Supplementary Agenda of Local Planning Panel meeting

LPP Report No. LPP10/24

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 26/06/2024

1 DA/1443/2023 - ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO DWELLING HOUSE - 7 & 9 CHORLEY AVENUE, CHELTENHAM

DA No:	DA/1443/2023 (Lodged on 1 February 2024)
Description:	Alterations and additions to a dwelling house
Property:	Lot 131 and Lot 130 DP 12364, Nos. 7-9 Chorley Avenue, Cheltenham
Applicant:	Louise Fawkes
Owner:	Louise Fawkes
Estimated Value:	$9,587,673
Ward:	C Ward
Clause 4.6 Request:	Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings
Submissions:	Seven
LPP Criteria:	Proposal contravenes a development standard by more than 10%
Author:	Charley Wells, Town Planner
COI Declaration:	No Council staff involved in the assessment of this application have declared a Conflict of Interest.

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the Hornsby Shire Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, vary Clause 4.3 Height of buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 as the applicants written request has adequately addressed the merits required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) and the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

B. THAT the Hornsby Shire Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, approve Development Application No. DA/1443/2023 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house at Lot 131, DP 12364 and Lot 130, DP 12364, Nos. 7 and 9 Chorley Avenue, Cheltenham subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of LPP Report No. LPP10/24.

executive summary

· The application involves alterations and additions to a dwelling house.

· The proposal does not comply with the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) with regard to Clause 4.3 ‘Height of Buildings’. The applicant has made a submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 ‘Exceptions to development standards’ of the HLEP to contravene the maximum 8.5 metre building height development standard. The submission is considered well founded and is supported.

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

· The application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Local Planning Panel as the proposal would contravene the height of buildings development standard by more than 10 percent.

· It is recommended that the application be approved.

BACKGROUND

On 26 March 2024, Council requested additional information with regards to tree removal concerns, building height and earthworks.

On 13 May 2024, amended plans, photomontages, modelling, updated arborist report and an amended cluse 4.6 variation request were submitted in response to Councils concerns.

On 17 May 2024, a preliminary construction management plan was submitted for Council’s consideration.

On 22 May 2024, Council requested additional information to clarify the location of a retaining wall in the rear yard which is in close proximity to trees identified for retention. The applicant submitted amended plans deleting the retaining wall to ensure protection of these trees on the same day the request was sent.

SITE

The site is made up of two allotments legally described as Lot 131, DP 12364 (7 Chorley Avenue) and Lot 130, DP 12364 (9 Chorley Avenue).

The site is located on the south-western side of Chorley Avenue with a total area of 2,452m² and contains a dwelling house and detached garage and shed.

The site experiences less than a metre of fall towards the north-western side boundary.

The site is not bushfire prone and is not flood prone.

The site does not contain any easements or restrictions.

The property is not heritage listed but is located within the Beecroft-Cheltenham Plateau Precinct of the Beecroft-Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) under Schedule 5 of the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013. The property is also in the immediate vicinity of the following heritage items:

· Item No. 271 - House, No. 8 Cheltenham Road, Cheltenham

· Item No. 274 - House, No. 10 Cheltenham Road, Cheltenham

· Item No. 275 - House, No. 15 Chorley Avenue, Cheltenham

PROPOSAL

The application proposes alterations and additions to a dwelling house as follows:

· Demolition of the rear of the existing dwelling, garage, shed, driveway and paving.

· A ground floor extension comprising a formal lounge, storeroom, entry, entry porch, verandah, servery, formal dining, powder room, guest WC, outdoor living with fireplace, outdoor dining, lift, family living, conservatory, family dining, bar, alfresco storage kitchen, bathroom scullery/pantry, cool room, laundry and toilet.

· First floor addition that would comprise a master bedroom with ensuite store walk in robe and study, four bedrooms with ensuites, three walk in robes, library, storeroom, laundry, lift and balcony.

· Basement level that would comprise a gym, sauna, bathroom rumpus room, wine cellar, lift, entry hall, plant room three storage rooms and garage.

· Extension of the existing vehicular crossing, new paved driveway, pathways, front and side boundary fencing is proposed.

