah Road via a driveway entrance located on the southern boundary of the site. A separate pedestrian entry centrally located at the front of the property would provide access to all levels of the building via a landscaped pathway from the Pacific Highway. A total of 32 car parking spaces, including 5 visitors’ parking spaces, bicycle and motorbike parking spaces are proposed in two basement levels.

Road Works

The development proposes access via Mittabah Road. The following works are proposed to facilitate access via the existing informal road reserve:

· Construction of the section of Mittabah Road between Lords Avenue and the Pacific Highway with a minimum carriageway width of 7.5m (from kerb to kerb);

· A public footpath to be constructed on one side of the road;

· A cul-de-sac end with a 15m diameter is to be provided in front of the site;

· Landscaping works at the eastern end of the cul-de-sac with planting, ground cover, seating and shelters; and

· Street lights on the road reserve.

The proposed road works and landscaping works on Mittabah Road are identical to that approved under DA/956/2014.

The site would drain to Mittabah Road via an on-site detention system.

ASSESSMENT

The development application has been assessed having regard to ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’, the ‘North Subregion (Draft) Subregional Strategy’ and the matters for consideration prescribed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The following issues have been identified for further consideration.

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney and (Draft) North Subregional Strategy

A Plan for Growing Sydney has been prepared by the NSW State Government to guide land use planning decisions for the next 20 years. The Plan sets a strategy for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth and identifies the need to deliver 689,000 new jobs and 664,000 new homes by 2031. The Plan 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, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney, Pittwater, Ryde, Warringah and Willoughby to form the North Subregion. The Draft North Subregional Strategy will be reviewed and the Government will set housing targets and monitor supply to ensure planning controls are in place to stimulate housing development.

The proposed development would be consistent with ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’, by providing 23 additional dwellings and would contribute to housing choice in the locality.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 79C(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 Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994

The subject land is zoned Residential C (Medium/High Density) and Special Uses B (Transport Corridor) (the triangular parcel) under the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 (HSLEP). The proposed building works are located wholly within the Residential C zone. The objectives of the zone 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 medium to high density residential environment.

(c) To provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a medium to high density residential environment.

The proposed development is defined as ‘multi-unit housing’ under the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

Clause 15 of the HSLEP prescribes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of development within the Residential C zone. Subclause (5) of clause 15 states that “This clause does not apply to land shown edged heavy black on diagrams 1-8 in Schedule BB.” The site is identified in Diagram 4 of Schedule BB of the HSLEP. Therefore, clause 15 does not apply to the subject site.

Clause 15A of the HSLEP prescribes that the maximum building height within the area detailed under Schedule BB is not to exceed 17.5 metres. The proposed building complies with this requirement.

Clause 18 of the HSLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire. The site is not in the vicinity of a heritage item or conservation area and is not subject to consideration for heritage conservation. Therefore, no further evaluation is required in this regard.

2.2 Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013

The Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) was gazetted by the Minister of Planning on 11 October 2013. The HLEP includes a savings provision stating that if a development application is made and not finally determined before the commencement of the HLEP, the application must be determined as if the Plan had been exhibited but not commenced. The HLEP does not apply to the proposed development. Notwithstanding, the relevant provisions are discussed below.

2.2.1 Zoning of Land and Permissibility

The subject land is zoned R4 (High Density Residential) zone under the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP). The objectives of the zone are:

(a) To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

(b) To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

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

The development proposed is a high density residential development and complies with the zone objectives. The proposed development is defined as a “Residential flat building” under the HLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

2.2.2 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 17.5 metres. The proposal complies with this provision.

2.2.3 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the HLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire. The site does not include a heritage item and is not located in a heritage conservation area. Accordingly, no further assessment regarding heritage is necessary.

2.2.4 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. The site adjoins residential properties to the west and north of the site and the Pacific Highway to the east. However, these properties would be redeveloped in the future as five storey residential flat buildings and are currently subject to development applications. Accordingly, dilapidation reports for the dwelling houses on these properties would not be needed.

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

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55). This Policy provides State-wide planning controls requiring that consent must not be granted to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated or requires remediation for the proposed use.

A search of Council’s records and aerial images reveals that the property has been used exclusively for residential purposes with no record of any site contamination. Given this, the site would be suitable for the proposed use and no further assessment in relation to this SEPP is required.

It is also noted that due to the age of the existing fibro clad dwelling house on No. 441 Pacific Highway, there is potential for the existing building to contain asbestos. Appropriate conditions are included to require all asbestos to be removed from the site appropriately. Furthermore, taking into account the significant excavation required to accommodate the proposed basement car park, much of the existing soil would be removed from the site.

2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX)

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. The proposal includes a BASIX Certificate for the proposed units and is considered to be satisfactory.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) (SEPP 32)

The application has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 32, which requires Council to implement the aims and objectives of this Policy to the fullest extent practicable when considering development applications relating to redevelopment of urban land. The application complies with the objectives of the Policy as it would promote the social and economic welfare of the locality and would result in the orderly and economic use of under-utilised land within the Shire.

2.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. This Policy contains State-wide planning controls for developments adjoining busy roads and railways. The development is located within 25m of a rail corridor and has a frontage to a classified road corridor (Pacific Highway). The following matters are required to be considered pursuant to the SEPP.

2.6.1 Excavation Adjacent to Rail Corridors

Clause 86 of SEPP Infrastructure applies to developments that involve the penetration of ground to a depth of at least 2 metres within 25 metres of a rail corridor. The site is not located within 25m of the rail corridor. Accordingly, no further assessment in this regard is necessary.

2.6.2 Development with Frontage to a Classified Road

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of Clause 101 as the site has frontage to the Pacific Highway.

The objective of this Clause is:

(a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

(b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

The compliance of the proposal with the objectives of this Clause is discussed below.

2.6.2.1 Frontage to Classified Road

The site has a frontage to the Pacific Highway. However, access to the site is provided off a local road. A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment submitted with the proposal estimates the traffic generation from the existing site and proposed development using Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) traffic generation rates. The net traffic generation is estimated to be 11 vehicle trips per hour in the AM and PM peak hours, which is negligible when compared with the traffic volumes on the adjacent road network.

In the vicinity of the development site, the Pacific Highway has two vehicular lanes per direction. In terms of carriageway capacity, this equates to 3,800 vehicles per hour. Based on the observed traffic flows, the estimated volume to capacity ratio (the degree of congestion) of the Pacific Highway has been established to be less than 0.50 which is less than 50% of nominal capacity.

Given that the development does not propose direct access off the Pacific Highway, the application is not required to be referred to RMS. It is considered that the proposed development would not have any adverse impact on the safety, efficient and ongoing operation of the Pacific Highway.

2.6.2.2 Impact of Vehicle Emissions

The proposed development would have frontage to a State Road and the impact of vehicle emissions on sensitive land uses is required to be considered.

The current improvements on the site include dwelling houses that are impacted upon by vehicle emission and airborne dust particles due to the current traffic flow. The rezoning of the land to R4 High Density Residential pursuant to Council’s Housing Strategy has been the subject of consultation with the RMS and endorsed by the Department of Planning, who has not raised concern with regard to air quality in this area. The proposed development includes setbacks, landscaping, deep soil zones generally in accordance with the requirements of the Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy Development Control Plan which would ameliorate the impacts of noise and emissions. The proposed development would result in the net increase of 11 vehicles during peak hours and therefore, the additional impact due to vehicle emission would be negligible.

Given that the proposed development does not significantly alter the current traffic conditions, no further assessment in this regard is necessary.

As such, the design of the development responds to the site context, being in the vicinity of a busy road and is designed in accordance with the recommendations with the document “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines 2008”. This includes setbacks, landscaping and deep soil zones that would ameliorate the impacts of noise and emission related impacts.

The application is assessed as satisfactory in this regard.

2.6.3 Impact of Noise

Assessment of the impact of road noise on a residential use is required pursuant to Clause 102 of SEPP Infrastructure where a development fronts a road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 40,000 vehicles. The subject site has a frontage to Pacific Highway. However, the average daily traffic volume on the Pacific Highway in the vicinity of the site does not exceed 40,000 vehicles and therefore, this clause does not apply to the proposal. Recommended conditions of consent ensure that the development is capable of achieving reasonable amenity and acoustic privacy in accordance with the requirements within “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines 2008”.

2.6.4 Traffic Generating Developments

The development is not classified as a Traffic Generating Development in accordance with Clause 104 and Schedule 3 of SEPP (Infrastructure) as it would not result in more than 75 dwellings fronting a classified road. Consequently, the proposal was not referred to RMS with regard to traffic generation.

2.7 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The Policy provides for design principles to improve the design quality of residential flat development and for consistency in planning controls across the State.

2.7.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (Amendment 3)

SEPP 65 was amended on 19 June 2015 following review of the policy by the Department of Planning and Environment. The amendments replace the Residential Flat Design Guidelines with the Apartment Design Guide which prevails in the event of any inconsistency with a Development Control Plan.

Clause 31 (Transitional provisions for SEPP 65 – Amendment No. 3) states that “If a development application or an application for the modification of a development consent has been made before the notification on the NSW legislation website of the making of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (Amendment No 3) and the application has not been finally determined before the commencement of that amendment, the application must be determined as if the amendment had not commenced.”

Pursuant to the above provision, this amendment would not apply to the subject application and the previous version (Amendment 2) of the SEPP is required to be considered.

2.7.2 Design Principles

The applicant has submitted a “Design Verification Statement” prepared by a qualified Architect stating how the proposed development achieves the design principles of SEPP 65. The design principles of SEPP 65 and the submitted design verification statement are addressed in the following table.

Principle	Compliance
1. CONTEXT	Yes
Comment: The site is located within a precinct planned for five storey residential flat buildings in close proximity to Asquith Railway Station. The proposal responds to the desired future character of the precinct as envisaged by Council for residential flat buildings in landscaped settings with underground car parking. Once the development of the precinct is complete, the proposal would integrate with the surrounding sites and would be in keeping with the future urban form. The proposed building would contribute to the identity and future character of the precinct.
2. SCALE	Yes
Comment: The scale of the development is in accordance with the height control and setbacks for the precinct prescribed within the Housing Strategy Development Control Plan (Housing Strategy DCP). The building footprint follows the irregular shape of the site and responds to the site constraints. The development achieves a scale consistent with the desired outcome for well-articulated buildings that are set back to incorporate landscaping, open space and separation between buildings.
3. BUILT FORM	Yes
Comment: The proposed building achieves an appropriate built form for the site and its purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, and the manipulation of building elements. The building would appropriately contribute to the character of the desired future streetscape and includes articulation to minimise the perceived scale. The proposed materials and finishes would add to the visual interest of the development. Flat roof forms have been adopted with an increased top storey setback on the external facades to minimise the perceived bulk and height of the building as required by the Housing Strategy DCP.
4. DENSITY	Yes
Comment: The HSLEP does not incorporate floor space ratio requirements for the site. The density of the development is governed by the height of the building and the required setbacks. The proposed density is considered to be sustainable as it responds to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality and is acceptable in terms of density.
5. RESOURCE, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY	Yes
Comment: The applicant has submitted a BASIX Certificate for the proposed development. In achieving the required BASIX targets for sustainable water use, thermal comfort and energy efficiency, the proposed development would achieve efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including demolition and construction.
6. LANDSCAPE	Yes
Comment: The application includes a landscape concept plan which provides landscaping along the street frontages, side and rear boundaries. Large trees are proposed along the Pacific Highway frontage intercepted by shrubs and hedges which would soften the appearance of the development when viewed from the streets. Deep soil areas that incorporate canopy trees are provided around the building envelope that would enhance the development’s natural environmental performance and provide an appropriate landscaped setting.
7. AMENITY	Yes
Comment: The proposed units are designed with appropriate room dimensions and layout to maximise amenity for future residents. The proposal incorporates good design in terms of achieving natural ventilation, solar access and acoustic privacy. All units incorporate balconies accessible from living areas and privacy has been achieved through appropriate design and orientation of balconies and living areas. Storage areas have been provided within each unit and in the basement levels. The proposal would provide convenient and safe access via a central lift connecting the basement and all other levels.
8. SAFETY AND SECURITY	Yes
Comment: The design orientates the balconies and windows of individual apartments towards the street, rear and side boundaries, providing passive surveillance of the public domain and communal open space areas. Both the pedestrian and vehicular entry points are secured and visibly prominent from the Pacific Highway and Mittabah Road. The proposal includes an assessment of the development against crime prevention controls in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). The SEE has regard to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles (CPTED) and includes details of surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and space management such as artificial lighting in public places; attractive landscaping whilst maintaining clear sight lines; security coded door lock or swipe card entry; physical or symbolic barriers to attract, channel or restrict the movement of people; security controlled access to basement car park; intercom access for pedestrians; and security cameras located at the entrance of the building. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended to require compliance with the above matters.
9. SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY	Yes
Comment: The proposal incorporates a range of unit sizes to cater for different budgets and housing needs. The development complies with the housing choice requirements of the Housing Strategy DCP by providing a component of adaptable housing and a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings. The proposal responds to the social context in terms of providing a range of dwelling sizes with good access to social facilities and services as the site is located in close proximity to Asquith Railway Station and shops.
10. AESTHETICS	Yes
Comment: The architectural treatment of the building incorporates indentations and projections in the exterior walls with balcony projections to articulate the facades. The roof is flat to minimise building height and incorporates eaves which would cast shadows across the top storey wall. The articulation of the building, composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours would achieve a built form generally consistent with the design principles contained within the Residential Flat Design Code and the Housing Strategy DCP.

2.8 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Residential Flat Design Code

SEPP 65 also requires consideration of the Residential Flat Design Code, NSW Planning Department 2002. The Code includes development controls and best practice benchmarks for achieving the design principles of SEPP 65. The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the Code:

Residential Flat Design Code
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Deep Soil Zone	27%	25%	Yes
Communal Open Space	26%	25-30%	Yes
Ground Level Private Open Space	<25m² Min Dimension <4m	25m² Min Dimension 4m	No No
Minimum Dwelling Size	1 br – 50m²-55m² 2 br – 70m²-84m² 3 br – 95m²-109m²	1 br – 50m² 2 br – 70m² 3 br – 95m²	Yes Yes Yes
Maximum Kitchen Distance	8m	8m	Yes
Minimum Balcony Depth	2m	2m	Yes
Minimum Ceiling Height	2.8m	2.7m	Yes
Total Storage Area	1 bed - 6m³ (Min) 2 bed - 8m³(Min) 3 bed - 10m³ (Min)	1 bed - 6m³ (Min) 2 bed - 8m³(Min) 3 bed - 10m³ (Min) 50% accessible from the apartments	Yes
Dual Aspect and Cross Ventilation	76% (19/25)	60%	Yes
Adaptable Housing	36%(9/25)	10%	Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development generally complies with the prescriptive measures within the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) other than the ground floor private open space areas and dimension. Below is a brief discussion regarding the relevant development controls and best practice guidelines.

2.8.1 Ground Floor Apartments and Private Open Space

The proposal does not comply with the Code’s best practice for the 25sqm minimum area and 4 metre minimum width dimension to the ground level private open space of a number of units. The non-compliance is in response to the requirement of the Housing Strategy DCP for common landscaped areas fronting the Pacific Highway, Mittabah Road and the side setback to the north to provide a landscape setting for the developments within the precinct. Notwithstanding, the proposed ground floor terraces and balconies are considered appropriate for the respective ground floor units in respect to dwelling size, aspect, unit configuration and amenity.

The proposal is assessed as satisfactory in this regard and the non-compliance is acceptable.

2.8.2 Building Separation

The RFDC requires a building separation of 12m between unscreened habitable areas or balconies increasing to 18m from the fifth level between residential buildings on adjoining sites. Accordingly, all proposed developments are required to provide half of the building separation, as setbacks from boundaries.

The northern and western facades of the building would potentially adjoin a five storey development in the future. The development complies with the building separation requirements along these boundaries by proposing minimum boundary setbacks of 6m for unscreened habitable areas up to the fourth level increasing to 9m at the fifth level.

2.8.3 Apartment Layout

The proposed development includes a mix of single aspect, corner and cross-over units including one, two and three bedroom apartments. The majority of units would be well ventilated and some corner units would be provided with dual aspect balconies. The RFDC requires that not more than 10% of apartments be south facing, single aspect units. The proposal complies with this requirement.

