Agenda of General Meeting

Planning Report No. PL16/17

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/05/2017

6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - DWELLING HOUSE - 10 YALLAMBEE ROAD, BEROWRA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/560/2016 (Lodged 5 May 2016)
Description:	Erection of a two storey dwelling house on a vacant allotment
Property:	Lot 189A DP 367589, No.10 Yallambee Road, Berowra
Applicant:	Allcastle Homes Pty Ltd
Owner:	Mr Mark Goodrich and Mrs Helen Goodrich
Estimated Value:	$544,568

· The application is for the construction of a two storey dwelling house on a vacant allotment.

· The proposal generally complies with the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013.

· Thirty eight submissions have been received from nine parties objecting to the application. Fifteen submissions have been received in support 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 Development Application No. DA/560/2016 for erection of a two storey dwelling house on a vacant allotment at Lot 189A DP 367589, No.10 Yallambee Road, Berowra be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL16/17.

BACKGROUND

On 5 May 2016, DA/560/2016 was lodged with Council proposing the erection of a two storey dwelling house and detached secondary dwelling (granny flat). The application was publically notified between 19 May 2016 and 2 June 2016.

A survey plan submitted as part of the application dated 21 January 2016 indicated the presence of 39 trees on the property. There were no arboricultural details submitted with the application identifying the species of the 39 trees. In May 2016, a site inspection confirmed that a number of trees had been removed from the site without consent from Council. This matter has been referred to Council’s solicitor for further action, which will include confirmation of the number of trees removed.

On 31 August 2016, Council requested additional information to address the impact of the development on trees and amended plans to minimise environmental impacts.

On 18 October 2016, additional information and amended plans were submitted to address the matters raised by Council. The amended proposal involved minor design changes to the dwelling-house and a shift in the location of the granny flat from the northern side to the southern side of the property.

On 12 December 2016, an on-site meeting was held with the applicant to discuss concerns with the amended design and the impact on significant trees located centrally within the site. Following the meeting, Council requested amended plans to retain the three significant Eucalpytus sieberi (Silvertop Ash) trees on the site.

On 14 February 2017, amended plans were submitted which included deletion of the granny flat and minor design changes to the dwelling-house. The amendments involved a shift of the dwelling location slightly towards the front eastern boundary to facilitate the retention of the significant trees within the site. The amended proposal would involve the removal of four trees from the site. However, if the trees identified on the original survey plan remained on the site, approximately 9 trees would require removal to facilitate the development.

The amended application was notified to adjoining properties between 14 February and 7 March 2017. To ensure opportunity for full community participation, the amended application was re-notified between 4 April and 20 April 2017, which included an advertisement in the local newspaper and the erection of a yellow sign on the property. The amended application is the subject of this report.

On 11 April 2017, the applicant submitted legal advice prepared by Fox and Staniland Lawyers which addresses matters raised in community submissions.

SITE

The site is a vacant, 888 square metre allotment located on the western side of Yallambee Road near the intersection of Anembo Road. The site is trapezoidal in shape, with a frontage of 20.2m, a northern side boundary dimension of 63.7m, a southern side boundary dimension of 53.9m and a rear boundary dimension of 15.4m.

The site experiences a minor fall from the Yallambee Road frontage to the rear, western boundary with an average grade of 6%. A sewer line traverses the rear of the property.

The site presently contains 8 trees which are locally native species. A number of trees were removed from the site without consent prior to the lodgement of the application. Further, trees that are not protected under the Tree Preservation requirements of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) have been removed since the application was lodged.

The site is not identified as bushfire prone or flood prone land. The site is not located within a heritage conservation area and does not adjoin a heritage item. The site adjoins low density residential development to the north, south and west of the site. Yallambee Park is located opposite the site on the eastern side of Yallambee Road.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the construction of a two storey brick veneer dwelling with a tile roof.

The ground level would comprise a double garage, office/study, laundry, WC, rumpus, media, family/kitchen area and alfresco area.

The first floor would comprise four bedrooms, bathroom, en-suite and a living room.

A 1.2m high front fence and gate are proposed along the frontage of the site. Some additional lattice screening is proposed for privacy along the northern side boundary fence.

Four trees would be removed from the site to accommodate the development.

ASSESSMENT

The development application has been assessed having regard to ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’, the ‘Draft North District Plan’ 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 District Plan

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 and actions for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth and identifies dwelling targets to ensure supply meets demand. 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, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde, Northern Beaches and Willoughby to form the North District. The Greater Sydney Commission has realised the draft North District Plan which includes priorities and actions for the Northern District for the next 20 years. The identified challenge for Hornsby Shire will be to provide an additional 4,350 dwellings by 2021 with further strategic supply targets to be identified to deliver 97,000 additional dwellings in the North District by 2036.

The proposed development would be consistent with ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’ and ‘Draft North District Plan’ by providing a dwelling contributing to Council’s housing target.

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 Local Environmental Plan 2013

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

2.1.1 Zoning of Land and Permissibility

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

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

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

The proposed development is defined as a ‘dwelling house’ under the HLEP and is permissible in the R2 zone with development consent. The proposed dwelling on a vacant allotment would assist in providing for the housing needs of the community within an urban, low density residential environment. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zoning of the land.

2.1.2 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 8.5 metres. The proposed dwelling-house would have a height of 7.8 metres and complies with this provision.

2.1.3 Heritage Conservation

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

2.1.4 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

The objective of Clause 5.9 of the HLEP is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. This clause applies to species or kinds of trees or other vegetation that are prescribed for the purpose of this clause by the HDCP. The relevant sections of this clause are addressed below:

Clause 5.9 (3) prescribes ‘a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by (a) development consent; or (b) a permit granted by the Council.’

In May 2016, a site inspection confirmed that a number of trees had been removed from the site without consent from Council. This matter has been referred to Council’s solicitor for further action as a separate matter. It is open for Council to determine the subject application on its merits, notwithstanding the alleged unauthorised removal of trees on the land and possible pending legal action for that tree removal.

The application would necessitate the removal of four trees to accommodate the proposed dwelling house. The trees identified for removal have not been identified as significant and the removal has been assessed as acceptable to facilitate the development of the site. The amended proposal has been designed to ensure the retention of significant trees, identified as Tree 6, 7, 7a located on the subject site and tree 12 located on an adjoining property. These trees are assessed as significant as they are species indigenous to Hornsby Shire with a long Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE). Subject to conditions of consent for tree protection measures, the proposal would have an acceptable environmental impact and satisfies Clause 5.9 of the HLEP.

The impact on trees and vegetation is further discussed in Section 7.1 of this report.

2.1.5 Earthworks

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

Before granting development consent for earthworks (or any development involving ancillary earthworks), the consent authority must consider the following matters:

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

The proposal involves minimal excavation works and would not have a significant impact on the drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development.

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

The proposed dwelling-house is consistent with the residential zoning of the land.

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

Recommended conditions prescribe that any fill imported to the site is to be certified Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM). There is no evidence to suggest that the fill on site is contaminated. However, recommended conditions prescribe that excavated material is to be disposed of at a licensed facility.

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

The proposed dwelling-house would involve excavation of up to 375mm on a block of land that experiences an average fall of 3 metres to the rear boundary. The extent of excavation is minor and is consistent with the HDCP control that prescribes cut and fill should be limited to 1 metre.

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

Recommended conditions prescribe that any fill imported to the site is to be certified Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM). A condition is recommended for any excavated material from the site to be disposed of at a licenced facility.

f) The likelihood of disturbing relics.

A review of aerial photographs and Council records for the site has not identified evidence to suggest that the site contains any relics and therefore, disturbance of any relics is unlikely. However, a condition is recommended for NSW Office and Heritage to be notified if any relics are encountered during construction.

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

The site is not within close proximity to a waterway and does not adjoin land zoned for environmental protection. Conditions are recommended for sediment and erosion controls to be implemented prior to construction works to minimise impacts on the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. Subject to conditions for environmental management, the proposal would not adversely impact on any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive areas.

h) Any appropriate measures to avoid, minimise of mitigate the impacts of the development.

The amended proposal has been designed to retain significant trees on the site and adjoining properties. Conditions are recommended for tree protection measures, sediment and erosion control and environmental management. Subject to conditions, the proposal would not have an unreasonable impact on the natural or built environment.

In summary, the site is a slightly sloping site, necessitating minimal excavation works for the construction of the dwelling. The extent of excavation is reasonable to facilitate the construction of a dwelling on the site. Accordingly, the proposed development is satisfactory in respect to Clause 6.2 of the HLEP.

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

The site has been considered against State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 – Koala Habitat Protection. This Policy applies to sites greater than 1 hectares in area. The site has an area of 888 square metres therefore, the Policy does not apply.

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 Remediation of Land (SEPP 55). This Policy requires that Council must not consent 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.

Council’s records indicate that the lot was created in 1954 and has remained vacant since that time. A search of Council’s records and aerial photographs reveals that the property has no record of any site contamination. Given this, the site would be suitable for residential purposes and no further assessment in relation to SEPP 55 is required.

2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. The original application included a BASIX Certificate for the proposed dwelling and granny flat. A revised BASIX certificate has been submitted (BASIX Certificate No. 802687S) to reflect the amended proposal for a single dwelling-house. The provision of the BASIX Certificate for the development satisfies the requirements of the SEPP. A condition is recommended for the completion of the BASIX commitments pertaining to the development.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 – NSW Housing Code

The application has been considered against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 – NSW Housing Code. The Policy provides exempt and complying development codes that have State-wide application. The Policy also identifies types of development that are of minimal environmental impact that may be carried out without the need for development consent and types of Complying Development (including dwelling houses) that may be carried out in accordance with a Complying Development Certificate.

The site is not identified as flood prone land or subject to bushfire risk. The site is not a heritage item, does not adjoin a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. There are however, trees protected under the HDCP that require Council’s permission for removal to accommodate a dwelling-house. The removal of the protected trees to accommodate the development precludes the development from being approved as a Complying Development.

In addition to the above, the proposed dwelling cannot be approved as Complying Development as the setback of the proposed dwelling is forward of the front setback requirement being the average of the two adjoining properties. If the front setback of the dwelling was increased to satisfy the complying development requirements, the development would impact on three significant trees within the site that should be retained.

Apart from the front setback non-compliance and the permission required for tree removal, the proposed dwelling house would otherwise comply with the numerical standards for Complying Development contained within the SEPP.

2.6 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.

2.7 Section 5A Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – Threatened Species

Section 5A of the EP&A Act requires the Council to consider whether an action is likely to have significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

Two Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located on the adjoining property, No. 8 Yallambee Road. Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) are listed as Endangered under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Vulnerable under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The relevant provisions of Section 5A are addressed below:

Section 5A, 2(a) prescribes ‘in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction’.

Section 5A, 2(g) prescribes, ‘whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation or, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process’.

There are no actions proposed that would have an adverse impact on the trees and the proposal would have no effect on the life cycle of the species. Therefore, the development would not constitute a key threatening process and would not increase the impact of a key threatening process.

Council’s ecological assessment is addressed in Section 2.9.8 of this report. Council’s ecological assessment concludes that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) and is acceptable with respect to Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

On 1 March 2013, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 was amended so that a DCP provision will have no effect if it has the practical effect of “preventing or unreasonably restricting development” that is otherwise permitted and complies with the development standards set out 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; facilitating development that is permissible under any such instrument and achieving the objectives of land zones under any such instrument. The provisions of a development control plan made for that purpose are not statutory requirements.

2.9 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

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

HDCP – Part 3.1 Dwelling Houses
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Complies
Site Area	888m²	N/A	N/A
Building Height	7.8m	8.5m	Yes
No. storeys	2	max. 2 + attic	Yes
Site Coverage	22%	<50%	Yes
Floor Area	285m²	380m²	Yes
Landscaped Area (% of lot size)	60%	>30%	Yes
Private Open Space
- minimum area minimum dimension	>24m²	24m²	Yes
- minimum dimension	>30m	3m	Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces	2 spaces	Yes
Setbacks
- Front minimum dimension	6.5m – 17.5m	6m	Yes
- Side (North)
Ground floor	2m	900mm	Yes
First floor	2m	1.5m	Yes
- Side (South)
Ground floor	2.2m	900mm	Yes
First floor	2.2m	1.5m	Yes
- Rear
Ground floor	28m	3m	Yes
First floor	25m	8m	Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development generally complies with the prescriptive requirements within the HDCP. A brief discussion on compliance with relevant performance requirements and Part 1C General Controls is provided below.

2.9.1 Scale

The proposed dwelling-house would be 2 storeys and a maximum height of 7.8 metres. The proposal complies with the maximum 8.5 metres height requirement, site coverage and total floor area controls of the HDCP. The proposal would provide for a development with a height, bulk and scale that is compatible with a low density residential environment and is consistent with the desired outcome of Part 3.1.1 Scale of the HDCP.

2.9.2 Setbacks

2.9.2.1 Front Setback

The front elevation of the dwelling house is not parallel to the front boundary due to the trapezoidal shape of the allotment. The position of the proposed dwelling on the site would be setback between 6.5m and 17.5m from the front boundary.

In accordance with Part 3.1.2 of the HDCP, a 6 metre setback applies to local roads, or where an existing setback of 7.6 metres or greater exists, it may be necessary to conform to this setback to maintain the streetscape character.

The adjoining properties comprise older style dwellings with a setback of 10 metres and greater, with the exception of a carport forward of the building line at No. 8 Yallambee Road. Whilst the setback of the proposed dwelling on the subject site is slightly closer to the street at the south-eastern corner of the dwelling (at 6.5 metres), the front setback increases up to 17.5 metres on the northern side of the dwelling. As a result, the majority of the dwelling is setback to be consistent with the established setbacks in the street. The proposed setback maintains sufficient area to allow for landscaping of the front yard to complement the streetscape character. The setbacks of the proposed dwelling are compatible with a low density residential environment.

The position and setback of the proposed dwelling also facilitates the retention of three significant trees on the site directly to the rear of the development. The proposal is consistent with the desired outcomes of the Part 3.1.2 of the HDCP and is acceptable.

2.9.2.2 Side Setbacks

The HDCP prescribes a minimum 900mm side boundary setback to the ground level and a 1.5m setback applies to the first floor. The ground and first floor would have a setback of 2 metres from the northern side boundary and 2.2 metres from the southern side boundary. The side setbacks of the proposed dwelling exceed the minimum requirements in the HDCP, providing greater separation from adjoining properties.

2.9.3 Privacy

The dwelling has been designed generally with living and entertaining areas at ground level and bedrooms at the first floor. However, the proposal includes a first floor living room at the front of the dwelling. There is no requirement for high sills or screening of these windows as the windows are orientated to the front boundary.

Other windows on the northern and southern side elevations of the first floor service bedrooms, bathrooms and robes. As these rooms are not living and entertaining areas, there would be no unreasonable impact on the privacy of adjoining properties. As additional measures to minimise privacy impacts, the application proposes obscure film to be affixed to the two bedroom windows on the northern elevation to a height of 1.5m above finished floor level. This measure would further minimise privacy impacts whilst maintaining natural light to the bedrooms. On the upper level of the southern elevation, frosting has been included on the bedroom, bathroom and walk in robe windows to minimise privacy conflicts.

The ground floor media and rumpus room comprise windows on the northern elevation that are setback 2 metres from the northern side boundary. The finished floor level of these rooms is less than 1 metre above natural ground level. As a result, there is no requirement for a privacy screen on these windows.

A 300mm high lattice screen is proposed to be affixed to the dividing fence adjoining No. 8 Yallambee Road. This additional screening was proposed in response to a submission which suggested this measure to improve privacy between neighbours. However, the most recent submission from the adjoining property owner objects to the screening, based on concerns that the lattice would destabilise the existing dividing fence. Accordingly, the addition of lattice screening on the fence is not recommended. There is no requirement for any landscape screening or structures as the dwelling design would not have any unreasonable impact on the privacy of adjoining properties.

The proposed deck at the rear of the dwelling would have a maximum height of 600mm above ground level. As the deck is less than 1 metres above ground level, there would be no significant privacy implications resulting from the deck and therefore, screening is not required.

The proposal has been designed to maintain a reasonable level of privacy to adjoining properties and is consistent with requirements of the HDCP.

2.9.4 Sunlight Access

Private open space areas of the development would receive 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight access between the hours of 9am and 3pm on 22 June and would comply with the prescriptive measures of the HDCP.

The private open space of adjoining properties would receive a minimum of 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight access between 9am and 3pm on 22 June and would comply with the prescriptive measures of the HDCP.

The proposal maintains reasonable sunlight access to adjoining properties, receives sufficient sunlight access to the principal private open space and is therefore acceptable in regards to solar access.

2.9.5 Vehicular Access and Parking

Two car spaces are proposed within a double car garage in compliance with Council’s parking requirements for dwelling-houses. A new driveway and vehicular crossing would be constructed to facilitate vehicular access to the site.

2.9.6 Design Details

The proposal is for a two storey dwelling-house with tile roof. The proposed dwelling is orientated primarily towards the street with a clear and visible entry point. The proposal provides for a development that is compatible with the low density residential environment.

2.9.7 Earthworks and Slope

Part 1C.1.4 of the HDCP applies to earthworks. These controls supplement the earthwork controls within Clause 6.2 of the HLEP.

One submission raises concern that a geotechnical report was not submitted with the application addressing construction on sandstone ridgetop landform. The submission suggests that the rock soil type is not suitable for excavation and the proposed stormwater infiltration trench. The submission suggests pier and beam construction to minimise site disturbance.

The site experiences a minor slope to the rear boundary with an average grade of 6%. There is no HDCP requirement for the submission of a geotechnical report unless the site experiences a steep slope with a gradient greater than 20%.

The proposed dwelling involves cut of up to 375mm and fill up to 485mm from the existing ground level. The earthworks associated with the development are minor and satisfy the HDCP requirement for cut and fill to not exceed 1 metre in height from existing ground level.

The HDCP prescribes that filling or excavation should not occur on, or adjacent to, or have adverse impacts on sensitive environments such as watercourses, riparian land, wetlands, bushland or significant vegetation. The excavation for the dwelling house is minor and would not impact on significant trees subject to compliance with conditions for tree protection during construction. The site is not located within proximity of a watercourse or areas zoned for environmental protection.

The site is located in a residential area where a number of older style dwellings and more recently constructed dwellings have been established. Should the application be approved, engineering specifications will be submitted to the Certifying Authority having regard to site attributes.

2.9.8 Biodiversity

Part 1C.1.1 of the HDCP applies to land with Biodiversity value. The site or adjoining properties are not mapped as Biodiversity on the HLEP Terrestrial Biodiversity map.

A number of submissions raise concern that the development will have an unacceptable impact on two Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located on the adjoining property and as a consequence, does not satisfy the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Further, submissions raise concern that a 10m buffer from this tree has not been provided.

Council’s ecological assessment, confirmed that No. 8 Yallambee Road contains two species of Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly). It is acknowledged that this species is listed as Endangered under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Vulnerable under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage threatened species profiles website states that the Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) species typically occurs in a narrow, linear coastal strip from Upper Lansdowne to Conjola State Forest within littoral rainforest. The species is a commonly cultivated plant within nurseries and it is highly likely that the occurrence of the subject tree within the sandstone ridgetop woodland in Berowra is a planted specimen and not endemic to the area.

Nevertheless, as a precautionary approach, the impact of the proposed development has been taken into consideration within the context of Section 5A and 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 with regards to assessment of significant impacts.

Part 1C.1.1(e) of the HDCP prescribes a 10 metre buffer to populations of threatened fauna species, habitat for threatened species, locally significant bushland and groups of remnant trees. The intent of this measure is to ensure groups of remnant significant trees are protected from the impacts of development. This measure is not applicable to the two Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) trees located at No. 8 Yallambee Road as these are planted species and do not form part of a significant group.

The Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) (Tree 12) located within the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road has a tree protection zone (TPZ) of 4.2 metres. The proposed dwelling is located approximately 7 metres from the tree and stormwater pipes would be sited to ensure no incursion into the TPZ of this tree (subject to conditions). Council’s assessment concludes that Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) would not be adversely impacted and conditions of consent are recommended to protect this tree during the construction process.

The Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located within the front yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road has a TPZ of 2 metres and is located 1 metre from the southern boundary adjoining No. 10 Yallambee Road. No works are proposed within the TPZ of this tree and accordingly, the proposal would not impact on the health of this tree.

Council’s ecological assessment concludes that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) in accordance with 5A and 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. As a result, a Species Impact Statement is not required.

No further consideration is required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the proposal does not require a referral to the Minister for the Environment and Energy.

2.9.10 Air Quality

Part 1C.2.6 of the HDCP provides for development that is designed and managed to minimise air quality impacts on occupants of residential dwellings and other sensitive land uses. The controls prescribe that any development that is capable of generating levels of air emissions exceeding the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) should incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate against air pollution.

A submission raises concern that adjoining properties will be impacted by airborne pollution during construction works. The construction works for a single dwelling and use of the site for residential purposes are unlikely to result in significant air pollution that exceeds the requirements of the POEO Act. Notwithstanding, a condition is recommended for the site to be managed in accordance with the POEO Act by way of implementing appropriate measure to prevent excessive dust, noise or odour emanating from the site during the construction of the development.

