Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

Local Planning Panel

Item 1     LPP10/20 Development Application - Demolition of Existing Structures and Construction of a 71 Place Child Care Centre - 9 Stuart Avenue Normanhurst............................................... 1

Item 2     LPP11/20 Development Application - Installation of Telecommunications Facility - Normanhurst Park, 20X Harris Road, Normanhurst......................................................................... 29  

LPP Report No. LPP10/20

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 27/05/2020

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/893/2019 (Lodged on 27 September 2019)
Description:	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 71 place two storey child care centre
Property:	Lot 91 DP 8354, No. 9 Stuart Avenue, Normanhurst
Applicant:	Gardner Wetherill and Associates (Ross Gardner)
Owner:	Mr. Mehrak Tavana and Mrs. Saharnaz Pourbozorgi
Estimated Value:	$1,472,112
Ward:	B

·              The application involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of 71 place two storey child care centre.

·              The proposal does not comply with the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013, the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 with respect to landscaping, privacy, noise, traffic and safety, site suitability, contamination, setbacks, tree preservation and sunlight access.

·              A total of 86 submissions have been received in respect of the application.

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

·              It is recommended that the application be refused.

 

RECOMMENDATION THAT Development Application No. DA/893/2019 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 71 place two storey child care centre at Lot 91 DP 8354, No. 9 Stuart Avenue Normanhurst be refused subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in Schedule 1 of LPP Report No. LPP10/20.

 

BACKGROUND

Pre-Lodgement Meeting

On 5 July 2019, Council held a pre-lodgement meeting with the applicant to discuss the merits of a future Development Application seeking the demolition of the dwelling house and construction of a three storey 86 place child care centre with car parking in the front setback of the site. A number of concerns / matters were identified by Council with regard to the proposal, including:

·              Council generally recommends child care centres be located on corner sites or adjacent to schools and parks for amenity and privacy reasons.

·              The centre is inconsistent with the local character due to bulk and scale, excessive earthworks for the basement and the car parking within the front setback.

·              The proposed floor area of the 3-storey child care centre is excessive.

·              The domain interface of the childcare centre should be extensively vegetated and include canopy trees.

·              The proposed building would have significant privacy and amenity impacts on adjoining development, primarily arising as a result of the extensive elevated balcony areas.

·              Any future childcare proposal should indicate that the landscaping would enhance the streetscape and would retain significant trees on site.

·              Council would not support excessively large side or rear boundary acoustic fences in order to support increased child numbers.

·              The proposal does not comply with the required 4 spaces per child and the number of children should be reduced.

·              A separate pedestrian entry must be provided to the site. Similarly, a pedestrian access path, accessible via the car parking spaces should be provided to prevent vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts.

·              A preliminary contamination report should be provided to identify whether any contamination has migrated to the site, including laboratory analysis for asbestos and lead etc.

·              Setbacks to front parking areas should be provided from adjacent residential properties and softened by landscaping/ privacy devices.

Application History

On 27 September 2019, the subject application was lodged with Council.

On 10 January 2020, Council held a meeting with the applicant to discuss Council’s concerns with regard to inadequate landscaping provided within the front and side setbacks of the on-grade carpark, privacy impacts from the lower and upper floor balconies and windows, vehicle manoeuvrability and pedestrian safety within the carpark. In addition, concerns were raised with regard to inadequate detail on the submitted Architectural Plans and the omission of a Plan of Management (PoM) and Construction Management Plan (CMP). Accordingly, Council requested the submission of revised Architectural Plans and the lodgement of a PoM and CMP.

On 14 January 2020, Council requested revised plans to address Council’s waste management requirements.

On 30 January 2020, Council received the requested additional information/ revised plans (Revision E).

On 20 February 2020, Council requested further revisions to the amended plans (Revision E) to address outstanding concerns regarding insufficient landscaping to the perimeter of the carpark, the retention of tree Nos. 1 and 4, the inadequate width of visitor parking spaces and privacy concerns with the elevated design of the carpark and the both side access pathways and entry platform.

On 20 March 2020, Council received the requested revised Architectural Plans (Revision F), Arborist Report, Parking Study, Stormwater Drainage Report and Landscape Plan.

On 23 March 2020, Council re-notified the amended application to the public in accordance with the notification requirements of the Hornsby Community Participation Plan (CPP).

SITE

The 1,628.8m² site is located on the eastern side of Stuart Avenue, Normanhurst and contains a single storey dwelling house and shed outbuildings to the rear.

The site experiences an average fall of 11% (9m) to the rear, eastern boundary.

Stuart Avenue is a low-density residential street with a streetscape predominantly comprising single storey dwelling houses.

The two adjoining residential sites to the south at Nos. 11 and 11A Stuart Avenue comprise a stepped two storey dwelling house with swimming pool and a single storey dwelling house, respectively. The two adjoining sites to the north at Nos. 7 and 7A Stuart Avenue contain stepped dwelling houses and ancillary outbuildings. The adjacent battle-axe property to the rear at No. 18A Campbell Avenue contains a two-storey dwelling house. 

The site adjoins NSW Land and Housing Corporation social housing at No. 4 Stuart Avenue and a BP service station on the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Stuart Avenue, with both located across the street. The Queen of Peace Catholic Church is located at No. 18 Stuart Avenue, 150m south of the site.

The site is not bushfire or flood prone and is not burdened by any easements or restrictions.

The site is moderately vegetated and contains several large trees, in particular tree No. 1 within the front setback.

The site benefits from a drainage easement through No. 18A Campbell Avenue at the rear of the site.

Normanhurst Railway Station is located approximately 950m walking distance from the site. A bus stop servicing the Transport for NSW ‘589’ bus route is located directly across Stuart Avenue, connecting the site to Hornsby Town Centre.

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

The rear of the site contains remnant canopy trees characteristic of Blue Gum High Forest, listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a purpose-built two storey child care centre.

The centre would cater for a maximum of 71 children with the following age groups:

·              0-2 years            16 Children

·              2-3 years            15 Children

·              3-5 years            40 Children

The lower ground floor level would comprise 3 indoor play rooms, an outdoor balcony play area, a lift, 2x staff WC and 2x children WC. The ground floor would contain 2 indoor play rooms, outdoor balcony play area, 2 cot rooms, staff room, kitchen, laundry, director’s office, meeting room, pram parking space, bin room, accessible WC, children’s WC and a lift.

The landscaped outdoor play area to the rear of the site would be serviced by stairs from the lower ground floor balcony and an accessibility ramp along the southern side boundary and a walkway to the northern side boundary.

An open carpark would be provided to the front of the site comprising 18 car parking spaces, including 1 disabled space.

A pedestrian access is proposed to the southern side of the frontage, traversing the front of the southern aisle parking spaces to an accessible ramp, which would provide direct access to the front entry of the centre.

One tree is proposed to be removed to facilitate the proposed development. Landscaping is proposed within the front, side and rear setbacks, including the planting of 2 trees along the front boundary. Additionally, 317 shrubs would be planted to the perimeter of the site.

A boundary fence would be installed along the perimeter of the site, achieving a maximum height of 2.2m at the rear boundary and tapering to a height of 1.2m at the front boundary.