As stated in the table, the development includes a varied range of unit sizes. Approximately 72% of the units would comply with the internal areas and unit configurations recommended by the RFDC guidelines. The balance of the units meets the requirements of the Code for affordable housing unit sizes.

With consent conditions, the apartment layouts of the amended proposal are functional and satisfy the RFDC objectives for internal privacy, access to sunlight, natural ventilation and acoustic privacy. It is considered that the apartment layout and mix achieve the intent of the best practice requirements of the RFDC and are acceptable in this regard.

2.8.4 Internal Circulation

The proposed development includes access to all floors via a lift. The internal corridors meet the Code’s requirements for the number of units accessed (up to 8) and design for amenity. The ground floor foyer would also provide direct, level access to communal open space located within the rear setback of the site.

The proposal complies with the requirements of the RFDC with regard to internal circulation.

2.8.5 Acoustic Privacy

The internal layout of the residential units is designed such that noise generating areas would adjoin each other wherever possible. Storage or circulation zones would act as a buffer between units. Bedroom and service areas such as kitchens, bathrooms and laundries would be grouped together wherever possible. The proposal is consistent with the RFDC for acoustic privacy.

2.8.6 Storage

The proposed building includes resident storage areas for the apartments, accessed from a hall or living room. In addition, storage cages are provided in the basement for each unit. A condition is recommended to ensure that each dwelling within the development must have a minimum area for storage of 6m³ for one bedroom units, 8m³ for two bedroom units and 10m³ for three bedroom units, where at least 50% is required to be located within the apartment and provided in addition to bedroom and kitchen cupboards.

In summary, the proposed residential flat buildings have been designed in accordance with the design principles of SEPP 65 and generally comply in respect to the Residential Flat Design Code. It is considered the proposal would achieve good residential amenity and contribute to the desired future character of the precinct.

2.9 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.

2.10 Clause 74BA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

Clause 74BA 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.

2.11 Housing Strategy Development Control Plan

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

The Housing Strategy Development Control Plan
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Site Width	30.85m – Pacific Highway 42m – Mittabah Road	30m	Yes
Height	5 storeys – 17.5m	5 storeys – 17.5m	Yes
Maximum Floorplate Dimension	23m (N/S) 25m ( E/W)	35m 35m	Yes Yes
Height of Basement Above Ground	1m – 1.2m	1m (max)	Yes
Front Setback (Pacific Highway)	10m 8m (for 3m) < 1/3 frontage 7m (balconies)	10m 8m (for 7.6m) < 1/3 frontage 7m (balconies)	Yes Yes Yes
Side Setback (Mittabah Road)	6m 4m (for 7m) < 1/3 frontage 4m (balconies)	6m 4m (for 8.3m) < 1/3 frontage 4m (balconies)	Yes Yes Yes
Rear Setback	10m None proposed 7m (balconies)	10m 8m(for 8.3m) < 1/3 of frontage 7m (balconies)	Yes N/A Yes
Side Setback (North)	6m – 8m None proposed 6m	6m 4m (for 7.6m) < 1/3 frontage 4m (balconies)	Yes N/A Yes
Top Storey Setback from Ground Floor	3m	3m	Yes
Underground Parking Setback	8m-Pacific Highway 6m – 10m-rear 4m-Mittabah Road 1m-side (North)	7m-front 7m-rear 4m-side 4m-side (North)	Yes No Yes No
Basement Ramp Setback	7m	2m	Yes
Deep Soil Landscaped Areas	7m- Pacific Highway 7m - rear 4m - Mittabah Road 1m – 6m-side (north)	7m-front 7m – rear 4m - sides	Yes Yes Yes No
Private Open Space	1br units >10m² 2 br units >12m² 3 br units >16m²	1br units 10m² 2 br units 12m² 3 br units 16m²	Yes
Communal Open Space with Minimum Dimensions 4m	26.6%	25%	Yes
Parking	27 resident spaces 5 visitor spaces 8 bicycle racks	27 resident spaces 5 visitor spaces 8 bicycle racks	Yes Yes Yes
Solar Access	80%(20/25)	70%	Yes
Housing Choice	1br – units – 16 % 2br – units – 72% 3br – units – 12%	10% of each type (min)	Yes
Adaptable Units	36% (9/25)	30%	Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development generally complies with the prescriptive requirements within the Housing Strategy DCP other than unground parking setbacks and deep soil landscaping. The matters of non-compliance are detailed below, as well as a brief discussion on compliance with relevant desired outcomes.

2.11.1 Desired Future Character

The site is included in the Lords Avenue, Asquith precinct which was rezoned from Residential A (Low Density) to R4 (High Density Residential) as part of Council’s Housing Strategy.

The proposed building is in accordance with the key principles for the precinct for well-articulated five storey residential flat buildings in garden settings with basement car parking.

2.11.2 Site Requirements

The Housing Strategy DCP requires sites to have a minimum frontage of 30 metres. The subject site complies with this requirement. The development would not result in isolation of any site.

2.11.3 Height

The proposal complies with the required height limits and is acceptable in this regard.

It is noted that a minor section of the ground floor, at the south-western corner of the building, would be 1.2m above the natural ground. The site slopes downwards considerably at this location and the height of the basement above the finished ground level is non-compliant to accommodate the driveway. The height exceedance is minor and would not impact on the streetscape. Accordingly, it is acceptable.

2.11.4 Setbacks

As noted in the table above, the proposal generally complies with most of the building setback controls. The front setback requirements have been applied to the Pacific Highway frontage and the side setback requirements have been applied to the Mittabah Road frontage. This would ensure that the buildings along the Pacific Highway maintain similar setbacks to the road reserve.

The proposed setback to the Mittabah Road reserve would have no adverse impact on the privacy or amenity of the development on the southern side of the road reserve. Generous landscaping with canopy trees intercepted by shrubs and hedges is proposed along the boundary to screen the development.

The building also incorporates a 3m additional setback for the top storey on all elevations.

It is considered that the proposal complies with the intent of the prescriptive measures of the Housing Strategy DCP which is to provide for landscaping, open space and separation between buildings.

2.11.5 Landscaping

The landscaping provisions of the Housing Strategy DCP prescribe that a 7m wide landscaped deep soil areas are to be provided at the front/rear and 4m wide landscaped deep soil areas provided along the side boundaries.

The site and the surrounding properties accommodate tree species that are consistent with Blue Gum High Forest or Sydney Turpentine Iron Bark Endangered Ecological Community (EEC). A number of significant trees located within the front and rear setbacks of the site are remnant to the above EEC. The building setbacks are partially guided by the requirements to retain significant trees on the site.

Although the design of the basement generally achieves the prescribed setbacks along the two street frontages; non-compliances are noted along the rear and northern boundaries. The relevant matters are discussed below.

Rear

The setback of the underground parking from the rear boundary is guided by an existing significant tree (T29 - Angophora costata) located at the south western corner of the site and the resultant tree protection zones.

The driveway and the associated areas of the basement are setback 9m – 10m from the rear setback at the southern end to retain this significant tree. To compensate the additional setbacks, the basement encroaches within 6m of the rear boundary, at the northern end.

The non-compliance is minor and would facilitate the retention of significant landscape features of the site.

North

The basement maintains additional setbacks to the front and rear to retain significant trees (T20 - Eucalyptus acmenoides and T29 - Angophora costata). Compliant setbacks are also maintained to the Mittabah Road frontage. Consequently, basement encroachment is proposed along the northern boundary to accommodate the required storage areas and the internal ramp.

The submitted landscape plan proposes shrub planting along the 1m deep soil setback and on-slab landscaping/paved areas for the remaining setback to the northern elevation. Submitted plans for DA/727/2015 indicate that a driveway would adjoin the northern boundary of the site and the building would be setback 6m – 7m from the common boundary. Given this, it is considered that the encroachment would not have any adverse impacts on the privacy of the occupants of the future five storey development to the north of the site.

A number of trees are located along the southern boundary of the adjoining site at No. 443 Pacific Highway Asquith. The submitted Arborist Report concludes that the proposed location of the basement would not encroach within the structural root zone of the any neighbouring tree. As such, the exempt tree species in close proximity to the common boundary are recommended for removal under DA/727/2015. Notwithstanding, conditions of consent require retention of all trees located within the neighbouring property to the north of the subject site.

In summary, the proposed development endeavours to retain the significant trees within the site and the surrounding properties wherever possible. As a result, the underground parking incorporates additional setbacks in certain sections and encroaches within the stipulated setbacks along the remaining sections of the building envelopes. However, the development results in suitable deep soil landscaped areas along the periphery of the site with proposed canopy trees, intercepted by shrubs, hedges and ground covers. The proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regard to basement carpark setbacks and landscaping.

2.11.6 Floor Plates and Articulation

The proposed building would have a maximum floor-plate of 25m. The design of the floor-plate, the proposed indentations and the articulation of the facades are in accordance with the “Floor Plates and Separation” and “Articulation” elements of the Housing Strategy DCP.

The articulation of the building facades has been achieved in the following ways:

· The facades have been divided into vertical ‘panels’;

· The inclusion of wrap around balconies, vertical and horizontal blade elements, stepped levels of the building, flat roof and large proportion of openings at the topmost storey; and

· The building would incorporate a varied use of finishes including facebrick, acrylic render paint finishes, metal cladding, timber louvers and a dark toned colour palette with lightweight balconies.

The building design is considered a reasonable design outcome for the site and the proposal is assessed as satisfactory in this regard.

2.11.7 Open Space

The proposed private open space areas generally comply with the prescriptive area requirements, include a range of layouts with access off living areas and would provide for a range of outdoor activities. All units comply with the minimum open space areas prescribed by the Housing Strategy DCP.

The development also includes communal open space areas along the rear and northern side setback, being directly connected to the entry foyer area. The communal open space area includes turfed lawns at the rear and paved areas along the side boundary with timber pergola, seating areas and a bbq facility. The proposed location of the timber pergola and bbq facility would directly adjoin the bedrooms and living areas of the north-facing ground level units and may have adverse impacts on the privacy of these units. Accordingly, conditions of consent recommend relocation of the pergola and the bbq area within the rear setback over the turfed area with direct access to the foyer. Further, inclusion of a 1m wide and 1.8m high screen planting at the ground level adjoining the northern elevation of the building is also recommended to retain privacy of the occupants in association with on-slab ground cover along the northern boundary to increase the soft landscaping in this section of the site.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regard to the element “Open Space”.

2.11.8 Privacy

The proposed development is appropriately designed for privacy with all of the units having an external outlook. The northern and western boundaries of the site adjoin land capable of being redeveloped in the future for a five-storey building. The proposal is generally consistent with the separation requirements of the RFDC and the Housing Strategy DCP. As a result, the development would not compromise the privacy of future occupants or adjoining neighbours.

2.11.9 Sunlight and Ventilation

The Housing Strategy DCP requires that at least 70% of dwellings should receive 2 or more hours of sunlight to the living room windows and private open space. In this regard, the applicant has submitted hourly solar access diagrams demonstrating solar access for individual units. 80% of the units would receive 2 hours of direct sunlight to the living room windows and private open space and comply with the above requirement.

The proposal also complies with the requirement for at least 60% of dwellings to have dual aspect and natural cross ventilation.

2.11.10 Housing Choice

As stated in the above table, the proposed development includes a mix of one, two and three bedroom units including adaptable units complying with the prescriptive measures of the Housing Strategy DCP.

2.11.11 Vehicular Access and Parking

The proposed basement car park is over two levels and is accessed via a 6m wide driveway from Mittabah Road. The development proposes to extend Mittabah Road from Lords Avenue to the frontage of the site to facilitate access.

Parking provision within the basement levels is in accordance with the minimum number of car spaces prescribed by the Housing Strategy DCP. The basement level includes storage areas for residents, bicycle/motor cycle parking areas, visitors’ parking spaces and four accessible car spaces.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is considered satisfactory in respect to the requirements for vehicle access and parking.

2.11.12 Lords Avenue, Asquith Precinct

The strategy for redevelopment of this precinct is to incorporate five storey residential flat buildings in garden settings with parking in basements. Following redevelopment of properties along Mittabah Road, the street is to be closed to traffic and a park established.

The development would provide for a landscaped setting and a built-form that is consistent with the desired future outcome for the Lords Avenue, Asquith Precinct. However, access to the site is proposed off Mittabah Road which does not comply with the Key Development Principles Diagram for the precinct. In lieu of proposing access from Mittabah Road, the applicant proposes to construct the road and also provide landscaping for the remaining section of the reserve. In this regard, a landscape plan has been submitted identifying the proposed works that would include planting, ground covers, concrete seats, timber pergolas and bbq facilities. Landscaping is also proposed along both sides of the carriageway including a pedestrian footpath and street lights.

The original application proposed access off Pacific Highway. However, Council raised concerns regarding the proposed access as it would result in removal of significant vegetation and an unacceptable ramp length providing access to the basement. The proposed access to the site from Mittabah Road is considered a superior outcome for the site due to the following reasons:

· Appropriate vehicular access cannot be provided from the Pacific Highway due to the existing levels of the site and the road reserve;

· Currently, the road provides informal access to No. 439 Pacific Highway;

· Access from Mittabah Road would facilitate development on the site which is otherwise constrained;

· The proposal facilitates access from a local street complying with the provisions of Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure);

· The proposal to extend Mittabah Road is acceptable as it would provide a 7.5m wide carriageway facilitating access to Nos. 437 and Nos. 439 Pacific Highway pursuant to DA/1114/2013 and DA/956/2014. This is considered to be a reasonable outcome for the precinct without adverse impacts on the built environment of the locality. Conditions of consent recommend that the road be built to Council’s Civil Works Specifications.

· Council’s recreational needs assessment concludes that, given the size of the road reserve, it is not proposed to establish a future park at this location. Accordingly, no objections are raised regarding extension of the road and landscaping of the remaining section of the reserve, subject to conditions regarding the proposed planting, ground cover and seating. It is recommended that the bbq facilities and park shelters be deleted as this area is not to be used as a conventional park. The landscaped reserve would provide pedestrian access to Lords Avenue from the Pacific Highway and be maintained as open space in the future.

· A condition of consent requires approval of the final landscape design by Council and completion of all works prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

· Council has recently approved DA/956/2014, for a five storey residential flat building on Nos. 433 – 437 Pacific Highway Asquith. The development proposes access off Mittabah Road and incorporates associated road works and landscaping works for the reserve. The subject application also proposes road works and landscaping works that are identical to that approved under DA/956/2014. It is anticipated that the applicants for both the development sites would negotiate and share the cost of building the road and the landscaping works.

Given the above, the non-compliance with the Key Principles Diagram is considered acceptable.

2.12 Waste Minimisation and Management Development Control Plan

The proposal includes a waste management plan with details of waste management during the demolition phase and the construction phase of building works. The site will require 3 x 660 litre garbage bins serviced two times per week, 6 x 240 litre recycling bins serviced weekly and 1 x 660 litre paper/cardboard bin.

An accessible garbage room with a chute and a recycling bin has been proposed at each residential level. A garbage room is proposed at the upper basement level below the chute. The garbage room would require a volume handling equipment being 2 x 660 litres bin linear.

A separate ground level bin storage and collection area is proposed at the south-western corner of the site fronting Mittabah Road. A site caretaker would cart the bins up the ramp to the collection area. The waste collection vehicle (being a Small Rigid Vehicle) would reverse on to the truck standing area and egress in a forward direction. The collection area is sufficiently separated from the ground floor units and would not result in adverse amenity impacts due to noise and odour.

A bulky waste storage area (8 sqm) is required to be provided near the waste collection point. This is recommended as a condition of consent.

Subject to conditions of consent, the proposed development is assessed as satisfactory with regard to on-going waste management operations on site and service vehicle access.

2.13 Access and Mobility Development Control Plan

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements within Council’s Access and Mobility Development Control Plan.

The development proposes continuous barrier free access to all floors via a lift. The proposal complies with the requirements of the Housing Strategy DCP with regard to the provision of adaptable and accessible units. The disabled car spaces within the basement levels are designed to comply with AS2890.6 -2009 Parking facilities – Off street parking for people with a disability.

The application is assessed as satisfactory with regard to the Access and Mobility Development Control Plan.

2.14 Car Parking Development Control Plan

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements contained within Council’s Car Parking Development Control Plan. The matter has been discussed in detail under Section 2.11.11 of this report.

2.15 Sustainable Water Development Control Plan

Subject to sediment and erosion control measures being implemented on site during construction, the proposal would comply with the requirements contained within the Sustainable Water Development Control Plan.