2.9.11 Landscaping

The submitted landscape plan identifies tree removal, the establishment of new trees and shrubs and lawn areas within the front and rear yard. A 1.2 metre high front fence and gate for vehicular access are proposed.

A submission raises concern that the planting of new trees near the northern side boundary may impact on the structural stability of the dividing fence, established trees and the dwelling at No. 8 Yallambee Road. A condition is recommended for replacement planting of trees to be 4 metres or more from the foundation walls of the dwelling and northern side boundary.

A pebble path is proposed between the dwelling-house and the northern side boundary. A submission raises concern that the fill and compaction during construction of this path would adversely impact trees on the adjoining property.

Paved areas within No. 8 Yallambee Road presently surround the Liquidamber identified as Tree 13. The proposed path along the northern side boundary of the site would encroach into the TPZ of trees 13 and 15-20. A condition is recommended for the path to consist of pebbles or free draining materials to minimise the extent of earthworks within the TPZ of the nearby trees.

2.9.12 Notification of Applications

Part 1B.5.2 of the HDCP outlines the notification requirements for applications.

The original application lodged in May 2016 proposed the erection of a dwelling house and granny flat. The proposal was notified in accordance with the HDCP as:

· A yellow notification sign was erected on the property with photographic evidence provided to Council;

· An advertisement was placed in the local paper; and

· Letters were sent to adjoining property owners.

The amended proposal submitted on 14 February 2017 involved deletion of the granny flat, resulting in a proposal for a dwelling-house only. The deletion of the 60 square metres granny flat within the rear yard was considered to have resulted in a less intensive development than was originally proposed. Notification letters were sent to adjoining properties inviting comments in relation to the amended proposal.

A submission raised concern that Council did not require a new sign to be put on the site or to advertise the application in the paper when the amended plans were received. To ensure there is not a breach of procedural fairness, the amended application was re-notified to adjoining properties, with a yellow sign erected on the property and an advertisement placed in the local paper.

2.10 Section 94A Contributions

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2012 – 2021 applies to the development as the estimated costs of works is greater than $100,000. An appropriate condition of consent is recommended requiring the payment of a contribution in accordance with the Plan.

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 Unauthorised tree removal

A number of trees have been removed from the site without the consent of Council. Submissions raise objections to Council approving a development on the site before for legal action is taken for the unauthorised clearing.

The matter of tree removal has been referred to Council’s solicitor for further action. The unauthorised removal of trees is not a determinative matter for consideration in the assessment of the current application for the dwelling house. Council may determine the Development Application on its merits and any tree prosecution could proceed independently.

3.1.2 Arborist reports provided

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) was submitted with the original application. Following Council’s preliminary assessment, amended plans were submitted in October 2016 with an amended AIA.

Council identified a number of inconsistencies with the species identification and inaccuracies with the diameter at breast height(DBH) measurements provided in the AIA. Further, community submissions received commented that the consultant arborist did not obtain access to the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road to measure the tree DBH and the associated extent of TPZs.

In Council’s tree assessment, access was obtained to the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road to precisely measure the DBH of trees in the presence of the owner of No. 8 Yallambee Road. Council has relied on its own tree assessment to determine the potential impacts of the development and appropriate measures to minimise or mitigate impacts on trees.

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has also been provided as part of a submission by the owner of No. 8 Yallambee Road, in relation to potential impacts to trees. This report has been reviewed in Council’s tree assessment.

3.1.3 Tree Removal

The proposed dwelling would necessitate the removal of 4 trees from the site. These trees are identified as Tree Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 on the tree site plan and include 2 x Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak), a Eucalyptus oblonga (Common Sandstone Stringybark) and a Pittospoum undulation (Sweet Pittosporum).

None of the trees identified for removal are identified as significant as the trees would not have a long safe and useful life expectancy (SULE) and would be impacted by the proposed building envelope. The removal of the trees has been assessed as acceptable to facilitate the development of the site in accordance with the land zoning and there is sufficient space on the site to provide compensatory plantings of locally occurring species to maintain the local amenity. The landscape plan indicates the planting of six trees plus a number of shrubs along the boundaries. Conditions are recommended to ensure the replacement trees are appropriately located in relation the existing and new development and are of species locally native to Hornsby Shire.

3.1.4 Impact on Trees to be retained on site

The site contains three Eucalpytus sieberi (Silvertop Ash) trees on site which are identified as significant in Council’s tree assessment. These trees are identified as Tree Nos. 6, 7 and 7a on Council’s Tree Site Plan. The trees are locally significant species in good condition with a high SULE rating and worthy of retention. The trees are not listed as threatened or vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The original application proposed the removal of these trees to accommodate the dwelling-house and granny flat. Following Council’s requests for amended plans and subsequent discussions at an on-site meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans demonstrating the retention of tree Nos. 6, 7 and 7a.

Conditions are recommended to ensure the protection of the three significant trees, including requirements for tree protection fencing, sensitive construction techniques and the requirement for an arborist to be on site to supervise works during construction.

3.1.5 Impact on trees on adjoining properties

A number of submissions raise concern that the development would adversely impact on trees located on the adjoining property at No. 8 Yallambee Road. Council has undertaken an assessment of the trees within the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road in the presence of the property owner. Council’s tree assessment involved detailed consideration of the trees on No. 8 Yallambee Road and the impacts are discussed as follows:

3.1.5.1 Tree 12 - Syzygium paniculata (Magenta Lilly Pilly)

Property No. 8 Yallambee Road, contains a significant tree, identified as Syzygium paniculata (Magenta Lilly Pilly). This Tree is identified as Tree No. 12 on the Tree Site Plan prepared by Council.

The original application included the construction of a granny flat within close proximity of this tree. The amended application involves the deletion of the granny flat. The proposed dwelling-house would be located approximately 7 metres from the tree and outside the 4.2 metre tree protection zone.

The stormwater plan indicates that a pipe would result in a 3% incursion into the TPZ of Tree 12. This is a minor incursion as prescribed in Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 – “Protection of Trees on Development Sites” and would not impact on the health of the tree providing works involve hand excavation and other sensitive construction techniques under the supervision of a project arborist.

Notwithstanding, for abundant caution a condition is recommended for the storm water plan to be amended to ensure pipework and pits are located outside the TPZ of Tree 12.

Subject to conditions for tree protection measures recommended in Schedule 1 of this report, the development would not have a significant impact on the Syzygium paniculata (Magenta Lilly Pilly) and is acceptable.

3.1.5.2 Tree 13 - Liquidamber styraciflua (Liquidamber)

Tree No. 13 is a Liquidamber styraciflua (Liquidamber) located within the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road. This tree is an exotic species and is an exempt species in the HDCP.

Submissions raise concerns that construction works would adversely impact on the health of this tree.

Council’s assessment notes that excavation works for the dwelling would encroach up to 6.71% into the TPZ for the Liquidamber. This is a minor incursion according to AS4970-2009 and the amount of potential root loss would not have a detrimental effect on long term tree health and management.

The proposal indicates a stormwater tank on a concrete pad with overflow to link into the stormwater pipe network which transects the TPZ of the Liquidamber. A condition is recommended for the stormwater plan to be amended to relocate the water tank to the southern side of the dwelling and for pipework along the northern side of the dwelling to be placed adjacent to the dwelling no less than 1.5m from the northern side boundary. The amendments to the stormwater design would minimise impacts to the trees at No. 8 Yallambee Road.

The Liquidamber is a resilient species in relation to impacts resulting from development and there are numerous examples where these trees have been successfully retained where minor incursion have occurred and appropriate tree protection measures and management has been applied in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 – “Protection of Trees on Development Sites”.

3.1.5.3 Tree Nos. 15 - 20 (various species)

These are small trees located within No. 8 Yallambee Road adjacent to the boundary fence with No. 10 Yallambee and comprise:

· Camellia sassanqua (shrub) – Tree 15 and 19

· Euonymus sp. – Tree 16

· Michellia figo (shrub) – Tree 17

· Fraxinus griffithii – Tree 18

· Photinia glabra (shrub) – Tree 20

These trees and shrubs have not been identified as significant and are exempt species under the HDCP.

The building footprint and the associated excavation would not result in an incursion to the TPZ of Tree Nos 15-20. However, the storm water plan includes a pit and stormwater pipe along the northern side boundary which would traverse the TPZ of these trees. Further, the rainwater tank is positioned outside the TPZ of these trees. A condition is recommended for the stormwater plan to be amended to ensure pits and pipes are located adjacent to the northern wall of the dwelling and at least 1.5 metres from the northern side boundary. This condition ensures that there stormwater infrastructure would not encroach upon the TPZ of these trees.

The tree canopies of tree Nos. 15-20 overhang the common boundary between No. 10 and 8 Yallambee Road and would require pruning to facilitate the development. Council’s tree assessment notes that the pruning is unlikely to affect the life expectancy of the trees providing the pruning is completed by a project arborist and in accordance with AS4790.

Objections have been raised from the owner of No. 8 Yallambee Road regarding the pruning of these trees. These trees are exempt under the HDCP and accordingly, consent for pruning of the trees is a civil matter between the property owners.

Council’s tree assessment concludes that the proposed development would not have any significant impact on the trees identified subject to conditions for tree protection measures.

3.1.6 Stormwater Management

A concept stormwater drainage plan prepared by a hydraulic engineer was submitted with the proposal. Stormwater from the development is proposed to drain to an on-site absorption system at the rear of the site.

Submissions raise concerns in regard to the rock soil profile and the ability of the drainage system to cope with anticipated stormwater flows. It is recognised that the site experiences a very low absorption rate due to the evidence of rock over the site. Onsite stormwater systems are intended to maintain predevelopment stormwater flow patterns and flow rates, by collecting the runoff from developed impervious areas and detain this water in stormwater trenches for the same period of time that it would have taken to stop absorbing water prior to development. Council’s engineering assessment and site inspection of the trench location, concludes that the proposed design would satisfy Council requirements. A condition is recommended for the final stormwater design to be prepared by a Hydraulic Engineer to cater for an average recurrence interval (ARI) of 20 years.

Submissions raise concern that the location of pipes, pits and the rainwater tank on the northern side of the dwelling may adversely impact on the health of trees located on the adjoining property, No. 8 Yallambee Road. Council’s tree and engineering assessments conclude that this matter can be addressed by amending the location of pits, pipes and the water tank to minimise the impacts on trees. A condition is recommended for the stormwater plan to be amended to include water tanks on the southern side of the dwelling and for pipes / pits required on the northern side of the dwelling to be sited at least 1.5 metres from the side boundary. The amended stormwater plan is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The stormwater pipes will transect the TPZs of trees 6, 7, 7a and 13. Where stormwater pipes or other services transect TPZs of trees to be retained, conditions are recommended for sensitive construction techniques to be completed in the presence of a project arborist. Subject to amendments to stormwater infrastructure and conditions for tree protection during construction, the stormwater drainage system for the site would not have an unacceptable environmental impact.

The proposed method of stormwater disposal is consistent with the HDCP and is commonplace for dwelling proposals in Hornsby.

3.2 Built Environment

The site is a single vacant lot of land zoned for residential purposes. The proposed development is generally consistent with Council’s controls with respect to height, bulk and scale, setbacks from the street and adjoining properties. The proposal provides for sufficient car parking, open space and landscaped areas. The proposed is compatible with the established low density residential area.

3.3 Social Impacts

The proposal would have a positive social impact by contributing to the housing needs of the population.

3.4 Economic Impacts

The proposal would have a positive economic impact as it would provide a single residential occupancy which would generate a marginal 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 site is a vacant allotment zoned for residential purposes within an existing urban area. The site is not identified as bushfire prone or flood prone land. The site’s attributes are conducive to the proposed development and the proposal is compatible with the established residential environment.

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 original application was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 19 May 2016 and 2 June 2016 in accordance with the requirements of the HDCP. During and following the notification period, one submission was received from an adjoining property objecting to the development. Following the notification period a number of submissions were received throughout the assessment process. Between 2 June 2016 and 14 February 2017, nineteen submissions were received objecting to the development from three parties. These submissions include one from the Hornsby Conservation Society, with the remainder from an adjoining property owner.

The amended proposal, deleting the proposed secondary dwelling (granny flat), was notified to adjoining properties between 14 February 2016 and 2 March 2016. The amended application was subsequently re-notified between 4 April and 20 April. Throughout this period eighteen submissions were received from nine parties objecting to the development. These include submissions from the Hornsby Conservation Society, Galston Residents Association, the Residents’ Infrastructure and Planning Alliance, an adjoining property owner and other Hornsby Shire residents. Fifteen submissions were received in support of the application.

The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are in close proximity to the development site.

NOTIFICATION PLAN
• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED	X SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED	PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT
16 SUBMISSIONS FROM 8 OBJECTORS AND 14 SUPPORTERS LOCATED OUT OF MAP RANGE

The submissions received in support of the application raise the following matters:

· The owners have purchased a block of land zoned for residential purposes under the belief they would be able to construct a dwelling house on the property;

· The dwelling has been designed to comply with the requirements of the Hornsby Development Control Plan and therefore should be approved;

· The construction of a dwelling on this site is consistent with the established residential area and would not have a negative impact on the local community;

· The applicant has made substantial amendments to the development since lodgement to minimise the environmental impacts of the development;

· There are no concerns from down-hill property owners about stormwater runoff from the development; and

· The owners of the property are active members of the Berowra Community.

Since the application was lodged in May 2016. A total of thirty eight objections have been received, with twenty eight being from one adjoining property owner. The submissions object to the development, generally on the grounds that the development would result in:

· Unacceptable impacts on significant trees on site and adjoining properties;

· Unacceptable impacts on the streetscape due to inadequate front boundary setbacks;

· Privacy implications for adjoining residents due to placement of windows and inadequate measures to mitigate this impact;

· Stormwater runoff issues for adjoining and down-hill properties, as the method of stormwater disposal is not suitable for the rock soil type on the site;

· Unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the area due to the removal of trees from the site;

· Damage to adjoining properties, including damage to existing dividing fences, the adjoining dwellings and trees; and

· Airborne pollution to adjoining properties.

The submissions also raise the following matters:

· An application for a dwelling-house should not be assessed until the responsible parties are prosecuted for unauthorised clearing of significant vegetation on the site;

· The application does not satisfy Section 5A of the EP&A Act, which relates to ‘Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats’;

· The application does not comply with the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act);

· A Clause 4.6 variation was not submitted to support a proposed variation to Clause 5.9 (Trees and Vegetation) and 6.2 (Earthworks) of the HLEP;

· The proposal does not comply with Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Schedule 1 Form, documents to accompany a development application;

· The Statement of Environmental Effects is invalid as it has not been prepared by a registered business with an ABN;

· The Statement of Environmental Effects was prepared by an ex-employee of Hornsby Council;

· The architectural plans prepared by Allcastle Homes are unsigned and the liability panels have not been completed;

· The Arboricultural Impact Statement prepared is insufficient;

· The Tree Protection Plan submitted as part of the amended plans lodged on 14 February 2017 has not been prepared by a qualified arborist;

· An amended BASIX Certificate was received after the notification period ended which did not afford the community opportunity to review and provide comment on this;

· The submissions raise the question of who would be legally liable in the event that construction works result in damage to existing trees, dwelling and fence within No. 8 Yallambee Road;

· The amended plans lodged on 14 February 2017 were not adequately notified as no yellow sign was erected in front of the property and an advertisement was not placed in the local paper;

· There are more than 20 breaches of AS4970-2009 and the works would risk the stability and health of trees on the northern adjoining property;

· The proposal does not provide for adequate protection of the threatened species, being 3 x Syzgium paniculata (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located on adjoining properties;

· The proposal does not comply with Hornsby Council’s Tree Preservation Order which prevents excavation or change in level within 3 metres of a tree;

· Council should not permit the Eucalyptus sieberi (Silvertop Ash) trees (identified as trees 6, 7 and 7A) to be removed from the site;

· Council should not permit the removal of the Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum (identified as tree 5) to be removed from the site;

· The landscape plans shows the retention of only T6 and 7 on the site, however Council should ensure the protection of T5, 6, 7 and 7a;

· Tree 3, identified as Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak), is a protected species and has recently been removed;

· Tree 21, identified as Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak) and has recently been removed from No. 12 Yallambee Road;

· The pruning of trees located within No. 8 Yallambee Road which overhang the boundary into No. 10 Yallambee Road should not be permitted without the consent of the owner of No. 8 Yallambee Road;

· Trees have not been correctly plotted and are missing from the site plan;

· Details of services have not been provided in accordance with AS4790 and are needed to assess tree impacts;

· The use of ‘slab on ground’ instead of ‘pier and beam’ construction would adversely impact on trees and would be unsuitable for the sandstone ridgetop landform;

· No excavation, cut and fill, or change in soil height should be permitted within 3 metres of the boundary with No. 8 Yallambee Road or the full length of the boundary;

· A geotechnical report was not submitted with the application addressing construction issues associated with the sandstone ridgetop landform;

· A dilapidation report should be prepared to assess the condition of adjoining properties;

· Details of any proposed retaining walls along the northern side boundary have not been indicated on plans;

· The plantings indicated on the landscape plan include canopy trees located close to the northern boundary and may impact on existing fence, trees and dwelling within No. 8 Yallambee Road;

· Excavation to a depth of 300mm across the front yard has implications to the dwelling house and the vehicular access to the site;

· Fill adjacent to the dividing fence of No. 8 Yallambee Road will impact on the structural integrity of the fence;

· The 300mm high lattice proposed to be affixed to the top of the fence would impact on the structural integrity of the fence;

· The path along the southern side boundary allows for vehicular access to the rear of the site and should not be permitted as it may impact on significant trees;

· The builder’s waste bin and portable WC for use during construction should not be erected near the northern side boundary adjoining No. 8 Yallambee Road due to amenity impacts;

· The air-conditioning unit is located too close to the dwelling at No. 8 Yallambee Road and should be relocated to the southern side to minimise amenity impacts;

· The survey plan is incorrect as the position of the southern side boundary differs to a survey plan prepared for the owners of No. 12 Yallambee Road;

· The survey plan is incorrect as it does not depict the size of the dwelling at No. 12 Yallambee Road following recent additions;

· The development may impact on the above ground pool located within the rear yard of No. 12 Yallambee Road;

· A dividing fence between No. 10 and 12 Yallambee Road that has recently been erected has not been correctly positioned on the boundary and is not depicted on the plans provided;

· The development is not in the public interest as it would have an unreasonable impact on significant vegetation on the site and adjoining properties; and

· The site’s attributes are unsuitable for the proposed development.

The merits of the matters raised in the community submissions have been addressed in the body of this report and as follows:

5.1.1 Prosecution for Unauthorised Tree Removal

5.1.2 Section 5A of the EP&A Act

Council’s assessment concludes that the proposal satisfies Section 5A of the EP&A Act. Refer to discussion in Section 2.7 and 2.9.9 of this report.

5.1.3 Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The Syzgium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act. The submissions comment that 2 x syzgium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located at No. 8 Yallambee Road and one on No. 12 Yallambee Road should be afforded the highest level of protection during construction.

Council’s tree assessment concludes that the trees would not be impacted by the proposal subject to conditions for tree protection. Further, the arborist report submitted by the objector prepared by Apex Tree and Garden Experts dated 23/01/2017 does not identify any adverse impacts to these trees as a result of the development.

Council’s assessment concludes that the proposal would not adversely impact the Syzgium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located on adjoining properties and is acceptable with respect to the EPBC Act. Refer to further discussion in Section 2.9.8 of this report.

5.1.4 Clause 4.6 Variation not provided

A submission stated that the application is inadequate as a Clause 4.6 variation was not submitted to support a proposed variation to Clause 5.9 (Trees and Vegetation) and 6.2 (Earthworks) of the HLEP.

Clause 5.9 and clause 6.2 are not development standards for the purpose of Clause 4.6. Accordingly, a statement requesting a Clause 4.6 variation is not required. Council’s assessment concludes that the proposal satisfies Clause 5.9 (Trees and Vegetation) and 6.2 (Earthworks) of the HLEP.

5.1.5 SEE does not satisfy EP&A Regulation

A submission states that the SEE submitted as part of the application was not prepared on company letterhead with an ABN and was not signed, therefore does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 1 of the EP&A Regulation.

There is no requirement in the Schedule 1, part 2 of the Regulation for an SEE to be prepared on a company letterhead and include the ABN or be signed.

The SEE submitted with the application was prepared by a town planning consultant and provides sufficient detail to enable Council to properly assess the application. The SEE satisfies the requirements of Schedule 1 of the EP&A Regulation and is acceptable.

5.1.6 SEE insufficient and details are inaccurate

A submission comments that the SEE submitted with the application does not adequately address relevant legislation. The SEE submitted with the application addresses the likely impacts of the development and provides sufficient information to be accepted as documentation in support of the application. The SEE and plans provide Council with sufficient detail to make an informed assessment of the proposal.