· To meet BASIX requirements, a photovoltaic system is proposed on the roof to generate at least 8.36 peak kilowatts of electricity.

A total of 12 trees would be removed by the development and a total of 89 trees and medium trees are proposed capable of growing to 3 metres or more.

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

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

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

The identified challenge for Hornsby Shire will be to deliver 97,000 additional dwellings in the North District by 2036. The following Planning Priorities are considered relevant to the proposal:

· Planning Priority N5 - Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport.

· Planning Priority N6 - Creating and renewing great places and local centres and respecting the Districts heritage.

In giving effect to A Metropolis of Three Cities, these Planning Priorities deliver on the below objective and the corresponding strategies:

· Objective 11 - Housing is more diverse and affordable.

The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling house have been thoughtfully considered and identified within this report. It is considered that the additions to the dwelling house would provide a contemporary, more user-friendly family home, whilst maintaining the amenity and heritage character of the area.

The proposal would meet objectives of these planning priorities and would be considered acceptable in the context of the Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities and North District Plan.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

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

2.1 Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013

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

2.1.1 Zoning of Land and Permissibility

The subject land is zoned R2 Low density residential under the HLEP. The objectives of the R2 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 alterations and additions to a ‘dwelling house’. The proposed use is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent and would meet the objectives of the zone by providing for the housing needs of the community within a low-density residential environment.

2.1.2 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 8.5 metres. The proposal has a maximum height of 10 metres and does not comply with this provision.

A Clause 4.6 written request is submitted with the proposal in support of the height contravention, which is discussed in Section 2.1.3 of the report below.

2.1.3 Exceptions to Development Standards

The application has been assessed against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the HLEP. This clause provides flexibility in the application of the development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tender to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the zone.

The proposal would exceed the 8.5 metre maximum building height development standard with a proposed height of 10 metres which exceeds the development standard by 1.5 metres or 17.6%.

The objective of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the HLEP is “to permit a height of buildings that is appropriate for the site constraints, development potential and infrastructure capacity of the locality”.

The applicant has made a submission in support of the contravention to the development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP. Clause 4.6 provides that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

In Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSW LEC 118, Preston CJ clarified the correct approach to dealing with a written request under Clause 4.6 to justify the contravention of a development standard.

In relation to determining the matter under Clause 4.6(3)(a), the consent authority must be satisfied that the applicant’s written request adequately addresses the matter as opposed to the determining authority making its own judgement regarding whether compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary. Additionally, the clause does not require that a non-compliant development should have a neutral or beneficial effect relative to a compliant development.

In relation to determining the matter under Clause 4.6(3)(b), the environmental planning grounds clause, non-compliant development is not required to result in a ‘better environmental planning outcome for the site’ relative to a compliant development. Instead, the requirement is only that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the development standard contravention.

Council must be satisfied that the written request provided by the applicant under Clause 4.6 addresses both the unreasonable and unnecessary test and demonstrates sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. These matters are discussed below.

2.1.4 Unreasonable or Unnecessary Clause 4.6(3)(a)

There are five common methods by which an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the development. Initially proposed for objections under clause 6 of SEPP 1 in the decision of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 Pearson C summarised and applied these methods to written requests made under Clause 4.6 in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 [61-62]. These five methods are generally as follows:

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard.

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

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

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

5. The compliance with development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone.

It is not required to demonstrate that a development meets multiple methods as listed above, and the satisfaction of one can be adequate to demonstrate that the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. The Clause 4.6 request states the proposed contravention is consistent with the objectives of the height of building development standard and has relied on Test 1 identified by Commissioner Preston in Wehbe v Pittwater Council 2007 to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary. The justification is considered below:

· The non-compliance with the height controls is a result of providing a roof pitch that complements the style and character of the dwelling proposed. A complying roof form results in a built form that is not appropriately balanced and destroys the architectural character. The overriding architectural objective is to conserve the heritage significance of the conservation areas and proposed roof pitch which is designed to be consistent with the roof pitch of the existing historic dwelling that achieves this. The additions need to be consistent with the heritage aspects of the existing dwelling which is contributory to the heritage conservation area. The design of the additions is driven by the characteristics of the existing dwelling.