2.16 Hornsby Development Control Plan

The Hornsby Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 applies to all land within Hornsby Shire and came into effect on 11 October 2013. The HDCP replaced Council’s previous DCPs, providing development controls to complement the HLEP.

The HDCP is generally a transition of Council’s existing DCPs, into a consolidation Plan. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the following controls are inconsistent with the Housing Strategy DCP requirements and a brief discussion of the HDCP requirements is provided below.

2.16.1 Building Form and Separation

The HDCP requires residential flat buildings to provide building separation in accordance with the RFDC under SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposed building complies with this requirement.

2.16.2 Vehicle Access and Parking

The HDCP includes revised car parking requirements with regard to proximity to a railway station and a new provision for motor cycle parking. In this regard, the proposed car parking would exceed the required spaces for residents and visitor spaces but would require 1 motor cycle space. The proposal incorporates one motorcycle space at the basement and complies with the HDCP in this regard.

2.17 Section 94 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Contributions Plan 2012-2021 applies to the development as it would result in an additional 23 residential dwellings in lieu of the 2 existing residences. Accordingly, the requirement for a monetary Section 94 contribution is recommended as a condition of consent.

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

3.1.1 Tree and Vegetation Preservation

The site comprises a number of exotic, native planted trees and locally indigenous specimens.

The subject site and adjoining properties accommodate tree species that are consistent with Blue Gum High Forest or Sydney Turpentine Iron Bark Forest, listed as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC). Additionally, four trees (T1a, T7, T20 and T29) are considered to be individually significant trees.

The application is supported by a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Tree Haven Environscapes. The design of the building retains significant trees along the periphery of the site. As discussed earlier in this report, the basement would encroach within the tree protection zones of the existing trees adjoining the northern property. The Tree Inspection Report concludes that the encroachment would not have any adverse impact on the long term health and vitality of the trees. Accordingly, conditions of consent recommend retention of all trees within the neighbouring property.

Notwithstanding, the proposal would necessitate the removal of six trees to enable construction of the building and the basement. Two of the trees (T8 and T9) to be removed are endemic and are remnant to the EEC. However, the trees are not assessed as individually significant and as such, would require removal to facilitate development on the site.

A landscape plan has been submitted with the application that includes replacement planting with a range of locally native plant species with a mix of small and medium shrub layers and ground covers.

Given that the site includes a large number of canopy trees and the proposal retains majority of the existing peripheral trees, additional large canopy tees are not proposed.

Council’s assessment of the proposal included a detailed examination of the existing trees on site. No objections are raised regarding the removal of T8, T9 and the four additional trees to facilitate the development on the site. Additionally, conditions of consent recommend removal of twelve other trees including street trees that are not considered worthy of retention. Replacement planting via seven large canopy trees along the Pacific Highway frontage and the south-eastern corner, is proposed as a condition of consent.

Subject to conditions requiring the on-going maintenance of the landscaped areas, the development would achieve a landscape setting and would be acceptable with respect to the natural environment.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

The development would connect to the existing drainage system within Mittabah Road via an onsite detention tank located on the southern side to control the discharge of water from the site.

The stormwater concept plan incorporates a water quality treatment system by proposing stormwater filters and cartridges. The details of the system and the associated MUSIC model, prepared by an accredited person, have been submitted and assessed as satisfactory by Council, subject to the implementation of recommended conditions of consent.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The building would be located within a precinct identified with a future character of five storey residential flat buildings in a garden setting with underground car parking. The built form of the proposal would be consistent with the desired future character of the precinct.

3.2.2 Traffic

The site has frontages to a state road, the Pacific Highway. The impact of the traffic generated due to this proposal, on the local road network has been discussed in Section 2.6.2 of this report. The application is assessed as satisfactory in this regard.

Council has undertaken an assessment of the overall traffic impact of the redeveloped precinct on the locality. A Traffic Management Improvement Plan is included in the HDCP relating to the Asquith precinct. This includes the extension of Wattle Street to Amor Street, construction of a new roundabout at the junction of Wattle Street, Amor Street and Lords Avenue and restriction of left in, left out movements from Amor Street to Pacific Highway. These improvements have been included in the Works Schedule in Council’s Section 94 Development Contribution Plan 2012 – 2021 for implementation. These works would provide for the increase in traffic in the area and ease of traffic flow within the existing network.

3.3 Social Impacts

The residential development would improve housing choice in the locality by providing a range of house hold types. This is consistent with Council’s Housing Strategy which identifies the need to provide a mix of housing options to meet future demographic needs in Hornsby Shire.

The location of the development is in close proximity to Asquith Railway station allowing direct access to commercial centre, recreational, health and education facilities for future residents.

3.4 Economic Impacts

The proposal would have a minor positive impact on the local economy in conjunction with other new low density residential development in the locality by generating an increase in demand for local services.

4. SITE SUITABILITY

Section 79C(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 the proposed development. The scale of the proposed development is consistent with the capability of the site and is considered acceptable.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 79C(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

5.1 Community Consultation

The initial proposal was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 31/10/2013 and 14/11/2013 in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan. During this period, Council received four submissions from the residents of three properties. Subsequently, the applicant lodged amended plans and the application was re-notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 3/12/2015 and 17/12/2015. During this period, Council received no submissions. The map below illustrates the location of the nearby landowners who made a submission.

NOTIFICATION PLAN
• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED	X SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED	PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT
One submission received out of map range

Four submissions objected to the development, generally on the grounds that the development would result in:

· Unacceptable traffic on local streets;

· Unacceptable overshadowing of adjoining properties;

· Unacceptable noise and dust due to construction of the development;

· Development that is excessive in bulk and scale.

· Development that is out character with the area;

· Unacceptable impact on wildlife in the area; and

· Inadequate parking spaces resulting in on-street parking along Lords Avenue.

Further, the submitters also indicated the following:

· The nearby landowners were not notified of the development.

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 Noise and Dust Due to Construction

Subject to recommended conditions of consent regarding construction hours, dust and noise control measures, the proposal would have negligible impact on the surrounding area.

5.1.2 Overshadowing

The site adjoins the Mittabah Road reserve to its south. Accordingly, it would not overshadow any adjoining properties.

5.1.3 Notification

The proposed development was notified to the adjoining properties in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan. The amended plans were also renotified in accordance with the notification requirement of the HDCP. The notification process is considered adequate.

5.2 Public Agencies

The development application was not referred to any Public Agencies for comment.

6. THE 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 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 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 seeks approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey residential flat building comprising 25 units with basement car parking and strata title subdivision. The proposal also includes associated road works and landscaping works within the Mittabah Road reserve.

The proposed development involves access from Mittabah Road that is not in accordance with the Key Principles of ‘Lords Avenue, Asquith Precinct of the Housing Strategy DCP. The proposed access is considered satisfactory subject to completion of the recommended road works and landscaping works. The proposal is generally in accordance with the prescriptive measures of the Housing Strategy DCP and would contribute to the future desired five storey residential character of the precinct. The proposal complies with the design principles of SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code.

The proposal would result in a development that would be in keeping with the desired future character of the precinct. Approval of the application is recommended.

Note: At the time of the completion of this planning report, no persons have made a Political Donations Disclosure Statement pursuant to Section 147 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 the Manager – Development Assessments – Rodney Pickles, who can be contacted on 9847 6731.

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessment

Planning Division

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Attachments:

1.View	Locality Map
2.View	Landscape Plan and Mittabah Road Works
3.View	Floor Plans and Solar Access Plans - Part 1
4.View	Floor Plans and Solar Access - Part 2
5.View	Elevations and Sections

File Reference: DA/1114/2013

Document Number: D06846758

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
1 – 19 Issue F	Calculations and BASIX	Idraft	21/12/2015
4 – 19 Issue F	Basement Level 2 Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
5 – 19 Issue F	Basement Level 1 Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
6 – 19 Issue F	Ground Floor Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
7 – 19 Issue F	Level 1 Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
8 – 19 Issue F	Level 2 Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
9 – 19 Issue F	Level 3 Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
10 – 19 Issue F	Level 4 Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
11 – 19 Issue F	Roof Plan	Idraft	21/12/2015
12 – 19 Issue F	Elevations – North & East	Idraft	21/12/2015
13 – 19 Issue F	Elevations – South & West	Idraft	21/12/2015
14 – 19 Issue F	Sections	Idraft	21/12/2015
15 – 19 Issue F	Adaptable Details	Idraft	21/12/2015
DA-L101 D	Landscape Planting Plan	Canvas	21/12/2015
DA-L102 C	Landscape Masterplan	Canvas landscape Architects	21/12/2015
101 - A	Stormwater layout Plan Basement Second Level	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
102 - A	Stormwater layout Plan Basement First Level	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
103 - A	Stormwater layout Plan Ground Level 1 of 2	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
104 - A	Stormwater layout Plan Ground Level 2 of 2	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
105-A	Mittabah Road Longitudinal and Cross Sections	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
106 - A	On-Site Detention and WSUD Details 1 of 3	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
107 - A	On-Site Detention and WSUD Details 2 of 3	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
108 - A	On-Site Detention and WSUD Details 3 of 3	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015
109 - A	Level 4 Plan and Miscellaneous Details	Umbrella Civil Consulting Engineers	05/08/2015

Document Title	Prepared by	Dated
Plans Showing Detail and Levels	Anthony and Associates	14/02/2013
Site Context and Analysis Plan 2 – 19 A	Idraft	10/0/2013
Demolition Plan 18 – 19 A	Idraft	10/10/2013
Stormwater Management Report Issue B	Umbrella Group Pty Ltd	July 2015
Waste Management Plan	Degree Construction Pty Ltd	9/10/2013
Traffic and Parking Assessment Report	Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd	10/10/2013 and 23/06/2015
Tree Inspection Report and Addendum	Treehaven Environscapes	7/06/2013 and 2/07/2015
Design Verification Statement	Idraft	10/10/2013
BASIX Certificate 508312M_02	Taylor Smith Consulting	22/12/2015
Assessor Certificate 0000228973	Taylor Smith Consulting	22/12/2015
Schedule of Finishes A	Idraft	10/10/2013

2. Removal of Existing Trees

a) This development consent permits the removal of trees numbered T1, T8, T9, T12 – T18, T21 – T28 as identified on plan number DA-L101D Landscape Planting Plan prepared by Canvas Landscape Architects, dated 21/12/2015.

b) The removal of any other trees requires separate approval in accordance with the Tree and Vegetation Chapter 1B.6 Hornsby Development Control Plan (HDCP).

3. Amendment of Plans

a) To comply with Councils requirement the approved Stormwater Plans 102 – A and 103-A are to be amended to incorporate the approved site boundary (including Lot 61 DP 24120) in the “Ground Floor Plan 6 – 19 Issue F, prepared by Idraft dated 21/12/2015.

b) The approved Landscape Planting Plan DA-L101 D prepared by Canvas Landscape Architects dated 21/12/2015 must be amended as follows:

i) Include 1m wide and 1.8m high screen planting along the northern elevation of the building at the ground level (adjoining units 1, 2 and 3), to separate the north facing units from the landscaped area;

ii) Relocate the bbq area and the timber pergola to the turfed area on the western side of the site as marked in red; and

iii) Include on-slab ground cover/turf over the paved areas along the northern side setback as marked in red.

c) These amended plans must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

4. Construction Certificate

a) A Construction Certificate is required to be approved by Council or a Private Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works under this consent.

b) A separate Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council for all works within the public road reserve under S138 of the Roads Act.

c) A separate Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council for all works within drainage easements vested in Council.

d) The Construction Certificate plans must not be inconsistent with the Development Consent plans.

5. Section 94 Development Contributions

a) In accordance with Section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2014-2024, the following monetary contributions must be paid to Council to cater for the increased demand for community infrastructure resulting from the development:

Description	Contribution (4)
Roads	$ 9,647.55
Open Space and Recreation	$ 236,564.60
Community Facilities	$ 98,707.75
Plan Preparation and Administration	$ 725.55
TOTAL	$ 345,645.45

being for 4 x 1 bedroom, 18 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom units with a credit of 2 lots.

b) The value of this contribution is current as at 5 January 2016. If the 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:

$C_{PY =}$C_DC x CPI_PY

CPI_DC

Where:

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

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

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

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

c) The monetary contribution 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

iv) 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 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.

6. Project Arborist

A Project Arborist (AQF5 qualified) is to be appointed in accordance with AS 4970-2009 (1.4.4) to oversee installation of trunk protection measures, monitor the integrity of the tree protection methods, record any modifications or alterations to the tree protection zone fencing for the duration of the construction period and provide all required certification throughout the development process. The details of the appointed Arborist are to be provided to Council and the PCA prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

7. Building Code of Australia

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

8. Contract of Insurance (Residential Building Work)

Where residential building work for which the Home Building Act, 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, this contract of insurance must be in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

9. Notification of Home Building Act, 1989 Requirements

Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being Council) has given Council written notice of the following information:

a) In the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

i) The name and licence number of the principal contractor; and

ii) The name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act.

b) In the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

i) The name of the owner-builder; and

ii) If the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder’s permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder’s permit.

Note: If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being Council) has given Council written notification of the updated information.

10. Utility Services

The applicant must submit written evidence of the following service provider requirements:

a) Ausgrid (formerly Energy Australia) – a letter of consent demonstrating that satisfactory arrangements have been made to service the proposed development.

b) Telstra – a letter of consent demonstrating that satisfactory arrangements have been made to service the proposed development.

11. Sydney Water – Quick Check

This application must be submitted to a Sydney Water ‘Quick Check Agent’ or ‘Customer Centre’ for approval to determine whether the development would affect any Sydney Water infrastructure, and whether further requirements are to be met.

Note: Refer to www.sydneywater.com.au or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

12. Noise – Rail and Road Corridor

The development must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Planning’s Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guideline and RailCorp’s Interim Guidelines for Applicants.

Note: The Department of Planning’s document is available at www.planning.nsw.gov.au (development assessments). The RailCorp document is available at www.railcorp.nsw.gov.au/publications.

13. Traffic Control Plan

A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) must be prepared by a qualified traffic controller in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority’s Traffic Control at Worksites Manual 1998 and Australian Standard 1742.3 for all work on a public road. The Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Traffic and Road Safety prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The TCP must detail the following:

a) Arrangements for public notification of the works;

b) Temporary construction signage;

c) Permanent post-construction signage;

d) Vehicle movement plans;

e) Traffic management plans; and

f) Pedestrian and cyclist access/safety.

14. Details of Mittabah Road

The details of road works and associated landscaping works for the Mittabah Road reserve must be identical to that approved under DA/956/2014 and be verified by the Principal Certifying Authority.

15. Identification of Survey Marks

A registered surveyor must identify all survey marks in the vicinity of the proposed development. Any survey marks required to be removed or displaced as a result of the proposed development shall be undertaken by a registered surveyor in accordance with Section 24 (1) of the Surveying and Spatial Information Act 2002 and following the Surveyor General’s Directions No.11 – "Preservation of Survey Infrastructure".

16. Construction Traffic Management Plan

In order to enable unencumbered movement of traffic in the public road during construction works, a Construction Management Plan, including a Traffic Management Plan and scaled construction plans prepared by a suitably Chartered and Qualified Chartered Civil Engineer and Qualified Worksite Traffic Controller shall be prepared and submitted to Hornsby Shire Council for approval according to the following requirements:-

a) A copy of the plans shall be submitted for consideration and written approval by Hornsby Shire Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

b) The plans shall detail the order of construction works and arrangement of all construction machines and vehicles being used at the same time during all stages.

c) The CTMP plans shall be in accordance with the approved Development Application plans and the Development Consent conditions.

d) In order to prevent injury, accident and loss of property, no building materials, work sheds, vehicles, machines or the like shall be allowed to remain in the road reserve area without the written consent of Hornsby Shire Council.

e) The Plan shall be generally in compliance with the requirements of the Road and Traffic Authority’s “Traffic Control at Worksites Manual 1998” and detailing:-

i) Public notification of proposed works;

ii) Long term signage requirements;

iii) Short term (during actual works) signage;

iv) Vehicle Movement Plans, where applicable;

v) Traffic Management Plans;

vi) Pedestrian and Cyclist access and safety;

f) The plans shall indicate traffic controls including those used during non-working hours and shall provide pedestrian access and two-way traffic in the public road to be facilitated at all times.

g) The plans shall include the proposed truck routes to and from the site including details of the frequency of truck movements at the different stages of the development. The plan shall also include details of parking arrangements for all employees and contractors.

h) The Applicant and all employees of contractors on the site must obey any direction or notice from the Prescribed Certifying Authority or Hornsby Shire Council in order to ensure the above.

i) If there is a requirement to obtain a Work Zone, partial Road Closure or Crane Permit an application to Hornsby Shire Council is to be made prior to the issue the Construction Certificate.