A submission further comments that maximum building height as stated in the SEE is 9.5 metres, instead of 8.5m which applies under the HLEP.

The error in the SEE relating to maximum permissible height of the development is not considered significant given that the architectural plans clearly demonstrate compliance with the maximum 8.5 metre development standard that applies. The minor error in the SEE has no impact on the suitability of the development for the site.

5.1.7 SEE prepared by former employee of Council

A submission suggests that Council should not accept the SEE as it has been prepared by a former employee of Hornsby Council.

In accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct, the onus is on the assessing officer to identify a conflict of interest and take appropriate action to manage the conflict in favour of public duties. The primary assessing officer for this application has not worked with the town planning consultant who has not worked at Hornsby Council for over 10 years.

5.1.8 Inadequate Documentation – Architectural Plans

A submission raises concerns that plans prepared by Allcastle Homes are unsigned and consequently should not be accepted as valid documents.

There is no requirement for plans and associated documentation to be signed. As long as the plans and documentation provide sufficient detail to enable the Council to make an informed assessment they can be accepted.

The plans provide sufficient detail to enable Council to make an informed assessment of the application. The documents submitted as part of the application satisfy the minimum requirements as set out in Schedule 1 of the EP&A Regulation.

5.1.9 Inadequate Documentation – Arboricultural Impact Appraisal

Submissions raise concern that the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal (AIA) submitted with the application is insufficient and does not demonstrate that the development complies with AS4790-2009. The submissions also note that the consultant arborist did not obtain access to the rear of No. 8 Yallambee Road to measure the diameters of trees and therefore, the details in the report cannot be accepted as accurate.

Council’s qualified arborist has completed an independent assessment of the application and the impact on trees on the site. This assessment included an inspection of trees in the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road in December 2016 where measurements of the tree diameters at breast height were completed in the presence of the owner of No. 8 Yallambee Road.

Council has relied on the assessment of its own qualified arborist in determining the acceptability of the proposal.

5.1.10 Inadequate Documentation – Tree Protection Plan

Submissions raise concerns that the tree protection plan submitted with the amended application on 14 February 2017 is insufficient and has not been prepared by a qualified arborist.

Following receipt of the applicant’s tree protection plan, Council’s arborist completed a thorough assessment and has prepared a new tree protection plan which demonstrates the extent of any tree protection zones and the location of any required tree protection fencing. Council has therefore relied on its own assessment and associated documentation to determine the acceptability of the proposal.

5.1.11 Inadequate Documentation – Tree Plotting

A submission raises concern that trees have not been correctly plotted and trees on site and adjoining properties are missing from the site plan.

The site plan for the amended proposal submitted on 14 February 2017 includes trees presently located on the property and excludes any trees that have previously been removed. Council’s qualified arborist has completed inspections of the site and has assessed the impact that the development would have on trees located on the site and adjoining properties.

It is acceptable that trees are excluded from plans where they are located well beyond the development site and Council’s arborist considers would not be impacted by the proposal. Conditions of consent recommended for tree protection would ensure that trees identified for retention are not adversely impacted by the development.

5.1.12 Non-compliance with AS4790 – Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development sites

A submission raises concern that the development would result in an excess of 20 breaches of AS4790. Concern is raised that the development would result in large incursions into the tree protection zones of trees to be retained.

Council’s qualified Arborist has completed a detailed assessment of the impact of the development on trees, which concludes that the proposal can achieve compliance with AS4790 subject to appropriate conditions of consent. Council’s tree assessment is discussed in Section 3.1 of this report.

5.1.13 Pruning of Trees overhanding northern side boundary

The pruning of tree Nos. 15-20 which overhang the boundary is addressed in Section 3.1.5.3 of this report.

5.1.14 Details of Services - Impacts on Trees

A submission notes that the application has not provided details of the services to the dwelling, which is required under Australian Standard AS4970-2009.

Water, power and gas are not commonly detailed on plans at DA stage. These details are subject to approval by the Service Authorities following approval of the development application.

Conditions are recommended to ensure any excavation works for services within the tree protection zones of trees be undertaken using sensitive construction techniques in the presence of a project arborist.

5.1.15 Tree Preservation Order

A submission raises that the proposal does not comply with Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) requiring no cut and fill within 3 metres of any tree to be retained.

The TPO was superseded upon commencement of the HLEP and HDCP on 11 October 2013. However, the 3 metre control under the superseded TPO was not a strict requirement but rather a recommendation to ensure minimal impact on trees to be retained. The HLEP and HDCP currently requires consideration of the tree size and the associated extent of the tree protection zone, which enables a more detailed and relevant assessment of the trees on site and potential impacts.

5.1.16 Path along northern side boundary

Refer to discussion in Section 2.8.11 of this report.

5.1.17 Planting of canopy trees too close to northern side boundary

Refer to discussion in Section 2.7.11 of this report.

5.1.18 Land fill and retaining walls adjacent to northern side boundary fence

A submission raises concerns that insufficient details have been provided in the landscape plan, with no details provided of retaining walls or fill near the northern side boundary.

The amended application has been designed to minimise earthworks along the northern side boundary and does not include retaining walls along this boundary. A drop edge beam has been incorporated into the dwelling design to avoid the need for retaining walls or extensive landform modification beyond the perimeter of the building footprint.

5.1.19 Excavation within front yard

A submission raises concerns that the landscape plan shows 300mm cut across the front yard of the site to the front boundary. The submission comments that this arrangement may present issues for vehicular access, the dwelling height, excavation required within the road reserve and impact on trees within the front yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road.

The excavation within the front yard is demonstrated in the landscape plan and fence elevation details. The excavation is minor and would achieve a level area for the establishment of lawn. The excavation would have no impact on the approved dwelling height and would not present difficulties for vehicular access. Given the front portion of the site is relatively flat, there would not be difficultly in constructing the driveway to satisfy the grade requirements of AS2890.1.

Earthworks within the road reserve are required for the construction of the vehicular crossing. This will be subject to a separate Vehicular Crossing application to Council. The proposal would not involve any extensive earthworks that would detrimentally impact upon the public domain.

To ensure the protection of trees within the front yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road, a condition is recommended for any earth works within the TPZ of the trees to be retained to be undertaken under the supervision of a project arborist.

5.1.20 The Syzygium paniculala (Magenta Lilly Pilly) in the front yard of No. 8 Yallambee has not been considered

A community submission comments that a Syzygium paniculala (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located within the front yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road has not been addressed in the AIA originally submitted as part of the application or in Council’s tree assessment.

This tree is approximately 8 metres in height and is located within a few metres of the existing dwelling at No. 8 Yallambee Road. The tree is located 1 metre from the southern side boundary and has a TPZ of 2 metres. No works are proposed within the TPZ of this tree apart from the planting of shrubs. The proposed dwelling is located approximately 10 metres from this tree and the proposed driveway would be located approximately 6 metres from this tree.

Conditions are recommended for works within the TPZs of trees to be retained to be supervised by a project arborist. Subject to conditions, the proposal would not adversely impact on this tree.

5.1.21 The Syzygium paniculala (Magenta Lilly Pilly) within No. 12 Yallambee has not been considered

A submission comments that a Syzygium paniculala (Magenta Lilly Pilly) located within No. 12 Yallambee Road has not been addressed in the AIA originally submitted as part of the application or in Council’s Tree assessment.

This tree has been removed from the site. This matter has been referred to Council’s solicitor for further action.

5.1.22 Recent removal of 2 x Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak) - Tree 3 and 21

A submission raises concern that Tree 3 and tree 21, identified as Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak) have recently been removed. This tree is a protected species under the HDCP.

The plans submitted as part of this application indicate that tree 3 was located within No. 10 Yallambee Road adjacent to the southern boundary adjoining No. 12 Yallambee Road. Tree No. 21 was located within No. 12 Yallambee Road. This matter has been referred to Council’s solicitor for further action.

5.1.23 Retention of trees on the site

A submission raises concern that the landscape plan indicates the retention of Trees 6 and 7. However, the plan does not indicate the retention of Trees 5 and 7a.

Trees 6, 7 and 7a, which are Eucalyptus sieberi (Silvertop Ash) trees and have been identified as significant in Council’s tree assessment and are required to be retained. The base of the tree trunks of Tree 7 and 7a are joined and have been listed as a single tree on the landscape plan.

Tree 5 is identified as a Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) and has not been identified as significant, however it is a protected species under the HDCP. This tree is located to the rear of the proposed dwelling and would be impacted by the development. Council’s tree assessment concludes the removal of this tree is acceptable to facilitate the construction of a dwelling on the site and conditions for replacement planting are recommended.

Refer to Section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of this report for further discussion.

5.1.24 Height of Liquidambar (Tree 13) Inaccurate in AIA

A submission comments that the height of the Liquidamber as documented in the AIA submitted with the application is inaccurate.

The AIA has not been relied upon for the purpose of Council’s assessment. In Council’s tree assessment the DBH was measured which determines the extent of the TPZ. These details are sufficient to enable Council to assess the impacts of development.

5.1.25 Species of Replacement Planting

A submission comments that ten locally native replacement trees should be planted to compensate for the trees removed under this consent and trees previously removed from the site. The submitter suggests the planting of Allocasuarina littoralis (Black she-Oak) as these trees were previously established on the property.

A condition is recommended for planting of a minimum 6 trees on the property comprising locally native species, including 2 x Allocasuarina littoralis (Black she-Oak).

5.1.26 Privacy

Refer to discussion in Section 2.8.3 of this report.

5.1.27 Amenity

A submission raises concern that the removal of trees to facilitate the development would adversely impact on the landscape amenity of the area.

Four trees would be removed as part of the development and a condition is recommended for re-planting of six trees on the site. The establishment of the replacement planting would achieve a landscape setting.

5.1.28 Construction on Sandstone Ridgetop Landform – Geotechnical Report Required

Refer to discussion in Section 2.9.7 of this report.

5.1.29 Damage to adjoining properties during construction - Dilapidation Report

A submission raises concern that the construction works may damage the existing side boundary fence and dwelling at No. 8 Yallambee Road.

The proposed development is adequately setback from boundaries and the structural condition of adjoining properties is unlikely to be impacted by construction works given that minimal excavation is involved. Notwithstanding, to address the objector’s concern, a condition for a dilapidation report is recommended to assess the structural condition of No. 8 Yallambee Road prior to construction works commencing.

5.1.30 Legal Liability for damage to neighbours trees, fence and dwelling

An objector queries who will be legally liable if the development results in damage to the neighbour’s trees, fence and dwelling.

Providing the recommended conditions of consent are complied with during construction, it is unlikely that damage to adjoining properties will occur. Should damage occur, rectification works would be a civil matter between the parties.

5.1.31 Airborne Pollution

Refer to Section 2.9.10 of this report.

5.1.32 Amended proposal not adequately Notified

Refer to discussion in Section 2.9.12 of this report.

5.1.33 BASIX Certificate

A submission raises concern that the BASIX Certificate was submitted after the notification period had completed in March 2017.

At the lodgement of the original application, a BASIX certificate was provided that applied to the proposal for a dwelling-house and granny flat. Amended plans were submitted to Council on 14 February 2017 involving the deletion of the granny flat and proposing a dwelling-house only. During Council’s assessment of the amended plans, it was noted that a new BASIX Certificate had not been prepared that relates to the amended proposal. This was requested from the applicant and subsequently submitted to Council.

A BASIX certificate is a supporting document and does not result in any change to the built form and design of the proposal. The provision of the BASIX Certificate for the development satisfies the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 and is acceptable. The amended certificate was available to be viewed during the re-notification period for the amended plans.

5.1.34 BASIX Certificate incorrect

A submission comments that the BASIX Certificate is inaccurate as it states there are five bedrooms within the dwelling, however the plans and SEE indicate there are just four bedrooms. The proposal is for the construction of a dwelling house with four bedrooms and a study. A study is commonly assessed as a bedroom for the purpose of a BASIX Assessment. The submission of a BASIX Certificate satisfies the obligations under the SEPP for approval of the development application. The Certifying Authority will be responsible for ensuring the BASIX commitments pertaining to the development are satisfied.

5.1.35 Inaccuracies on site plan

A submission notes that the plans do not adequately reflected the size of the dwelling on the adjoining property, No. 12 Yallambee Road. The submission states that the dwelling on site is much larger than depicted on the plans.

The submitted plans prepared include the size of the dwelling at No. 12 Yallambee Road prior to recent additions to this dwelling being completed. Although the dwelling at No. 12 may be larger than depicted on the plan, this matter has no impact on the suitability of the site for residential development and therefore, requests for amendments are not necessary. Furthermore, as part of Council officers’ site inspection of the development site, the impacts of the proposal on adjacent development was considered.

A building certificate has recently been issued by Council for the additions to the rear of the dwelling at No. 12 Yallambee Road.

5.1.36 Dividing Fence on Southern boundary

A submission raises concern that a new dividing fence between No. 10 and 12 Yallambee Road has not been correctly positioned on the boundary and has not been depicted on the plans submitted to Council.

This is a civil matter under the Dividing Fences Act 1991. The fence is not within the proposed dwelling footprint and the fence location has no impact on the suitability of the site for development.

5.1.37 Builder’s Waste Bin, WC and Stockpile

A submission raises concern that the location of the construction waste bin, portable WC and stockpile near the northern side boundary would have amenity impacts on the occupants of No. 8 Yallambee Road and potentially impact on trees. The submission suggests relocating these facilities to the southern side of the property.

A condition is recommended for the waste bin, portable WC and stockpile to be located on the southern side of the site to address this concern.

5.1.38 Air Conditioning Unit

A submission raises concern that the location of the air conditioning near the northern side boundary would have amenity noise and amenity impacts on the occupants of No. 8 Yallambee Road. A condition is recommended for a certificate to be obtained from an appropriately qualified consultant confirming that noise omitted from the unit would not exceed 5dBA above background noise levels. Furthermore, to address the objectors concern, a condition is recommended for the air conditioning unit to be located on the southern side of the dwelling.

5.2 Public Agencies

The development application was not required to be 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. The proposal would involve the construction of a new dwelling-house on an existing vacant residential allotment and would contribute to the housing needs of the Hornsby population. Accordingly, it is considered that the approval of the proposed development would be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application proposes the erection of a two storey dwelling-house. The site is a vacant allotment zoned for residential purposes.

The development generally meets the desired outcomes of Council’s planning controls and is satisfactory having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council received thirty eight submissions during the public notification period from nine objectors. Fifteen submissions were received in support of the application. The matters raised have been addressed in the body of the report.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, 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.

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessment

Planning Division

Attachments:

1.View	Locality Plan
2.View	Site Plan
3.View	Landscape Plan
4.View	Floor Plan
5.View	Elevations
6.View	Shadow Plans

File Reference: DA/560/2016

Document Number: D07172049

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.*	*Rev.*	*Drawn by*	*Dated*
Sheet 01	Site Plan	F	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
Sheet 02	Ground Floor Plan	F	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
Sheet 03	First Floor Plan	F	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
Sheet 04	Elevations	F	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
Sheet 05	Elevation / Section	F	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
Sheet 07	Site Analysis	JB	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
Sheet 08	Sediment Control Plan	JB	Allcastle Homes	30/01/2017
L/01	Landscape Plan	D	A Total Concept	3/02/2017
D1-D4	Stormwater Management Plan	C	Eze Hydraulic Engineers	07/02/2017

*Document Title*	*Prepared by*	*Dated*
BASIX Certificate No. 802687S	Efficient Living	07/03/2017
DA/560/2016 – Tree Location and Protection Zone Plan	Hornsby Shire Council	26/02/2017
Tree Assessment Sheet 1	Hornsby Shire Council	20/12/2016

2. Appointment of a Project Arborist

a) A project arborist with AQF Level 5 qualifications must be appointed to provide monitoring and certification throughout the construction period.

b) Details of the appointed project arborist must be submitted to Council and the PCA for registration with the application for the construction certificate.

3. Removal of Trees

a) This development consent permits the removal of trees numbered 1, 2, 4 and 5 as identified in the Tree Location and Protection Zone Plan provided by Council’s Tree Management Team dated 26/02/2017.

b) No consent is granted for the removal of trees numbered 6, 7, 7a and 9.

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

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

5. 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 2014-2024, $5,445.65 must be paid to Council to cater for the increased demand for community infrastructure resulting from the development, based on development costs of $544,565.00

b) The value of this contribution is current as at 13 March 2017. If this contribution is not paid within the financial quarter that this condition was generated, the contribution payable will be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan and the amount payable will be calculated at the time of payment in the following manner:

$CPY = $CDC x CPIPY

CPIDC

Where:

$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.

6. Screening on Fence Not Approved

The proposed 300mm lattice screening on top of the existing dividing fence along the northern boundary is not approved as part of this consent.

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. Sydney Water – Approval

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

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

11. Stormwater Drainage

a) The stormwater drainage system for the development must be designed for an average recurrence interval (ARI) of 20 years and be gravity drained. The stormwater drainage system must be designed by a qualified hydraulic engineer.

b) To ensure tree protection, the Hydraulic Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Eze Hydraulic Engineers dated 07/02/2017 is to be amended as follows:

i) The rainwater tank is to be relocated to the southern side of the dwelling-house.

ii) The stormwater pits and pipes along the northern side of the dwelling should be located adjacent to the northern wall of the dwelling, no less than 1.5 metres from the northern property boundary.

iii) The stormwater pipe is to be located outside the TPZ of tree No. 12 (syzygium paniculatum (Magental Lilly Pilly) located within the rear yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road.

c) The amended stormwater plan is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

12. Internal Driveway/Vehicular Areas

The driveway and parking areas on site must be designed, constructed and a Construction Certificate issued in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.1, 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 grade must not exceed 25 percent and changes in grade must not exceed 8 percent.

13. 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.

14. Dilapidation Report

A ‘Dilapidation Report’ is to be prepared by a ‘chartered structural engineer’ detailing the structural condition of the dwelling at No. 8 Yallambee Road, Berowra and shall be included with the application for a Construction Certificate.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Building Materials and Site Waste

19. Location of Waste Bin, WC and Stockpile

The Builders Waste Bin, WC and stockpile must not be located adjacent to the northern boundary as indicated on the approved plans. These facilities are to be located between the southern side boundary and the approved driveway location at the front of the site.

20. 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.

21. Installation of Tree Protection

a) Tree protection fencing shall be installed as indicated on the Tree Location and Protection Zone Plan dated 26/02/2017 (as amended and shown clouded).

b) Fencing shall be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 - “Protection of Trees on Development Sites”.

c) Fencing shall be maintained for the duration of the construction works.

d) A certificate from the appointed project arborist must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming compliance with the tree protection fencing requirements of this consent.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

22. 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.

23. 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 measure to prevent sediment run-off, excessive dust, noise or odour emanating from the site during the construction of the development.

24. 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.

25. Disturbance of Existing Site

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

26. Survey Report

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; and

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

27. Works Near Trees

No consent is granted for any works, including profile cutting and excavation, within the Tree Protection Fencing zone as shown on the Tree Location and Protection Zone plan dated 26/02/2017 (as amended and shown clouded).

28. Works within Tree Protection Zones

a) The project arborist must be on-site to monitor all works within the tree protection zones of trees to be retained.

b) Root Pruning

All root pruning must be undertaken in accordance with the relevant requirements of Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 “Protection of Trees on Development Sites” - Sections 3.3.4, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5.

c) Deck Foundation/Footings

To minimise soil compaction within the Tree Protection Zones of trees 6, 7, 7a on the approved plans, the foundations/footings must provide a minimum 100mm clearance above soil and be of sensitive construction techniques such as screw pilings or piers, cantilevered or suspended slab design.

d) Excavation

Any excavations within the Tree Protection Zone of trees 6, 7, 7a, 9, 12, 13 and 15-20 on the approved plans, must be undertaken using sensitive construction techniques as prescribed in the Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 – “Protection of Trees on Development Sites” Section 4.5.5.

e) Changing of Grade

i) Grade changes are permitted within the TPZ of trees numbered 13, 15-20 in the form of decorative pebbles of free draining material.

ii) Earthworks for the front yard and fence near the northern boundary must be supervised by the project arborist to ensure trees located in the front yard of No. 8 Yallambee Road are not adversely impacted.

f) Installing Services

The installation of any underground services within the TPZ of trees 6, 7, 7a, 9, 12, 13 and 15-20 must be monitored by the project arborist.

g) Installation of scaffolding

Where scaffolding is required to be installed within the TPZ of trees to be retained, the installation is to be undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist.

29. Aboriginal Relics

Should any Aboriginal relics be uncovered or disturbed during construction, all works on site are to cease immediately, the site made secure to prevent any further disturbance, and the NSW Office of Environmental and Heritage notified immediately.

30. Works Near Trees Certification

The project arborist must submit to the principal certifying authority and Council a certificate that the works have been carried out in compliance with the approved plans and specifications for tree protection in this consent at the following stages:

a) Completion of excavation for the development;

b) Completion of installation of stormwater and sewer;

c) Installation of any scaffolding; and

d) Any landform modification in the front yard including construction of the front fence.