· The proposed height is appropriate for the site given the characteristics of the existing historic dwelling which includes the existing roof pitch and ridge heights that are inherent in its architectural character.

Further justification was provided within the request regarding how compliance with the development standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary as follows:

· The proposal which incorporates a high pitched roof consistent with the pitch of the existing main roof form on the existing historic dwelling, provides for a successful integration of the addition to the dwelling and within the heritage conservation area. In fact, the non-compliance with the building height control ensures that the proposed built form is compatible with the existing historic dwelling and the surrounding HCA.

· The non-compliance with the height controls is a result of providing a roof pitch that complements the style and character of the dwelling proposed. A complying roof form would result in a built form that is not appropriately balanced and destroys the architectural character.

· The design of the additions are driven by the characteristics of the existing historic dwelling and respecting the existing roof pitch which is an integral aspect of the dwelling. The proposed roof form has not been designed to increase floor to ceiling heights with the existing upper level floor and ceiling levels replicated in the additions.

· Strict compliance with the numerical standard, would require an altered roof form which would detract from the character of the existing historic dwelling and provide for an unsympathetic outcome. The proposal ensures a consistent architectural expression with the resultant ridge height being complimentary to the existing historic dwelling, noting that the proposal does not exceed the existing ridge height. The dwelling in its original form was a substantial house for a well known person of society. A well-integrated addition requires a roof form that is consistent with the existing historic dwelling.

· The overriding architectural objective is to conserve the heritage significance of the conservation areas and proposed roof pitch which is designed to be consistent with the roof pitch of the existing historic dwelling that achieves this. The additions need to be consistent with the heritage aspects of the existing dwelling which is contributory to the heritage conservation area. The design of the additions is driven by the characteristics of the existing dwelling.

Council considers the applicants request to contravene the height development standard is considered well founded for the following reasons:

· The height departure would not result in any significant amenity impact to surrounding neighbours due to the significant setback distances and would not result in significant overshadowing of adjoining and nearby premises.

· The overall appearance of the building, when viewed from the street front, would be substantially unchanged and includes dense screen planting, which is consistent with the heritage requirements of the HLEP.

· The proposed development would not overly dominate the natural environment or surrounding built elements.

· The application provides for the orderly and economic development of land, improved residential amenity of the existing residence, and demonstrates adequate consideration and protection of the environment and public interest.

· The proposed development generally meets the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the HLEP by way of being appropriate with respect to the constraints of the site and in regard to the development potential of the site.

Based on this assessment, it is considered that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

2.1.3.2 Environmental Planning Grounds - Clause 4.6(3)(b)

In addition to demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary, Clause 4.6(3)(b) requires that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. In demonstrating that sufficient environmental planning grounds exist it must be demonstrated that the planning grounds are particular to the circumstances of the development on the subject site (summarised from Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 [60].

The applicant provided the following planning grounds for the contravention of the development standard:

· The proposed development will maintain the general bulk and scale of the existing surrounding development and maintains architectural consistency with the existing development on site. The noncompliance is the result of providing a roof form to match the existing roof form which is contributory to the Heritage Conservation Area. Providing for a roof form to comply with the building height development standard would result in an inferior design which is unbalanced and destroys the character of the existing historic dwelling.

· The additions are designed replicate the floor and ceiling levels of the existing upper level. Therefore, the roof design and resultant building height as proposed promotes the orderly & economic use of the land.

· The existing dwelling is celebrated for its architectural character, including the roof pitch and ridge height which is inherent to the character. It is noted that the additions/alterations do not exceed the height of the existing historic building. Therefore, the proposal and resultant building height promotes the management of the built heritage.

· The overriding architectural objective is to conserve the heritage significance of the conservation areas and this proposal provides for a roof form that achieves this.

· The proposal, and in particular, the area of non-compliance, does not result in any additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams have been prepared which depicts both the existing and proposed shadows. The diagrams indicate that proposal continues to ensure at least 3 hours of solar access to private open space of the adjoining properties.