17. Stormwater Drainage

The stormwater drainage system for the development must be designed in accordance with Council’s Civil Works – Design and Construction Specification 2005 and the following requirements:

a) Connected directly to Council’s drainage system

b) Be designed by a Chartered Professional Civil/ Hydraulic Engineer of the Institution of Engineers, Australia

18. On Site Stormwater Detention

An on-site stormwater detention system must be designed by a chartered civil engineer and constructed and detailed calculations shown, in accordance with the following requirements:

a) Storage capacity to accommodate volume from up to 20 years ARI (average recurrence interval) storms and a maximum discharge (when full) limited to 5 years pre development rate;

b) Have a surcharge/inspection grate located directly above the outlet. Discharge from the detention system to be controlled via 1 metre length of pipe, not less than 50 millimetres diameter or via a stainless plate with sharply drilled orifice bolted over the face of the outlet discharging into a larger diameter pipe capable of carrying the design flow to an approved Council system;

c) Details of water quality treatment measures to achieve the quality specified in Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (table 1C.1.2(b) Urban Stormwater Quality Targets) are to be provided;

d) Where above ground system is proposed and the average depth is greater than 0.3 metres, a ‘pool type’ safety fence and warning signs to be installed;

e) Not be constructed in a location that would impact upon the visual or recreational amenity of residents;

f) An overflow/escape path is to be incorporated in the design; and

g) Detailed calculations are to be shown in construction certificate plan.

19. Internal Driveway/Vehicular Areas

The driveway and parking areas on site must be designed in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.1, 2890.2, 3727 and the following requirements:

a) Design levels at the front boundary shall be obtained from Council if a private accredited certifier is engaged to obtain a construction certificate for these works;

b) The driveway be a rigid pavement;

c) Conduit for utility services including electricity, water, gas and telephone be provided. All existing overhead assets including electricity and telecommunications cabling must be relocated underground at no cost to Council;

d) A certificate from an appropriately licensed contractor is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority certifying that the service conduits have been installed in accordance with the relevant utility provider and Australian Standards; and

e) Longitudinal sections along both sides of the access driveway must be submitted to the principal certifying authority in accordance with the relevant sections of AS 2890.1. The maximum grade shall not exceed 1 in 4 (25%) with the maximum changes of grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%) for summit grades and 1 in 6.7 (15%) for sag grades. Any transition grades shall have a minimum length of 2 metres. The longitudinal sections must incorporate the design levels obtained by Council.

20. Vehicular Crossing

A separate application under the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 must be submitted to Council for the installation of a new vehicular crossing and the removal of the redundant crossing. The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Design 2005 and the following requirements:

a) Design levels at the front boundary must be obtained from Council for the design on the internal driveway;

b) Any redundant crossings must be replaced with integral kerb and gutter;

c) The footway area must be restored by turfing; and

d) Approval must be obtained from all relevant utility providers that all necessary conduits be provided and protected under the crossing.

Note: An application for a vehicular crossing can only be made to one of Council’s Authorised Vehicular Crossing Contractors. You are advised to contact Council on 02 9847 6940 to obtain a list of contractors.

21. Road Works

A separate construction certificate application is to be submitted to Hornsby Shire Council, pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act, for the approval of the design of road work approved under this development consent. All road works approved under this consent must be designed in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Design and Construction Specification 2005 and the following requirements:

a) The eastern section of Mittabah Road between Lords Avenue and the frontage of the site, is to be upgraded with associated drainage works, in accordance with the following standards:

i) 7.5m wide carriageway with footpath and kerb and gutter on both sides;

ii) A cul-de-sac of end with 15m diameter;

iii) A roll kerb (not step kerb) be designed along the cul-de-sac end with no garden beds, trees or other raised landscaping features within 2 metres of the cul-de sac (grass/lawn/footpath is acceptable) to enable garbage trucks to manoeuvre effectively;

iv) Upgrading the intersection of Lords Avenue and Mittabah Road;

v) A concrete footpath designed along the northern side of the road reserve;

vi) A footpath to be designed from the end of the cul-de-sac to the Pacific Highway, complying with Disability Access Standards (where the footpath meets the Pacific Highway); and

vii) The street drainage system is to be extended to capture storm water from Pacific Highway swale and direct into the Council’s pipe system.

b) If there is a requirement to obtain a Work Zone, partial Road Closure or Crane Permit an application to Hornsby Shire Council is to be made prior to the issue the Construction Certificate;

c) Kerb and gutter shall be constructed along the frontage of the Pacific Highway to the requirements of Roads and Maritime Services RMS);

d) The existing footpath along Pacific Highway is to be removed and a new footpath designed;

e) The open drain (swale) along Pacific Highway is to be covered by a piped system/any other to the requirements of RMS and the nature strip upgraded;

f) The existing road pavement to be saw cut a minimum of 300 mm from the existing edge of the bitumen and reconstructed;

g) The submission of a compaction certificate from a geotechnical engineer for any fill within road reserves, and all road sub-grade and road pavement materials;

h) RMS approval is required for road works along the Pacific Highway frontage of the site. All approved plans must be submitted to Hornsby Council with the Construction Certificate application;

i) All necessary road occupancy permits are to be obtained from RMS to carry out works within the Pacific Highway road reserve; and

j) If there is a requirement to obtain a Work Zone, partial Road Closure or Crane Permit, an application to Hornsby Shire Council is to be made prior to the issue the Construction Certificate.

22. Adaptable Units/Letter Boxes/Storage

The following details must be provided with the Construction Certificate plans.

a) The development is required to provide 9 units designed as adaptable housing pursuant to the requirements of 1C.2.2 of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013. In this regard, four (4) car parking spaces are to be designed for people with a disability and allocated to 4 accessible units;

b) The letter boxes must be located as shown on the approved plan 6 – 19 Issue F;

c) The details of front fences must be in accordance with Plan 14 – 19 Issue F; and

d) Each dwelling within the development must have a minimum area for storage (not including kitchen and bedroom cupboards) for 6m³ for one bedroom units, 8m³for two bedroom units and 10m³ for three bedroom units, where 50% is required to be located within the apartment and accessible from either the hall or living area.

23. Waste Management Details

The following waste management details must be provided with the Construction Certificate Plans:

a) The chute system must include volume handling equipment (2x660L linear or similar, with no compaction) to automatically change the bin under the chute when it becomes full;

b) The bin holding area at the ground level must be 1.6 m x 5.5 m;

c) The entire length of the bin holding area is to be at the same level and slope as the driveway. There must be no raised median, 300 mm high kerb, retaining wall, step or any other barrier between the driveway and the bin holding area;

d) A bulky waste storage area with a minimum floor area of 8sqm must be located adjoining the garbage collection area at the ground level; and

e) The waste facilities on each residential level (a garbage chute and recycling bin in a small room) must be accessible by persons with a disability while comfortably housing the garbage chute and one 240 L recycling bin.

Note: A 240 L recycling bin is 600 mm wide by 750 mm deep; allow for ease around the bin – 75 mm is recommended). The chute system supplier must be consulted for chute space requirements.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

24. Construction Traffic Management Plan

A document signed by the Principle Building Contractor is to be submitted to Hornsby Council to confirm the following:

a) The specified travel routes in the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan are to be complied with; and

b) The details of the truck routes are will be provided to the excavation and concrete contractors.

25. 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.

26. 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.

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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. Tree Protection Barriers and Root Mapping

a) To safeguard the natural environment during the approved development works, tree protection fencing must be erected around trees numbered T1A, T4, T5, T6, T7, T20 and T29 as identified in DA-L101D Landscape Planting Plan prepared by Canvas Landscape Architects, dated 21/12/2015 in accordance with the tree protection zones specified in Appendix 1 of the submitted Tree Inspection Report prepared by Treehaven Environscapes dated 7/06/2013.

b) The fencing must be constructed of 1.8 metre cyclone chainmesh fence or star pickets spaced at 2 metre intervals and connected by a continuous high-visibility barrier/hazard mesh at a height of 1 metre.

c) To avoid injury or damage, trees numbered T1A, T4, T5, T6, T7, T20 and T29 must have trunks protected by 2 metre lengths of 75mm x 25mm hardwood timbers spaced at 80mm secured with galvanised wire, not fixed or nailed to the tree in any way.

d) Root Mapping must be undertaken within the section of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of T20 affected by excavation works, to determine the presence, size and depth of the root system within that area.

e) The Project Arborist must submit a certificate to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) confirming that all tree protection measures have been installed and root mapping undertaken in accordance with this consent and the specific requirements of Australian Standard ”Protection of Trees on Development Sites” (AS 4970-2009) and the Tree Inspection Report.

30. Construction Work Zone

A “Construction Work Zone” within Mittabah Road is to be approved by Hornsby Council. The construction vehicles are to park within the site or within the approved work zone only.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

31. Construction Work Hours

All work on site (including demolition and earth works) must only occur between 7am and 5pm Monday to Saturday (unless otherwise approved in writing by Council due to extenuating circumstances). No work is to be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

32. Demolition

To protect the surrounding environment, all demolition work must be carried out in accordance with “Australian Standard 2601-2001 – The Demolition of Structures” and the following requirements:

a) Demolition material must be disposed of to an authorised recycling and/or waste disposal site and/or in accordance with an approved waste management plan;

b) Demolition works, where asbestos material is being removed, must be undertaken by a contractor that holds an appropriate licence issued by WorkCover NSW in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and Clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 ;and

c) On construction sites where any building contain asbestos material, a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm must be displayed in a prominent position visible from the street.

33. Environmental Management

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 by way of implementing appropriate measures to prevent sediment run-off, excessive dust, noise or odour emanating from the site during the construction of the development.

34. Street Sweeping

To protect the surrounding environment, street sweeping must be undertaken following sediment tracking from the site along the Pacific Highway frontage during works and until the site is established.

The street cleaning services must undertake a street ‘scrub and dry’ method of service and not a dry sweeping service that may cause sediment tracking to spread or cause a dust nuisance.

35. Works Near Trees

a) To protect trees to be retained, all required tree protection measures are to be maintained in good condition for the duration of the construction period.

b) All works, including driveways and retaining walls within 4 metres of any trees to be retained (whether or not on the subject property, and pursuant to this consent or the Tree Preservation Order), must be carried out under the supervision of the Project Arborist.

c) Approved works within the nominated Tree Protection Zone of T20 must be carried out under the supervision of the Project Arborist in accordance with the following requirements:

i) Tree roots, greater than 50mm diameter and located within the nominated TPZ are not to be severed or injured in the process of building works;

ii) Pruning of the roots identified in the root mapping process, must be undertaken as specified in Sections 3.3.4, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 of the Australian Standard AS 4970-2009; and

iii) Excavation for the construction of the basement levels must be carried out after the completion of the root pruning.

d) The installation of any services within the nominated tree protection zone of any tree to be retained must utilise the thrust boring method so that ‘top of pipe’ is a minimum 600mm depth beneath existing ground level.

e) The Project Arborist must submit a certificate to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) detailing the methods used to preserve these trees during the course of demolition and construction.

Note: Except as provided above, the applicant is to ensure that no excavation, filling or stockpiling of building materials, parking of vehicles or plant, disposal of cement slurry, waste water or other contaminants occurs within 4 metres of any tree to be retained.

36. 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.

37. Landfill

Landfill must be constructed in accordance with Council’s ‘Construction Specification 2005’ and the following requirements:

a) All fill material imported to the site is to wholly consist of Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) as defined in Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 or a material approved under the Department of Environment and Climate Change’s general resource recovery exemption.

b) A compaction certificate is to be obtained from a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer verifying that the specified compaction requirements have been met.

c) A compaction certificate must be provided by a geotechnical engineer certifying any fill within road reserves, and all road sub-grade and road pavement materials.

d) The compaction certificates must be included with the application for an occupation certificate.

38. 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 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.

39. Survey Report – Finished Floor Level

To ensure that the approved development has been located at the setbacks and levels shown on the relevant plans and elevations, a report(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the pouring of concrete at each level of the building certifying that:

a) The building, retaining walls and the like have been correctly positioned on the site;

b) The finished floor level(s) are in accordance with the approved plans; and

c) The height of the topmost level of the building including lift overruns and the roof overhang is a maximum of 17.5m above the natural ground level at that point.

40. Waste Management

Waste management during the demolition and construction phase of the development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan. Additionally written records of the following items must be maintained during the removal of any waste from the site and such information submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority within fourteen days of the date of completion of the works:

a) The identity of the person removing the waste.

b) The waste carrier vehicle registration.

c) Date and time of waste collection.

d) A description of the waste (type of waste and estimated quantity).

e) Details of the site to which the waste is to be taken.

f) The corresponding tip docket/receipt from the site to which the waste is transferred (noting date and time of delivery, description (type and quantity) of waste).

g) Whether the waste is expected to be reused, recycled or go to landfill.

Note: In accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the definition of waste includes any unwanted substance, regardless of whether it is reused, recycled or disposed to landfill.

41. Traffic Control Plan Compliance

The development must be carried out in accordance with the submitted Traffic Control Plan (TCP) and the Construction Traffic Management Plan including the truck access routes and parking of construction vehicles.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION OR SUBDIVISION 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.

42. Fulfilment of BASIX Commitments

The applicant must demonstrate the fulfilment of BASIX commitments pertaining to the development.

43. Sydney Water – s73 Certificate

An s73 Certificate must be obtained from Sydney Water and submitted to the PCA..

Note: Sydney Water requires that s73 applications are to be made through an authorised Sydney Water Servicing Coordinator. Refer to www.sydneywater.com.au or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

44. Water Saving Urban Design

A Water Saving Urban Design (WSUD) is to be constructed generally in accordance with the submitted Stormwater Management Report prepared by Umbrella Group Pty Ltd dated July 2015. The Water Quality Targets as detailed within the report and Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 are to be achieved in the design and supported by a MUSIC model.

45. Certification of WSUD Facilities

Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a certificate from a Civil Engineer is to be obtained stating that the WSUD facilities have been constructed and will meet the water quality targets as specified in the Hornsby Shire Development Control Plan 2013.

46. Damage to Council Assets

To protect public property and infrastructure any damage caused to Council’s assets as a result of the construction or demolition of the development must be rectified by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Specifications.

47. Car Parking and Vehicular Areas

All vehicular areas within the site and the car parking must be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – 2004 – Off Street Car Parking and Australian Standard 2890.2 - 2002 – Off Street Commercial and the following requirements:

a) The driveway to be designed in accordance with Condition 19 of this development consent;

b) All parking areas and driveways are to be sealed to an all-weather standard, line marked and signposted;

c) Residential parking spaces are to be secure spaces with access controlled by card or numeric pad;

d) Visitors are to be able to access the basement car park by an audio/visual intercom system located at the top of the ramped driveway;

e) Eight bicycle spaces (resident and visitor) are to be provided in the basement car park. Bicycle parking spaces are to be designed in accordance with AS 2890.3-1993;

f) One motorcycle parking spaces are to be provided within the basement car park, designed in accordance with AS 2890.5-1993;

g) All parking for people with disabilities is to comply with AS/NZS 2890.6:2009 Off-street parking for people with disabilities; and

h) The location of the driveway must maintain sight lines for the pedestrians.

48. Creation of Easements

The following matter(s) must be nominated on the plan of subdivision under s88B of the Conveyancing Act, 1919:

a) The creation of an appropriate "Positive Covenant" and "Restriction as to User" over the constructed on-site detention and water quality treatment systems and outlet works, within the development site in favour of Council in accordance with Council’s prescribed wording. The positions of the on-site detention system and water quality treatment system are to be clearly indicated on the plan of title.

b) To register the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land, “works-as-executed” details of the on-site-detention system and water quality treatment system must be submitted verifying that the required storage and discharge rates and water quality treatment measures have been constructed in accordance with the design requirements. The details must show the invert levels of the on- site system together with pipe sizes and grades and details of water quality treatment measures. Any variations to the approved plans must be shown in red on the “works-as-executed” plan and supported by calculations.

Note: Council must be nominated as the authority to release, vary or modify any easement, restriction or covenant.