A 1.8m high acoustic barrier would be installed to the southern and northern elevations of the carpark, with 1.1m high acoustic barriers installed to the northern and southern elevations of the upper floor balcony. The southern elevation of the lower floor balcony would include a 1.4m high acoustic barrier. In addition, privacy screens are proposed to be installed to the side elevations of the lower and upper floor level balconies. 

The proposed operating hours of the child care centre would be 7:00am to 6:30pm, Monday to Friday.

The centre would be operated by a maximum of 11 educators.

No signage is proposed as part of this application.

ASSESSMENT

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

1.         STRATEGIC CONTEXT

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

A Metropolis of Three Cities – the Greater Sydney Region Plan has been prepared by the NSW State Government to guide land use planning decisions for the next 40 years (to 2056).  The Plan sets a strategy and actions for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth and identifies key targets such as dwelling numbers, infrastructure planning, liability, sustainability and productivity.  

Part 3 of the strategy relates to “Infrastructure and Collaboration” and a key objective is to provide services and infrastructure to meet communities’ changing needs. Further, the strategy cites changing demographics will affect the types and distribution of services required in neighbourhoods.

Over the 20 years to 2036, projections show an expected increase of 6,150 children aged four years and under. The identified challenge for Hornsby Shire would be to provide additional infrastructure for students and young people. The proposed child care centre would be consistent with the objectives of the strategy by providing 71 additional child care places.

2.         STATUTORY CONTROLS

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

2.1        Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013

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

2.1.1     Zoning of Land and Permissibility

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

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

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

The proposed development is defined as a “centre-based child care facility” and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. Whilst the use of the land as a centre-based child care facility is permitted in the zone, the application has failed to demonstrate that the impact of the works to achieve a childcare centre, particularly the car parking requirements, bulk and scale of the development, privacy, amenity and landscaping would not have a detrimental impact on the locality. The application also raises uncertainties with regard to site contamination.

2.1.2     Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 8.5m. The proposal would have a height of 8m 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     Earthworks

Clause 6.2 of the HLEP notes 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 application was supported by a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia. 

It is anticipated that the proposed development would require excavation works for the building footings and service trenches, with locally deep excavations for the proposed lift shafts. Council’s assessment has determined that the proposed development would require the removal of 200m³ of excavated material and the utilisation of 1.6m of fill to the rear portion of the building.

The submitted Geotechnical Report raises no concerns with the proposed development with regard to earthworks, subject to the following recommendations:

·              The preparation of a dilapidation survey report on adjacent properties and infrastructures.

·              Constant supervision of any excavations during construction.

·              The depth and strength of the underlying bedrock material (including natural soils) should be confirmed either prior or during construction.

·              Geotechnical inspections of foundations.

·              Monitoring of any groundwater inflows during construction.

·              Classification of all excavated material transported from the site.

Council concurs with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Assessment. The proposed earthworks would not detrimentally impact the surrounding natural and built environment with regard to drainage patterns and soil stability of the locality.

The proposal complies with Clause 6.2(3)(h) of the HLEP and is considered acceptable in this regard. 

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

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

Clause 23 of the Childcare SEPP requires Council to consider the relevant provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 (CCPG).

The CCPG will generally take precedence over the HDCP with the exception of building height, side and rear setbacks and car parking rates.

An assessment of the application against Part 1.3 Planning objectives, Part 2 Design quality principles, Part 3 Matters for consideration and Part 4 Applying the National Regulations to development proposals is provided below:

Part 1.3 - What are the planning objectives?

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

As per the discussion provided in response to Part 3 of the CCPG, the proposal is considered contrary to these objectives as the development would create visual, privacy, noise and amenity impacts to adjoining residential land uses and would pose a detrimental impact to the streetscape. 

Part 2 - Design quality principles

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

Part 3.1 - Site selection and location

Submission have been received raising concerns that child care centres should be located away from service stations.

The objectives of Part 3.1 of the CCPG include that the siting of child care centres should be clear of potential environmental contaminants, LPG tanks and service stations. In addition, Part 3.1 encourages that sites be absent from a high number of shared boundaries, and that the land characteristics be sympathetic and favourable to the amenity and privacy of adjacent properties.

Centre-based child care facilities are a permissible land use within the subject R2 low density residential zone. The site is located approximately 950m from the Normanhurst Railway Station. The site is not flood prone or bushfire prone. The site experiences an average slope of 10% to the rear boundary. The site is located approximately 20m from a BP service station at the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Stuart Avenue and a social housing development at No. 4 Stuart Avenue.

As the site experiences an average slope of 10% to the rear boundary, the front carpark has been provided above grade to be in accordance with the 5% maximum carpark gradient requirement of Australian Standard AS2890.1 – 2004. By virtue of the fall of the land, the finished floor level of the front carpark (FFL 181.6 AHD) is elevated above the natural ground level of the adjacent private open space areas and swimming pool of Nos. 7A and 11 Stuart Avenue by 2.6m and 3.6m, respectively (Approximately 179 and 178 AHD, respectively). When considered with the proposed 1.5m side boundary setbacks of the carpark, the visual and amenity impacts of the carpark to these adjacent properties are significant and cannot be supported.

Concerns are raised with the submitted Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI), which is deemed inadequate as onsite contamination borehole sampling has not been undertaken despite the presence of a BP service station within 20m upslope of the site. Although the submitted PSI has indicated that the ‘risk’ of site contamination is low, the application has not demonstrated whether the site is free of contaminants or whether the site is suitable for its intended use as a child care centre.

The site shares boundaries with 5 low density residential properties, as a result of land subdivisions creating battle-axe allotments to the north and south. As discussed above, the slope of the land exacerbates concerns with the elevated design of car parking areas, pathways, entry platforms and balconies to these five adjacent properties. The proposal is inconsistent with the CCPG in this regard.

The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development on contamination, amenity and safety grounds. 

The proposal does not meet the objectives of Part 3.1 of the CCPG and the proposal cannot be supported in this regard.

Part 3.2 - Local character, streetscape and the public domain interface

The objectives of Part 3.2 of the CCPG include that child care centre developments should contribute to and recognise existing streetscape qualities and integrate car parking into the building and site design.

Stuart Avenue is a low-density residential with a streetscape predominantly comprising single storey dwelling houses. The child care centre would present to the streetscape as a single storey structure and two storey at the rear of the site. A Schedule of External Finishes has not been submitted with the application. The proposal includes provision for acoustic barriers around the perimeter of the carpark which would be visible from the street.

As discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this report, Tree No. 1 (Cheese Tree) proposed to be removed is a predominant native canopy tree along this section of Stuart Avenue. The tree positively contributes to the streetscape and consideration should be given to its retention through the reconfiguration of the carpark layout, including the relocation of the proposed driveway and reduction of car parking spaces within the front setback.

The proposal does not meet the objectives of Part 3.2 of the CCPG and cannot be supported in this regard.

Part 3.3 - Building orientation, envelope and design

The objectives of Part 3.3 of the CCPG include that child care centres should be orientated to minimise visual privacy and minimise noise impacts and respond to the adjacent built form.