· The area of non-compliance does not result in any loss of privacy to the adjoining properties. The area of non-compliance relates only to the roof form. The first floor level provides for only bedrooms, a study and bathrooms. Windows on the side elevations are provided with sufficient setbacks to the boundaries to ensure spatial separation and protection of privacy.

· The proposed roof form does not result in unreasonable bulk or scale when viewed from the adjoining property. The area of noncompliance is provided with sufficient setbacks to the side boundaries which provides for ample separation from the adjoining built form.

Council considers that the environmental planning grounds stated within the written request are sufficient with respect to Clause 4.6(3)(b) and that the stated grounds are specific to the proposed development and the circumstances of the development site. It is therefore considered that the written request adequately demonstrates compliance with the clause and is acceptable in this regard.

In demonstrating the unreasonable and unnecessary test, the applicant further established satisfactory environmental planning grounds with respect to the site and the surrounding constraints.

Local Planning Panels constituted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 exercise consent authority functions on behalf of a Council and are not delegates of Council. Therefore, Local Planning Panels may determine a development application notwithstanding, a numerical non-compliance in excess of 10%.

Accordingly, it is considered that the written request satisfactorily responds to the relevant matters required to be addressed under Clause 4.6 and that the Panel, as consent authority, may rely upon the written request and grant development consent to the development application.

2.1.5 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the HLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire.

The property is not heritage listed but is located within the Beecroft-Cheltenham Plateau Precinct of the Beecroft-Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) under Schedule 5 of the HLEP. The property is also in the immediate vicinity of the following heritage items:

· Item No. 271 - House, No. 8 Cheltenham Road, Cheltenham

· Item No. 274 - House, No. 10 Cheltenham Road, Cheltenham

· Item No. 275 - House, No. 15 Chorley Avenue, Cheltenham

The Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) describes the Beecroft Cheltenham Plateau Precinct as being significant for the early release subdivisions from the Field of Mars and its characteristic buildings from the Victorian, Federation, Arts and Crafts, Inter-war, and Post-war periods. The buildings are predominantly single storey, well-articulated to their architectural period and with mature landscape settings remnant forest community trees which create the character and significance of the HCA. The buildings from these periods are considered contributory to the character and heritage significance of the HCA.

The existing contributory dwelling at No. 7 and 9 Chorley Avenue was constructed in circa 1939, partly over two allotments and is considered to be a good example of the Inter-war Old English style, with large gables containing rooms in the roof, tall chimneys, timber windows, terracotta roof tiles and terracotta gable shingles.

Alterations and additions occurred to the existing contributory dwelling prior to the HCA listing (early 1980s and early 1990s) and are located at the rear of the Inter-war dwelling. The dwelling is relatively intact externally on the streetscape (except for the garage removal).

The site and dwelling are also located in a mature landscaped garden setting, with a mix of plantings which contribute to the style and setting of the dwelling, as well as the conservation area.

The sites immediate streetscape (including No’s 3, 5, 7, 11, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Chorley Ave) contains 11 dwellings, mainly from the Federation, Inter-war, and Post-war periods. A number of dwellings are two storeys with rooms in the roof designs (including No. 7 Chorley Ave), single storey dwellings mainly date from the Federation period and there is some part single and two storey dwellings in the streetscape. Fencing and wheel strip driveways are not particularly characteristic in the immediate streetscape.

The proposed works to the retained contributory Inter-war dwelling are of a scale and form that is larger than the existing dwelling. However, the location, large street setbacks, articulated elevations, and compatible materials result in minimal impact on the mixed housing style character of the streetscape. The additions are also sympathetic and compatible with the historic Inter-war and Federation styles significant to the HCA.

The retention of the original two storey Inter-war dwelling is supported on heritage grounds as it positively contributes to the ‘development diary,’ character, and significance of the HCA. The design of the proposal minimises heritage impacts by locating the additions behind the existing dwelling and over the semi vacant second allotment (mainly No. 9 Chorley Ave), with large front setbacks (over 23 metres) from the street boundary proposed. Additionally, elements including rooms in the roof, gables, articulation, landscaped front garden area and materials that are sympathetic and compatible with the streetscape character assist in meeting the heritage provisions of the HLEP.