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:

31. Fulfilment of BASIX Commitments

The applicant must demonstrate the fulfilment of BASIX commitments pertaining to the development as prescribed by BASIX Certificate No. 802687S, prepared by Efficient Living dated 7 March 2017.

32. 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. Rectification works must be undertaken prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, or sooner, as directed by Council.

33. Installation of Air Conditioner

a) The air-conditioning unit is required to be installed on the southern side of the dwelling and not the northern side as indicated on the approved plans.

b) A certificate must be submitted to the PCA by a suitably qualified person confirming that the unit has been tested for heating and cooling on the highest settings and that the noise levels generated do not exceed 5 dB(A) above background noise levels when tested at the property boundary between 8 pm and 10 pm.

34. Retaining Walls

No retaining walls have been approved along the northern side boundary as part of this consent.

35. Installation of Privacy Devices

The fixed frosting glazing to first floor windows as indicated on the approved plans must be installed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

36. Replacement Tree Requirements

a) The trees approved for removal under this consent must be offset through replacement planting of a minimum of 6 trees.

b) All replacement plantings must be species selected from the Council’s Indigenous species listing located in the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013; Tree Preservation Measures 1B.6 Table 1B.6(b) such as Syzygium paniculata, Banksia integrifolia, Ceratopetalum gummifera, Leptospermum petersonii

c) The replacement planting is to comprise no less than 2 x Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak).

d) The location and size of plantings must comply with the following requirements:

i) All replacement trees must be located in front or rear setbacks and planted 4 metres or greater from the foundation walls of the approved development and northern side boundary;

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

iii) All replacement trees must be maintained until they reach the height of 3 metres; and

iv) All replacement trees must have the potential to reach a mature height greater than 9 metre.

37. Final Certification Arborist

The project arborist must submit to the principal certifying authority a certificate confirming all tree replacement requirements have been completed in accordance with approved landscape plans and conditions of consent.

- 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 requires:

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

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

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

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

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

Long Service Levy

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

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

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

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 a 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.

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.

Planning Report No. PL20/17

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/05/2017

7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - SUBDIVISION OF FOUR ALLOTMENTS INTO THREE LOTS - 181 AND 183 BEECROFT ROAD BEECROFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/1341/2016 (Lodged on 31 October 2016)
Description:	Torrens Title subdivision of four allotments into three lots
Property:	Lot 79 DP 9085, Pt Lot 80 DP 9085, Lot 81 DP 9085, Lot 82 DP 9085, Nos. 181 and 183 Beecroft Road, Cheltenham
Applicant:	PS Graham and Associates Pty Ltd
Owners:	Mr P. F. Kevin and Mrs I. B. Kevin
Estimated Value:	Nil

· The application involves Torrens Title subdivision of four allotments into three lots.

· The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 and the Hornsby Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013. The proposal would impact on the setting of the contributory dwelling in the Heritage Conservation Area and would result in a subdivision pattern inconsistent with the locality.

· Three submissions, including a submission from the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust, 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 refused.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/1341/2016 for Torrens Title subdivision and consolidation of four allotments into three lots at Lot 79 DP 9085, Pt Lot 80 DP 9085, Lot 81 DP 9085, Lot 82 DP 9085, Nos. 181 and 183 Beecroft Road, Cheltenham be refused subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL20/17.

BACKGROUND

On 31 October 2016, Development Application No. DA/1341/2016 was lodged for subdivision and consolidation of four allotments into three lots.

On 14 December 2016, Council wrote to the applicant raising concerns with respect to the proposal on heritage grounds. It was suggested to the applicant that proposed Lot 2 be deleted and consideration be given to possible location of an additional allotment along the northern boundary.

On 8 and 16 February 2017, the applicant submitted information with respect to the circular garden and photographs of existing developments along Beecroft Road to address the heritage issues. In addition, the applicant confirmed that a lot which satisfies minimum width requirements would not be able to be provided on the northern side of the existing dwelling house.

On 28 February 2017, the applicant submitted a revised plan of subdivision indicating a common turning area on Lot 3 and a combined entry and exit driveway in accordance with RMS requirements for a driveway which is a minimum of 5.5 metres in width for a minimum distance of 6 metres from the property boundary.

SITE

The site is located on the north eastern intersection of Beecroft Road and Cheltenham Road. The site is irregular in shape and has a frontage of 61.98 metres to Beecroft Road and 61.875 metres to Cheltenham Road.

The site is comprised of four existing allotments with a total area of 4099.74m². The site experiences a moderate grade to Cheltenham Road.

The development site contains a large, single storey Inter War period house set in well-landscaped gardens with a tennis court to the west. The existing dwelling house has been constructed over three lots (Lots 79, 80 and 81 in DP 9085). The dwelling house is in rendered masonry with a hipped and gabled, terracotta tile roof with rendered brick chimneys with brick detailing. There are gables to each side faced in fibro, battens and painted timber shingles. There is a large verandah to the front with a flat, metal roof supported by columns on splayed render bases with brick detailing.

The dwelling house is surrounded by gardens with a curved, gravel drive accessed off Cheltenham Road with stone gate pillars and metal gates. The garden has variety of mature trees including Palms, Deodar and Pepper and stone edged planter beds. The garden has a hedge to the front and side and a high brick wall to front of the tennis court. The dwelling house has paved patios and gardens to the rear.

A portion of the subject site (No. 183 Beecroft Road, Cheltenham) is listed as a heritage item (Item No. 267 - Garden) under the provisions of Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP).

The property is located within the Beecroft/Cheltenham Plateau precinct of the Beecroft/Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), and within the immediate vicinity of heritage listed properties at No. 179 Beecroft Road (Item No. 266 – Former church and grounds), No. 174 Beecroft Road (Item No. 265 – House) and No. 170 Beecroft Road (Item No. 264 – House).

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the Torrens title subdivision of four allotments into three lots. The proposed lots are detailed as follows:

· Lot 1 has an area of 2690m² and contains the existing dwelling house and part of the front, northern side and rear garden. Access to this lot would be gained via the existing gravel driveway fronting Cheltenham Road.

· Lot 2 has an area of 609m²and would be vacant. Access to this lot would be gained via a right of way fronting Beecroft Road.

· Lot 3 has an area of 724m² (excluding the right of way). Proposed lot 3 would contain part of the existing tennis court, which would be required to be removed. Access to this lot would be gained via a right of way fronting Beecroft Road.

Stormwater runoff from proposed Lots 2 and 3 would be drained to Beecroft Road.

The existing circular garden and one tree have been identified for removal to accommodate the vehicle turning area and proposed building footprint on proposed Lot 2.

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney and (Draft) North District Plan

The proposed development would be consistent with ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’ and ‘Draft North District Plan’ by providing allotments for additional dwellings in the locality.

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 R2 Low Density Residential under the HLEP 2013. The objectives of the zone are:

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

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

The proposed development is defined as “subdivision” and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

2.1.2 Minimum Lot Size

Clause 4.1 of the HLEP provides that the subdivision lot size should not be less than the minimum area shown for the land on the Lot Size Map. The minimum lot size for the subject site is 600m², excluding the access handle. The proposed lots have areas of 609m², 724m² and 2690m² and would comply with the minimum lot size requirement of the HLEP.

2.1.3 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the HLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire. A portion of the subject site (No. 183 Beecroft Road, Cheltenham) is listed as a heritage item (Item No. 267 - Garden) under the provisions of Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP). The property is located within the Beecroft/Cheltenham Plateau precinct of the Beecroft/Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), and within the immediate vicinity of heritage listed properties at No. 179 Beecroft Road (Item No. 266 – Former church and grounds), No. 174 Beecroft Road (Item No. 265 – House) and No. 170 Beecroft Road (Item No. 264 – House).

The current house was built over three lots of the subdivision of 1918 (DP 9085) that were purchased in 2 parcels (Lots 79 and 80-81) in 1920. It was presumably the intent of the owner to construct a large house over the three lots and this is demonstrated in the siting of the existing dwelling house. Two of the lots front Beecroft Road and the third fronts Cheltenham Road and the house has been sited to face the latter with a large garden surrounding.

The garden at Nos. 181-183 Beecroft Road is historically and aesthetically significant as a good representative example of a large residential garden from the Inter-war periods. It is well maintained and retains many original and early features including two vehicle entrances with fine sandstone gate pillars, wrought iron gates, broad curved brick-edged gravel drive, boarder planting, a circular garden bed, ornamental trees and shrubs.

The garden is a unique landmark corner property retaining its original historic boundaries (combined Lots 79, 80 and 81 of DP 9085) which creates a significant visual setting for the contributory Inter-war period dwelling house. The garden size and layout are representative of the period that are traditionally large to allow for ornamental planting and garden prominence within the property.

The property is a rare example within the ‘Cheltenham’ 1917 subdivision. The house and garden are prime examples of the recognised architectural and landscape characteristics protected under the Beecroft Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area.

Council’s heritage assessment raised concerns on heritage grounds that the development would result in an adverse heritage impact on the heritage listed garden and landscape setting; uncharacteristic changes to the subdivision pattern and interpretation of historical boundaries; and non-compliance with the heritage guidelines for subdivision (Parts 9.2.5 and 9.3.5) of the HDCP.

To address the heritage issues raised by Council, the applicant submitted further information with respect to the circular garden and photographs of existing developments with reduced setbacks to Beecroft Road. The applicant has submitted that the circular garden is not significant as it has been replanted on numerous occasions by the owners over the years and does not contain any special species.

In response to issues raised in submissions and the conflicting heritage opinions between Council and the applicant, the proposal was referred to an independent heritage consultant for assessment. The consultant’s report raises no heritage concerns to the subdivision of the tennis court area (Lot 3) as this aligns with the original subdivision pattern from 1918 and the tennis court was a later purchase and addition to the contributory house site. However, the heritage consultant raises concerns regarding proposed Lot 2 in heritage terms. The proposed subdivision of the garden facing Beecroft Road would remove a section of the original heritage listed garden to the existing contributory dwelling house and would alter the original subdivision pattern of the property. In addition, concern is raised that the proposed development has the potential to have a detrimental visual impact on the setting of the existing contributory house when viewed from Beecroft Road.

Proposed lot 2 would result in the removal of most of the existing garden along the southern side and would allow for only a small garden area in front of a future dwelling with no landscaping to the rear. In addition, proposed Lot 2 is set close to the existing house and a future two storey development would have a detrimental visual impact on the side elevation to the existing house when viewed from Beecroft Road. The applicant has suggested that a condition could be imposed requiring a covenant to restrict the height of any future dwelling on Lot 2 to single storey. However, the applicant has not submitted any indicative building designs and streetscape elevations to demonstrate that a single storey dwelling on proposed Lot 2 would not have an adverse impact on the visual setting of the contributory house and the surrounding Conservation Area.

Pursuant to Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation and Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation of the HLEP, the development would remove part of the characteristic garden that is heritage listed, impact on the setting of the existing house and the surrounding Conservation Area and potentially block views to the existing dwelling house from Beecroft Road. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is not supported on heritage grounds.

2.1.4 Earthworks

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

The earthworks proposed as part of this application are limited to minor earthworks to facilitate the construction of a new driveway fronting Beecroft Road, vehicular turning area and stormwater drainage system. Council’s assessment of the proposed works and excavation concludes that the works are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development.

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land)

The Policy provides guidelines for the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Clause 7 requires Council to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land.

Should the land be contaminated, Council must be satisfied that the land is suitable in a contaminated state for the proposed use. If the land requires remediation to be undertaken to make the land suitable for the proposed use, Council must be satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

A search of Council’s records and aerial photos indicates the site has a history of residential use. Accordingly, it is not likely that the site has experienced any significant contamination and further assessment under SEPP 55 is not required.

2.3 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.

Subject to the installation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater management to protect water quality, the proposal would have minimal potential to impact on the Sydney Harbour Catchment.

2.4 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.

2.5 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 – Part 3.1 Dwelling Houses and Part 6 Subdivision
Control	Proposal		Requirement	Complies
Site Area	4,099m²		N/A	N/A
Lot Area Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3	2690m² 609 m² 724 m² (ex right of accessway)		600m² 600m² 600m²	Yes Yes Yes
Lot Width (building line) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3	64.875m 41.48m 17.5m		15m 15m 15m	Yes Yes Yes
Access-way Design Width	5.5m		5.5m	Yes
Lot 1 – Existing Dwelling
Floor area	436.7m²	430m²		No
Site Coverage	16.2%	30%		Yes
Setbacks
- Front	No change	6m		Yes
- Side (north)	No change	0.9m		Yes
- Side (south)	7.1m	0.9m		Yes
- Rear	10.5m	3m		Yes
Landscaped Area	75.5%	30%		Yes
Private Open Space	>24m²	24m²		Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces	2 spaces		Yes
Lot 2 – Proposed Building Envelope
Building Envelope	200m²	200m²		Yes
Setbacks
- Front (Beecroft Road)	6m	9m		No
- Side (East)	14.2m	0.9m		Yes
- Side (West)	2m	0.9m		Yes
- Rear	1m	5m		No
Landscaped Area	48.9%	30%		Yes
Private Open Space	24m²	24m²		Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces	2 spaces		Yes
Lot 3 – Proposed Building Envelope
Building Envelope	200m²	200m²		Yes
Setbacks
- Front (Beecroft Road)	11.5m	9m		Yes
- Side (East)	1.9m	0.9m		Yes
- Side (West)	2m	0.9m		Yes
- Rear	17m	5m		Yes
Landscaped Area	61.9%	30%		Yes
Private Open Space	24m²	24m²		Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces	2 spaces		Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development does not comply with the prescriptive requirements within the HDCP with regard to the floor area of the existing dwelling and setbacks of the building envelope on Lot 2. The matters of non-compliance are detailed below, as well as a brief discussion on compliance with relevant desired outcomes.

2.5.1 Floor Area

The existing building on proposed Lot 1 would have a floor area, as defined by the HDCP of 436.7m². For a lot size greater than 900m², a maximum dwelling size of 430m² is prescribed in HDCP. The dwelling on Lot 1 would have a floor area of 6.7m² in excessive of the maximum floor area. Whilst the size of the existing dwelling does not comply with the maximum area requirement, it is not considered excessive in regards to the size of the allotment on which it is proposed to be located. In addition, Section 3.11.1 of the HDCP allows 100m² of outbuildings which by definition include enclosed structures such as cabana, garden shed or garage that are detached from the dwelling. Proposed Lot 1 would contain a shed and garage with an area of only 52m² and no other outbuildings.

The non-compliance with floor area does not warrant refusal of the application given that it is an existing dwelling and the proposal complies with the requirements for site coverage, landscaped area, private open space and setbacks for Lot 1.

2.5.2 Lot Size and Shape

Proposed Lot 1 would be an irregular shaped allotment and would accommodate the existing dwelling house. The size of proposed Lot 1 is in excess of the minimum area prescribed in the HLEP. The retention of the dwelling house on Lot 1 would comply with the prescriptive measures in the HDCP for site coverage, private open space and car parking. The existing building setbacks to the eastern and northern boundaries are unaltered. With the proposed adjustment of the western boundary of the tennis court lot, the rear setback of the existing dwelling would be increased by 4.5 metres. However, the existing dwelling house is a contributory item in the Conservation Area and although it fronts Cheltenham Road, its side elevation to Beecroft Road is well detailed and visible from the road and street corner. The proposed subdivision would result in development on proposed Lot 2 that would block views to this side elevation of the existing dwelling house.

Proposed Lot 2 is an irregular shaped allotment which would be vacant. This lot would have frontage to Beecroft Road. The proposal for Lot 2 would remove a section of the original garden that is heritage listed. The size of proposed Lot 2 complies with the minimum lot size prescribed in the HLEP. However, this lot does not comply with the minimum lot design prescriptive measures in the HDCP, as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed lot can accommodate a 200m² indicative building envelope clear of required setbacks to the front and rear boundaries. In addition, the proposal would facilitate a potential future development with a reduced front setback to Beecroft Road that is out of character with the existing site layout and the general subdivision pattern of the area.

Proposed Lot 3 is a regular shaped allotment. This lot is located adjacent to the western boundary of the site and would contain part of the existing tennis court. The existing tennis court is currently situated on an existing lot which fronts Beecroft Road. The proposal involves a boundary adjustment between the tennis court lot and the dwelling house site. Proposed Lot 3 accommodates a 200m²indicative building envelope that would be capable of accommodating a future dwelling house compliant with the prescriptive measures for site coverage, private open space, setbacks, landscaping and parking, as detailed in the above table. The proposed subdivision of the tennis court lot aligns with the original subdivision pattern and is considered acceptable.

2.5.3 Setbacks

The indicative building envelope on proposed Lot 2 does not comply with the front and rear setback requirements of the HDCP. The HDCP provides that a minimum front setback of 9 metres is required for sites located on a main road and a rear setback of 5 metres. The indicative building envelope would have a front setback of 6 metres and a rear setback of 1 metre. The non-compliance is not considered to be a minor variation that can be supported, as the proposal would not provide adequate space for a dwelling house (with a potential maximum floor area of 380m²) to be built with surrounding areas for sufficient landscaping and tree planting. The proposed building envelope location on Lot 2 would not be comparable with the predominant front setbacks to Beecroft Road.

The proposal does not meet the requirements of Section 6.2.1 Setbacks of the HDCP and is not considered acceptable.

2.5.4 Vehicle Access and Parking

Vehicular access to proposed Lot 1 would be gained via the existing driveway fronting Cheltenham Road. Proposed Lots 2 and 3 would gain access via a proposed driveway fronting Beecroft Road. To facilitate the driveway, a portion of the existing brick wall would have to be removed. The proposed accessway includes a common turning area on proposed Lot 3 in accordance with the HDCP accessway design requirements. The HDCP requires a passing bay with a minimum width of 5.5m to be provided. The proposed subdivision plan provides for a combined entry and exit driveway with a width of 5.5 metres.

2.5.5 Heritage

The desired outcomes of Part 9.3.1 General Design Provisions of the HDCP are to encourage development “that complements and is sympathetic to the existing character of the conservation area and the elements that are significant to that character”.

The desired outcomes of Part 9.3.5 Subdivision of the HDCP are to encourage subdivisions “that retains the characteristic subdivision patterns, particularly where the subdivision pattern is closely related to the built patterns in the heritage conservation area” and “that prevents intrusive developments as a result of uncharacteristic changes to the subdivision pattern”.

The prescriptive measures of the Section 9.3.5 heritage Subdivision of the HDCP, require that “new lots should be capable of development that is compatible with the established character of the heritage conservation area, especially in terms of the orientation of buildings and setbacks.”

The Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by applicant’s heritage consultant does not adequately acknowledge the adverse impacts the proposed development would have on the heritage significance of the garden and contributory value of the site to the Heritage Conservation Area.

The heritage listed garden at Nos. 181-183 Beecroft Road is significant due to its size, as well as the plantings. The proposed subdivision would involve the construction of a future dwelling (on Lot 2) with a garage, driveway access, private open space and a boundary fence within the curtilage of the contributory dwelling house. Having regard to aerial photographs of the site, the current garden setting appears largely original, provides a complementary setting to the house and is characteristic of the Heritage Conservation Area. The side elevation of the contributory house to Beecroft Road is well detailed and visible from the road and street corner.

The heritage assessment conducted by the independent heritage consultant concludes that the original pattern of subdivision would be distorted by the development and would impact on the curtilage of the contributory item being set on a very large, well-landscaped site. The subdivision would allow development that is uncharacteristic of the Conservation Area in terms of orientation and setbacks to the street boundary and between buildings (considered together with the potential development on both Lots 2 and 3). The side elevation to Beecroft Road is well detailed and visible from the road and street corner. The subdivision would allow development that will block views to this side elevation.

Therefore, the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Section 9.2 Heritage Items and 9.3 Heritage Conservation Areas of the HDCP and is not considered acceptable.

2.6 Section 94 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Contributions Plan 2014-2024 applies to the development. However, a monetary Section 94 contribution would not be required to be levied as the proposed development would not result in an additional lot.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 Natural Environment

3.1.1 Tree and Vegetation Preservation

The proposed development would require the removal of a tree numbered 35 Fraxinus (Ash), located within the proposed Lot 3 turning area/driveway. There are 6 trees worthy of preservation numbered 1, 3, 19, 20, 21 and 22 located on the site. None of these trees would be impacted by the proposed subdivision.

The heritage listed garden at Nos. 181-183 Beecroft Road is historically and aesthetically significant as a good representative example of a late Federation designed landscape style. It is well maintained and retains many original features including two vehicle entrances with fine sandstone gate pillars, wrought iron gates, broad curved brick-edged gravel drive, border plantings, island garden beds and ornamental trees and shrubs characteristic of the early Inter-war period. The proposal would remove part of the original garden that is heritage listed and would adversely affect the heritage significance of the Conservation Area.

The proposal does not satisfy the requirements under Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation, Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation under HLEP and Part 9 Heritage under HDCP.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

Proposed Lots 2 and 3 would drain to Beecroft Road. Council’s engineering assessment raises no issues with respect to the proposed subdivision subject to the proposed allotments being connected directly to Council’s street drainage system.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The extent of works required as part of the proposed subdivision is limited to civil works including construction of the driveway fronting Beecroft Road to proposed Lots 2 and 3.