The main entrance to the child care centre building would be orientated towards the southern side boundary and would be serviced by a pedestrian landing with a finished floor level of 181.19 AHD. The landing would be located 1.75m from the southern side boundary. The natural ground level of the private open space (including swimming pool) at No. 11 Stuart Avenue achieves a level of approximately 178.2 AHD. Council’s assessment has determined that the main entry landing would exhibit a height of approximately 2.99m above the adjacent private open space. The proposed landscaping would achieve a mature height of 3m and would not screen the proposed landing from the adjacent open space.

Likewise, the two doors servicing the ground floor level director’s office and stairs to the northern side elevation would be orientated towards the private open space of the adjacent property at No. 7A Stuart Avenue. The door to the director’s office and stairs would be located at a level of 181.19 and 180.13 AHD, respectively. As the private open space of the adjacent property at No. 7A Stuart Avenue is located at an approximate level of 178.00 AHD, it is considered that the finished floor level of the director’s office door and the door to the stairs would be located 3.19m and 2.13m above the adjoining open space, respectively. Although landscaping with an expected mature height of 3m is proposed along this side boundary, the screening would not reach higher than the finished floor level of the attached pathway.  

The proposed orientation of the main entry landing and side access doors effectively encourages noise generation and the gathering of persons at locations most sensitive to the adjacent properties. It is considered that parents and guardians collecting children from the site would be encouraged, by design, to greet staff and other parents, possibly for prolonged periods of time on the entry landing within close proximity of the adjacent property at No. 11 Stuart Avenue. The design of the child care centre is not appropriate in this respect.

The proposal does not meet the objectives of Part 3.3 of the CCPG and the proposal cannot be supported in this regard.

Part 3.4 – Landscaping

The objectives of Part 3.4 of the CCPG include that existing landscaping should be retained where feasible and should take into account the streetscape when siting car parking areas. The CCPG also encourages large trees within car parking areas to create a cool outdoor environment.

Landscaping is proposed within the front, side and rear setbacks, including the planting of 2 trees along the front boundary and 7 trees to the rear. Additionally, 317 shrubs would be planted along the perimeter of the site.

As discussed earlier, Tree No. 1 which is proposed to be removed is a predominant landmark canopy tree that positively contributes to the streetscape and provides substantial shade to the front of the site. The proposal does not comply with the CCPG in this regard. Further discussion with regard to landscaping and tree preservation is provided in Sections 2.8.7 and 3.1.1 of this report.

Part 3.5 - Visual and Acoustic Privacy and Part 3.6 - Noise and Air Pollution

The objectives of Part 3.5 of the CCPG include that child care centres minimise overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces at adjoining sites through appropriate building layout including pathway, window and door locations. The objectives of Part 3.6 of the CCPG include that a suitably qualified acoustic professional prepare an acoustic report to identify an appropriate noise level for a child care centre facility. In addition, the CCPG indicates that a suitably qualified air quality professional should prepare an air quality assessment report to demonstrate that proposed child care centres close to major roads or industrial developments can meet air quality standards in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines.

A boundary fence would be installed along the perimeter of the site, achieving a maximum height of 2.2m at the rear boundary and tapering to a height of 1.2m at the front boundary.

A 1.8m high acoustic barrier would be installed to the southern and northern elevations of the carpark, with 1.1m high acoustic barriers installed to the northern and southern elevations of the upper floor balcony. The southern elevation of the lower floor balcony would include a 1.4m high acoustic barrier. In addition, privacy screens are proposed to be installed to the side elevations of the lower and upper floor level balconies. 

The main entry landing, side access doors, elevated pathways and carparking area would facilitate overlooking into the private open space areas of the adjacent properties at Nos. 7, 7A, 11, 11A Stuart Avenue and is not supported in this instance.

Council’s assessment of the applicant’s acoustic report raised issues with the submitted information. This matter is discussed in detail in Section 2.8.5 of this report. 

The proposal does not meet the objectives of Parts 3.5 and 3.6 of the CCPG and is considered unacceptable.

Part 3.7 Hours of operation

Part 3.7 of the CCPG indicates that the hours of operation within areas where the predominant land use is residential should be confined to the core hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm weekdays.

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

Part 3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation 

Part 3.8 of the CCPG indicates that a Traffic and Parking Study should be prepared to support the proposal to quantify potential impacts on the surrounding land uses and demonstrate how impacts on amenity will be minimised. In addition, the CCPG indicates that child care facilities proposed within narrow roads should ensure that safe access can be provided to and from the site and that vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction. Further, defined pedestrian crossings should be included within large car parking areas.

Section 2.8.3 of this report addresses parking, traffic and pedestrian circulation.

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

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

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

Centre-based child care - non-discretionary development standards

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

A public submission has raised concerns that there are already a number of child care centres in the vicinity.

Whilst there are other child care centres within the vicinity of the site, the child care centre can be located at any distance from an existing or proposed childhood education and care facility in accordance with Clause 25(a) of the Childcare SEPP.

(b)        Indoor or outdoor space

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

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

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

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

Comment: The site has an area of 1,628.8m² and is considered acceptable.

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

Comment: The centre would not be located within a heritage conservation area and is sited more than 125m from the landscape heritage item at Thornleigh Golf Centre. Notwithstanding, a Schedule of External Finishes has not been submitted with the application to enable Council to assess visual impact, character and streetscape impacts.

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

2.3        Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2019

On 1 September 2019, the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 was repealed and the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2019 came into force. Clause 28 of the repealed regulations provided the functional space requirements for child care centre premises, including maximum number of child places and minimum outdoor and indoor play area requirements.

The Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2019 does not stipulate provisions with regard to functional space requirements, and instead delegates these provisions to the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017.

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

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

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

Section 3.1.1 of this report addresses proposed tree removal.

2.5        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) under which consent must not be granted to the carrying out of any development on land unless the consent authority has considered whether the land is contaminated or requires remediation for the proposed use.

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.

An examination of Council’s records and aerial photography has determined that the site has been historically used for residential purposes.

As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, Council raises concern with the submitted Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia (CGA), which is deemed inadequate as onsite borehole sampling has not been undertaken for contamination assessment despite the presence of a service station approximately 20m upslope of the site. Although the submitted PSI has indicated that the ‘risk’ of site contamination is low due to its residential history, the report acknowledges that “only through onsite sampling will GCA be able to identify whether the site has any potential contamination from the service station”.

Council acknowledges that borehole testing was undertaken on the site from a geotechnical perspective, as outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by GCA. The scope of the geotechnical assessment was to provide recommendations with regard to site stability and did not undertake a contamination assessment.

The application has not adequately demonstrated whether the site is free of contaminants or whether the site is suitable for its proposed use a child care centre. Council would require the submission of a detailed Environmental Site Investigation (Stage 2) to be conducted with on-site contamination sampling in accordance with NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 2013 (NEPM). Given the sensitivity of the proposed use on the site, this information would need to be assessed by Council prior to any consent for a child care centre development on the site.

2.6        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

Subject to the implementation of 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.