49. 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 within the site and the Mittabah Road reserve including planting, ground covers, seats, fixtures, paving, street lighting and footpath have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved landscape plans listed in Condition 1 of this development consent and the following requirements:

a) To maintain the canopy cover, a minimum of 7 large canopy trees must be planted along the Pacific Highway frontage and south-eastern corner of the site. The tree planting species must be selected from Council’s list of indigenous species, specifically Angophora costata and Syncarpia glomulifera.

b) Tree planting within the Mittabah Road reserve must be selected from Council’s list of indigenous species, specifically Angophora costata and Syncarpia glomulifera.

c) Tree plantings for must be located at least 4 metres or greater from the foundation walls of the building;

d) All replacement tree planting within the site must be native to Hornsby Shire and must reach a mature height greater than 9 metres;

e) The replacement tree(s) must be maintained until they reach the height of 3 metres;

f) All tree stock must meet the specifications outlined in ‘Specifying Trees’ (Ross Clark, NATSPEC Books);

g) Planting methods must meet professional (best practice) industry standards;

h) The pot size of the replacement trees must be a minimum 25 litres; and

i) On slab planter boxes including the ground cover above the on-site detention tank and the paved areas along the northern boundary of the site must include waterproofing, subsoil drainage (proprietary drainage cell, 50mm sand and filter fabric) automatic irrigation, minimum 300mm planting soil for grasses and ground covers, 500mm planting soil for shrubs and minimum 1000mm planting soil for trees and palms and 75mm mulch to ensure sustainable landscape is achieved.

Note: Advice on suitable species for landscaping can be obtained from Council’s planting guide ‘Indigenous Plants for the Bushland Shire’, available at www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au.

Note: Applicants are advised to pre-order plant material required in pot sizes 45 litre or larger to ensure Nurseries have stock available at the time of install.

50. Retaining Walls

All required retaining walls must be constructed as part of the development.

51. Boundary Fencing

Fencing must be erected along all property boundaries behind the front building alignment to a height of 1.8 metres.

The exact location, design and costing for the erection of boundary fencing are to be the subject of negotiation and agreement in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Fences Act, 1991.

Note: Alternative fencing may be erected subject to the written consent of the adjoining property owner(s).

52. Installation of Privacy Devices

To establish and maintain a reasonable level of privacy for the adjoining premises a 1m wide and 1.8m high screen planting (with a dense screen of trees or shrubs) as listed in Council’s “Indigenous Plants for the Bushland Shire” publication must be installed along the northern elevation of the building at the ground level.

53. External Lighting

a) To protect the amenity of adjacent premises, all external lighting must be designed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

b) Certification of compliance with this Standard must be obtained from a suitably qualified person and submitted to the PCA with the application for the Construction Certificate.

54. Garbage Collection Easement

For the purpose of waste collection, an easement entitling Council, its servants and agents and persons authorised by it, to enter upon the subject land and to operate thereon, vehicles and other equipment for the purposes of garbage collection must be granted to Council by the owner of the land.

Note: The easement must be in a form prescribed by Council and must include covenants to the effect that parties will not be liable for any damage caused to the subject land or any part thereof or to any property located therein or thereon by reason of the operation thereon of any vehicle or other equipment used in connection with the collection of garbage and to the effect that the owner for the time being of the subject land shall indemnify the Council, its servants, agents and persons authorised by it to collect garbage against liability in respect of any such claims made by any person whomsoever.

55. Waste Management

The following waste management requirements must be complied with:

a) The bin storage room at the basement level must include water or a hose for cleaning, graded floors with drainage to sewer, robust doors, sealed and impervious surface, adequate lighting and ventilation, and must be lockable. The waste facility rooms/cupboards at each residential level must include sealed and impervious surface, adequate lighting and ventilation.

b) A report must be prepared by an appropriately qualified person, certifying the following:

i) A comparison of the estimated quantities of each waste type against the actual quantities of each waste type.

Note: Explanations of any deviations to the approved Waste Management Plan is required to be included in this report.

ii) That at least 60% of the waste generated during the demolition and construction phase of the development was reused or recycled.

Note: If the 60% diversion from landfill cannot be achieved in the Construction Stage, the Report is to include the reasons why this occurred and certify that appropriate work practices were employed to implement the approved Waste Management Plan. The Report must be based on documentary evidence such as tipping dockets/receipts from recycling depots, transfer stations and landfills, audits of procedures etc. which are to be attached to the report.

iii) All waste was taken to site(s) that were lawfully permitted to accept that waste.

c) Each unit must be provided with an indoor waste/recycling cupboard for the interim storage of a minimum one day’s waste generation with separate containers for general waste and recyclable materials.

d) Space must be provided for either individual compost containers for each unit or a communal compost container;

Note: The location of the compost containers should have regard for potential amenity impacts.

e) A bulky waste storage area of at least 8m² is to be identified and marked with paint and signage.

f) The bin carting routes must be devoid of any steps.

Note: Ramps between different levels are acceptable.

g) Access to the automatic waste volume handling equipment by unauthorised persons (including residents and waste collectors) must be prevented.

Note: Caging of the automatic volume handling equipment is acceptable.

h) Prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued or the use commencing, whichever is earlier, the Principal Certifying Authority must obtain Council’s approval of the waste and recycling management facilities provided in the development and ensure arrangements are in place for domestic waste collection by Council.

i) Motorised bin carting equipment must be provided to assist the site caretaker in the safe transfer of bins between the basement and ground levels.

Note: Examples of motorised bin carting equipment include bin tug, electric bin trolley, forklift.

56. Unit Numbering

All units are to be numbered consecutively commencing at No.1. The strata plan lot number is to coincide with the unit number, e.g. Unit 1 = Lot 1. The allocated of unit numbering must be authorised by Council prior to the numbering of each units in the development.

57. Works as Executed Plan

A works-as-executed plan(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to Council for completed road pavement, kerb & gutter, public drainage systems, driveways and on-site detention system. The plan(s) must be accompanied by a certificate from a registered surveyor certifying that all pipelines and associated structures lie wholly within any relevant easements.

58. Consolidation of Allotments

All allotments the subject of this consent must be consolidated into one allotment.

Note: The applicant is recommended to submit the plan of subdivision to consolidate allotments to the NSW Department of Lands at least 4-6 weeks prior to seeking an occupation certificate.

59. 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”.

60. Construction of Engineering Works

All engineering works including but not be limited to the stormwater works, on-site detention system, construction of retaining walls and road works identified in this consent are to be completed and a Compliance Certificate issued prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

61. Provision for National Broadband Network (NBN)

Provision must be made for fibre ready passive infrastructure (pits and pipes) generally in accordance with NBN Co's pit and pipe installation guidelines to service the proposed development. A certificate from NBN Co or Telstra must be submitted to the PCA that the fibre optic cabling provided for the development complies with MDU Building Design Guides for Development.

62. Final Certification – Tree Protection

Following the final inspection and the completion of any remedial works, the project Arborist must submit to the Principal Certifying Authority documentation stating that the completed works have been carried out in compliance with the approved plans and specifications for tree protection as above and AS 4970-2009.

63. Final Certification Acoustic Consultant

A final certificate must be provided by the Acoustic Consultant stating that the recommended measures in Condition No. 12 have been complied with.

64. Safety and Security

This site must include the following elements:

a) An intercom system must be installed at gate locations to ensure screening of persons entering the units;

b) The entry doors to the pedestrian foyer is to be constructed of safety rated glass to enable residents a clear line of site before entering or exiting the residential apartments;

c) Lighting is to be provided to pathways, building foyer entries, driveways and common external spaces;

d) Security gate access is to be provided to the car parking areas allowing residents-only access to private car spaces;

e) CCTV cameras must be installed at the entry and exit point and the around the mailbox;

f) The communal open spaces within the site must be illuminated with high luminance by motion sensor lighting;

g) The driveway and basement car parking must be illuminated with low luminance at all times;

h) Security deadlocks are to be provided to each apartment door; and

i) Peep holes are to be provided to individual apartment doors to promote resident safety.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

65. 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).

66. Fire Safety Statement - Annual

On at least one occasion in every 12 month period following the date of the first ‘Fire Safety Certificate’ issued for the property, the owner must provide Council with an annual ‘Fire Safety Certificate’ to each essential service installed in the building.

67. Landscape Establishment

The landscape works must be maintained into the future to ensure the establishment and successful growth of plant material to meet the intent of the landscape design. This must include but not limited to watering, weeding, replacement of failed plant material and promoting the growth of plants through standard industry practices.

68. Car Parking and Deliveries

All car parking must be operated in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – 2004 – Off Street Car Parking and Australian Standard 2890.2 - 2002 – Off Street Commercial and the following requirements:

a) All parking areas and driveways are to be sealed to an all-weather standard, line marked and signposted at all times.

b) Car parking, loading and manoeuvring areas to be used solely for nominated purposes.

c) Vehicles awaiting loading, unloading or servicing shall be parked on site and not on adjacent or nearby public roads;

d) All vehicular entry on to the site and egress from the site shall be made in a forward direction.

69. Sight Lines

Minimum sight lines for pedestrian safety are to be provided at the driveway. Any proposed landscaping and/or fencing must not restrict sight distance to pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the footpath.

70. Waste Management

The waste management on site must be in accordance with the following requirements:

a) Access to the automatic waste volume handling equipment by unauthorised persons (including residents and waste collectors) must be prevented.

b) A site caretaker must be employed and be responsible for moving bins where and when necessary, washing bins and maintaining waste storage areas, ensuring the chute system and related devices are maintained in effective and efficient working order, managing the communal composting area, managing the bulky item storage area, arranging the prompt removal of dumped rubbish, and ensuring cars do not park in the loading bay and that all residents are informed of the use of the waste management system.

c) The approved on-going waste management practise for the site must not be amended without consent from Council.

- END OF CONDITIONS -

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 80a of the Act.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Requirements

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 require:

· 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.

· 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.

Tree and Vegetation Preservation

In accordance with Clause 5.9 of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation protected under the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 without the authority conferred by development consent or a permit granted by Council.

Notes: A tree is defined as a long lived, woody perennial plant with one or relatively few main stems with the potential to grow to a height greater than three metres (3M). (HDCP 1B.6.1.c).

Tree protection measures and distances are determined using the Australian Standard AS 4970:2009, “Protection of Trees on Development Sites”.

Fines may be imposed for non-compliance with both the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013.

Disability Discrimination Act

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the existence of the Disability Discrimination Act. A construction certificate is required to be obtained for the proposed building/s, which will provide consideration under the Building Code of Australia, however, the development may not comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. This is the sole responsibility of the applicant.

Covenants

The land upon which the subject building is to be constructed may be affected by restrictive covenants. Council issues this approval without enquiry as to whether any restrictive covenant affecting the land would be breached by the construction of the building, the subject of this consent. Applicants must rely on their own enquiries as to whether or not the building breaches any such covenant.

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 WorkCover 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 WorkCover Asbestos and Demolition Team on 8260 5885.

Group Manager’s Report No. PL1/16

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/02/2016

7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - ILLUMINATED DIGITAL WALL SIGN - 373 PENNANT HILLS ROAD AND 3 THE CRESCENT, PENNANT HILLS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/1355/2015 (Lodged on 16 October 2015)
Description:	Lot 7 DP 14023 and Lot 1 DP 882838, No. 373 Pennant Hills Road and No. 3 The Crescent, Pennant Hills
Property:	Illuminated digital wall sign
Applicant:	Setia Pty Limited
Owner:	Setia Pty Limited
Estimated Value:	$200,000
Ward:	C

· The application involves the installation of a digital LED wall sign that would display general advertising content on the wall of an existing commercial building.

· The proposal does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 (Advertising and Signage) with regard to Clause 22 – Wall Advertisements (Advertising Display Area). A submission to vary the development standard has been made in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and is considered well-founded.

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

· A Red Sticker has been placed on the application requiring that it be determined at a Council meeting.

· It is recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and approve Development Application No. DA/1355/2015 for a digital wall sign at Lot 7 DP 14023 and Lot 1 DP 882838, No. 373 Pennant Hills Road and No. 3 The Crescent, Pennant Hills subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL1/16.

BACKGROUND

On 24 February 2015, Council officers held a meeting with the applicant to discuss the proposed development for a digital LED wall sign. The following advice was provided on the basis of photographs and sketches submitted at the meeting:

· The proposed sign should comply with Clause 22 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 (Advertising and Signage) regarding Wall advertisements;

· The proposal must address the matters in relation to the impact of the sign on the heritage significance of the adjoining Heritage Conservation Area; and

· The application must demonstrate sufficient merits in relation to the advertising structure as it would not relate to the use of the building.

SITE

The site is located on the eastern side of Pennant Hills Road and comprises the north facing wall of an existing single storey commercial building at No. 373 Pennant Hills Road. The wall is painted yellow and is blank.

The host wall forms the southern boundary of the battleaxe handle of No. 3 The Crescent. However, the driveway is not used by the occupants and there is no existing vehicular crossing on Pennant Hills Road for the site. A 3.5m wide and 9m long garden bed of variable height (0.5m – 1.5m) provides a buffer between the wall and the driveway. An existing paling fence runs along the remaining section of the common boundary.

A public walkway adjoins the northern side of the driveway and connects Pennant Hills Road to Harold Avenue. A service station adjoins the north-eastern side of the public walkway.

The property at No. 373 Pennant Hills Road is located on the opposite side of the road to Pennant Hills Inn and carpark. Surrounding developments comprise several commercial uses including a gymnasium. Several business identification signs and advertising structures are located along the transport corridor in the near vicinity of the site. Low density residential developments are located on the eastern side of the site and have frontages to The Crescent and Harold Avenue.

PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the installation of an illuminated digital LED wall sign (screen) on the north-facing wall that would display general advertising content. The sign would be located over the garden bed.

The retaining wall supporting the garden bed is proposed to be extended to the existing paling fence and the rectangular area landscaped with pebbles, topsoil and on-slab planting. Stainless steel fencing (1000mm high) comprising fine mesh is proposed outside the retaining wall. The fence would be supported by steel posts.

The details of the digital screen are provided below.

· The screen would comprise a Daktronics digital screen model DVX-1801-10MN (or equivalent);

· The screen would appear as a streamlined integrated unit and its borders would be powder coated and colour matched to the host wall;

· The screen would measure 8.3m x 2.2m and would project 0.4m from the wall;

· The sign would be located at a height of 2.5m - 3m from natural ground level;

· The wall sign would display only static images. Each image would have a dwell time of 10 seconds with a transition time of 0.1 seconds;

· The advertising content would be controlled by the applicant via a secure network connection; and

· A webcam would be positioned onto the operating face of the screen to ensure that the correct content is displayed at all times.

The digital sign would operate for 24 hours on all days.

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney and (Draft) North Subregional Strategy

The proposed development would not be inconsistent with ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

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 B6 Enterprise Corridor under the HLEP. The objectives of the B6 zone are:

(a) To promote businesses along main roads and to encourage a mix of compatible uses;

(b) To provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses);

(c) To maintain the economic strength of centres by limiting retailing activity; and

(d) To provide for residential uses, but only as part of a mixed use development.

The proposed development is defined as an “Advertising Structure” and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The development would complement the business activities in the zone and be compliant with the zone objectives.

2.1.2 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the HLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire. The proposed wall sign would project over the driveway for No. 3 The Crescent, Pennant Hills which is identified as a heritage item of local significance under the provisions of Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the HLEP 2013. The site also adjoins “The Crescent, Heritage Conservation Area” on the eastern side.

The applicant submits that the site has no visual connection to the house and garden within No. 3 The Crescent. The garden bed below the advertising structure is visually separated from the house by the wooden paling fence and is not an integral part of the allotment or the Heritage Conservation Area. The sign would not be visible from the heritage listed dwelling or the Conservation Area.

Council’s assessment in this regard concludes that the illuminated wall sign is to be installed on a north wall of an existing building fronting Pennant Hills Road. The visual catchment of the sign constitutes the Shell Service Station, KFC, car dealerships and the Pennant Hills Hotel located along the arterial road.

The visual and curtilage catchment of the heritage item at No. 3 The Crescent relates to the main street frontage of the house and garden being perpendicular to the subject site. The small strip of land connecting Pennant Hills Road is significant for being a remnant of a historic boundary only. Consequently, the installation of the sign would have negligible impact on the heritage significance of the dwelling house or the Heritage Conservation Area. The application is assessed as satisfactory in this regard.