3.2.2 Traffic

The increase in traffic generated by the additional dwelling-houses would be minor and would be within the capacity of the road network. On-site carparking would be required to be provided for any future dwelling on Lots 2 and 3.

3.3 Social Impacts

The proposed development would not result in a social impact.

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 proposal would result in the removal of part of the original heritage listed garden. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the capability of the site and is not 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 proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 17 November 2016 and 14 December 2016 in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP. During this period, Council received three submissions, including a submission from the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust in opposition to the development. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who were notified of the application.

NOTIFICATION PLAN
· PROPERTIES NOTIFIED	X SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED	PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT
THREE SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED OUT OF MAP RANGE

Three submissions object to the development, generally on the grounds that the development would result in:

· Unacceptable impact on the Beecroft Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area;

· Future building on the Beecroft Road frontage that would have an adverse visual impact on the prominence of the property;

· Detrimental impact on the visual setting of the existing dwelling and removal of part of the heritage listed garden;

· Insufficient separation between the existing dwelling and future dwelling on Lot 3; and

· Direct access provided to Lots 2 and 3 from Beecroft Road.

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 Roads and Maritime Services

The development application involves works within Beecroft Road and was referred to the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) for concurrence in respect to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. The Roads and Maritime initially reviewed the submitted application and would not provide concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, as the current RMS practice is to limit the number of vehicular conflict points along the arterial road network to maintain network efficiency and road safety. Since the subject site has alternative vehicular access via Cheltenham Road, RMS would not grant concurrence to the proposed access arrangements from Beecroft Road.

The applicant made a submission to the RMS indicating that the property fronting Cheltenham Road is a heritage item and as such no modification to the premises including alterations of the existing access arrangement with sandstone wall and gate would be allowed. Based on the information provided by the applicant, RMS granted access to proposed Lots 2 and 3 from Beecroft Road subject to conditions.

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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

The application does not satisfactorily address Council’s criteria and would not 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 not be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development involves subdivision and consolidation of four allotments into three lots.

The proposal does not comply with Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation and Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation of the HLEP, the development would remove part of the characteristic garden that is heritage listed, impact on the setting of the existing house and the surrounding conservation area and potentially block views to the existing dwelling house from Beecroft Road.

The proposed development does not comply with the setbacks and heritage requirements under HDCP and is not supportable as these non-compliances would result in significant adverse streetscape and amenity impacts.

Accordingly, the proposed development is recommended for refusal subject to the reasons set out at Schedule 1.

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	Subdivision Plan
3.View	Concept Stormwater Plan

File Reference: DA/1341/2016

Document Number: D07185194

SCHEDULE 1

1. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the development does not comply with the following Clauses of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013:

i) Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation, as the proposed development would remove part of the original garden that is heritage listed and would adversely affect the heritage significance of the Conservation Area.

ii) Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation, as the proposed development would remove part of the characteristic heritage listed garden, impact on the setting of the existing house and the surrounding Conservation Area and potentially block views to the contributory house from Beecroft Road.

2. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 as follows:

iii) The proposal is contrary to Section 6.2.1 Setbacks as the proposed development fails to provide adequate front and rear setback for a building envelope on proposed Lot 2.

iv) The proposal is contrary to Section 9.2 Heritage Items in that the development fails to retain features and elements that contribute to the significance of the heritage item.

v) The proposal is contrary to Section 9.3 Heritage Conservation Area as the proposed subdivision would remove a section of the original heritage listed garden to the contributory house and have an unacceptable visual impact on the setting of the existing house and surrounding Conservation Area.

3. The proposed development is unsatisfactory pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it fails to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

4. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the development would not be in the public interest.

- END OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL -

Planning Report No. PL22/17

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/05/2017

8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - SUBDIVISION OF ONE ALLOTMENT INTO THREE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLING HOUSES- 14 - 16 ELABANA CRESCENT, CASTLE HILL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/961/2016 (Lodged on 4 August 2016)
Description:	Torrens Title subdivision of one allotment into three lots and construction of three new dwellings as a staged development
Property:	Lot 2 DP 1040191, No. 14 – 16 Elabana Crescent, Castle Hill
Applicant:	Colin Tan
Owner:	Coltan Homes Pty Ltd
Estimated Value:	$1,100,000

· The application involves the demolition of an existing dwelling, Torrens Title subdivision of one allotment into three lots and construction of three new dwellings, as a staged development.

· The proposal generally complies with the provisions of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) and Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

· Twelve submissions have been received in respect of the application. One submission includes a petition with eighteen signatures of objection.

· 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 Development Application No. DA/961/2016 for demolition of existing structures, Torrens Title subdivision of one allotment into two lots and construction of three new dwellings as a staged development at Lot 2 DP 1040191, Nos.14-16 Elabana Crescent, Castle Hill be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No.PL22/17.

BACKGROUND

The original plans lodged on 4 August 2016, in respect of the proposal, included the Torrens Title subdivision of the site into three lots, construction of three new dwellings and three outbuildings.

On 29 September 2016, Council requested amended plans to delete the outbuildings on each lot, amend the overall design of the dwellings to reduce privacy impacts and driveway to protect significant, native trees on the site.

On 15 March 2017, Council officers attended an on-site meeting with objectors to discuss the remaining concerns with the proposal. The concerns raised by neighbours included sunlight access, privacy, height of the ground floor level, impact on trees namely, with respect to the proposed dwelling at No.14 Elabana Crescent (Proposed Lot 1).

On 20 March 2017, amended plans were submitted with changes to the proposed dwelling at No.14 Elabana Crescent. The amended plans addressed the majority of issues raised other than the height of the floor level above natural ground level.

On 4 April 2017, further amended plans were requested to amend the design of the proposed dwelling at No.14 Elabana Crescent which were submitted to Council on the 5 April 2017.

The amended plans (Issue E) step down the rear, single storey section of the dwelling at No.14 Elabana Crescent to comply with maximum floor level height provision. The amendments also included the removal of the first floor level, rear balcony.

On 24 April 2017, further amended plans (Issue F) were submitted to Council with changes to the dwellings at No.16 and No.16A that included the removal of the first floor level balconies at the rear.

Issue F of the architectural plans are the subject of this report.

SITE

The 1723.6m² site is located on the eastern side of Elabana Crescent, Castle Hill and contains a single storey dwelling house and shed at the rear.

The site experiences a fall of 5 metres towards the rear, eastern boundary.

The site contains a mapped Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) comprising Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) which is listed as Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the Commonwealth Environment Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

The site is not bushfire or flood prone.

The site is benefited by a 1 metre wide easement to drain water which runs along the rear boundary of the site.

The site is not a heritage listed item, is not located within a heritage conservation area and is not in the vicinity of a heritage listed item.

The surrounding developments include two storey dwelling houses located on relatively steep land. The adjacent properties to the north of the site have frontages which face the side boundary of the subject site.

PROPOSAL

The application involves the demolition of an existing dwelling house and associated structures, subdivision of one allotment into three lots and erection of three new dwellings.

It is proposed to stage the development as follows:

· Stage 1 - Demolish the existing dwelling and structures and Torrens title subdivision of one allotment into three lots;

· Stage 2 - Construct dwellings on proposed Lot 1, 2 and 3.

The proposed subdivision and construction of the dwelling houses is outlined below:

· Proposed Lot 1

Proposed Lot 1 (No.14) would have an area of 574.5m² and would utilise the existing vehicular crossing off Elabana Crescent. The ground floor of the proposed dwelling would comprise a double garage, living room, kitchen, laundry, wet-kitchen, dining, family room, guest bedroom and an alfresco attached to the rear. The first floor would comprise four bedrooms, bathroom, two en-suites, bathroom and a walk-in wardrobe.

· Proposed Lot 2

Proposed Lot 2 (No.16) would have an area of 576.3m², and would utilise the existing vehicular crossing/driveway off Elabana Crescent. The ground floor would comprise a double car garage, living/study, kitchen, wet kitchen, family, dining, laundry, en-suite, and bathroom, guest bedroom and alfresco at the rear. The first floor would comprise four bedrooms, a sitting room, en-suite, bathroom and walk-in wardrobe.

· Proposed Lot 3

Proposed Lot 3 (No.16A) would have an area of 572.6m², and would be accessed via a proposed new driveway off Elabana Crescent. The ground floor would comprise a double car garage, living area, kitchen, wet kitchen, dining, laundry, and bathroom, guest bedroom and alfresco at the rear. The first floor would comprise four bedrooms, a sitting room, bathroom, walk-in wardrobe and en-suite.

Twelve trees would be removed as part of the development.

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney and (Draft) North District Plan

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

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 R2 (Low Density Residential) under the HLEP. The objectives of the zone are:

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

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

The proposed development is defined as “subdivision” and “dwelling house” and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone to provide additional housing opportunities.

2.1.2 Minimum Lot Size

Clause 4.1 of the HLEP provides that the subdivision lot size should not be less than the minimum areas shown for the land on the Lot Size Map. The minimum lot size for the subject site is 500m², excluding the access handle. The proposed lots have areas of 574.5m², 576.3m² and 572.6m² complying with this provision.

2.1.3 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 8.5m. The proposed dwellings comply with this provision.

2.1.4 Earthworks

The site falls 5 metres towards the rear boundary and contains EEC located at the front and rear of the site. The proposed dwellings are designed to minimise excavation to a maximum 300mm for the driveway and garages so as not to impact on the root systems of the significant trees.

The proposed works and excavation are acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent to protect trees during construction works.

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

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

2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

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 dwellings and is considered to be satisfactory.

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

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

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 – NSW Housing Code

The site is not identified as flood prone land or subject to bushfire risk. The site is not a heritage item, does not adjoin a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. There are however, tree species on site which form part of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) a Critically Endangered Ecological Community listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and an Endangered Ecological Community listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. These trees are also protected under the HDCP and would require Council’s permission for their removal to accommodate the dwellings. The removal of the protected trees to accommodate the development precludes the dwellings on the proposed lots from being approved as a Complying Development.

In addition to the above, the proposed dwelling at No.16 cannot be approved as Complying Development as it includes a first floor, sitting room that does not meet the development standards of “Privacy” under the SEPP. The sitting room is served by three windows that are orientated to the northern, side boundary with a sill height of 300m which would not meet the standards of ‘Privacy’ under the SEPP.

Apart from the minor non-compliance with the privacy requirements and the permission required for tree removal, the proposed dwellings would otherwise comply with the numerical standards for Complying Development contained within the SEPP.

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

2.7 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

HDCP – Part 6.1 Subdivision and Part 3.1 Dwelling Houses
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Complies
*Part 6 - Subdivision*
Site Area	1378.4m²	N/A	N/A
Lot Area
- Lot 1 -	574.5m²	500m²	Yes
- Lot 2	576.3m²	500m²	Yes
- Lot 3	572.6m²	500m²	Yes
Lot Width
- Lot 1 -	12.2 m	12m	Yes
- Lot 2	14m	12m	Yes
- Lot 3	12.1m	12m	Yes
*Part 3.1 Residential*
Building Height
- Lot 1 -	8.5m	8.5m	Yes
- Lot 2	8.3m	8.5m	Yes
- Lot 3	8.3m	8.5m	Yes
No. of Storeys
- Lot 1 -	2	max. 2 + attic	Yes
- Lot 2	2	max. 2 + attic	Yes
- Lot 3	2	max. 2 + attic	Yes
Site Coverage
- Lot 1 -	37%	max. 50%	Yes
- Lot 2	35%	max. 50%	Yes
- Lot 3	32%	max. 50%	Yes
Floor Area
- Lot 1 -	333m²	max. 380m²	Yes
- Lot 2	322m²	max. 380m²	Yes
- Lot 3	328m²	max. 380m²	Yes
Setbacks - Lot 1
- Front -	9m	6m	Yes
- Side (south)
Ground floor	0.9m – 1.5m	0.9m	Yes
First floor	1.5m	1.5m	Yes
- Side (north)
Ground floor	0.9m – 3.6m	0.9m	Yes
First floor	1.5m	1.5m	Yes
- Rear
Ground floor	13m	3m	Yes
First floor	20m	8m	Yes
Setbacks - Lot 2
- Front -	9m	6m	Yes
- Side (south)
Ground floor	0.9m	0.9m	Yes
First floor	1.5m	1.5m	Yes
- Side (north)
Ground floor	0.9m	0.9m	Yes
First floor	1.7m	1.5m	Yes
- Rear
Ground floor	11m	3m	Yes
First floor	11m	8m	Yes
Setbacks - Lot 3
- Front -	7m	6m	Yes
- Side (south)
Ground floor	0.9m	0.9m	Yes
First floor	1.5m	1.5m	Yes
- Side (north)
Ground floor	0.9m	0.9m	Yes
First floor	1.5m	1.5m	Yes
- Rear
Ground floor	13.5m	3m	Yes
First floor	14m	8m	Yes
Landscape Area
- Lot 1 -	35%	30%	Yes
- Lot 2	40%	30%	Yes
- Lot 3	40%	30%	Yes
Private Open Space
- Lot 1 -	>24m²	24m²	Yes
- Lot 2	>24m²	24m²	Yes
- Lot 3	>24m²	24m²	Yes
Car Parking
- Lot 1 -	2 spaces	2 spaces	Yes
- Lot 2 -	2 spaces	2 spaces	Yes
- Lot 3	2 spaces	2 spaces	Yes

2.7.1 Residential Lands Subdivision

The desired outcomes of Part 6.2.1 Residential Land subdivision states that “subdivision design should maintain appropriately shaped lots to accommodate a dwelling and associated development that is compatible with a low density residential environment”.

One submission raises concerns regarding the “narrow” lot shapes of the proposed subdivision and subsequent dwellings.

The proposed lots would generally be in keeping with the surrounding rectangular shaped lots in the immediate vicinity of the site. Each proposed lot would have direct frontage to Elabana Crescent and a minimum width of 12 metres which complies with the HDCP. Furthermore, each allotment has an area in excess of the 500m²minimum allotment size requirement applicable to the low density residential zone under the HLEP.

Compatibility is different from sameness and in that regard, the proposal is consistent with the desired outcomes of Part 6.2.1 Residential Land Subdivision and is considered acceptable.

2.7.2 Privacy

The desired outcome of Part 3.1.6 Privacy of the HDCP is to encourage “development that is designed to provide reasonable privacy to adjacent properties.”

Five objections raise concerns with regards to privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

· Dwelling No.14 (Lot 1)

Two submissions raise concerns regarding privacy impacts on the adjoining property at No. 12 Elabana Crescent.

On 5 April 2017, amended plans (Issue E) were submitted with significant modifications to the ground floor level and first floor internal configuration.

The ground floor of the proposal includes living, family and dining area which complies with the prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.6 Privacy which states that “living and entertaining areas of dwelling houses should be located on the ground floor only and orientated towards the private open space of the dwelling house and not the side boundaries.”

The first floor of the proposal includes bedrooms and bathrooms only. Bedrooms are classified as non-active use rooms and would have negligible privacy impacts on adjoining neighbours.

The prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.6 Privacy states that a “deck, balcony, terrace or the like should be located within 600mm of existing ground level where possible to minimise potential visual and acoustic privacy conflicts.”

The proposed ground level terrace is orientated to the northern side boundary which does not comply with the prescriptive measures as it is elevated 800mm above natural ground. The terrace is consistent with the finished ground level of the adjoining Lot 2 and provides for solar penetration into the kitchen and living areas of the proposed dwelling on Lot 1. Furthermore, the boundary fence would provide for screening for privacy and acoustic amenity.

Both the ground floor guest bedroom balcony and alfresco at the rear would not comply with this prescriptive measure. To eliminate potential for overlooking, the guest bedroom balcony is recommend to be deleted by way of a condition of consent.

To further reduce potential overlooking and privacy impacts from the alfresco, privacy screens are proposed as part of the application. Notwithstanding, a condition of consent is recommended that privacy screening be installed along the northern and southern sides of the alfresco.

· Dwelling No.16 (Lot 2)

The three narrow windows (B12, B13, B14) which serve the sitting room on the northern side elevation have a sill height of 300mm. To address any privacy impacts, a condition is recommended for the bottom fixed panel of the three windows to be obscure glass.

The remaining first floor windows serve non-active rooms and are orientated to the front of the property.

The proposed ground level terrace area is orientated towards the northern side boundary and is elevated 600mm above natural ground. The terrace is consistent with the finished ground level on the adjoining Lot 3 and provides for solar penetration into the kitchen and living areas of the proposed dwelling on Lot 2. Furthermore, the boundary fence would provide for adequate screening for privacy and acoustic amenity.

The first floor balcony serving the sitting room would be orientated to the front and overlook the driveway of adjoining properties only.

The ground floor alfresco at the rear would not comply with the prescriptive measure. To reduce potential overlooking and privacy impacts, privacy screens are proposed as part of the application. Notwithstanding, a condition of consent is recommended that privacy screening be installed along the northern and southern elevations of the alfresco.

· Dwelling No.16A (Lot 3)

The window ‘C21’ serving the sitting room on the northern side elevation is a highlight window with a sill height of 1.5 metres and is considered acceptable. The remaining first floor windows serve non-active rooms and are orientated to the front of the property.

The first floor balcony serving the sitting room would be orientated to the front and overlook the driveway of adjoining properties only.

The ground floor alfresco at the rear would not comply with the prescriptive measure. To reduce potential overlooking privacy screens are proposed along the northern and southern elevation of the ground floor alfresco. Notwithstanding, a condition of consent is recommended that privacy screening be installed along the northern and southern elevations of the alfresco.

Subject to conditions, proposal meets the desired outcomes of Part 3.1.6 Privacy of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.7.3 Scale

The desired outcome of Part 3.1.1 Scale of the HDCP is to encourage “development with a height, bulk and scale that is compatible with a low density residential environment.”

Three submissions raise concerns with regard to the overall bulk and scale of the proposed dwellings on proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3.

The amended proposal complies with the prescriptive measures of the HDCP as outlined in the table at section 2.6 of this report. The proposal would comply with the applicable controls for maximum height, floor area and site coverage in relation to the 574m², 576m² and 572m² allotment size.

The proposal complies with the prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.1 Scale of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.7.4 Sunlight Access

The desired outcomes of Part 3.1.5 Sunlight Access of the HDCP are to encourage “dwelling houses designed to provide solar access to open space areas” and “development designed to provide reasonable sunlight to adjacent properties.”

Three submissions comment on overshadowing and sunlight access of habitable rooms and private open space at No. 12 Elabana Crescent.

The prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.5 Sunlight Access state that on “22 June, 50% of the required principal private open space should receive 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight between 9am and 3pm.” The prescriptive measures also state that on “22 June, 50% of the required principal open space of an adjoining property should receive 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight between 9am and 3pm.”

Shadow diagrams were submitted with the original application on 18August 2016 and subsequent amended shadow diagrams were submitted on 5 April 2017.

To address the issue of overshadowing, the first floor of the proposed dwelling at No.14 has been reduced in area and the first floor rear setback brought in line with the rear building line of the adjoining premises at No.12. The ground floor level has been lowered to comply with the 1.5 metre height requirement under the HDCP.

An assessment of the shadow diagrams has confirmed that the shadows cast during 9am to noon on 22 June (the winter solstice) would provide more than 50% sunlight access to the principal private open space of No.12 Elabana Crescent for more than 3 hours. During noon to 3pm the shadow cast over the private open space of the neighbouring property would cover more than 50%. It is acknowledged that the northern side of the dwelling at No. 12 Elabana Crescent would receive minimal sunlight access between noon to 3pm. However, assessment of sunlight access with respect to habitable rooms is not a matter for consideration under the HDCP. Furthermore, given the orientation of allotments, overshadowing from development on the site is inevitable of property No. 12 Elabana Crescent.

The proposal meets the desired outcomes of Part 3.1.5 Sunlight Access of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.7.5 Earthworks and Slope

The desired outcomes of Part 1C.1.4 Earthworks and Slope of the HDCP encourages “development that is designed to respect the natural landform characteristics and protects the stability of land” and “development that limits landform modification to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties and streetscape character”.

The proposal includes minimal excavation of the site. The maximum depth of excavation would be 500mm to accommodate the proposed garage at Lot 2 and 3 which would comply with the prescriptive measures of Part 1C.1.4 of the HDCP which seeks to limit excavation to 1 metre below natural ground level.

The site slopes 5 metres from the front to the rear boundary and the extent of excavation has been minimised to reduce impacts on protected trees located at the front and rear of the property.

Council’s engineering assessment concludes that there would be minimal impacts with respect to land instability or land slip as a result of the proposal.

The proposal meets the desired outcomes of the Part 1C 1.4 Earthworks and Slope of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.7.6 Vehicle Access and Parking

Six submissions raise concerns regarding additional traffic congestion and lack of street parking as a result of the development. One submission also raises concerns regarding the driveway side setback at Lot 1.