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

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

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

2.8        Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

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

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

2.8.1     Site Requirements

The HDCP provides selection criteria that aim to encourage the location of community land uses on sites with the lowest potential social and environmental impacts. The HDCP recommends that community uses should be separated from intensive, offensive or hazardous land uses. It also suggests that the preferred location would be corner sites, sites adjacent to non-residential uses and sites with a frontage to a park.

The site is located approximately 20m from a BP service station at the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Stuart Avenue and a social housing development at No. 4 Stuart Avenue.

As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.5 of this report, Council raises concerns with the submitted Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia. The report is deemed inadequate as contamination borehole sampling has not been undertaken despite the presence of a service station approximately 20m upslope of the site. Although the submitted PSI has indicated that the ‘risk’ of site contamination is low, the application has not adequately demonstrated whether the site is free of contaminants or whether the site is suitable for use by children.

The proposal does not comply with Part 7.1.1 Site Requirements of the HDCP and is considered unacceptable in this regard.

2.8.2     Scale

Submissions have been received raising concerns that the bulk and scale of the development is excessive, and the capacity of the child care centre should be 40 children in accordance with the HDCP.

The HDCP provides that the floor area of a child care centre should be 430m², and the maximum number of children should be 40 children. The proposed development would have a floor area of 759m² (including the balconies) and a capacity of 71 children, which would be contrary to the requirements of the HDCP.

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

Notwithstanding, consideration should be given to a reduction in the bulk and scale of the development to alleviate concerns relating to privacy, amenity, sunlight access, traffic and noise impacts to adjacent properties. 

2.8.3     Transport and Parking

A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment (Issue G) accompanied the proposal as amended prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates.

Submissions have been received raising concerns with regard to the existing traffic conditions adjacent to the site, along with concerns that the 71-place child care centre would exacerbate those traffic and safety issues, summarised as follows:

·              The development would pose a detrimental impact to vehicle and pedestrian safety along Stuart Avenue.

·              The street is narrow, and motorists often navigate onto the other side of the road during peak hours due to the banked-up cars at the traffic lights and vehicles parked adjacent to the kerb.

·              The site is located at a bend in the road and there is poor vehicle visibility and line of sight.

·              There is constant traffic and queuing of cars at the traffic lights at the intersection of Pennant Hills Road with Stuart Avenue.

·              Bus stops servicing local schools are sited directly across the site and Stuart Avenue is subject to frequent bus services.

·              The driveway servicing the 40-unit townhouse development across the street at No. 4 Stuart Avenue is directly opposite the proposed vehicular access for the development, resulting in substantial traffic through this section of Stuart Avenue.

·              A significant number of bins are positioned adjacent to the street prior to garbage collection for the adjoining townhouse development. Due to the large number of bins, the waste truck is required to double park for a number of minutes, creating an obstacle for vehicles and posing an impact to the safety of children.

·              Motorists utilise the service station as a ‘rat run’ to avoid the traffic lights at Pennant Hills Road.

·              The BP Service Station is located approximately 20m upslope of the site which generates traffic.

·              The Queen of Peace Catholic Church holds frequent services, including funeral services with vehicle convoys during peaks hours.

·              On-street parking is limited along Stuart Avenue.

·              The provided on-site car parking does not include staff parking.

·              An additional on-site pedestrian pathway should be provided to the north of the car park for safety reasons.

Traffic Generation

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (GTGD) prescribes a rate of 0.8 vehicle trips per child during the 7am to 9am peak period and 0.7 vehicle trips per child during the 4pm to 6pm peak period for child care centres. Accordingly, the development would generate 40 trips in the AM peak and 35 trips in the PM peak.

Appendix B of the submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment (TPIA) (Issue G) provides ​Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) traffic data for the Pennant Hills Road and Stuart Avenue intersection. SCATS collect traffic volume data using detectors at traffic signals. This data can be used to measure existing traffic volume including lane and/or turning counts. Using the SCATS data, Council’s traffic assessment has calculated the existing traffic volume along Stuart Avenue during the 7am to 9am peak, detailed as follows:

·              Left turn to Pennant Hills Road from Stuart Avenue - 218 vehicles

·              Right turn to Pennant Hills Road from Stuart Avenue - 63 vehicles

As evidenced by the data, a combined 281 vehicles would travel northbound along Stuart Avenue to the signalised intersection at Pennant Hills Road during the 7am to 9am morning peak, equating to over 94 vehicles per hours. The data correlates with concerns from the community that substantial existing northbound traffic occurs along Stuart Avenue during morning hours, resulting in the banking up of vehicles at the traffic lights.

The proposed development would contribute a further 40 trips in the AM peak and 35 trips in the PM peak. Although the child care centre itself would not substantially contribute to traffic along Stuart Avenue, it is considered that the existing traffic conditions would restrict safe ingress and egress from the site during peak periods. Further discussion with relation to safety is provided below.

Sight Distances/Safety

The submitted TPIA indicates that the proposed 6.2m wide driveway would be located centrally along the frontage, where there is good sight distance for egressing drivers.

Council’s traffic assessment raises concerns that the existing sight distances to the front of the site are inadequate around the bend in the road. To improve sight distances and ensure safe vehicular ingress and egress from site, Council’s traffic assessment recommends that the following civil works be undertaken prior to occupation:

·              The installation of ‘No Parking, 7am-10am, 3pm-6:30pm, Mon – Fri’ along the nature strip to the front of the site.

·              The installation of “Mail Zone” signs 3m either side of the Australia Post mail box, and the bus stop be converted to a “Bus Zone” from the “Mail Zone” sign to the northern side of the driveway at No. 2-4 Stuart Avenue.

Given the poor site distances in Stuart Avenue, it is considered that the proposed development, given its scale would not be suitable on the site on safety grounds.

On Site Parking

The HDCP requires a minimum of 1 on-site car parking space per 4 children (which equates to 18 spaces for the proposed 71 children). The car park would comprise of 18 car parking spaces including one disabled parking space and six allocated staff car parking spaces, which would comply with this requirement.

Concerns have been raised by the community that the 18 on-site car parking spaces should be dedicated to parents only, and additional parking required for staff should be provided on-site. The HDCP requirement for the provision of a minimum of 1 on-site car parking space per 4 children takes into consideration the need for staff to park on site and is considered acceptable in this regard.

The amended Architectural Plans (Issue G) rely upon the shared zone of the accessible parking space as a turning area to allow vehicles to turn around and leave in a forward direction if the car park is fully occupied. The shared zone should not be utilised for vehicle turning purposes and a standalone turning bay is required in the car park. Consideration should be given to the deletion of car parking spaces to provide for the dedicated turning area.

The current carpark design provides a pedestrian pathway to the front of the southern parking aisle, connecting the street to the access ramp adjacent to the building entry. Concern is raised by Council that pedestrian pathways within child care centre car parks should ideally be provided behind bollards, clear of the driveway and vehicle movements.

On Street Parking

Kerbside parking is permitted on both side of Stuart Avenue in the vicinity of the site.

As the proposed development complies with the on-site parking rates of the HDCP, it is anticipated that the proposed on-site car parking would provide ample parking spaces to prevent the use of on-street parking.  