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 - Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64). The aim of the Policy is to improve the amenity of urban and natural settings by managing the impact of outdoor advertising. The relevant provisions of the policy are discussed below.

2.2.1 Wall Advertisement

Clause 4 of SEPP 64 defines “wall advertisement” as “an advertisement that is painted on or fixed flat to the wall of a building, but does not include a special promotional advertisement or building wrap advertisement.”

The proposed sign complies with the above definition as it would be affixed to the host wall.

Clause 22 of the Policy specifies the following:

1. Only one wall advertisement may be displayed per building elevation.

2. The consent authority may grant consent to a wall advertisement only if:

a) the consent authority is satisfied that the advertisement is integrated with the design of the building on which it is to be displayed, and

b) for a building having:

i) an above ground elevation of 200 square metres or more—the advertisement does not exceed 10% of the above ground elevation, and

ii) an above ground elevation of more than 100 square metres but less than 200 square metres—the advertisement does not exceed 20 square metres, and

iii) an above ground elevation of 100 square metres or less—the advertisement does not exceed 20% of the above ground elevation, and

c) the advertisement does not protrude more than 300 millimetres from the wall, unless occupational health and safety standards require a greater protrusion, and

d) the advertisement does not protrude above the parapet or eaves, and

e) the advertisement does not extend over a window or other opening, and

f) the advertisement does not obscure significant architectural elements of the building, and

g) a building identification sign is not displayed on the building elevation.

The proposal involves one advertisement on the wall. The advertisement would not protrude over the parapet, extend over a window and would not obscure the architectural elements of the building. A further business identification sign is not displayed on that elevation of the building. However, the proposed sign does not comply with Clause 22 of SEPP 4 with regard to the following:

· The proposed wall sign has an area of 18.26sqm on a wall with an area of 63.1sqm (>20%); and

· The sign projects 400mm from the wall.

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards supporting the above variations. The matter is discussed in Section 2.4 of this report.

2.2.2 Matters for Consideration

Clause 13 of SEPP 64 contains matters for consideration that Council must consider in evaluating an application for an advertising sign, as follows.

2.2.2.1 Compliance with Objectives

Clause 13(1)(a) of SEPP 64 states that Council must not grant consent to an application for an advertising sign unless it complies with the objectives set out in Clause 3(1)(a). In this regard, the proposal complies with the objectives of the Policy as the application includes the following:

· A detailed visual catchment analysis report for the sign that demonstrates that the proposed sign would be compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area;

· Details of the design to demonstrate that the structure would have high quality and finish; and

· Request that the consent be granted for a maximum 15 years.

These matters have been discussed in detail, later in this report.

2.2.2.2 Schedule 1 Assessment

Clause 13(1)(b) of SEPP 64 requires that the advertising sign be assessed in accordance with the criteria in Schedule 1 as follows:

Criteria

Yes/No

Character of the Area

Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

Yes

The subject site fronts Pennant Hills Road and is surrounded by mixed developments including carparks, hotels, service stations and commercial premises. Signage of various forms and types is a character of Pennant Hills Road including the sign on the footbridge within 1km of the site and oversized business identification signs pertaining to Bunnings, ALDI, McDonalds, Woolworths and Anytime fitness in the near vicinity.

Given the level of activity on this major arterial road and the density of traffic carried on these roads, the proposed sign would reflect the business character of the area and be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality subject to conditions requiring control of the illumination.

As stated earlier in the report, the host wall is not linked to the heritage item at No. 3 the Crescent and would not have a negative impact on the heritage significance of this property.

N/A

There is no particular theme for advertising within the locality. The business identification signs and advertisements relate to specific premises. Accordingly, the proposal is not required to be consistent with an outdoor advertising theme for the area.

Special Areas

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

It is considered that the public domain visual catchment of this sign is predominantly restricted to the Pennant Hills Road corridor for a limited section of the road to the north-east. The sign would mainly be viewed by southbound motorists on the Pennant Hills Road and the users of the carpark and commercial premises in the immediate vicinity.

In this regard, the applicant has submitted a visual catchment analysis report. The report identifies eighteen potential locations for viewing the sign. The nearest residences with potential views of the sign are located at least 350m to the north-east along Albion Street and the western side of Pennant Hills Road, north of the car sales precinct. The sign would not be visible from the adjoining heritage listed item or The Crescent Heritage Conservation area.

The majority of these views are from an oblique angle (due to the image being digital on a flat screen), are screened by existing street trees and due to the local roads being at a lower level that the Pennant Hills Road ridgeline.

The installation of LED digital screens displaying advertisements is common along transport corridors such as M1, M2, the Pacific Highway and elsewhere within Pennant Hills Road.

Given the above, it is considered that the proposed sign would increase the visual interest of the wall and would be integral to the “Enterprise Corridor” zone objectives without detracting from the amenity and visual character of the surrounding residential areas, open spaces and the Heritage Conservation Area.

Views and Vistas

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The proposed sign would be affixed to an existing wall which has a maximum height of 4.5m. As discussed in the previous section, the report submitted by the applicant identifies the visual catchment of the sign and states that the sign would not have any impact on the existing views of the residences that are located in the vicinity of the host wall. The sign would rather improve the visual interest of the otherwise blank wall.

Given that there are no important view corridors in this area, the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

Yes

Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

Yes

The size of the wall advertisement does not comply with the requirements of Clause 22 of SEPP 64. In this regard, the applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to SEPP 1 to vary the development standard. The matter is discussed in Section 2.4 of this report. Given the varied nature of the streetscape fronting the site, the proposal would not be inappropriate for the immediate locality.

Yes

It is considered that the proposed sign aligns with contemporary advertising structures and would create visual interest within the B6 zone and the transport corridor.

The sign does not replace any existing signage.

N/A

Site and Building

Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

Yes

The matter is discussed in Section 2.4 of this report.

N/A

The proposed sign is located on a blank wall with no significant architectural importance. It does not protrude over the roof of the building that forms the backdrop. Accordingly, no further assessment in this regard is necessary.

Yes

The advertising sign utilises contemporary digital technology not present in the locality and improves the appearance of the otherwise blank yellow coloured wall with negligible architectural excellence. Once installed, it would create visual interest in the immediate locality.

Associated Devices and Logos

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

Yes

The safety devices and illumination integrate with the design of the wall sign.

Illumination

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

The illuminated signs would not result in unacceptable glare subject to recommended conditions requiring compliance with Australian Standard AS 4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. The matter is discussed in detail in Section 2.3 of this report.

The signs would include programmable timers to control the illumination and would ensure that the luminance does not exceed the threshold requirement for the zone. The matter is discussed in Section 2.3 of this report.

Yes

The proposed sign would be illuminated for 24 hours which is within the curfew period pursuant to Australian Standard AS 4282. The matter is discussed in Section 2.2.2.4 of this report.

Safety

Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The proposal was referred to Roads and Maritime Services and no objections were raised regarding road safety subject to recommended conditions of consent. The matter is discussed in Section 2.2.2.3 of this report.

2.2.2.3 Road Safety

The sign is to be located on Pennant Hills Road. Therefore, a detailed assessment of the proposal with regard to its impact on the safety of motorists and users of the road has been conducted in accordance with Schedule 1 of SEPP 64.

The applicant has submitted a detailed Traffic Safety Assessment Report which identifies the following key potential traffic safety issues related to the location of the sign:

· The potential for the sign to obstruct a driver’s view to the traffic signal lanterns;

· The potential for a traffic signal lantern to be ‘lost’ in the detail of the sign from certain locations of the approach road; and

· The potential for a sign to distract at a critical time (when the traffic signal lantern is within the driver’s vision).

The report states that the proposed sign would not result in any of the above traffic hazards due to the following reasons:

· The sign is affixed to a wall within the height limits specified in SEPP 64 and would not extend beyond the building footprint.

· Due to the alignment of Pennant Hills Road, the sign would be visible to a southbound motorist at a distance of 50m north of the George Street intersection (not signalised) and would remain visible for a total distance of 200m. There are no traffic signals within the 200m distance. Therefore, the sign would not impact upon the visibility or the effectiveness of any traffic signal.

· The sign is located approximately 40m from the stop line of the signalised intersection. The report provides detailed analysis regarding the safe stopping distance, braking distance (being 76m for a truck) and the reaction time for a driver (being 2 seconds, approximately 44m prior to the stopping distance) in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3. The report concludes that under free flow conditions, a vehicle would have ample opportunity (120m) to view the proposed sign and the contents prior to reaching the ‘reaction distance” area. Therefore, the sign would not distract a driver approaching the signalised intersection of the Crescent with Pennant Hills Road.

Council has conducted a detailed traffic safety assessment of the sign. It is noted that in a recent court case, Malchada Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council, which related to an advertising structure (18sqm in area) on a major arterial road in Gold Coast, expert evidence provided by the appellant revealed that there is negligible increase in motor vehicle accident rates due to electronic billboards. The judge accepted that the development was safe from a traffic safety perspective based on the traffic report.

Based on the above judgement and the conclusions provided in the submitted report, it is considered that the proposed sign would not have any adverse impacts on the safety of the users of the road.

Clauses 18 and 24 of SEPP 64 requires that advertising structures with display area more than 20sqm or on bridges are to be referred to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for concurrence and the impact of the proposed signage on the road safety is required to be assessed. The proposed sign is 18.26sqm in area and does not require concurrence from the RMS.

Notwithstanding, the application was referred to the RMS for comments with regard to road safety as the sign would be visible primarily by the motorists on Pennant Hills Road. No objections have been raised by RMS subject to conditions of consent regarding maximum threshold of luminance and the dwell time for each advertisement in accordance with the draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines. The matter is discussed in Section 2.3 of this report.

2.2.2.4 Illumination

The digital sign is proposed to be illuminated, the hours of illumination being within the curfew hours specified in AS 4282 – 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Section 1.1(b) of AS 4282 – 1997 specifically excludes internally illuminated advertising signs from its scope. Notwithstanding, the impact of the illumination on the locality during curfew hours, being 11pm to 6am (Section 2.7 of AS 4282), have been considered in accordance with the Illumination criteria in Schedule1 of the SEPP 64 as the sign would be illuminated beyond 11pm.

The applicant has submitted a Lighting Impact Assessment Report in this regard which includes a detailed analysis of the light spill from the digital sign during night time and its impact on the locality:

· AS 4282 requires that the maximum value of the direct component of illuminance for outdoor lights at the boundary of commercial and residential areas, when measured on the plane of the windows of habitable rooms of dwellings on nearby residential properties, must not exceed 4 lux.

· The maximum luminance of the sign during night time would be 350cd/m². However, the effected zone does not include any residential developments. The light from the sign is directed away from the source (in viewing direction) and therefore, negligible reflected light would be visible to the residential area located behind the sign.

· The proposed luminous intensity complies with the draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines which includes detail guidelines for digital signs.

· The Threshold Increment (the reduction in the ability of the motorists to see essential information) has also been analysed and it is noted that the proposal complies with the maximum limits set by AS 4282 – 1997.

· The luminous intensities nominated in AS 4282 – 1997 are applicable to point sources of light such as floodlights and cannot be strictly applied to this development.

Council’s assessment in this regard concludes the following:

· The proposed digital sign includes programmable timers that control the luminous intensity levels. The light spill from the sign would not have an obtrusive effect on the locality as no residences adjoin the immediate viewing catchment of the sign;

· SEPP 64 does not include any specific numerical controls regarding illumination levels of a digital sign and AS 4282 does not apply to this proposal. Accordingly, the application has been assessed against the limits set by the draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines and it is noted that the proposed sign complies with the maximum luminance levels;

· In the court case, Malchada Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council, the judge approved an electronic billboard to operate on the arterial road for 24 hours based on conditions relating to maximum luminance. The situation was similar to the current application where the proposed sign was visible from a mixed commercial area and residential areas at a considerable distance;

· RMS has not raised any objections to the illumination of the sign subject to a maximum luminance of 350cd/m²; and

· The proposed development is located on a major arterial road and therefore, the illumination of the sign during the curfew hours is considered appropriate subject to conditions of consent requiring luminance levels to comply with the submitted report at various times of the day and night.

2.3 Draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines

The draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines is currently on public exhibition until 31 January 2016. The document is prepared by NSW Department of Planning and Environment to assist the assessment of development applications under SEPP 64. Upon adoption, it would supersede the existing Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines.

The draft guidelines include a number of development controls regarding digital signs that are relevant to contemporary signage. In absence of specific assessment criteria regarding digital signs within SEPP 64 or Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013, the proposed advertisement has been assessed against the draft “Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines”. The proposed signage generally meets the requirements of the draft Guidelines as follows:

· The proposed sign would display only static content at any one time that would change in successive intervals in accordance with Clause 1.2.8. Display dwell times, transition times and luminance would be controlled and changed electronically; and

· To enable consistency of content for advertisers, the sign has been designed in accordance with Clause 1.2.1 of this Guideline that specifies sizes of wall advertisements. The subject sign complies with the “Super8 (8.3m x 2.2m)” which maintains the same proportion as “Supersite”.

· Additionally, the draft Guidelines require digital signs to comply with the design criteria within Clause 2.5.8. An assessment of the proposal against the design criteria is provided below.

Criteria

Compliance

(a) Each advertisement must be displayed in a completely static manner, without any motion, for the approved dwell time as per criterion (d) below.

Yes

(b) Message sequencing designed to make a driver anticipate the next message is prohibited across images presented on a single sign and across a series of signs.

Yes – Recommended as a condition by RMS

(i) For a prescribed traffic control device because it has, for example, red, amber or green circles, octagons, crosses or triangles or shapes or patterns that may result in the advertisement being mistaken for a prescribed traffic control device, or

(ii) as text providing driving instructions to drivers.

Yes – Advertisements to comply with current industry standards

Recommended as a condition by RMS

(d) Dwell times for image display are:

(i) 10 seconds for areas where the speed limit is below 80km/h.

(ii) 25 seconds for areas where the speed limit is 80km/h and over.

Yes - A minimum dwell time of 10 seconds (for roads with a speed limit below 80m/hr) would be maintained for each static image.

(e) The transition time between messages must be no longer than 0.1 seconds.

Yes

(f) Luminance levels must comply with the requirements in Table 3 below.

Yes - The luminance of the sign would not exceed the maximum permissible in Table 3 of the Guidelines.

The applicant has submitted a separate Lighting Impact Assessment report in this regard. The report identifies the locality to be Zone 3 (as per the draft Guidelines) which covers areas with generally medium off-street ambient lighting e.g. small to medium shopping/commercial centres.

The draft Guideline state that the maximum luminance levels in these areas should not exceed 6000 cd/m² during daytime and 350 cd/m² during night time.

Conditions of consent require compliance with this requirement.

(g) The images displayed on the sign must not otherwise unreasonably dazzle or distract drivers without limitation to their colouring or contain flickering or flashing content.

Yes – Recommended as a condition by RMS

(i) Any sign that is within 250 metres of a classified road and is visible from a school zone must be switched to a fixed display during school zone hours.

N/A – The sign would not be visible from a school zone.

(j) Each sign proposal must be assessed on a case by case basis including replacement of an existing fixed, scrolling or tri-vision sign with a digital sign and in the instance of a sign being visible from each direction, both directions for each location must be assessed on their own merits.

Yes – The submitted visual report includes an assessment of the site in both directions.

(k) At any time, including where the speed limit in the area of the sign is changed, if detrimental effect is identified on road safety post installation of a digital sign, RMS reserves the right to re-assess the site which may result in a change to the dwell time or removal of the sign.

Recommended as a condition of consent

(l) Sign spacing should limit drivers view to a single sign at any given time with a distance of no less than 150 metres between signs in any one corridor. Exemptions for low speed, high pedestrian zones or CBD zones will be assessed by RMS as part of their concurrence role.

N/A – There are no other digital signs in the vicinity

(n) An electronic log of a signs activity must be maintained by the operator for the duration of the development consent and be available to the consent authority and/or RMS to allow a review of the signs activity in case of a complaint.

Recommended as a condition of consent

2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP 1). This Policy provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act.

Clause 22(2)(b)(iii) and (c) of SEPP 64 require the following:

(2)(b) (iii) an above ground elevation of 100 square metres or less—the advertisement does not exceed 20% of the above ground elevation; and

(2)(c) the advertisement does not protrude more than 300 millimetres from the wall, unless occupational health and safety standards require a greater protrusion……

In accordance with the above, the size of the sign should be restricted to 12.62sqm (area of the wall being 63.1sqm). As stated above, the proposed sign does not comply with Clause 22 of SEPP 64 with regard to the following:

· The proposed wall sign has an area of 18.26sqm on a wall with an area of 63.1sqm (>20%); and

· The sign projects 400mm from the wall.