The desired outcome of Part 3.1.7 Vehicle Access and Parking of the HDCP is to encourage “development that provides sufficient and convenient parking for residents with vehicular access that is simple, safe and direct.”

The proposed dwellings would accommodate two car parking spaces on site which complies with the onsite car parking rates prescribed in the HDCP. The proposal would result in an additional 3.4 vehicle trips in the AM/PM peak periods and would be within the capacity of the local road network. The proposed development would utilise the two existing vehicular crossing entrances and proposes an additional one be created at the northern end. The additional driveway access would have negligible impact on driveway access of adjoining properties and is considered acceptable.

The proposal meets the desired outcomes of Part 3.1.7 Vehicle Access and Parking and is considered acceptable.

2.8 Section 94 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Contributions Plan 2012-2021 applies to the development as it would result in an additional two lots. Accordingly, the requirement for a monetary Section 94 contribution is recommended as a condition of consent.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 Natural Environment

3.1.1 Tree and Vegetation Preservation

Three submissions raise concerns over tree removal and impact on protected species on the site.

The desired outcomes of Part 3.1.3 Landscaping of the HDCP is to encourage “landscaping that integrates the built form with soft landscaping and retains and enhances tree canopy” and “development that retains existing landscape features.”

Amended plans were submitted on 23 November 2016 which showed that the majority of the EEC identified as Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF) trees within the front yard and at the rear of the site would be retained. Although the proposal would require the removal of trees numbered 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 14,15, 17, 24, 26, 27 and 32 as identified in the Significant Tree Location Plan dated 23 August 2016, on balance, their removal is considered acceptable, to facilitate development of the site.

Further, it was determined that a Species Impact Statement (SIS) was not required as it was considered unlikely that the proposal would have a significant impact upon species, population and communities listed under NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The amendments to plans have been assessed as environmentally acceptable with respect to the removal of tree species belonging to the STIF.

The Arborist Root Map Assessment report submitted with the application demonstrates that the trees occurring on the northern boundary and at the rear of the site can be retained, subject to conditions. Council’s trees assessment raised concerns regardless the location of the alfresco staircase near significant trees located along the northern boundary of proposed Lot 3 and the location of the alfresco on Lot 1 in relation to trees T20 and T23. The proposed alfresco stairs on Lot 3 are recommended to be relocated to the east by a condition of consent.

The amended plans submitted on the 5 April 2017, relating to the proposed dwelling at No.14, deleted the services within the alfresco under croft area which is proposed to be constructed on piers using tree sensitive construction techniques to protect T20 and T23.

Conditions are recommended which require tree sensitive construction techniques for construction works proposed within the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of significant trees within the front and rear yard, and along the northern boundary.

Subject to conditions of consent the proposal meets the desired outcomes of Part 3.1.3 Landscaping of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

Three submissions raise concerns regarding stormwater run-off from the rear yard to properties below and one submission comment on stormwater run-off from the proposed driveway onto No.12 Elabana.

The desired outcomes of Part 1C.1.2 Stormwater Management of the HDCP is to encourage “water management systems that minimise the effects of flooding and maintains natural environmental flows”.

Council’s engineering assessment recommends that the stormwater drainage system be gravity drained and connected directly to the drainage easement which runs along the rear, eastern boundary of the site.

It should be noted that stormwater from the top of the street would be gravity drained over the driveway and collected by grates at the base of the garages. Notwithstanding, to address the issue of stormwater run-off from the driveway of No.14, the proposal has been amended to provide 0.5 metre wide landscaped area along the southern side boundary to further minimise any stormwater run-off onto the neighbours property.

Subject to conditions, the proposal is consistent with the desired outcomes of Part 1C.1.2 Stormwater Management of the HDCP.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The impact of the proposed subdivision and the dwellings on the built environment of the locality is discussed in Section 2.6 of this report.

The proposed design of the dwellings would complement the established character of the area. The proposed dwelling house at No.14 Elabana adopts a stepped design and responds appropriately to the topography of the site to maintain reasonable amenity and privacy for adjoining neighbours. The built form would not result in adverse overlooking or overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties.

3.3 Social Impacts

The proposal would provide a positive social outcome by providing additional housing choice in the locality. The proposal 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.

3.4 Economic Impacts

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

4.1 Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 23 August 2016 and 8 September 2016 in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP. An extension of time was requested which extended the notification period to 3 October 2016. During this period, Council received ten submissions.

Amendments were made to the proposal, specifically the design of proposed dwelling at No.14 Elabana Crescent and were place on public notification from the 10 March 2017 to 27 March 2017.

Further amendments to the plans of No.14 Elabana Crescent were made during this time and re-notified from 20 March 2017 to the 4 April 2017. During this period, Council received 2 submissions. Of these two submissions, one submission included a petition which consisted of eighteen signatures.

Since then amended architectural plans were submitted to Council as ‘Issue F’ on the 24 April 2017 and no further submissions were received.

The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are in close proximity to the development site.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

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

· Unacceptable overshadowing of adjoining properties;

· The subdivision would result in narrow or “skinny” lots and dwellings;

· Proposal not in character with the surrounding area;

· Development that is excessive in bulk and scale as a result of the dwellings;

· Unacceptable privacy impacts on adjoining properties to the north and south;

· Removal and impact on protected trees;

· Increased on-street parking;

· Unacceptable stormwater overflow on to the downstream properties due to the development;

· Unacceptable stormwater overflow as result of driveway setbacks;

· Devaluation of adjoining properties;

· Release of asbestos during demolition of structures on site;

· Illegal demolition of structure on site; and

· Loss of views as result of tree removal.

Additionally, the submitters made the following observations:

· Amended Plans ‘Issue C’ were not made available on the Council website; and

· Incorrect notification end date on notification letter sent out 20 March 2017.

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

4.2 Asbestos Removal and Demolition

Five submissions raise concerns over demolition of structures on site containing asbestos including the demolition of the garage which occurred without Council approval.

Demolition works involving the removal of asbestos should be carried out by a licensed asbestos removal contractor and dealt with in accordance with the Australian Standard. To address this issue Council recommends a condition for asbestos to be handled in accordance with ‘Australian Standard 2601 – 2001 – The Demolition of Structures’ and for material to be disposed of in accordance with the submitted Waste Management Plan.

Though the application proposes removal of all structure on the site, under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008, there is capacity to undertake minor demolition of the garage demolition without Council approval.

Currently the matter of demolition of structures on site is being investigated by Council compliance officers.

4.3 Concerns over outbuilding to be used as a Secondary Dwelling

Five submissions raise concerns over the use of the proposed outbuilding as a secondary dwelling.

The proposal no longer includes outbuildings at the rear of the properties. As such, this issue has been addressed.

4.4 Consultation and neighbour notification

Three submissions raise concerns with regard to a lack of neighbour consultation and notification.

The application was notified to adjoining neighbours from 23 August 2016 to 8 October 2016, and from 10 March 2017 to 4 April 2017, in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP. The current plans were not required to be re-notified to neighbours as the changes were minor in nature and generally addressed concerns raised in submissions.

5. 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 demolition of existing structures, Torrens Title subdivision of one lot into three lots and the erection of three dwelling houses as staged development.

The development complies with the provisions of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 and generally achieves the desired outcomes within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013. The proposal is assessed as satisfactory having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council received 12 submissions during the public notification period. Of these one submission included a petition of eighteen signatures. The matters raised have been addressed in the body of the report and conditions are recommended to minimise disruption to residential amenity.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, approval of the application as a deferred commencement 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	Subdivision Plan
3.View	Site Plan
4.View	Floor Plans
5.View	Elevations and Sections
6.View	Section Plan
7.View	Landscape Plan
8.View	Shadow Plans
9.View	Stormwater Plans
10.View	Tree Location Plan

File Reference: DA/961/2016

Document Number: D07187844

Schedule 1

CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL STAGES

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*
DA003, Issue F	Subdivision Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA004, Issue F	Site and Demolition Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA101, Issue F	No.14 Ground Floor Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA102, Issue F	No.14 First Floor Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA103, Issue F	No.14 Roof Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA104, Issue F	No.14 West (Front) Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA105, Issue F	No.14 North Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA106, Issue F	No.14 East (Rear) Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA107, Issue F	No.14 South Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA108, Issue F	No.14 Section	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA109, Issue F	No.14 Landscape Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA201, Issue F	No.16 Ground Floor Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA202, Issue F	No.16 First Floor Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA203, Issue F	No.16 Roof Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA204, Issue F	No.16 West (Front) Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA205, Issue F	No.16 North Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA206, Issue F	No.16 East (Rear) Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA207, Issue F	No.16 South Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA208, Issue F	No.16 Section	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA209, Issue F	No.16 Landscape	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA301, Issue F	No.16A Ground Floor Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA302, Issue F	No.16A First Floor Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA303, Issue F	No.16A Roof Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA304, Issue F	No.16A West (Front) Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA305, Issue F	No.16A North Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA306, Issue F	No.16A East (Rear) Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA307, Issue F	No.16A South Elevation	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA308, Issue F	No.16A Section	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA309, Issue F	No.16A Landscape Plan	SYC Architects	April 2017
DA902, Issue F	Proposed Shadow Diagrams	SYC Architects	April 2017
A812, Issue 10/20/15	Significant Tree Location Plan	SYC Architects as amended by Council	23/9/2016
16039-C01, Rev A	Site Stormwater Drainage Plan	KHH Consulting Engineers	11/11/2016
16039-C02, Rev A	Site Stormwater Drainage Plan	KHH Consulting Engineers	11/11/2016
16039-C03, Rev A	Site Stormwater Drainage Plan	KHH Consulting Engineers	11/11/2016
16039-C06, Rev A	Soil & Water Management Plan	KHH Consulting Engineers	11/11/2016
16039-C06, Rev A	Soil & Water Management Plan	KHH Consulting Engineers	11/11/2016

*Document Title*	*Prepared by*	*Dated*
Aboricultural Root Map Assessment	McArdle Arboricultural Consultancy	13 October 2016
BASIX Certificate No.741823S (Lot 1)	Max Brightwell	11 July 2016
BASIX Certificate No.741855S (Lot 2)	Max Brightwell	11 July 2016
BASIX Certificate No.741874S (Lot 3)	Max Brightwell	11 July 2016

2. Appointment of a Project Arborist

a) A project arborist (AQF Level 5) must be appointed to provide monitoring and certification throughout the development process.

b) Details of the appointed project arborist must be submitted to the PCA and Council for registration with the approved construction certificate.

3. Removal of Trees

a) This development consent permits the removal of trees numbered 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 26, 27 and 32 as identified in the Significant Tree Location Plan provided by Council’s Tree Management Team dated 23/9/16.

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

c) The removal of tree 32 located on the nature strip shall be undertaken in accordance with the following:

i) A suitably qualified and experienced Arborist (Australian Qualification Level 3 or higher) shall be employed to undertake the works.

ii) A copy of the Arborists (Tree Contractors) Public Liability Insurance Certificate and qualifications shall be provided to Council prior to the works date.

iii) Notification of the date of works is to be provided to Council one week in advance.

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	$3,989.50
Open Space and Recreation	$25,950.60
Community Facilities	$9,976.20
Plan Preparation and Administration	$83.70
TOTAL	$40,000.00

being for two additional lots.

b) The value of this contribution is current as at 23 February 2017. 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:

$CPY = $CDC x CPIPY

CPIDC

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.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS INCLUDING DEMOLITION

6. Erection of Demolition/ 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. Toilet Facilities

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.

9. 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.

10. Works Near Trees

a) The project arborist must monitor and record any necessary remedial actions for maintaining tree health and condition required for trees.

b) The appointed project arborist must monitor and record all changes or modifications to required tree protection measures for the period of construction.

11. Works Within Tree Protection Zones - Trees Numbered: 12, 13, 20, 23

a) Driveways must be constructed using sensitive construction methods within tree protection zones and comply with the following requirements:

i) The process must be monitored by the project arborist to assess the likely impacts on retained trees.

ii) All imported material must be distributed by hand.

b) The installation of all services which enter or transects a designated TPZ must utilise sensitive methods of installation such as directional drilling or in manually excavated trenches and comply with the following requirements:

i) The process must be monitored by the project arborist to assess the likely impacts of boring and bore pits on retained trees.

ii) For manual excavation of trenches the project arborist must advise on roots to be retained and must monitor the works. Manual excavation may include the use of pneumatic and hydraulic tools. Refer Clause 4.5.3.

c) Any structure for new decks must provide a 100mm clearance from any roots and be installed by hand excavation only.

d) Any necessary excavation must be undertaken by sensitive methods such as pneumatic or by hand as prescribe in AS 4970-2007 Sections 4.5.5.

e) All root pruning must be recorded and undertaken as specified in Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Sections 3.3.4, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5.

12. Building Materials and Site Waste

The filling or stockpiling of building materials, the parking of vehicles or plant, the disposal of cement slurry, waste water or other contaminants must be located outside the tree protection zones as prescribed in the conditions of this consent or the prescriptive measures of Part 1B.6.1 Tree Preservation of the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013, of any tree to be retained.

13. Works Near Trees Certification

The project arborist must submit to the principal certifying authority on a monthly basis a certificate that the works have been carried out in compliance with the approved plans and specifications for tree protection. Certification should include a statement of site attendance, the condition of the retained trees, details of any deviations from the approved tree protection measures and their impacts on trees.

REQUIREMENTS DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Council Property

18. Disturbance of Existing Site

19. Landfill

Landfill must be constructed in accordance with Council’s ‘Construction Specification 2005’ and 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.

20. 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.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO STAGE 1 WORKS - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO THREE

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

21. 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.

22. 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 via the inter-allotment drainage system then connected directly to Council’s street drainage system in Elabana Crescent.

b) An inter-allotment stormwater drainage system to service the proposed subdivision with pits being cast in situ or pre cast concrete pits being used.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

23. Sydney Water – s73 Certificate

A s73 Certificate must be obtained from Sydney Water.

24. Works as Executed Plan

A works-as-executed plan(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to Council for the completed inter-allotment drainage 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. The location of all necessary service conduits provided to facilitate the proposed subdivision shall be clearly indicated on the works as executed plan.

25. 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”.

26. Damage to Council Assets

To protect public property and infrastructure any damage caused to Council’s assets including the removal, damage, destruction, displacement or defacing of the existing survey marks 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.

27. Creation of Easements

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

a) An inter-allotment drainage easement(s) over each of the burdened lots;

b) The creation of a “Positive Covenant” over each of the proposed lots, requiring that any future development is to provide an on-site detention system. The on-site detention system is to have a storage capacity of 5 cubic metres and a maximum discharge of 8 litres per second into Council’s drainage system in accordance with Council’s prescribed wording;

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

28. Construction of engineering works

All engineering works identified in this consent are to be completed and a Compliance Certificate issued prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO STAGE 2 WORKS – CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS ON LOT 1, 2 AND 3

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.

29. Amendment of Plans

a) To comply with Councils requirement in terms of privacy, the approved plans are to be amended as follows:

i) Plan Nos. DA101, DA105, DA106 and DA107 Issue F prepared by SYC Architects, dated April 2017 (No. 14 Elabana Crescent) are to be amended as follows

a. Delete guest bedroom balcony at ground level as shown in red on the plans.

b. Louvered Privacy screens must be erected on the northern and southern elevations of the alfresco to a height shown on the approved plans or otherwise a minimum height of 1.8 metres for the length of the side as shown in red;

c. The screen must have no individual openings more than 30mm wide and have a total of all openings less than 30% of the surface area of the screen.

ii) Plan Nos. DA201, DA202, DA205 and DA207 Issue F prepared by SYC Architects, dated April 2017 (No. 16 Elabana Crescent) are to be amended as follows

a. Fixed frosted glazing must be installed in the fixed bottom panel of the three sitting room windows in the northern elevation, located at first floor level.

b. Louvered privacy screens must be erected along the northern and southern elevations of alfresco to a height shown on the approved plans or otherwise a minimum height of 1.8 metres for the length of the side as shown in red;

c. The screen must have no individual openings more than 30mm wide and have a total of all openings less than 30% of the surface area of the screen.

iii) Plan Nos. DA301, DA302, DA305 and DA307 Issue F prepared by SYC Architects, dated April 2017 (No. 16A Elabana Crescent) are to be amended as follows

a. Louvered privacy screens must be erected along the northern and southern elevations of the rear alfresco to a height shown on the approved plans.

b. A louvered privacy screen must be erected along the south elevation of the alfresco to a minimum height shown on the plans or otherwise 1.8 metres for the length of the side as shown in red;

c. Relocate alfresco stair case to the east as shown in red on approved plans.

b) To comply with Councils requirement in terms of stormwater drainage and on-site detention, the approved drainage plans Drawing No. 16039-C01, C02, C03 and C04 Revision A prepared by KHH Consulting Engineers, dated 11/11/2016 are to be amended as follows:

i) The on-site detention system storage facility required for each lot (5 cubic metres minimum storage volume) shall be provided in addition to the rainwater tank storage required by the approved BASIX certificate.

ii) The drawings shall clearly demonstrate the location of the proposed rainwater tank and on-site detention system and minimum storage volumes provided for each function.

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

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

30. Building Code of Australia

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

31. Contract of Insurance (Residential Building Work)

32. Notification of Home Building Act 1989 Requirements

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.

33. Stormwater Drainage

The stormwater drainage system for the development must be designed for an average recurrence interval (ARI) of 20 years and be gravity drained in accordance with the following requirements:

a) Connected to the existing inter-allotment drainage system.

34. On Site Stormwater Detention

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

a) Have a capacity of not less than 5 cubic metres, and a maximum discharge (when full) of 8 litres per second;

b) Have a surcharge/inspection grate located directly above the outlet;

c) Discharge from the detention system must 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;

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

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

35. Vehicular Crossing – Boundary Levels

A separate application under the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 being an “Application for Boundary Levels” must be submitted to Council to obtain design levels at the front boundary for the design of the internal driveway, prior to the issue of a construction Certificate.

Note: A separate application to construct the vehicular crossing being an “Application to Construct Vehicular Crossing from Roadway to Property” is required to be submitted to Council for approval and can only be made by one of Council’s Authorised Vehicular Crossing Contractors. You are advised to contact Council on 02 9847 6940 to obtain a list of contractors.

36. Internal Driveway/Vehicular Areas

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

a) Design levels at the front boundary be obtained from Council.

b) The driveway be a rigid pavement.

c) The driveway grade must not exceed 25 percent and changes in grade must not exceed 8 percent per plan metre.

d) Longitudinal sections along both sides of the access driveway shall 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 shall incorporate the design levels obtained by Council.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

37. Installation of Tree Protection

All trees retained on site must have tree protection measures for the ground, trunk and canopy installed in accordance with the Australian Standard ‘Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970-2009).

38. Protection Fencing Requirements

a) The tree fencing must be contiguous and constructed of 1.8 metre ‘cyclone chainmesh fence’ and where necessary tree fencing must facilitate pedestrian thoroughfare.

b) Once erected, the tree protective fencing must not be removed or altered without the prior approval of the project arborist.

39. Tree Protection Zone Ground Protection

All Tree Protection Zones must have a layer of wood-chip mulch installed prior to works commencing and must be maintained throughout the period of construction at a depth of 100 - 150mm using material that complies with Australian Standard AS4454.

40. Tree Protection Certification

A certificate from the project arborist must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council stating compliance with the relevant tree protection conditions of this consent.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

41. Survey Report

A report(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to the principal certifying authority;

a) Prior to the pouring of concrete at each level of the building certifying that:

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

iv) The finished floor level(s) are in accordance with the approved plans.

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.

42. Fulfilment of BASIX Commitments

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

43. Damage to Council Assets

Any damage caused to Council’s assets including the removal, damage, destruction, displacement or defacing of the existing survey marks as a result of the construction of the development must be rectified in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Specifications. Council’s Restorations Supervision must be notified for a formwork inspection prior to pouring concrete.

44. Vehicular Crossing - Construction

A separate application under the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 being an “Application to Construct Vehicular Crossing from Roadway to Property” 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 Specification 2005 and the following requirements:

a) The levels at the front boundary must be constructed to the levels obtained from Council;

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

c) The footway area must be restored by turfing;

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

45. Internal Driveway/Vehicular Areas - Construction

The driveway and parking areas on site must be constructed in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.1, 2890.2, 3727 and the requirements of condition No. 24.

46. 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/retention systems and outlet works, within the lots in favour of Council in accordance with Council’s prescribed wording. The position of the on-site detention system is to be clearly indicated on the title;

b) To register the OSD easement, the restriction on the use of land “works-as-executed” details of the on-site-detention system must be submitted verifying that the required storage and discharge rates 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. 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.

47. Works as Executed Plan

A works-as-executed plan(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to Council for completed 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.

48. Preservation of Survey Marks

49. Maintain Canopy Cover

One medium tree selected from Council’s booklet ‘Indigenous Plants for the Bushland Shire’ such as Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum) or Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She-Oak) is to be re-planted on the public reserve to replace tree numbered 32. The tree planting is to comply with the following requirements:

a) The tree shall be placed as near as possible to the removed tree and the trunk shall be no closer than 1200mm to the inner edge of the existing kerb.

b) The pot size of the replacement tree must be a minimum 25 litres.

c) The replacement tree must be maintained until it reaches a mature height greater than 8 metres.