2.8.4     Waste Management

The submitted Ground Floor Plan indicates that the bin storage room would be integrated with the child care building adjacent to the building entry. The proposed development would generate a demand for 2 x 660L garbage bins and 3 x 240L recycling bins, serviced weekly.

Council’s waste management assessment raises concerns that the 660L bins would be difficult to manoeuvre when at capacity from the bin room via the ramp to the street frontage prior to collection.

Consideration should be given to relocating the bin storage to the rear of the car park area to avoid utilisation of the ramp.

2.8.5     Noise and Vibration

Submissions have been received raising concerns that the elevated walkways, parking area and balconies and outdoor play areas would result in unacceptable noise impacts to the adjacent property at No. 11 Stuart Avenue and other adjoining properties.

The HDCP requires that child care centres be accompanied by an Acoustic Report that demonstrates the development is sited and designed to minimise the effect of noise and vibration on surrounding sensitive land uses. The proposal as amended has been supported by an Acoustic Report prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd (Revision B).

Section 5.4.1 of the Acoustic Report indicates that the anticipated outdoor play area noise levels are calculated based on a maximum of 71 children evenly spaced across the outdoor play areas at any one time. The acoustic assessment has adopted noise limit of 51dBA for the adjacent residential receivers. The report acknowledges that based on the maximum of 71 children, the centre would exceed recommended noise limits to the adjacent properties at No. 7 and 11A Stuart Avenue by +3dB and +1dB, respectively.

Section 7 of the report provides recommendations to reduce the noise received at No. 7 and 11A Stuart Avenue, including the installation of acoustic barriers along the length of the carpark, side elevations of the balconies and 2.2m high fencing along the rear and side boundaries and the restriction of the number of children outside at any one time to a maximum of 51 children. Notwithstanding, the recommendations of the acoustic report it is considered impractical to limit the number of children to 51 and only allow half of the older age group to play outside at any one time. In addition, it is determined that the 2.2m high side and rear boundary fences would be excessive when viewed from adjacent properties.

Consideration should instead be given to a reduction in overall child numbers through a comprehensive redesign of the development and the reduction in the height of the boundary acoustic barriers to reduce noise and amenity impacts to adjoining residential receivers.

2.8.6     Privacy

Submissions have been received raising concerns that the development would facilitate overlooking into the private open space and living areas of the adjacent properties at No. 11 and 11A Stuart Avenue.

The site shares boundaries with five low density residential properties and experiences an average gradient of 10% to the site. The elevated development would be sited directly adjacent to the private open space areas of No. 7, 7A and 11A Stuart Avenue.

The windows to the side and rear elevations of the child care centre would be frosted. No privacy concerns are raised in this regard.

Privacy screens are proposed to be installed to the side elevations of the lower (1.4m high) and upper floor level balconies (2.5m high). Although the privacy screens would to some extent mitigate overlooking into the private open space areas of adjacent properties, the development should be redesigned to the provide outdoor play areas at natural ground level instead of upper floor balconies.

As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, the main entrance to the child care centre building would be orientated towards the southern side boundary and would be serviced by a pedestrian landing. Council’s assessment has determined that the main entry landing would be exhibit a height of approximately 2.99m above the adjacent private open space at No. 11 Stuart Avenue. The proposed landscaping would achieve a mature height of 3m and would not screen the proposed landing from the adjacent open space.

Likewise, the two doors servicing the ground floor level director’s office and stairs to the northern side elevation would be orientated towards the private open space of the adjacent property at No. 7A Stuart Avenue. The finished floor level of the director’s office door and the door to the stairwell would be located 3.19m and 2.13m above the adjoining open space, respectively. Although landscaping with an expected mature height of 3m is proposed along this side boundary, the screening would not reach higher than the finished floor level of the attached pathway.  

The proposal would not comply with the privacy requirements of Part 7.1.6 of the HDCP and is considered unacceptable in this regard.

2.8.7     Minimum Landscaped Area

The provisions of the HDCP requires that a minimum of 45% of the site is to be landscaped area. The proposed development would result in a landscaped area on the site of 30% which would be contrary to the requirements of the HDCP. Notwithstanding, there is no minimum required landscaped area contained within the CCPG and therefore this control cannot be enforced. 

Landscaping is proposed within the front, side and rear setbacks, including the planting of 2 trees with an anticipated mature height of 5m along the front boundary. Additionally, 317 shrubs would be planted to the perimeter of the site. The proposed removal of the landmark canopy tree (tree No. 1) from the front of the site would result in a detrimental impact to the streetscape and shade within the carpark and consideration should be given to its retention.

Council considers that a more appropriately designed centre should incorporate additional landscaped area within the front carpark area through a reduction in the number of car parking spaces.

2.8.8     Landscaping (Front Setback)

The HDCP requires that car parking for child care centres should be visually recessive and preferably located at basement level to maintain the landscaped setting. An above-grade car park is proposed within the frontage of the site, the HDCP requires that a minimum 2m landscaped setback be provided from all property boundaries within the front setback area.

Within the frontage of the site, the proposal would include a 2m wide landscaped setback to the front boundary, and a 1.56m wide landscaped area to the southern and northern side boundaries adjacent to the car park. Council raises concern that the 1.56m wide strips of landscaping within the northern and southern setbacks would not provide adequate vegetation density and screening along this section of the site to appropriately screen the elevated parking spaces from the adjoining properties.

The proposal would not comply with the side boundary landscaping requirements of the HDCP and is considered unacceptable.

2.8.9     Sunlight Access

Submissions have been received raising concerns that solar access would be restricted to the adjacent properties to the south at No. 11 and 11A Stuart Avenue. In addition, a submission argues that the 2.2m high boundary fence adjacent to No. 11A Stuart Avenue would be excessive and should be reduced to a 1.8m lapped and capped fence, for solar access reasons.

The HDCP states that on 22 June 50% of the principal private open space on any adjoining residential property should receive a minimum of 3 hours of unobstructed solar access between 9am and 3pm.

The submitted Shadow Diagrams (Issue G) demonstrate that the private open space adjacent property to the south at No. 11 Stuart Avenue would not receive a minimum of 3 hours of unobstructed solar access between 9am and 3pm in June. Council’s assessment notes that the area most affected by the overshadowing contains a swimming pool.

The proposal would not meet the sunlight access provisions of the HDCP and is considered unacceptable in this regard.

2.8.10   Setbacks

The proposed pathway within the northern side setback and the main entrance landing adjacent to the southern side boundary would be setback 1.75m from the northern and southern side boundaries, respectively. 

Council’s assessment has determined that the main entry landing would be exhibit a height of approximately 2.99m above the adjacent private open space at No. 11 Stuart Avenue. The proposed landscaping would achieve a mature height of 3m and would not screen the proposed landing from the adjacent open space at No. 7A Stuart Avenue. Likewise, the elevated pathway along the northern side boundary would be located 2.13m above the adjoining open space. Although landscaping with an expected mature height of 3m is proposed along this side boundary, the screening would not reach higher than the finished floor level of the pathway.  

The non-compliant side setbacks exacerbate privacy, noise and amenity concerns to the adjoining residential properties and is considered unacceptable in this regard.