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to SEPP 1 against the adherence to the above development standards. The applicant submits that strict compliance with the “Wall advertisement” requirements is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

· The proposal fully complies with majority of the provisions within SEPP 64 for wall mount advertising signage as it is to be fully contained within the profile of its host building, not protrude above the parapet or eaves, not extend over a window and not obscure significant architectural elements.

· The size of the proposal is guided by the 'Super 8' format noted in the draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines. The proposed size represents the smallest dimensions available for out of home media formats recognised in Australia. A display area of 12.62sqm would not comply with the industry standards and therefore would only attract low quality advertisement content.

· The protrusion of 400mm is due to the standard properties of the LED screen including the space required for mounting. Therefore, this cannot be reduced.

· The independent traffic, visual and lighting assessments submitted with the application do not recommend reduction in the size of the advertisement to improve its impact on the immediate locality.

· The proposal results in a minor numerical non-compliance of 6sqm and 100mm projection from the wall. Strict compliance with the required size of 12.6sqm would result in diminished legibility and readability of the signage from the public domain.

· The site has a limited visual catchment. Most views will be from short term moving viewing locations from within the west-bound corridor and pedestrian footpaths. No residential development exists within the local visual catchment. Therefore the visual effects of the development will create a minor to moderate change to the existing character of the site but will not create significant change in view compositions to the site.

· Introduction of a new visual feature such as the proposed sign with LED technology may be seen as a positive contemporary change within a visual context dominated by the road corridor and commercial-retail development.

· The proposal does not result in any increase in visual clutter and does not have any unreasonable effect on the existing extent of visibility of other signs.

· The proposal would not result in any light spill on to nearby residential properties.

· The proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the road safety of the motorists on the Pennant Hills Road.

· The scale of the sign when viewed against the scale of the host wall is considered acceptable.

· The signage is to be located in a B6 Enterprise Zone, being a commercial corridor along Pennant Hills Road. The disparate nature of the surrounding area featuring extensive commercial development on the western and eastern sides of Pennant Hills Road and the array of existing signs of a variety of kinds is such that the proposed digital sign would not dominate the surrounding area and would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the area.

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B6 zone, specifically the need to promote business and to strengthen the economic performance of centres. In this regard signage performs a significant role supporting business and brand promotion. The placement of a digital advertising sign on the subject site with direct yet contained visual exposure to Pennant Hills Road is economically sound and represents an appropriate and permissible land use in this location.

· Strict numerical compliance with the provisions of Clause 22(2) (b) (iii) and Clause 22(c) will not adversely impact on the objectives of the B6 Enterprise Zone nor will it dilute the future development potential of the land or the desired future character of the commercial corridor along Pennant Hills Road.

The Land and Environment Court has expressed the view that there are five different ways in which an objection may be well founded and that approval of an objection may be consistent with the aims of the Policy:

· The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

· The underlying objective or the purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

· The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

· The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

· The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, a particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone.

Having regard to the above points the following matters are considered relevant:

· There is no stated objective of Clause 22. However, the underlying intent of the Clause is guided by the Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines (July 2007) and the recently published Draft Guidelines which includes the following:

i) The advertising structure should demonstrate design excellence and show innovation in its relationship to the site, building or bridge structure.

ii) The advertising structure should be compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site, building or structure on which the proposed signage is to be located.

iii) The advertising structure should be in keeping with important features of the site.

iv) The placement of the advertising structure should not require the removal of significant trees or other native vegetation.

v) The advertisement proposal should incorporate landscaping that complements the advertising structure.

· The proposal complies with the above objectives, notwithstanding the numerical non-compliance as the signage integrates with the building elevation and does not dominate the wall.

· The advertising structure shows design excellence and innovation by introducing a contemporary and advanced LED technology, generally absent in the surrounding commercial areas.

· The advertisement hides the existing blank wall which does not have any architectural merit.

· The proposal also incorporates landscaping to compliment the proposed sign and improve the architectural quality of the existing wall and the garden bed.

· As discussed in Section 2.2 and 2.3 of this report, the sign would not have any adverse light spill or impact on important viewing corridors. The sign would also not impact adversely on the motorists.

· The numerical non-compliance is only 6sqm and would not be perceived from the public domain, given the visual catchment and the overall scale of commercial developments and associated business identification signs around the site.

· The proposed sign is a permissible use on the subject site. As such, a business identification sign in association with the existing commercial use of the building could have been proposed on the blank wall instead of the subject sign. A business identification sign with an area of 18.26sqm would have the same impact on the area as the proposed sign.

· The development is consistent with the objectives of Section 5 of the Act in that it encourages the improved management of urban land and promotes the orderly use of the otherwise underutilised land which in this case is the blank wall.

Based on this assessment, it is considered that the applicant’s SEPP 1 submission is well founded and that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the SEPP 1 objection is supported.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The site fronts Pennant Hills Road which is a classified road. Therefore, provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 apply to the development.

The proposal does not involve any building works or excavation adjacent to Pennant Hills Road and would not result in a noise-sensitive development. Accordingly, no further assessment in this regard is necessary.

2.6 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The application has been assessed against the requirements of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. This Policy provides general planning considerations and strategies to ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour are recognised, protected, enhanced and maintained.

The proposal would have minimal potential to impact on the Sydney Harbour Catchment.

2.7 Clause 74BA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

2.8 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 relevant matters are discussed below.

2.8.1 Desired Outcome

The proposed sign is compatible with the commercial character of the immediate locality and complements the size of the host wall. The sign would also not compromise pedestrian, cyclist or motorist safety. It is considered that the proposed advertisement complies with the desired outcome for the Enterprise Corridor.

2.8.2 Prescriptive Measures

The proposed sign complies with the prescribed measures in the following ways:

· The sign is consistent with the best practice guidelines associated with SEPP 64;

· The sign is integrated with the architecture of the supporting building and does not obscure significant architectural features;

· Cluttering, distraction and unnecessary repetition is avoided;

· The sign does not cover mechanical ventilation inlets or outlets;

· The development does not comprise a roof sign;

· The development does not compromise road or pedestrian safety; and

· The sign maintains a minimum height of 2.6 metres above the footpath.

Additionally, the illumination of the signage complies with the HDCP in the following ways:

· The illumination is integrated with the design of the sign;

· Subject to conditions, the illumination would not cause light spillage into nearby residential properties;

· The illumination does not use complex displays, moving signs, flashing lights or the like that hold driver’s attention beyond ‘glance appreciation’; and

· The illumination would be fitted with an automatic timing device, controlling the illumination levels.

2.8.3 Flush Wall Sign

The proposal is categorised as a flush wall sign under the HDCP. The relevant matters are discussed below.

· The sign does not extend laterally beyond the wall of the building to which it is attached;

· The sign is flush with the building except the 400mm protrusion. As discussed in Section 2.4 of this report, the protrusion is acceptable; and

· HDCP requires that area of wall signs be restricted to 5m². The proposal would not comply with the numerical requirements in this regard. However, as discussed in Section 2.4 of this report, the proposed size of the sign is considered acceptable.

2.9 Section 94 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2012 – 2021 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

3.1 Natural Environment

The proposal would not require the removal of any trees and have no impact on the natural environment.

3.2 Built Environment

The impacts of the proposal on the built environment of the locality have been discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this report.

3.3 Social Impacts

The proposal would not have a negative social impact subject to display of advertising content in accordance with the established standards for Outdoor Media Advertising.

3.4 Economic Impacts

The proposal would not have a negative economic impact as it proposes to utilise a blank wall of a commercial building to display advertisements.

4. SITE SUITABILITY

Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider “the suitability of the site for the development”.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 79C(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 28/10/2015 and 13/11/2015 in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP. During this period, Council received four submissions from three residents including the Pennant Hills Civic Trust (letter signed by the vice-president). The map below illustrates the location of those landowners who were notified of the application. No objections have been received from adjoining landowners or nearby residents.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

Four submissions objected to the development, generally on the grounds that the development would result in:

· The size of the sign is non-compliant with the requirements of SEPP 64 and HDCP;

· The SEPP 1 objection is not well-founded as it supports a 45% variation;

· The sign does not relate to the use of the building;

· The proposal is based on the best practise guidelines that provide examples of urban locations that are inconsistent with the context of the site. The proposal assessment should be based on HDCP requirements;

· The proposal would reduce the road safety of users of Pennant Hills Road;

· The signage would set an undesirable precedent for the locality;

· There are no other advertising structures close to the site;

· The proposed dwell times and transition times are considered unsatisfactory; and

· The method of monitoring the content of the sign is not clear.

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 Undesirable Precedent

The advertising structure is a permissible use in the B6 zone and proposes contemporary form of signage. Whilst there are no such signs in the immediate locality, the sign complies with the objectives of the B6 zone and would be compatible with the future character of the locality.

Such signs are emerging in commercial areas and therefore prescriptive measures have been introduced via Department of Planning and Environment’s recent publication draft Transport Corridor Guidelines for Advertising and Signage. Given this, it is not considered that the proposed sign would set an undesirable precedent for the locality.

5.1.2 Content Management

The submitted documentation includes details of methods to manage the advertising content. Notwithstanding, a condition of consent would ensure that the advertising content is managed appropriately.

5.2 Public Agencies

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

5.2.1 Roads and Maritime Services

The proposal was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for comments regarding road safety. No objections have been raised subject to recommended conditions of consent.

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

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 an illuminated digital LED advertising structure on the wall of an existing commercial building. The proposal display area of the advertisement would exceed the requirement stipulated within Clause 22 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 has been submitted to support the development and is considered well-founded.

The proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regard to the matters for consideration pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Conditions of consent would ensure that proposal does not adversely impact on the natural and built environment of the locality.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, approval of the application is recommended.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager – Development Assessments – Rodney Pickles, who can be contacted on 9847 6731.

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessment

Planning Division

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Attachments:

1.View	Locality Map
2.View	Site Plan and Elevations
3.View	Landscape Plan
4.View	Photomontage

File Reference: DA/1355/2015

Document Number: D06846738

SCHEDULE 1

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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.

1. Approved Plans and Supporting Documentation

Plan No.

Plan Title

Drawn by

Dated

PR 127318 – Rev C

Details and Levels

Including Plan and Elevations

RPS Australia Pty Ltd

02/07/2015

0.34

Landscape Plan

FionaCole Design

July 2015

Document Title	Prepared by	Dated
Statement of Environmental Effects and all Appendices	Urban Concepts	October 2015

2. Development Consent

This development consent is limited to a period of 15 years from the date of the consent and upon expiry of the 15 years, the sign is to be removed.

3. Construction Certificate

a) A Construction Certificate is required to be approved by Council or a Private Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works under this consent.

b) The Construction Certificate plans must not be inconsistent with the Development Consent plans.

4. Section 94A Development Contributions

a) In accordance with Section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Hornsby Shire Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2012-2021, $ 1,000.00 must be paid to Council to cater for the increased demand for community infrastructure resulting from the development, based on development costs of $ 200,000.00.

b) The value of this contribution is current as at 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:

$C_PY
=$C_DC x CPI_PY

CPI_DC

Where:

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

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

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

CPI_DC 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

iv) 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.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

8. Erosion and Sediment Control

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

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

9. 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.

10. Demolition

a) Demolition material must be disposed of to an authorised recycling and/or waste disposal site and/or in accordance with an approved waste management plan;

11. Environmental Management

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 by way of implementing appropriate measures. To prevent sediment run-off, excessive dust, noise or odour emanating from the site during the construction of the development.

12. Council Property

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.

13. Completion of Landscaping

Note: Advice on suitable species for landscaping can be obtained from Council’s planting guide ‘Indigenous Plants for the Bushland Shire’, available at www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au.

14. Luminance

a) The illuminated sign approved under this consent must not exceed a maximum luminance as per the table below:

Luminance Levels (to be measured by a Photometer)
Lighting Condition	Max Dimming Level to achieve compliance	Max Permissible Luminance (cd/m²)
Day time luminance	100%	6000
Morning and Evening Twilight and Inclement Weather	11.6%	700
Night Time	5.8%	350

b) To protect the amenity of adjacent premises, all external lighting must be designed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

c) Certification of compliance with this Standard must be obtained from a suitably qualified person and submitted to the PCA with the application for the Occupation Certificate.

15. Advertising Sign Display

A certificate from the suitably qualified consultant must be submitted to the PCA certifying that the sign complies with the following criteria:

a) The screen must comprise a Daktronics digital screen model DVX-1801-10MN (or equivalent);

b) The screen must appear as a streamlined integrated unit and its borders would be powder coated and colour matched to the host wall;

c) The screen must measure a maximum of 8.3m x 2.2m and project 0.4m from the wall;

d) Each advertisement must be displayed in a completely static manner, without any motion, for the approved dwell time;

e) Dwell times for image display is restricted to 10 seconds; and

f) The transition time between messages must be no longer than 0.1 seconds.

16. Content Management

A document detailing the methods of managing the display contents of the sign including advertising copy restrictions, amber alerts and monitoring methods must be submitted to the PCA for approval.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

17. Advertising Signs

a) The advertising signage approved under this consent must not flash or move.

b) The sign is permitted to operate for 24 hours on all days.

c) The display content must comply with the following requirements:

i) Message sequencing designed to make a driver anticipate the next message is prohibited across images presented on a single sign and across a series of signs.

ii) The image must not be capable of being mistaken:

a. For a prescribed traffic control device because it has, for example, red, amber or green circles, octagons, crosses or triangles or shapes or patterns that may result in the advertisement being mistaken for a prescribed traffic control device; or

b. As text providing driving instructions to drivers.

iii) The images displayed on the sign must not unreasonably dazzle or distract drivers without limitation to their colouring or contain flickering or flashing content.

iv) The amount of text information supplied on a sign must be kept to a minimum.

Note: Text should preferably be displayed in the same font and size.

18. Log Book

An electronic log of a signs activity must be maintained by the operator for the duration of the development consent and be available to the consent authority and/or RMS to allow a review of the signs activity in case of a complaint.

- END OF CONDITIONS -

ADVISORY NOTES

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.

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

Long Service Levy

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.

Covenants

RMS Right to Reassess

At any time, including where the speed limit in the area of the sign is changed, if detrimental effect is identified on road safety post installation of a digital sign, RMS reserves the right to re-assess the site which may result in a change to the dwell time or removal of the sign.

Group Manager's Report No. PL3/16

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/02/2016

10 LOW-RISE MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING AS COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· The Department of Planning and Environment has released a Discussion Paper regarding a proposal to include low-rise medium density dwellings as complying development in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008 (the Codes SEPP).

· The aim is to address an identified medium density housing policy ‘gap’ and deliver more, better designed medium density dwellings and enhance housing affordability.

· The Discussion Paper seeks feedback on whether dual occupancy development and town houses should be permitted as Complying Development in residential zones, including low density areas and whether densities of 2 to 10 dwellings per land parcel are appropriate.

· It is recommended that Council forward a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment supporting the intent of addressing the medium density controls but raising concern with the proposed delivery via the Codes SEPP.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT a submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment supporting the intent of addressing the medium density housing policy ‘gap’ but raising the concerns identified in Group Manager’s Report No. PL3/16 including:

· The delivery of medium density housing should be provided through the existing framework of local housing strategies based on dwelling targets established by District Plans.

· Medium density development is better suited to the development application pathway to enable merit assessment when required.

· Permissibility of medium density development should rely on LEPs with minimum design and quality standards further explored via an expanded SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guideline.

· Medium density development would not be appropriate in existing low density areas or areas with steep land.

· If only applied in R3 Medium Density Zones, the proposed controls could be supported if amended to provide more generous setbacks to support greater building separation, landscaping and deep soil planting.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to outline the proposal to expand the range of low-rise medium density housing as complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008, identify implications for Hornsby Shire and provide recommendations for a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Planning and Environment has identified that a housing policy gap exists with regards to opportunities to deliver low rise medium density housing to meet growing demand. This policy gap has been termed the ‘missing middle’ and applies to terraces, townhouses, manor homes and dual occupancies.