50. Completion of Landscaping

All required landscaping must be completed prior to occupation and comply with the following:

a) The plants shall be installed prior to release of the interim Occupation Certificate (to be certified by Council’s Natural Resources Unit). Any dead or dying stock shall be replaced within a calendar month.

b) The Occupation Certificate shall not be released until it has been demonstrated that the installed plants have been established and weeds eradicated (to be certified by Council’s Natural Resources Unit).

c) A certificate must be submitted to the PCA and Council’s Natural Resources Unit by a practicing landscape architect, horticulturalist or person with similar qualifications and experience certifying that all required landscaping works required by the Landscape Plan approved by Condition No. 1 have been satisfactorily completed.

51. Final Certification Arborist

a) The Project Supervisor must submit to the principal certifying authority all relevant certificates with the application for the occupation certificate stating compliance with all the conditions of this consent.

b) The Project Arborist must submit to the principal certifying authority a certificate that all the completed works have been carried out in compliance with the approved plans and specifications for tree protection. Certification must include a statement of overall site attendance, the condition of the retained trees, details of any deviations from the approved tree protection measures and their impacts on trees. Copies of monitoring documentation may be required.

- 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.

Tree and Vegetation Preservation

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.

Dial Before You Dig

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.

Subdivision Certificate Requirements

A subdivision certificate application is required to be lodged with Council containing the following information:

· A surveyor’s certificate certifying that all structures within the subject land comply with the development consent in regard to the setbacks from the new boundaries.

· A surveyor’s certificate certifying that all services, drainage lines or access are located wholly within the property boundaries. Where services encroach over the new boundaries, easements are to be created.

· Certification that the requirements of relevant utility authorities have been met.

· A surveyor’s certificate certifying finished ground levels are in accordance with the approved plans.

Note: Council will not issue a subdivision certificate until all conditions of the development consent have been completed.

Fees and Charges – Subdivision

All fees payable to Council as part of any construction, compliance or subdivision certificate or inspection associated with the development (including the registration of privately issued certificates) are required to be paid in full prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate. Any additional Council inspections beyond the scope of any compliance certificate required to verify compliance with the terms of this consent will be charged at the individual inspection rate nominated in Council's Fees and Charges Schedule.

House Numbering

The house numbering for this subdivision shall be:

Lot

Street Number

Street Name

Street Type

Locality

Lot 1

Elabana

Crescent

Castle Hill

Lot 2

Lot 3

16A

Elabana

Crescent

Castle Hill

Planning Report No. PL23/17

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 10/05/2017

9 FURTHER REPORT - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - CHILDCARE CENTRE - 22 QUARRY ROAD AND 1 HARRIS ROAD, DURAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/1109/2016 (Lodged on 12 September 2016)
Description:	Construction of a 136 place childcare centre and signage
Property:	Lot 4 DP 615254 and Lot 12 DP 831790, No. 22 Quarry Road and No. 1 Harris Road, Dural
Applicant:	Mr Sam Falcone
Owner:	Mr A Falcone
Estimated Value:	$2,449,500

At its meeting on 8 March 2017, Council deferred the application to enable an on-site meeting with residents, consider draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and arrange a meeting with representatives from the Pacific Hills Christian School concerning traffic and parking issues.

· An onsite meeting was conducted on 23 March 2017 and the applicant has subsequently submitted amended plans increasing the number of car parking spaces from 35 to 40 spaces and a revised traffic and car parking study.

· At its meeting on 12 April 2017, Council resolved to prepare amendments to the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 to provide consistency with draft SEPP Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 when gazetted including the removal of the existing cap on the size of childcare facilities.

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

· It is recommended that the application be approved.Do not delete this line

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/1109/2016 for construction of a childcare centre comprising 136 childcare places and signage at Lot 4 DP 615254 and Lot 12 DP 831790, No. 22 Quarry Road and No. 1 Harris Road, Dural be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL23/17.

BACKGROUND

On 7 November 2001, Council refused a development application (DA/2148/2000) for demolition of existing structures and construction of a science classroom, library, playing fields, tennis courts, basketball courts and car park for 82 spaces at the subject property and including No. 20 Quarry Road, Dural. The application, lodged by Pacific Hills Christian Education Limited, was refused on the following grounds:

· The proposed extension of the Pacific Hills Christian School to a site opposite the existing school premises is considered to be out of character with the surrounding rural area and contrary with good planning and traffic management practice.

· The application is considered to be deficient on merit with respect to traffic and parking generation of the proposed facilities.

· The proposal is inconsistent with the setback requirements of the Rural Lands DCP.

· The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Access and Mobility DCP.

· The proposal will have an adverse visual and acoustic impact upon adjoining residences.

· The proposal will have an adverse impact on traffic flow along Quarry Road immediately adjacent the proposed site entry and exit.

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Rural B zone, in that the development does not preserve productive agricultural land, the proposed use is not compatible land use which maintains the rural environment of the area; and will not improve the environmental qualities of eth area, since the proposal has potential to create adverse visual and traffic congestion impacts.

On 17 February 2004, Council approved DA/2483/2003 for construction of a dwelling house and front gates on the subject site with access off Harris Road. The construction of the substantial single storey dwelling with site coverage of 1,993.5m² was discontinued following the completion of the concrete slab, retaining walls and front gate.

On 16 April 2004, Council approved DA/379/2004 for construction of an in-ground swimming pool and tennis court on the subject site adjoining the approved dwelling house.

On 24 September 2015, the applicant attended a Pre DA Meeting (PL/107/2015) with Council officers regarding the proposed childcare centre. At the meeting, the applicant was requested to address bush fire protection, the non-compliance with the maximum of 90 children, separation of sensitive land uses, waste water management, traffic impacts, tree protection, waste management and utilities.

On 8 March 2017, Council considered Planning Report No. PL8/17 in respect to the subject development application and resolved that:

1. Consideration of Development Application No. DA/1109/2016 for construction of a childcare centre comprising 90 childcare places and signage at Lot 4 DP 615254 and Lot 12 DP 831790, No. 22 Quarry Road and No. 1 Harris Road, Dural be deferred to enable an onsite meeting to be arranged by the Group Manager Planning for available Councillors, the applicant, submitters and Council officers to discuss the concerns raised by residents including the impacts of the proposal on the character of the area, traffic and road safety, bushfire impacts, waste management and the number of children.

2. A report be prepared for Council’s consideration outlining the background and objective of the existing limit on child numbers for childcare centres contained within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 and addressing the merits of retaining the control in light of the State Government’s Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 which does not include a maximum total for child placements.

3. A meeting be arranged with representatives from the Pacific Hills Christian School, available Councillors and Council officers to discuss traffic and parking issues in Quarry Road and possible traffic management solutions.

On 22 March 2017, the applicant filed an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the development application (Proceedings No. 87909 of 2017). At the first directions hearing on 21 April 2017, the Court listed the appeal for a further directions hearing on 12 May 2017 on advice from Council’s solicitor that this report recommending approval of the application will be considered by Council at its meeting on 10 May 2017.

On 23 March 2017, an on-site meeting was held in accordance with Council’s resolution. The meeting was attended by available Councillors, 17 residents, applicant, applicant’s consultant planner and traffic engineer and Council staff. At the meeting, residents raised a number of concerns including childcare centre numbers, traffic impacts of the Pacific Hills Christian School, car parking requirements for childcare staff and parents, accuracy of the traffic study and safety impacts of vehicles parking on road verges.

On 10 April 2017, the applicant submitted additional information including:

· amended plans increasing the number of car parking spaces from 35 to 40 spaces;

· an increase in the accessway width to 8m in accordance with Rural Fire Service requirements;

· supplementary traffic and parking report in respect to a 110 place childcare centre at Dural; and

· submission to address draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017.

On 12 April 2017, Council considered Planning Report PL15/17 concerning the implications of draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and resolved to amend the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 to accord with the gazetted Policy, including the removal of the existing cap on the size of childcare facilities.

SITE

The site has an area of 2.428 hectares and comprises a battleaxe lot with a 6m wide access handle off the southern side of Quarry Road. The site also has access via an existing driveway off Harris Road through the adjoining land which is in the same ownership (Lot 12 DP 831790 – No. 1 Harris Road, Dural).

The site has been subject to substantial landform modification and forms upper, middle and lower areas used in association with the adjoining lot in the same ownership. The adjoining lot is used for residential and home business purposes for a building company. The site was previously used for a plant nursery. The site has an average fall of 8% to the southern boundary.

The upper area of the site includes a large cleared area comprising gravel areas and the concrete slab of an uncompleted dwelling house and associated retaining walls. The upper land area is generally cleared of vegetation.

The middle level area includes a large metal shed and level gravel area used in association with the adjoining lot for the storage of building materials.

The lower level area of the site has a more rural landscape and includes trees and shrubs and a farm dam. The dam forms the headwaters of a watercourse tributary of Berowra Creek.

The surrounding area is semi-rural with developments involving rural/residential land uses and limited agricultural production. The Pacific Hills Christian School is opposite the site’s access handle off Quarry Road. The School is the dominant land use activity in the vicinity of the site. The school caters for kindergarten to Year 12 students and has an approved school population of 1,360 students. A special needs school (Warrah School) is located south of the site on Harris Road.

The site is located 680m east of the Dural Service Centre on New Line Road and Old Northern Road, Dural.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the construction of a childcare centre for 136 childcare places including 40 places for 0-2 year olds, 35 for 2-3 year olds and 61 for 3-6 year olds. The proposed centre would include 24 staff.

The proposed hours of operation are 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. The proposal also includes the use of the centre for four Saturdays per year for special occasions.

The proposed childcare centre would comprise a single storey building of masonry and timber frame construction with a metal roof.

The proposed centre would occupy approximately 6,600m² of the northern part of the site and include a bitumen paved car park with 40 car parking spaces accessed off Harris Road.

The proposed 10m wide accessway off the eastern side of Harris Road is via an existing right of carriageway over Lot 12 DP 831790, No. 1 Harris Road, Dural.

The proposal includes a business identification sign at the front gate on Harris Road.

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney and (Draft) North District Plan

The proposed development would be consistent with ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’ and ‘Draft North District Plan’, by providing additional services to support a growing population.

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 part RU2 Rural Landscape (area 21,930m²) and part E3 Environmental Management (area 2,250m²) under the HLEP. The objectives of the RU2 Rural Landscapes zone are:

· To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

· To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

· To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

· To encourage land uses that support primary industry, including low-scale and low-intensity tourist and visitor accommodation and the provision of farm produce direct to the public.

· To ensure that development does not unreasonably increase the demand for public infrastructure, services or facilities.

The objectives of the E3 Environmental Management zone are:

· To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

· To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on those values.

· To protect the natural environment of steep lands and floodplains within the catchment of the Hawkesbury River.

The area of the site proposed for the childcare centre development is within the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. The proposal does not involve development within the E3 Environmental Management zone area which comprises approximately 2,250m² of the site area.

The proposed development is defined as ‘childcare centre’ and ‘business identification sign’ and is permissible in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone with Council’s consent.

2.1.2 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height show for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 10.5m. The proposal complies with this provision.

2.1.3 Heritage Conservation

2.1.4 Earthworks

The proposal would utilise the existing building slab constructed on the site for the previously approved dwelling house. Accordingly, the proposal would involve limited excavation work. Subject to implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, the proposal would not impact on adjoining properties, drainage patterns or soil stability.

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

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

The applicant has submitted a Detailed Site Investigation Report which includes the following findings:

· The rural site encompasses a total area of approximately 6,600m², and at the time of assessment was largely free of structures and hardstand pavement with the exception of a concrete slab, pool and temporary storage containers;

· Historical records indicate the site was horticultural in nature from the 1930s to early 2000s, before being cleared and partially developed to the current layout;

· Field investigations completed by EI Australia included one round of soil and groundwater sampling;

· Soil sampling and analyses were conducted at 16 borehole locations (BH1-BH16) down to a maximum depth of 5.6 mBGL. The sampling regime was developed using a systematic (triangular grid) sampling pattern, with allowance for structural obstacles (e.g. building walls, underground services etc.);

· The sub-surface profile comprised primarily of gravelly/sandy clay fill material overlying residual sandy clays with sandstone rock at depth;

· Laboratory results for all analysed soil samples were compliant with the adopted human health based screening criteria (HILs/HSLs). A marginal exceedance of the ecological criteria was reported for nickel in surface soils at BH3 and BH4, however, statistical analysis indicated that the site wide nickel concentrations were below the adopted EIL;

· Asbestos was not identified in any analysed soil samples;

· Three test bores were converted to groundwater monitoring wells (MW1, MW2 and MW3). Stabilized water levels were encountered between approximately 200.2 and 203.8 mAHD, with groundwater inferred to flow in a south/south-easterly directions towards Pyes Creek;

· Isolated exceedances of the adopted groundwater investigation levels (GILs) were reported for copper, nickel and zinc. The heavy metal concentrations were considered to be representative of regional ground water quality and therefore not considered to pose an immediate threat to the environment.

· On review of the Preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM) developed for site, it was concluded that the model remains valid for the proposed redevelopment, however, the following gaps remain and require closure:

o The contamination status of soils within stockpiled materials present on-site; given the presence of demolition wastes observed on stockpile surfaces; and

o Quality of soils beneath stockpiles.

Based on the findings of the report, the consultant concludes that widespread contamination was not identified at the site and considers that limited further investigation will be required prior to redevelopment, subject to the following recommendations:

· Characterise stockpiled fill material at the site; and

· Characterise surface soils beneath stockpiles.

The consultant states that the site contamination issues can be managed through the development application process with the SEPP 55 requirements for remediation and validation incorporated into conditions of development consent.

The detailed site investigation involved 16 bore holes over the 6,600m² area of the site proposed for the childcare centre. The investigation determined that widespread contamination was not evident on the site. Further investigation is warranted given the previous horticultural use of the site, the gaps between boreholes and the stockpile of materials on site. In this regard, appropriate conditions are recommended for further investigation and preparation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and for verification of remediation.

Subject to recommended conditions the site is acceptable for the proposed childcare centre use in respect to SEPP 55.

2.3 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 aims of the Policy are to ensure that advertising and signage is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, to provide effective communication in suitable locations and to ensure signage is of high quality design and finish.

The proposed unilluminated 2.275m x 2.4m high plinth sign fixed to the existing block wall at the frontage of the right of carriageway is subject to SEPP 64 and is identified as a ‘business identification sign’ and is subject to the assessment criteria under Schedule 1 of the Policy.

The proposed unilluminated 3.15m x 3m high business identification sign on the façade of the proposed childcare centre would not be visible from a public place and is not subject to SEPP 64 pursuant to Clause 6 of the Policy.

The proposed signs each feature a 2.1m x 1.4m central logo for the identification of the centre. The proposed signs are in timber cladding construction and are designed to complement the materials and finishes of the proposed development with regard to the rural character of the locality.

The assessment of the proposed sign at the Harris Road frontage in accordance with Schedule 1 of SEPP 64 is as follows:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage Schedule 1 – Assessment Criteria
Control	Requirement	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 Yes
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?	No
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?	No No 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 Yes N/A No No No
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 Yes Yes
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?	No
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?	N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
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?	No No No

The proposed sign is designed with regard to the character of the locality, is non-illuminated and appropriate to the setting at the gateway frontage of the proposed accessway for the childcare centre. Accordingly, the proposed sign is acceptable with regard to the assessment criteria contained within SEPP 64 and would meet the objective of the Policy.

2.4 Rural Fires Act 1997

The site is in a bushfire prone area with the fire threat to the south and east of the site from bushland corridors along creek lines which link Berowra Valley National Park.

The proposed childcare centre is ‘integrated development’ subject to approval of the NSW Rural Fire Service for the issue of a Bush Fire Safety Authority pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The NSW Rural Fire Service has raised no objections and has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority for the proposed childcare centre subject to conditions concerning asset protection zones, water and utilities, access, evacuation and emergency management, design and construction and landscaping.

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

NSW Education and Communities regulates the licensing and operation of childcare centres in accordance with the above Regulation. Clause 28 of the Regulation provides for the functional space requirements of childcare centre premises.

The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the Regulation:

Control	Proposal	Compliance
Consultation Room	Office / Interview Room	Yes
Respite Staff Room	Staff Room	Yes
Sleeping Room 0-2 yr	Cot Room – 20 cots	Yes
Min 3.25m² Indoor Play Space per child	4.53m²	Yes
Min 7.0m² Outdoor Play Space per child	16m²	Yes
Max 40 places 0-2 year old	40	Yes
Laundry	Laundry 8.1m²	Yes
Separate Sink Craft Area	Indoor play areas include craft sinks	Yes
Food Preparation Facilities	Kitchen 24.8m²	Yes
Toilets and Washing Facilities	Three bathroom/toilets for children and two toilets for staff	Yes
Nappy Change Facilities	Nappy Change Room	Yes
Storage Facilities	Storerooms – Indoor and Outdoor	Yes

The proposal would meet NSW Education and Communities regulatory space requirements for the operation of a childcare centre.

The centre would employ 24 staff members in compliance with the respective staff/child ratios as follows:

· 1:4 for children under 2 years (40 children = 10 staff)

· 1:8 for children between 2 and 3 years (35 children = 5 staff)

· 1:10 for children between 3 and 6 years (61children = 6 staff)

A minimum of 4 qualified teaching staff would be required for the proposed centre.

A condition is recommended that the outdoor play space be adequately shaded in accordance with The Shade Handbook, published by the New South Wales Cancer Council in 2008 prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

The proposal is assessed as satisfactory with respect to the provisions of the Regulation. The applicant submitted a Plan of Management for the operation of the childcare centre consistent with the Regulation and relevant to the site. A condition is recommended for the Plan of Management to be maintained in respect to the regulatory requirements for the operation of the centre.

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

The proposed waste water treatment system is to a tertiary level and would meet WaterNSW guidelines for water supply catchment areas and would not adversely impact on the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Refer to discussion in Section 2.9.5.

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.

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

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 (draft SEPP) was recently exhibited for public comment by the Department of Planning and Environment until 7 April 2017.

The draft SEPP makes provision for compliance with the space requirements of the Education and Care Services National Regulations and the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 and requires the concurrence of the Regulatory Authority for the approval of proposed childcare centres that do not comply. The draft SEPP includes non-discretionary development standards and requires consideration of the Childcare Planning Guideline (also exhibited) which includes development control measures for childcare centres and excludes certain requirements under existing Development Control Plans.

The proposed childcare centre complies with the space requirements of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 and would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the draft SEPP or the Childcare Planning Guideline. It is noted that neither the draft SEPP or the Guideline includes a maximum total for child placements.

The applicant submitted an addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects in respect to the provisions of the draft SEPP and the Childcare Planning Guideline and has made a further submission following the on-site meeting on 23 March 2017 in respect to Clause 24 of the draft SEPP. The submission notes that Clause 24 of the draft SEPP states:

A provision of a development control plan that specifies a requirement, standard or control in relation to any of the following matters (including by reference to ages, age ratios, groupings, numbers or the like, of children) does not apply to development for the purposes of centre-based childcare.

The applicant’s submission notes that ‘Clause 24 applies to the assessment of the application and a DCP that specifies numbers or the like does not apply to a centre based childcare. In this case, a restriction on the maximum number of children by reference to a DCP cannot be imposed. As such, the proposed restriction on the number of children is not relevant and this development application should be considered as a 136 place childcare centre’.

Pursuant to Section 79C(i)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council must take into consideration any proposed planning instrument that is, or has been subject to, public consultation. It is agreed that the proposed centre-based childcare centre would comply with the draft SEPP provisions and the Guideline which do not include a maximum total for child placements. This matter is discussed further in Section 2.9.6(b) of this report.

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

2.9 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant desired outcomes and prescriptive requirements within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). An assessment of the development against the relevant sections of the HDCP is provided below.

2.9.1 Accessible Design

The proposed childcare centre is a single storey building and involves an at grade car parking area.

The applicant has submitted an Accessibility Review Report concerning the proposal in respect to the design of the proposed development for people with a disability and the Building Code of Australia requirements and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 for which compliance is required in accordance with HDCP Section 1C.2.2 Accessible Design.

The review determined the proposal can readily achieve compliance with the access design provisions, subject to implementation of the recommendations of the Accessibility Review Report. A condition is recommended in this regard.

2.9.2 Transport and Parking

The proposed childcare centre is located 800m from public transport (bus route).

The proposed childcare centre has been amended to include 40 car parking spaces which is 6 spaces above the HDCP requirement for 1 space per 4 children (34 spaces). Refer also to discussion in Section 2.9.6(b).

The design of the proposed car park is satisfactory for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians in accessing the childcare centre. Separate pedestrian and vehicle access is proposed off Harris Road.

As noted in the additional information submitted by the applicant, following the on-site meeting on 23 March 2017, the proposed 40 car parking spaces would exceed parking demand based on survey of the existing 110 place childcare centre at Dural. In addition, the proposed 55m long accessway would eliminate potential queuing of vehicles on Harris Road prior to entering the parking area.