2.9        Section 7.12 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 7.12 Contributions Plan 2019-2029 applies to the development as the estimated costs of works is greater than $100,000. Should the application be approved, an appropriate condition of consent is recommended requiring the payment of a contribution in accordance with the Plan.

3.         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

3.1        Natural Environment

3.1.1     Tree and Vegetation Preservation

A submission has been received raising concerns that the proposed development would pose a detrimental impact to tree Nos. 2 and 3 on the adjacent property at No. 11 Stuart Avenue.

The application has been accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Temporal Tree Management dated 4 March 2019.

The rear of the site contains remnant canopy trees characteristic of Blue Gum High Forest, listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. The site contains trees which satisfy Council’s criteria for being individually important, identified as tree Nos. 1, 4, 11, 14, and 17.

One tree is proposed to be removed within the front setback to facilitate construction of the proposed carpark, identified as tree No. 1 (Cheese Tree). The report has determined that tree No.1 is a native tree of ‘fair’ health and structure with a ‘long’ useful life expectancy and a high ‘A1’ retention value and “should therefore be retained as part of the proposed development”. Council’s tree assessment concurs with the conclusion of the report and considers the tree a landmark canopy tree along this section of Stuart Avenue. The tree positively contributes to the streetscape and consideration should be given to its retention through the reconfiguration of the carpark layout, including the relocation of the proposed driveway and reduction of car parking spaces within the front setback.

The proposed development would encroach into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of tree No. 17 (Sydney Blue Gum) by less than 10%, and into the TPZ of tree No. 4 (Sydney Blue Gum) by 35%. The encroachment into tree No. 4 is considered a ‘major’ TPZ incursion in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. There is scope to retain these trees, subject to the utilisation of appropriate tree sensitive construction methods including pier and beam construction and fill by hand.

The two trees on the adjoining property at No. 11 Stuart Avenue identified as tree Nos. 2 and 3 would not be detrimentally impacted by the proposed works and no concerns are raised in this regard.

3.1.2     Stormwater Management

Submissions have been received raising concerns that the development would result in unacceptable stormwater runoff onto downstream properties.

The proposal as amended indicates the installation of an on-site detention system with all stormwater from the development drained to a proposed drainage easement over the adjacent property to the rear at No. 18A Campbell Avenue Normanhurst.

Council’s stormwater assessment raises no concerns with the proposed method of stormwater disposal.

3.2        Built Environment

3.2.1     Access and Mobility

The application is supported by a Disability Access Report prepared by Lindsay Perry Access. The report concludes that the proposed development complies with the relevant accessibility provisions of Disability (Access to Premises - Building) Standards 2010.

3.3        Social Impacts

The proposed modification to the child care centre would provide 71 child care places in the locality. Notwithstanding, to achieve these 71 places the proposal would have adverse impacts to adjoining properties including amenity, privacy, traffic, safety, noise and tree preservation. 

3.4        Economic Impacts

The proposal would have a minor positive impact on the local economy by generating an increase in employment opportunities.

4.         SITE SUITABILITY

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

The site slopes moderately towards the rear boundary. Sites for child care centre developments generally require level areas and building floorplates to accommodate disabled access and to ensure safe internal play areas for children. In addition, car parking areas for child care centres on sloping sites need to be provided at a maximum gradient of 5% in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1-2004.  Due to the intertwined design and site constraints, it is considered that rear sloping sites are better suited to smaller scale child care facilities in low density residential areas to minimise amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

It is also considered that the site is not suitable for the proposed development as the proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate that vehicle and pedestrian safety could be achieved within the car park and adjoining street.

The removal of the large canopy tree (tree No. 1) to the front of the site is not supported and should be retained to provide shade to the car park and contributes to the streetscape.

In addition, the application has not demonstrated whether the site is free of contaminants and suitable for the proposed use.

The scale of the proposed development is excessive, and the design of the development does not have regard to the site’s constraints.

5.         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

5.1        Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 31 October 2019 and 15 November 2019 in accordance with the requirements of the Hornsby Community Participation Plan. The proposal as amended was re-notified to adjoining, nearby landowners and objectors between 23 March 2020 and 7 April 2020. During these periods, Council received a total of 86 submissions. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are in close proximity to the development site.

Note: A significant number of submissions did not provide a residential address and were treated as anonymous objections. Only submissions that enclosed residential addresses within the map range have been included in the map below.

NOTIFICATION PLAN
•      PROPERTIES NOTIFIED	X      SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED	PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT
56 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED OUT OF MAP RANGE

 

86 submissions objected to the development, generally on the grounds that:

·              Child care centre developments should be located away from service stations for safety reasons.

·              There are already a number of child care centres in the vicinity.

·              The bulk and scale of the development is excessive, and the capacity of the child care centre should be 40 children in accordance with the HDCP.

·              The existing traffic conditions adjacent to the site are not suitable for a 71-place child care centre, summarised as follows:

o     The development would pose a detrimental impact to vehicle and pedestrian safety along Stuart Avenue.

o     The street is narrow, and motorists often navigate onto the other side of the road during peak hours due to the banked-up cars at the traffic lights and vehicles parked adjacent to the kerb.

o     The site is located at a bend in the road and there is poor vehicle visibility and lines of sight;

o     There is constant traffic and queuing of cars during at the traffic lights at the intersection of Pennant Hills Road with Stuart Avenue.

o     Bus stops servicing local schools are sited directly across the site and Stuart Avenue is subject to frequent bus services.

o     The driveway servicing the 40-unit townhouse development across the street at No. 4 Stuart Avenue is directly opposite the proposed vehicular access of the proposed development, resulting in substantial traffic through this section of Stuart Avenue.

o     A significant number of bins are positioned adjacent to the street prior to garbage collection for the adjoining townhouse development. Due to the large number of bins, the waste truck is required to double park for a number of minutes, creating an obstacle for vehicles and posing an impact to the safety of children.

o     Motorists utilise the service station as a ‘rat run’ to avoid the traffic lights at Pennant Hills Road.

o     The BP Service Station is located approximately 20m upslope of the site which generates traffic.

o     The Queen of Peace Catholic Church holds frequent services, including funeral services with vehicle convoys during peaks hours.

o     On-Street Parking is limited along Stuart Avenue.

·              The provided on-site car parking does not include staff parking.

·              An additional on-site pedestrian pathway should be provided to the north of the car park for safety reasons.

·              The elevated walkways, parking area and balconies and outdoor play areas would result in unacceptable noise impacts to the adjacent property at No. 11 Stuart Avenue and other adjoining properties.

·              The development would facilitate overlooking into the private open space and living areas of the adjacent properties at No. 11 and 11A Stuart Avenue.

·              Solar access would be restricted to the adjacent properties to the south at No. 11 and 11A Stuart Avenue. In addition, a submission argues that the 2.2m high boundary fence adjacent to No. 11A Stuart Avenue would be excessive and should be reduced to a 1.8m lapped and capped fence, for solar access reasons.

·              The proposed development would pose a detrimental impact to tree Nos. 2 and 3 on the adjacent property at No. 11 Stuart Avenue.

·              The development would result in unacceptable stormwater runoff onto downstream properties.

·              There is no pedestrian footpath along the nature strip to the front of the site.