The Department proposes to expand complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008 (the SEPP) to cover the missing middle, provide a consistent State-wide approach for medium density housing forms and assist in the delivery of housing and housing diversity. As part of its approach to addressing the gap, the Department has released the ‘Missing Middle – Options for Low Rise Medium Density Housing as Complying Development’ Discussion Paper for comment.

Feedback is invited on the approach and options identified in the Discussion Paper and submissions can be received until 15 February 2016. Any changes to the SEPP would be made available for further public comment.

DISCUSSION

This report outlines the low rise and medium density housing proposed in the Discussion Paper and identifies the key implications for Hornsby Shire.

1. Complying Development

Complying development is a fast-tracked, streamlined form of combined planning and construction approval for specified types of development identified and enabled through State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008. Complying development can only be undertaken if a set of prescribed numerical controls and development standards are fully satisfied. Approvals can be issued by councils or private certifiers (certifying authority).

At present, complying development cannot be carried out on certain land, such as heritage conservation areas, foreshore areas and environmentally sensitive areas (including National Parks and critical habitat). Complying development can be carried out on bushfire and flood prone land provided additional locational, materials and construction requirements and standards are met.

2. The Proposal

The Missing Middle Discussion Paper identifies that expanding the Exempt and Complying SEPP to include medium density development provides an opportunity to:

· provide better built form outcomes;

· provide greater certainty to the approval process;

· promote housing choice to meet different needs; and

· streamline the approval process for medium density housing.

The following medium density housing forms, all with maximum building heights of 8.5m, are proposed as Complying Development:

Dual Occupancies: 2 dwellings on a single lot with a minimum lot size of 400sqm in the following forms; side by side attached or semi – detached, one behind the other attached or detached, or one on top of the other as a traditional duplex;

Manor Homes: 3-4 dwellings in a 2 storey building on a single lot with a minimum lot size of 500sqm where each storey contains 1 or 2 dwellings, each dwelling has its own strata or community title and there is a common or individual entry at ground level (but it is not an apartment building or multi-unit dwelling);

Terraces/Townhouses and Multi-Unit Dwelling Combinations: 3-10 dwellings configured as terraces, row houses or townhouses either alone or in combination with dual occupancy or Manor Homes on a single lot with a minimum lot size of 600m².

The Discussion Paper proposes that the above dwelling types would be permissible in the R1, R2 and R3 zones. To ensure that the scale and built form of the proposed housing forms is manageable and that any proposed development will fit into an existing residential streetscape, the Paper identifies a range of Complying Development standards such as a maximum number of 10 dwellings on a land parcel and a maximum height limit of 8.5m (2 storeys).

3. Issues

The Department is seeking feedback on specific questions related to the proposed dwelling types and standards. However, as the key issues relate to the impact on district and local planning strategies, it is recommended that Council’s submission be based on the following key issues:

3.1 Role of District Plans and Local Housing Strategies

The Department is currently preparing a North District Plan which will set out future dwelling targets and strategies for centres, employment lands and other initiatives such as the connectivity of regional open space. The Greater Sydney Commission will be responsible for finalising the Plan which would occur following consultation with Councils and the North District Commissioner will represent the needs of the North District.

Implementation of the North District Plan would in part require councils to update their housing strategies to be consistent with the new Plan. The proposal to introduce dual occupancy and medium density housing as complying development would undermine the role of the District Plans and local housing strategies by enabling a significant proportion of new dwellings to be located within low density residential areas without appropriate access to public transport, services and open space.

Rather than providing for the missing middle through the Codes SEPP, a more appropriate approach would be to outline within District Plans a requirement for local housing strategies to provide a mix of high and medium density housing. Councils would then have the opportunity to investigate the demographic and market trends to inform an appropriate strategy for the zoning of land.

Council has already resolved to investigate opportunities for additional villa and town house development opportunities within its adopted Strategic Planning Program. Therefore, the Department’s objective of providing additional opportunity for medium density development is supported in principle, subject to appropriate up front strategic planning.

Recommendation

· The objective of providing additional opportunity for medium density housing is supported in principle.

· The delivery of medium density housing should be provided through the existing framework of local housing strategies based on dwelling targets established by the District Plans.

· District Plans should include a requirement for local housing strategies to provide for a mix of medium and high density residential development to address housing mix and affordability objectives.

3.2 Community Consultation

The Planning Reform White Paper released on 2013 for consultation canvassed the need to undertake up front community consultation concerning the location of future growth. Based on this premise, the White Paper identified the potential for reduced community participation for development that complies with the rules such as location and building controls already established upfront from community consultation.

In relation to the objective of improving community participation in local plan making, the proposal to introduce dual occupancy and medium density development within the Codes SEPP would remove the opportunity for upfront consultation. As Councils will soon be asked to review their local housing strategies to accommodate updated dwelling targets, residents would be denied the opportunity to comment on appropriate locations for dual occupancy and medium density housing.

Recommendation

· Local communities should have the opportunity to comment on local housing policies which would permit dual occupancy and medium density development.

3.3 Role of the Codes SEPP

The Codes SEPP was introduced to increase the proportion of development that could be carried out in accordance with a complying development certificate. These development types are typically low impact uses that are normally permitted by local planning instruments and readily conform to state wide development standards.

The rules for complying development differ to those for a development application. The main difference is that, since complying development must meet pre-determined development standards, the applicant is under no obligation to make changes if a neighbour does not agree with what is proposed. If the proposal complies with all the pre-determined development standards, the development must be approved.

This approach does not account for merit assessment of issues where strict compliance with an environmental planning instrument or development control plan. Similarly, compliance with a development standard may still result in negative environmental effects such as privacy, solar access drainage and tree impact for example need to be considered.

Dual occupancy and multi-unit housing has previously been permitted by State Environmental Planning Policies No.25 (Residential allotment sizes) and No.53 (Metropolitan Residential Development). At the time, Councils could apply for an exemption from SEPP 53 if they made a local housing strategy. Between 1992 and 1994, Council with community input developed a range of initiatives in preparing a new Housing Strategy. The 1994 Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy was the first to be presented to the then Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources seeking an exemption from the State Housing Policy and eliminating unnecessary duplication of planning controls.

Similarly, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing Policy) 2009 was amended in 2011 so that villas, townhouses and residential flat developments by the private sector would no longer be allowed in low density residential areas. The amendment was in response to concerns regarding the character impact in low density areas. At the time, the Department advised it would establish an Affordable Housing Taskforce and work with local Councils on a sub-regional basis to develop local housing choice strategies.

Should the Department proceed to amend the Codes SEPP, provision should be made for Councils to seek exemption where they can demonstrate that their local housing strategy has implemented the requirements of the District Plan and makes appropriate provision for a diversity of dwelling types.

Recommendation

· Dual occupancy and medium density development is better suited to the development application pathway to enable merit assessment when required.

· The Codes SEPP should not be amended to include dual occupancy and medium density development on the grounds that previous State Environmental Planning Policies have been amended or repealed to remove this form of development in favour developing local planning strategies.

· Should the Department proceed to amend the Codes SEPP, provision should be made for Councils to seek exemption where they can demonstrate that their local housing strategy has implemented the requirements of the District Plan.

3.4 Design Guidelines

The Discussion Paper identifies the opportunity to expand the Apartment Design Guideline (ADG) to include medium density housing forms. There is no discussion on how this would relate to the proposed Codes SEPP amendments and would probably operate in the same way as State Environmental Housing Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP HSDP) to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development) (SEPP 65) applies in relation to residential flat buildings.

This proposal has merit as it would apply to both the Codes SEPP and any provision of a local development control plan relating to medium density development where a development application is submitted. Until amendments to the ADG are proposed to accommodate medium density development, it is considered inappropriate to progress amendments to the Codes SEPP. The proposed missing middle controls are largely based on envelope controls only, without giving appropriate consideration to amenity, internal configuration and landscape design.

Similar to the approach of SEPP 65, medium density development should rely on the relevant local environmental plan to control land use permissibility, with minimum design and quality standards and guidelines provides by an expanded SEPP 65. This approach would be consistent with District Planning and preparation of local housing strategies where the location of new development can be appropriately managed whilst providing a consistent design approach.

Recommendation

· Medium density development should rely on the relevant local environmental plan to control land use permissibility, with minimum design and quality standards and guidelines provided by an expanded SEPP 65.

· Should the Department seek to include Codes SEPP controls for medium density development, further progress should not occur until a review of the Apartment Design Guideline to include medium density housing forms is released for public comment.

3.5 Local Environmental Plan Impacts

Council’s Housing Strategy and Local Environmental Plan have been prepared to ensure that future development of high and medium density development is well located with respect to transports, jobs, services, community facilities and open space. The approach also enables Council to effectively plan for new infrastructure required to meet the needs of the future population and to implement specific precinct based strategies such as local traffic management. This approach also provides certainty for residents who live in low density areas that growth will be contained to areas that have been the subject of detailed planning and consultation.

The Codes SEPP does not provide the opportunity to consider the cumulative impacts of development which often require a strategic response. For example, in 2011, the Berowra and Mount Colah Commercial Centre Precincts were removed from Council Housing Strategy on the grounds that the Rural Fire Service was concerned with bushfire threat and emergency evacuation. As an emergency response strategy is yet to be developed by the RFS, allowing increased densities into low density areas north of Asquith would be inconsistent with previous government decisions on this matter.

The expansion of the Codes SEPP to include low-rise medium density development would introduce dwelling forms otherwise prohibited under the HLEP. For example, dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing are not permitted in the R2 Low Density Zone under the HLEP. Should an applicant be unable to meet the complying development standards for a particular site, there would not be an opportunity to lodge the same proposal as a development application for merit assessment by Council. This outcome would be inconsistent with the current application of the Codes SEPP.

Recommendation

· The Codes SEPP should not be used to expand the permissibility of dual occupancy and medium density development in the R2 Low Density Zone.

· Opportunity for increased density should only occur in precincts that have been appropriately zoned for medium or high density based on appropriate locational criteria and where appropriate management strategies are in place to address infrastructure or emergency safety outcomes.

3.6 Development Standards and Controls

The Discussion Paper recommends considering three dwelling type groupings with associated primary, design and amenity standards for inclusion as Complying Development. The key aspects of the proposed standards summarised in Table 1 and discussion concerning their consistency with Council’s current controls (notwithstanding land use permissibility) is discussed below.

Table 1 - Proposed Medium Density Complying Development Types and Standards

Control	Standard
	Dual Occupancy 2-4 dwellings/lot	Manor Home 3-4 dwellings/lot	Townhouse/Terrace 3-10 dwellings/lot
Min. lot size	400sqm	500sqm	600sqm
Min. frontage width	12.5 detached 15.0 semi detached	15.0	18.0
Max. building height	8.5m - 2 storeys with no attic rooms
Min. floor to ceiling height	2.7m
Garage/parking setback	1.0m behind front setback
Rear setback	Min 6.5m or 25% of average length of side boundary 6.0m setback between rear lane parking and buildings (manor homes)
Min side boundary setback	900mm	1.2m	2.0m
Min landscaped area	30%
Min landscape area width	1.5m
Min. driveway setback	1.0m 1 driveway per frontage for Manor Homes and Townhouse/Terraces
Min. private open space	24sqm at ground with min 4.0m dimension 12sqm as a balcony with min depth of 2.4m
Min. front setback	4.5m or average of adjoining setbacks (Figure 20 in Discussion Paper identifies a 15m setback for townhouses in error)
Min. internal separation	N/A	N/A	6.5m
Min. car-parking provision	As per the Guide to Traffic Generating Development or Council controls, whichever is less
Excavation Setbacks	N/A	As per applicable building setbacks	As per applicable building setbacks and 4.0m max depth
Min. Torrens subdivision	200sqm excluding battle-axe	Not Permitted	Not recommended
Min. Strata subdivision	No Minimum

Concern is raised with the above controls on the grounds that the primary setbacks for manor homes and town house development provide insufficient separation for deep soil landscaping. Council’s controls provides for high and medium density development within a landscape setting to ensure new development is capable of integrating with the existing character of established suburbs.

The proposed controls would be inconsistent with this approach on the following grounds:

· The proposed controls for development within areas zoned R2 Low Density Residential would be inconsistent with the existing character of these areas.

· The proposed minimum lot frontages are less that Council’s current requirement of 30m which encourages the amalgamation of two lots to provide appropriate site area for setbacks and landscaping.

· Council requires a 6m side setback with opportunity for 3m setback where a dwelling is oriented to front or rear of the property boundaries. The proposed side setbacks for Manor Homes, terraces and townhouses would not provide for appropriate landscaping, building separation or open space.

· Whist a minimum landscape requirement of 30% is reasonable, the minimum landscape width of 1.5m would not support deep soil zones along the property boundaries.

· Basement excavation for manor homes, terraces and town houses to within 1.2 and 2m of side boundaries would not provide for deep soil planting zones.

· There are no requirements for a mix of 1,2 or 3 bedroom homes or for adaptable housing which is inconsistent with Council’s DCP and the ADG.

· There are no minimum dwelling or bedroom sizes in the proposed standards and consideration should be given to the suitability of the controls on sloping sites.

In summary, there is concern that the proposed controls, if applied within low density areas would be inconsistent with the character of established suburbs and have the potential impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. If only applied within areas zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, the proposed controls could be supported if amended to provide more generous side setbacks to support greater building separation, landscaping and deep soil planting.

As discussed above, further investigation of proposed controls would benefit from a review of the ADG to include medium density housing. Other issues that should be considered would also include minimum dwelling and bedroom sizes and provisions or exclusions for sloping sites.

Recommendations

· The proposed controls for development within areas zoned R2 Low Density Residential would be inconsistent with the existing character of these areas and should not be progressed.

· If only applied in the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone, the proposed controls could be supported if amended to provide more generous side setbacks to support greater building separation, landscaping, deep soil planting and consideration of slope.

CONSULTATION

Correspondence has been received from a Pennant Hills resident urging Council to make a submission to the Department rejecting the proposed expansion of the Exempt and Complying SEPP to include low rise medium density dwellings. Issues raised included impacts on low density areas, visitor parking and land use zoning consistency with the HLEP.

The issues raised in the correspondence are included in Council’s report and reflected in its recommendations.

BUDGET

There are no budgetary implications associated with this Report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

CONCLUSION

The proposal to address the ‘missing middle’ with respect to medium density housing controls is supported in principle. Rather than implementing state wide controls via the Codes SEPP that would apply to all residential zones, it is recommended that the delivery of medium density housing be considered as part of District Plans which are currently under preparation with revised dwelling targets to include a requirement that Councils provide a mix of low, medium and high density development appropriate to the local area.

The location of new medium and high density development should be addressed through local planning strategies where local communities have the opportunity to be consulted and participate in the plan making process. Consistent with previous decisions to repeal State planning policies that imposed inappropriate development in low density areas, the current framework of only permitting detached dwellings and granny flats should remain. An amendment to the Apartment Design Guideline would be a more appropriate method of standardising the design approach for medium density development and would be consistent with the current approach for high density housing.

It is recommended that a submission be made to the DP&E supporting the intent of addressing the ‘missing middle’ controls but raising concern with the proposed delivery via the Codes SEPP.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager Strategic Planning – Fletcher Rayner, who can be contacted on 9847 6744.

Fletcher Rayner

Manager - Strategic Planning

Planning Division

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2010/00554

Document Number: D06846767

Task / Phase	Budget	Funding Allocation
		Urban Growth NSW	Hornsby Shire Council	The Hills Shire Council
Initial Precinct Investigations	$343,875
Shared Studies / Engagements:
Statutory Planning - 3PPs	$140,000
Urban Design	$36,000
Transport	$50,000
Economic Assessment	$40,000
Infrastructure Assessment	$30,000
HV Underground Assessment	$120,000
Noise and Vibration	$20,000
Stormwater Management	$25,000
Shared Studies (Total)	$461,000	$341,000	$60,000	$60,000
Unique Studies:
Aboriginal and European Heritage	$40,000		$20,000	$20,000
Bushfire	$25,000		$12,500	$12,500
Flora and Fauna	$40,000		$20,000	$20,000
Geotechnical	$60,000			$60,000
Unique Studies (Total)	$165,000		$52,500	$112,500

Total Budget	$969,875		$112,500	$172,500

1.View	HSC Investment Holdings Report - November 2015
2.View	HSC Investment Holdings Report - December 2015
3.View	HSC Borrowings Schedule - November 2015
4.View	HSC Borrowings Schedule - December 2015

1.View	December 2015 Quarter Review
2.View	Quarterly Budget Review Statement - December 2015