The proposed design would enable a HRV waste collection vehicle to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. In this regard, a condition is recommended for a car park management plan to ensure the safety of waste collection services during the operating hours for the centre.

The proposal is acceptable in respect to the HDCP desired outcome for transport and parking.

Refer also to discussion concerning traffic in Section 3.2.2.

2.9.3 Noise and Vibration

The site is in a semi-rural area with low background noise levels (35 dB(A)).

The applicant has submitted an Acoustic Assessment which includes an analysis of the background noise levels, noise emissions from the proposed indoor / outdoor play areas and the car park and the noise emissions from traffic on surrounding roads.

The assessment adopted a noise criteria of + 10 dB(A) above background noise levels for up to two hours duration for the outdoor play areas and + 5 dB(A) for unlimited duration. The adopted noise criteria is above the NSW Industrial Noise Policy measure of + 5 dB(A) above background noise levels. The disparity between industrial noise and noise generated by groups of children has been a consideration in decisions of the Land and Environment Court. A measure of + 10 dB(A) has been adopted in Court decisions concerning childcare centre developments (Janusz Usien v Hornsby Shire Council). The adopted noise level is therefore acceptable.

The predicted noise level from the outdoor play areas with a maximum of 68 children is 44 dB(A) at the nearest residential premises (50m – No. 24 Quarry Road, Dural) which would comply with the adopted noise criteria, subject to recommended acoustic fencing of the playground area. A condition is recommended for not more than 68 children within the outdoor play areas at any one time.

The predicted noise level of 40 dB(A) for the indoor play areas complies with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

A condition is recommended for the proposed acoustic fence along the northern boundary of the playground area to also be provided along the northern boundary of the proposed accessway and car park to minimise noise impacts from vehicles accessing the childcare centre.

The proposed hours of operation are acceptable in respect to amenity and noise impacts. The proposal includes a Plan of Management which addresses operational procedures to minimise noise impacts.

The proposal would meet the HDCP desired outcome to minimise noise impacts subject to recommended conditions.

2.9.4 Land Use Separation

The proposed childcare centre would be a sensitive land use and adjoin land on the northern boundary and eastern boundary which have potential for intensive rural activity.

The northern and eastern boundaries are well vegetated with existing trees and shrubs which would provide a vegetation buffer to surrounding land uses. In this regard, the HDCP requires a land use separation of 20m to intensive plant agriculture (irrigated crops, horticulture, turf farming and viticulture). The nearest intensive plant agriculture use is located 250m north-west of the site. The adjoining properties involve rural/residential and home business uses. Any change of use of the adjoining land to intensive plant agriculture would require development consent in the subject RU2 Rural Landscape zone.

The proposed childcare centre would not result in a land use conflict with any agricultural land given the land use planning controls under HLEP.

2.9.5 Effluent Disposal

The proposed childcare centre would require the on-site disposal of waste water.

The proposed on-site waste water management system is an Aerated Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS) which would enable on-site disposal of treated waste water to a tertiary level. The proposal is for the disposal of chlorine treated effluent to a mound system which comprises an Ecomax Advanced Tertiary Amended Soil solid matrix filtration (Ecomax cell). The treated effluent from the system is effectively odourless and would meet the WaterNSW Neutral or Beneficial Effect on Water Quality Assessment Guideline 2011 but is not potable.

The applicant has submitted an Ecomax Waste Management which details the layout, design, technical specifications and maintenance of the proposed waste water management system which addresses the HDCP prescriptive measures for effluent disposal.

The proposed system is similar to the system installed at the existing childcare centre complex at No. 831 Old Northern Road, Dural. An operating licence was reissued for this system by Council on 22 July 2015 in accordance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

The proposed system is acceptable for the safe operation of the proposed childcare centre, the adjoining land uses, downstream water quality and ongoing maintenance, subject to recommended conditions.

2.9.6 HDCP Part 7 Community Uses

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

Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 – Part 7 Community Uses
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Height	7.5m	10.5m	Yes
Site Coverage	1,300m² - 20%	on merit	Yes
Maximum Number of Places	136	90	No
% Places 0-2 yr	29%	25%	Yes
North Side Setback	10m	10m	Yes
East Side Setback	36m	10m	Yes
West Side Setback	46m	10m	Yes
Rear Setback	150m	15m	Yes
Outdoor Play Area	16m² per child	15m² per child	Yes
Indoor Play Space	4.5m²per child	4.5m² per child	Yes
Car Parking	40 spaces	34 spaces	Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development complies with the prescriptive requirement for childcare centres within a rural zone other than the maximum number of childcare places. Below is a brief discussion on compliance with relevant development controls.

a. Site Requirements

The proposed childcare centre is located within a rural zone.

The HDCP prescriptive measure is for community uses not to be located on battle-axe allotments. The proposed centre is accessed off a 10m wide right of carriageway off Harris Road which provides for two-way traffic. The carriageway frontage is a uniform alignment which provides an appropriate frontage to the site 70m south of the intersection with Quarry Road. The road alignment south of the carriageway is curvilinear to No. 1 Harris Road, providing for a curved frontage different to the subject site. The width of the carriageway and the existing block walls to the entry gateway and the proposed signage would adequately define the site frontage as suitable for the proposed use. In this regard, the proposal is acceptable in respect to the HDCP site requirement prescriptive measure.

The site would be a preferred location for a community facility being within 400m walking distance of an existing school, in accordance with the HDCP site requirements.

The proposal is acceptable in addressing the HDCP requirement for separation from intensive, offensive or hazardous landuses as discussed in Section 2.9.4.

b. Scale

The 2.428 hectare site is physically divided into upper, middle and lower areas.

The upper area of the site proposed for the childcare centre has an area of approximately 6,600m². The proposed childcare centre would result is a site coverage of 20% of the upper site area. The proposed site coverage is acceptable in being proportionally less than the HDCP maximum site coverage of 30% for rural zoned sites 1,500m² to 3,999m² in area.

The proposed 136 childcare centre places would exceed the maximum of 90 places required in accordance with the HDCP prescriptive measure for rural zoned land. The proposed centre would however, comply with the maximum site coverage for rural development and is acceptable in respect to the site requirements for community facilities, car parking, traffic, the acoustic environment, the existing building footprint and minimal impact on the natural environment.

The Hornsby Childcare Planning Review 2006 included discussion concerning the maximum number of childcare centre places which notes that (at the time of the Study) around 50 places is the baseline level required to operate a viable service. However, the commercial viability of a centre should be balanced against the environmental and amenity impacts of the development. In this regard, the Study notes that a number of councils, including Hornsby, limit the numbers of places in a childcare centre to limit amenity impacts on surrounding residents. Accordingly, the Study recommended a maximum size for childcare centres in the rural areas of the Shire of 90 children. It was submitted that the size provides an appropriate balance between an economically viable service and maintaining the amenity and character of the area. In accordance with the recommendations of the Study, the HDCP 2013 includes a maximum size for childcare centres and limits the number of centres per allotment to a maximum of one centre.

The applicant has made a further submission in support of the establishment of a 136 place centre as follows:

· The design of the building meets the desired outcome and prescriptive measures of the Hornby DCP and a restriction to 90 places would not change the form or scale of the proposed building;

· Positioning of the proposed centre ensures there is adequate separation from surrounding properties and therefore, the proposed 136 place centre would not impact on the character of the area compared to a 90 place centre;

· A revised Traffic and Parking Assessment concludes the peak traffic times for the centre of 7:30am – 8:30am and 4:15pm - 5:15pm are outside peak times for the School;

· 40 parking spaces are proposed which will exceed parking demand based on survey of the 110 place centre at Quarry Road / Old Northern Road;

· The building has been designed with 617m²indoor area and 2232m² of outdoor area being in excess of the requirements of the Child Services Regulation for 136 children; and

· The Acoustic assessment confirms a 136 place centre would not result in unreasonable acoustic impacts to surrounding properties.

At its meeting on 12 April 2017, Council considered Planning Report PL15/17 concerning draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017. The report included the following discussion:

The Hornsby Childcare Planning Review 2006 addressed the required size of a centre to be viable. The review recommended a maximum size for childcare centres in residential areas of 60 children and rural areas of 90 children which is a requirement of Council’s HDCP. Since the completion of the above review, there have been various reforms to National and State controls for childcare centres, including the requirement for higher quality facilities, qualified staff, and lower staff to children ratios. These reforms, in addition to other development cost factors, are now generating the need for larger childcare centres to be viable.

The objective of the Draft SEPP is to respond to the demand for quality childcare centres and to require centres to be assessed on their merits, and not be constrained by an artificial cap on the scale of facilities.

Accordingly, Council resolved to exhibit amendments to the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 to provide consistency with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 as gazetted, including removal of the existing cap on the size of childcare facilities.

In summary, the draft SEPP is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the application. The draft SEPP confirms the State Government’s commitment to facilitating the delivery of additional childcare places to address increasing demand. The Policy clearly articulates that requirements for design and the provision of indoor and outdoor space will drive capacity rather than a cap on childcare placements. Accordingly, as proposal complies with the requirements of the draft SEPP and the HDCP in regards to site, scale and play space for childcare centres, the non-compliance with the current prescribed maximum number of places does not warrant refusal of the application.

c. Landscaping and Open Space

The submitted playspace/landscape design plan has been prepared with regard to the relevant Australian Standards for playgrounds and playground equipment. The outdoor play areas comply with the HDCP requirement for rural zones for 15m² of outdoor play area per child.

The proposed playground areas would be provided with compliant solar access and shade areas and would meet the activity needs of children in accordance with the Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments (DoCS 1997).

The proposed landscaping of the childcare centre site retains existing trees and is appropriate in meeting the HDCP prescriptive measures for landscaping to soften the development and provide screen planting. A condition is recommended for the landscaping to be extended along the right of carriageway and to include the entry gateway.

The landscape plan includes the undeveloped north eastern corner of the site comprising an area of approximately 700m² for ‘natural turf’. The area was recommended to form a natural landscape area regenerated for locally indigenous Peppermint-Angophora Forest vegetation community but has been deleted from the recommended conditions following concerns raised by the applicant concerning bushfire protection.

Refer also to Section 3.1.1.

d. Privacy, Security and Sunlight

The proposed childcare centre is > 50m from the nearest residence and therefore, would not detract from the amenity of adjoining properties in respect to privacy and access to sunlight.

The applicant has submitted a Crime Risk Assessment for the proposed childcare centre in respect to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and Crime Statistics Hornsby LGA. The assessment includes the following conclusion:

The design of the proposed childcare centre meets the CPTED principles. The development has been designed with clear definition between private and public space, the design of the childcare centre and clearly demarcated entry allows for casual surveillance of the public domain and access points to/within the site.

The crime statistics indicate that offences relevant to the childcare centre are stable or decreasing in Hornsby LGA, the proposed design and management of the site ensures the development proposal is not considered to be a crime risk.

The assessment is supported in respect to the layout and design of the centre in providing casual surveillance of the public domain.

The proposed childcare centre site is a stand-alone site separate from surrounding land uses and with independent access off Harris Road. The site’s existing access handle off Quarry Road would not be required for the proposal. A condition is recommended for the Quarry Road access to be secured for the operation of the centre.

The proposed centre would meet the HDCP desired outcome for privacy, security and sunlight.

e. Design Details

The proposed childcare centre building would comply with the HDCP requirements for rural setbacks, height and site coverage. The proposed low scale contemporary designed building would not be visually intrusive or detract from the rural character of the locality.

The proposed childcare centre floor plan, room sizes and layout of the outdoor play areas, would accord with best practice in accordance with the draft Childcare Planning Guideline.

The proposed materials and finishes are appropriate in complementing the character of the area and defining the function of the building. The design incorporates the proposed business identification sign.

The proposal would meet the HDCP desired outcomes for design details.

2.10 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

3.1.1 Tree and Vegetation Preservation

There are ten trees on the site of the proposed childcare centre comprising the upper area of the site which is predominantly cleared of vegetation.

The proposed development would necessitate the removal of one tree (Tree No. 1 – Eucalyptus microcorys – Tallowood) from the site. The tree is on the Harris Road nature strip and is proposed for removal for the proposed accessway. The tree is not locally indigenous, has poor form and is acceptable for removal subject to condition for replacement tree planting.

The remaining trees on the site are mainly exotic species and would be retained in the proposed landscaping.

A condition is recommended for the replacement planting of 3 locally indigenous trees on the site.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

The proposed stormwater drainage system includes water sensitive urban design and stormwater detention facilities to minimise impacts on downstream water quality. The proposed system would drain to the existing farm dam and a natural watercourse.

The submitted stormwater drainage system is acceptable subject to recommended conditions.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The proposed childcare centre is a large, single storey purpose built building on a battleaxe site on rural zoned land.

The proposed building would not be readily visible from Harris Road or Quarry Road. The proposed accessway off Harris Road is existing and would generally maintain the presentation of the site in respect to the rural character of the locality.

3.2.2 Traffic

A traffic and parking assessment has been submitted with the proposal which was revised during the assessment to include a Level of Service (LoS) analysis of the intersection of Harris Road and Quarry Road. The intersection would continue to maintain an ‘A’ rating LoS for the proposed traffic generation of an estimate of 80 vehicles in the AM peak (7.00am to 9.30am) and 80 vehicles in the PM peak 3.00pm to 6.30pm). The traffic would be evenly spread over the peak periods. The assessment includes the following statement:

The traffic movements along Quarry Road are relatively minor although heightened to some extent during the arrival and departure times at the Pacific Hills School. The traffic movements along Harris Road are also quite minor although again there is some heightened activity during the arrival and departure times at Warrah School.

Traffic conditions in the area are generally satisfactory despite significant peak period traffic movements on the Old Northern Road however the traffic signals at the Quarry Road intersection provides safe controlled access to/from Old Northern Road.

The assessment concludes that:

· The traffic generation of the proposed development will be relatively minor and not present adverse traffic implications;

· The proposed parking provision will be quite adequate for the needs of the development; and

· The proposed vehicle access, internal circulation and parking arrangements will be appropriate to current design standards.

Council’s engineering assessment of the traffic impacts of the proposal notes that the traffic issue on Quarry Road in the PM peak due to the neighbouring Pacific Hills Christian School (PHCS) will not be exacerbated. The PM Peak of PHCS is at 2:45pm-3:45pm while the proposed childcare centre PM Peak is at 4:00pm-5:00pm which does not coincide, maintaining a level of service (LOS) A at the intersection of Quarry Road and Harris Road.

In addition to the above, the AM peaks do coincide but for 15 minutes during the 2 hour duration and hence traffic impacts are reduced and also maintain a LOS A at the intersection of Quarry Road and Harris Road. The traffic generation of the proposed childcare centre is approximately 48 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak which represents less than 1 vehicle per minute.

Given that less than 1 vehicle per minute in the AM peak would be contributing to the intersection of Quarry Road and Harris Road by the proposed childcare centre, the increase in traffic generation would not show any significant changes to the intersection analysis of Old Northern Road and Quarry Road. This would also be the case for the PM peak as it does not coincide with the PHCS PM peak.

In response to concerns raised at the on-site meeting on 23 March 2017, the applicant has submitted a supplementary traffic and parking report which includes a comparative survey of the 110 place childcare centre at the corner of Old Northern Road and Quarry Road, Dural and the 40 place childcare centre at Asquith relied on in the previous traffic and parking report. The comparative traffic generation rates (vehicles travelled per hour – vtph) are identified as follows:

	Asquith	Dural
AM Peak	0.425 vtph per child	0.445 vtph per child
PM Peak	0.350 vtph per child	0.355 vtph per child

The traffic generation rates for the two childcare centres are not dissimilar and confirm the previous traffic generation analysis for the proposed childcare centre.

In respect to the existing traffic and the Pacific Hills Christian School the supplementary traffic and parking report includes the following comment:

The traffic surveys of the Quarry Road and Harris Street intersection were undertaken in very early November (after Y12 finished) as a consequence of the time of study commissioning. However, the observations made at the intersection on 23.3.17 serve to confirm that the Level of Service of this intersection is quite satisfactory. The only apparent traffic issue during the afternoon school departure period is the queuing for westbound vehicles on Quarry Road resultant to the limited “green time” allocation to Quarry Road at the Old Northern Road intersection. Council might wish to make a submission to RMS for a “special function” change to the “green time” provision at this time of day.

In accordance with Part 3 of Council’s resolution on 8 March 2017, a meeting with the representatives of the Pacific Hills Christian School to discuss traffic and parking issues is scheduled for late May 2017.

At the site meeting on 23 March 2017, the impact of vehicles parking on the road verges in the vicinity of the site was raised as an issue for traffic and road safety. Specifically, concern was raised that parking at the intersection of Harris Road and Quarry Road impacts on site lines at the intersection. It was suggested that additional traffic associated with the childcare centre would exacerbate vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. A condition is recommended for ‘No Standing’ signs to be installed in Quarry Road and Harris Road subject to approval of the Hornsby Local Traffic Committee.

With regard to the above assessment the proposed childcare centre is acceptable on traffic and parking grounds subject to recommended conditions.

3.3 Social Impacts

The proposed childcare centre would be of positive social benefit in the provision of childcare centre places in an area in close proximity to an existing school. The proposal would also provide local employment opportunities.

3.4 Economic Impacts

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

4. SITE SUITABILITY

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

The site is considered to be capable of accommodating the proposed 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 29 September and 28 October 2016 in accordance with the Notification and Exhibition requirements of the HDCP. The proposal was renotified from 3 November to 17 November 2016 for the placement of a notification sign at the Harris Road frontage of the site. During these periods, Council received 25 submissions. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are in close proximity to the development site.

NOTIFICATION PLAN
• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED	X SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED	PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT
17 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED OUT OF MAP RANGE

Twenty five submissions objected to the proposal. The grounds for objection are addressed as follows:

5.1.1 Traffic and Road Safety

Traffic generation was raised as a concern in association with the traffic impacts of the existing Pacific Hills Christian School on Quarry Road.

The applicant submitted an analysis (SIDRA) of the intersection of Harris Road and Quarry Road which demonstrates the proposal would maintain an ‘A’ Level of Service for the intersection.

The proposal would comply with the HDCP requirements for car parking provision and vehicle access for childcare centres.

Refer to discussion in Section 2.9.2 and Section 3.2.2.

5.1.2 Bush Fire Impact

Evacuation of the childcare centre during a bush fire emergency was raised as a concern.

An Emergency/Evacuation Plan is required to be implemented for the proposal in accordance with the NSW Rural Fire Service recommended conditions.

5.1.3 Waste Water Management

The capacity of the proposed waste water management system was raised as a concern.

The proposed waste water management system is designed with surplus operating capacity and includes an auxiliary pump-out facility in the event the Ecomax system is non-functional.

5.1.4 Waste Collection Hours

Out of hours waste collection was raised as a concern due to noise impacts.

The proposed waste collection is to be undertaken during operating hours subject to a Plan of Management.

5.1.5 Unclear address of the proposed development

The submitted plans and documentation referred to No. 1 Harris Road, Dural. However, the proposal was notified as No. 22 Quarry Road, Dural.

An additional notification sign for the proposed development was placed at the No. 1 Harris Road frontage. The proposed development has been notified in accordance with the HDCP requirements.

5.1.6 The proposed number of childcare places exceeds the maximum number of 90 places

The non-compliance with the maximum number of places was raised as a concern.

Refer to discussion in Section 2.9.6(b).

5.1.7 Loss of rural amenity

The loss of rural amenity was raised as a concern.

Refer to discussion in Section 2.9.6(e) and Section 3.2.1.

5.2 Public Agencies – NSW Rural Fire Service

The proposed childcare centre was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The NSW Rural Fire Service has granted approval for a Bush Fire Safety Authority for the proposed childcare centre subject to conditions concerning asset protection zones, water and utilities, access, evacuation and emergency management, design and construction and landscaping.

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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

CONCLUSION

The application is for the construction of a childcare centre for 136 childcare places and signage on rural zoned land. The application is now subject to an appeal in the Land and Environment Court.

On 8 March 2017 Council considered the proposal and resolved to defer the application pending a site inspection and consideration of the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017. On 12 April 2017 Council resolved to amend the HDCP to accord with the gazetted Policy.

The proposed childcare centre complies with HLEP and the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 and SEPP 55. The proposal would be consistent with the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and the draft Childcare Planning Guideline.

The proposal is generally satisfactory in respect to the HDCP requirements for accessible design, transport and parking, noise and vibration, land use separation, effluent disposal and the site requirements, landscaping, open space, privacy, security, sunlight and design requirements of the HDCP for community facilities.

The proposed signage is satisfactory in meeting the assessment criteria of SEPP 64.

25 submissions were received in response to notification of the proposed development.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions in Schedule 1 of this report.

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

1.View	HSC Investment Holdings Report March 2017
2.View	HSC Borrowings Schedule - March 2017

1.View	March 2017 Quarterly Review
2.View	Quarterly Budget Review Statement - March 2017

1.View	CRR Balance
2.View	CRR Summary of Total Expenditure
3.View	CRR Panel Report