·              The proposed development would pose a detrimental impact to the value of properties in the area.

·              Additional noise and congestion would occur during construction of the development.

·              The notification sign was not erected to the front of the property during re-notification of the application.

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     Pedestrian Footpath on Council Land

A submission has been received raising concerns that there is no pedestrian footpath along the nature strip to the front of the site, posing a safety risk to children.

Should the application be recommended for approval, a condition of consent would be required for the construction of a pedestrian footpath along the nature strip adjacent to the front of the property.

5.1.2     Property Values

Submissions have been received raising concerns that the proposed development would detrimentally affect the value of neighbouring properties.

In addressing this concern, Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not require Council to take into consideration the impact of a development on the value of nearby properties.

5.1.3     Noise and Congestion During Construction

A submission has been received raising concerns that excessive noise and vehicle congestion would occur during construction of the development.

In addressing this submission, the preliminary Construction Management Plan (CMP) prepared by Gardner Wetherill & Associates supported the application, providing appropriate actions with regard to traffic management, site access and noise management during construction. Should the application be recommended for approval, a condition would be recommended requiring the submission of a final CMP prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

5.1.4     Notification Sign

A submission has been received raising concerns that the notification sign was not erected to the front of the property during re-notification of the application.

On 23 March 2020, Council re-notified the amended application to the public in accordance with the notification requirements of the Hornsby Community Participation Plan (CPP). Upon request by Council staff on 7 April 2020, Council received photographic evidence of the sign affixed along the front boundary for a period of 14 days. 

5.2        Public Agencies

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

6.         THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

The application proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a purpose-built two storey child care centre.

The proposed child care centre is contrary to Council’s planning controls and the considerations under the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 and is unsatisfactory having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council received 86 submissions during the public notification period. The matters raised have been addressed in the body of the report.

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

The reasons for this decision are:

·              The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments, the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 and the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 with regard to privacy, setbacks, landscaping, noise, traffic and safety, site suitability, contamination, tree retention and sunlight access.

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

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this report is Thomas Dales.

 

 

Cassandra Williams Major Development Manager - Development Assessments Planning and Compliance Division

Rod Pickles Manager - Development Assessments Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Locality Plan
2.	Amended Architectural Plans
3.	Survey Plans
4.	Landscape Plan
5.	Draft Plan of Mangement

 

 

File Reference:           DA/893/2019

Document Number:     D07905219

 

SCHEDULE 1

1.         The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone with respect to the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 as the development would not provide suitable child care facilities to the meet the day to day needs of residents.

2.         The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposed development does not satisfy Clause 23 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 as follows:

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

2.2        The proposal is contrary to the ‘design principles of Part 2 of the Guideline in relation to built form, landscaping, safety, amenity, privacy, solar access and noise.

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

3.         The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the removal of tree No. 1 would pose a detrimental impact to the streetscape and the ‘major’ incursion into the TPZ of tree No. 4 would pose an adverse impact to the vitality of the tree and is unacceptable with respect to State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017.

4.         The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the application has not adequately demonstrated whether the site is free of contaminants or whether the site is suitable for children in accordance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land.

5.         In accordance with Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal does not comply with the desired outcome and the prescriptive measures of Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) as follows:

5.1        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Tree Preservation’ prescriptive measures within Parts 1B.6 of the HDCP as the removal of tree No. 1 would pose a detrimental impact to the streetscape and consideration should be given to its retention through the reconfiguration of the carpark layout, including the relocation of the proposed driveway and reduction of car parking spaces within the front setback. In addition, the development would generate a ‘major’ incursion into the TPZ of tree No. 4 and would pose an adverse impact to its life expectancy.

5.2        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Transport and Parking’ prescriptive measures within Part 1C.2.1 of the HDCP as the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site would not be suitable for a child care facility on safety grounds.

5.3        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Waste Management’ prescriptive measures within Part 1C.2.3 of the HDCP as the bin carting route includes a ramp and would not allow for safe manoeuvrability of the 660L bins.

5.4        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Noise and Vibration’ prescriptive measures within Part 1C.2.5 of the HDCP as the proposed 2.2m high acoustic fences are considered excessive in height and would have an adverse visual impact to adjoining properties.

5.5        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Scale’ prescriptive measures within Part 7.1.2 of the HDCP as the proposed development would adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties with regard to amenity, noise, landscaping, privacy and bulk and scale.

5.6        The proposal does not comply with the minimum 2 metre building setback along the northern and southern side boundaries in accordance with the ‘Setbacks’ prescriptive measures within Part 7.1.3 of the HDCP.

5.7        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Privacy, Security and Sunlight’ prescriptive measures within Part 7.1.6 of the HDCP as the main entry landing, elevated pathways and balconies would pose a privacy impact to adjacent residential properties.

5.8        The proposal does not comply with the ‘Landscaping’ prescriptive measures within Part 7.1.4 of the HDCP as landscaping within the northern and southern setbacks would not provide adequate vegetation density and screening along the front of the site to appropriately screen the parking spaces from the adjoining properties.

6.         In accordance with Section 4.15(1)(c) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the site is not suitable for the proposed development.  

7.         Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(b) and (e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development would not be in the public’s interest.

- END OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL -

 

LPP Report No. LPP11/20

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 27/05/2020

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/999/2019 (Lodged on 31 October 2019)
Description:	Telecommunications Facility
Property:	Lot 18 DP 3468, Lot 19 DP 3468, Lot 20 DP3468, Lot Z DP 416673, Lot 23 DP 220061, No. 20X Harris Road, Normanhurst
Applicant:	Cps Global
Owner:	Hornsby Shire Council
Estimated Value:	$250,000
Ward:	B

·              The application involves the demolition of an existing flood light pole and the construction of a 30-metre free standing steel monopole telecommunications facility, installation of 3 Optus and 3 Vodafone panel antennas, oval flood lighting fixtures at a height of 22 metres, ground level fencing and ancillary telecommunication equipment.

·              The site is owned by Hornsby Shire Council and accordingly the application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Local Planning Panel. An independent assessment of the development application has been undertaken by Key Urban Planning.

·              A total of 31 submissions have been received in respect of the application., 24 submissions have raised objection and 7 submissions have supported the development application.

·              The planning report by Key Urban Planning is attached to this report for the Hornsby Local Planning Panel’s consideration. The independent consultant’s report recommends that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION THAT Development Application No. DA/999/1029 for a Telecommunications Facility at Lot 18 DP 3468, Lot 19 DP 3468, Lot 20 DP3468, Lot Z DP 416673, Lot 23 DP 220061, No. 20X Harris Road, Normanhurst, be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of LPP Report No.LPP11/20

 

ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the referral criteria and procedural requirements for Local Planning Panels, the assessment of the development application has been referred to an independent town planning consultant as the subject site is land owned by Hornsby Shire Council. The planning assessment report by Key Urban Planning is attached to this report.

CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR reccomendation

The application proposes the construction of a Telecommunications Facility.

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

A total of 31 submissions have been received in respect of the application, 24 by way of objection and 7 in support.

It is recommended that the Hornsby Local Planning Panel approve the application in accordance with the recommendation in the report prepared by Key Urban Planning, and the conditions of consent attached to this report.