A further heritage assessment against the HDCP is provided in Part 2.6.3 of this report.

In summary, the proposal would meet the objectives of Clause 5.10 of the HLEP and is considered acceptable.

2.1.6 Earthworks

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

The application was supported by a Geotechnical Assessment prepared by JK Geotechnics which notes that the geology of the site is identified as bedrock comprising sandstone.

The application proposes excavation associated with a basement on a relatively level site that would entail the removal of 1614m³ of material from the site. At its deepest point, the excavation would be 3.8 metres below the existing ground level, with the excavation works being confined to the dwelling footprint.

No objections are raised to the level of excavation proposed as it is confined to the building footprint only and does not result in any amenity impacts or loss of landscaping and does not disrupt drainage patterns to adjoining properties.

To ensure protection of the environment and adjoining properties, a condition is recommended in Attachment 1 to require the recommendations of the Geotechnical Assessment prepared by JK Geotechnics to be applied including, but not limited to the completion of dilapidation surveys/reports for adjoining buildings and structures prior to the commencement of works and inspections and monitoring of earthworks by JK Geotechnics.

In addition, all excavated material removed from the site must be classified by a suitably qualified environmental consultant in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Waste Classification Guidelines and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 prior to disposal to a licensed waste management facility. Tipping dockets for the total volume of excavated material that are received from the licensed waste management facility must be provided to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate and Prior to fill material being imported to the site, a Waste Classification Certificate shall be obtained from a suitably qualified environmental consultant. Further a Council approved Construction Management Plan must also be complied with for the duration of works.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is considered satisfactory in respect to Clause 6.2 of the HLEP.

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

The application has been assessed against the requirements of chapter 2 and 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021.

2.2.1 Chapter 2 Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas

Chapter 2 of this policy aims to protect the biodiversity and amenity values of trees within non-rural areas of the state.

Part 2.3 of the policy 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 HDCP prescribes works that can be undertaken with or without consent to trees and objectives for tree preservation.

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

2.2.2 Chapter 6 Waterways

The site is located within the catchment of Sydney Harbour. The aim of this chapter is to ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour are recognised, protected, enhanced and maintained. This chapter provides general planning considerations and strategies to ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour are recognised, protected, enhanced and maintained.

The plan addresses matters related to biodiversity, ecology and environment protection; public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways; maintenance of a working harbour; interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses; foreshore and waterways scenic quality; maintenance, protection and enhancement of views and boat storage facilities.

Subject to the implementation 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 and would comply with the requirements of chapter 6 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.

2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022

The application has been assessed against the requirements of chapter 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 which seeks to encourage the design and delivery of more sustainable buildings.

Chapter 2 sets out the Standards for residential development. The proposal includes a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP including the list of commitments to be complied with at the construction stage and during the use of the premises. The BASIX certificate achieves the minimum scores for energy and water use, and thermal performance.

The proposal is acceptable in this regard.

2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

The application has been assessed against the requirements of chapter 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

2.4.1 Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Section 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazard SEPP states that 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. It is not likely that the site has experienced any significant contamination, and further assessment under chapter 4 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP is not required.

2.5 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.

2.6 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013

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

HDCP - Part 3.1 Dwelling Houses
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Complies
Site Area	2,452m²	N/A	N/A
Building Height	10m	8.5m	No
No. storeys	3	max. 2 + attic	No
Site Coverage	27%	30%	Yes
Floor Area
- dwelling	1100m²	430m²	No
- basement	460m²
Setbacks
- Front	13.5m	6m	Yes
- Side (East)
Ground floor	1.4m	900mm	Yes
First floor	3.8m	1.5m	Yes
- Side (West)
Ground floor	2.5m	900mm	Yes
First floor	2.5m	1.5m	Yes
- Rear
Ground floor	8.8m	3m	Yes
First floor	13.9m	8m	Yes
Landscaped Area (% of lot size)	68%	45%	Yes
Private Open Space
- minimum area	>24m²	24m²	Yes
- minimum dimension	>3m²	3m	Yes
Car Parking	4 spaces	2 spaces	Yes

As detailed in the above table, with the exception of building height, number of storeys and floor area the proposed development generally complies with the prescriptive measures within the HDCP. A brief discussion on compliance with relevant performance requirements and Part 1C General Controls is provided below.