The reasons for this decision are:

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

·              The proposal would provide a positive impact on the local community and rail commuters by improving the mobile network coverage in the locality.

·              The design, height and site location of the telecommunications tower is appropriate with respect to servicing the locality, lack of suitable colocation facilities in the locality and surrounding topography.

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

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this report is Peter Fryar from Key Urban Planning.

 

SCHEDULE 1

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:

Approved Plans

Plan No.	Plan Title	Drawn by	Dated	Council Reference
S8687-P1 Revision 6	Site Access and Site Layout	GPS Global	24/02/2020	D07875522
S8687-P2 Revision 5	Draft site elevation	GPS Global	24/02/2020	D07875522
S8687-P3 Revision 1	Sediment and erosion control plan	GPS Global	15/07/2019	D07875522
S8687-P4 Revision 1	Sediment and erosion control plan	GPS Global	15/07/2019	D07875522

Supporting Documentation

Document Title	Prepared by	Dated	Council Reference
Bushfire Risk Assessment Report: S86687	Backlash Consulting	6/03/20	D07875525

2.         Section 7.12 Development Contributions

a)         In accordance with Section 4.17(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Hornsby Shire Council Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan –2019-2029, $2,500 must be paid towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services, based on development costs of $250,000.

b)         The value of this contribution is current as at 28 April 2020. If this contribution is not paid within the financial quarter that this condition was generated, the contribution payable will be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the Hornsby Shire Council Section 94 Development Contributions Plan and the amount payable will be calculated at the time of payment in the following manner:

$C_{PY   =}   $C_DC  x CPI_PY

CPI_DC

Where:

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

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

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

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

c)         The monetary contributions must be paid to Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.         Construction Certificate

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

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

 

 

4.         Sports Field Lighting

To ensure that the monopole contains adequate facilities to enable the affixation of Council’s sport field lighting, provision must be granted for the following design elements prior to the issue of a construction certificate;

a)         The applicant must ensure that the monopole will facilitate Council supplied power cables through the inside of the pole, so Council’s sports field and lighting contractor can mount/install sports field lights, cross arm and cable at a height of 22m onto the Tower.

b)         Applicant is to remove and dispose of the existing steel light pole as part of the works.

5.         Access Track

The access track must be designed in accordance with the following requirements:

a)         Minimum 3m wide.

b)         25mpa concrete coloured ‘Honeycomb’.

c)         200mm thick and with two layers of SL82 mesh.

d)         Fall away from the oval.

e)         Where adjacent to the netball court be widened to remove any open drain and be fully paved between the netball court fence and the oval fence.

f)          Where required the existing oval fence is to be relocated to ensure minimum access track width is provided.

g)         New fencing is to match the existing oval fencing.

The design of the access track is to be submitted the Manager of Parks Trees & Recreation Hornsby Shire Council for written approval prior to the release of a construction certificate.

Note: Please contact Council via hsc@hornsby.nsw.gov.au “Attention Manager Parks, Trees and Recreation” to obtain written approval.

6.         Sports Field Lighting

The telecommunications tower must be designed in accordance with the following requirements:

a)         The sports field lights are outside the EMF (Electro Magnetic Field) energy pattern of the telecommunications facility when installed at 22m on the pole.

b)         The facility does not require to be de-energised for Council to undertake maintenance works on the sports field lights and subsequent equipment.

c)         The Telecommunications Tower will facilitate Council supplied power cables and power through the inside of the pole to the sports field lights mounted on the pole at 22m.

d)         A certificate prepared by a suitably qualified person is to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate confirming that the design of the telecommunications facility is in accordance with this condition of consent.

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.         Design and Construction - Bushfire Attack Category 

a)         New construction must comply with the bushfire requirements outlined in the Bushfire Risk Assessment Report Ref: S867, prepared by Backlash Bushfire Consulting, dated 6 March 2020.

b)         A certificate prepared by a suitably qualified person is to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate confirming that the design of the telecommunications facility is in accordance with this condition of consent.

9.         Park Access Licence

A separate application must be submitted to the Manager of Parks Trees & Recreation Hornsby Shire Council for a licence to access the park prior to commencement of any work. The application must be approved prior to any work commencing on site.

Note: Please contact Council via hsc@hornsby.nsw.gov.au “Attention Manager Parks, Trees and Recreation” to obtain a copy of the application form.

10.        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.

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.

11.        Bushfire Management – Protection Zones

At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity, the property around the base of the proposed tower to a distance of 10 metres, shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA).

The IPA must comprise

a)         Minimal fine fuel at ground level.

b)         Grass mowed or grazed.

c)         Trees and shrubs retained as clumps or islands and do not take up more than 20% of the area.

d)         Trees and shrubs located far enough from buildings so that they will not ignite the building.

e)         Garden beds with flammable shrubs not located under trees or within 10 metres of any windows or doors.

f)          Minimal plant species that keep dead material or drop large quantities of ground fuel.

g)         Tree canopy cover not more than 15%.

h)         Tree canopies not located within 2 metres of the building.

12.        Protection of Adjoining Areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.        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.

14.        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.

15.        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.

16.        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. 

17.        Environmental Management

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

18.        Excavated Material

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

19.        Restoration

Applicant is to restore any areas of damage to the site from the work the site including but not limited to ensuring all trenches are flush with adjacent ground surfaces. Any trenching is to occur outside of the oval playing area.

20.        Damage to Council Assets

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

21.        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”.

22.        Bushfire Protection Certification

To ensure the recommended bushfire mitigation measures were installed at the site, a certificate is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and provided to the Certifying Authority, certifying that the site was constructed in accordance with the conditions of consent for bushfire protection prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate for the site.

23.        EME Report

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

Note: The report is to be sent electronically to Council’s development mailbox at devmail@hornsby.nsw.gov.au

24.        Telecommunications Facility

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

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

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

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

25.        Council Sports Field Lighting

The following are required in relation the sports field lighting:

a)         Any sports field lights, cross arm, cable and all ancillary equipment installed on or inside the Telecommunications Tower will remain the property of Council.

b)         The sports field lights and ancillary equipment (e.g. cross arm and cable) may be worked on at any time by Council for maintenance purposes.

c)         The sports field lights will not be interfered with or disturbed for any reason by any person including power supply, for any reason other than in an emergency or with prior authorisation from Council.

d)         Council will be advised of any issues with the Telecommunications facility that may affect the operation of the sports field lights or any of the ancillary equipment as soon as an issue is identified.

- END OF CONDITIONS –

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 

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

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

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

Dial Before You Dig

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

Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth)

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

Asbestos Warning

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

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

www.adfa.org.au

www.safework.nsw.gov.au

Alternatively, telephone the SafeWork NSW on 13 10 50.

 

 

 

 

 

Cassandra Williams Major Development Manager - Development Assessments Planning and Compliance Division

Rod Pickles Manager - Development Assessments Planning and Compliance Division

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Locality Map
2.	Consultant's Report
3.	Architectural Plans
4.	Statement of Environmental Effects
5.	Bushfire Report

 

 

File Reference:           DA/999/2019

Document Number:     D07908977