2.6.1 Scale

With regards to the height non-compliance, the application is supported by a submission pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the HLEP to contravene the maximum height of buildings development standard, which is discussed in detail under Section 2.1.3 of this report. The submission is considered well founded and is supported.

With regards to the floor area non-compliance, it is noted as follows:

· The development site comprises two lots with a combined area of 2,452m² which is significantly larger than surrounding residential properties.

· The sites could accommodate additional development which could be subdivided into three 600m²lots resulting in a much larger site coverage/floor area over the subject site then currently proposed.

· The total floor area of the dwelling (excluding the basement) would be 1100m² which is considerably less than what would be permitted if the land were to be subdivided into 3 properties and allows for considerable landscaping comprising 68% of the total site area.

· The 1560m² calculation of floor area includes a basement area which comprises 460m². The basement is not visible from the public domain or adjoining properties and does not contribute to bulk or scale impacts to adjoining properties,

· There is no outbuilding proposed (100m²) as part of the application as permitted by the DCP.

· The proposed additions have sufficient setbacks to all boundaries and the dwelling would be substantially screened from the street.

· The non-compliance to floor area does not result in unreasonable shadow impacts to adjoining properties which will receive a minimum of 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight to their respective private open space areas.

· The additions do not create unreasonable environmental impacts to adjoining development with regard to visual bulk, solar access, amenity or privacy.

In support of the three-storey element of the proposed dwelling house, it is noted that the basement floor is excavated below the natural ground level and would not be highly visible from the public domain. No concerns are raised as the dwelling house presents as a two-storey building form.

With regard to roof pitch, the prescriptive measure states that “the roof should have a maximum pitch of 35 degrees, except if a steeper roof pitch is more consistent with the existing character of the locality”.

It is noted that the proposed roof pitch would be 55 degrees which would not comply with the 35 degree prescriptive measure. In support of this non-compliance, it is noted that the roof pitch would match the roof pitch of the existing dwelling and is consistent with the streetscape character of the HCA.

In summary, the proposed development is considered of a height, bulk and scale that is compatible with the surrounding low density residential environment and meets the prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.1 Scale of the HDCP.

2.6.2 Privacy

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

This is supported by the prescriptive measures that state that:

a. “Living and entertaining areas of dwelling houses should be located on the ground floor and oriented towards the private open space of the dwelling house and not side boundaries.

b. A proposed window in a dwelling house should have a privacy screen if:

· it is a window to a habitable room, other than a bedroom, that has a floor level of more than 1 metre above existing ground level,

· the window is setback less than 3 metres from a side or rear boundary, and

· the window has a sill height of less than 1.5 metres.

It is noted that the living and entertaining areas of the dwelling are located on the ground floor with the exception of the study/retreat and library located on the first floor.

In support of this non-compliance, it is noted that the study/retreat would maintain the existing side boundary setback of the existing dwelling which is set back more than 3.8 metres and is considered acceptable in this instance as it would comply with prescriptive measure b.

With respect to the library room, the library would be centrally located, and the window would be well in excess of 3 metres from the side boundary. It is therefore not anticipated that the library would have any unreasonable privacy impacts and is considered acceptable.

All other first floor level windows would provide natural light and ventilation to ‘non-habitable’ use rooms (bathrooms) and non-active use rooms (bedrooms) in compliance with Council’s planning guidelines.

The proposal meets the desired outcome of Part 3.1.6 Privacy of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.6.3 Heritage

The desired outcome of 9.3.1 is to encourage “Development that complements and is sympathetic to the existing character of the conservation area and the elements that are significant to that character.”

A Heritage Impact Statement has been submitted with the proposal and supports the alterations and additions and noting that the proposal is ‘sympathetic to the Federation/Inter-War character’ of the conservation area.

Councils’ heritage assessment supports the retention of the original two storey Inter-war dwelling as it positively contributes to the ‘development diary,’ character, and significance of the HCA as discussed below.

2.6.3.1 Streetscape Impacts

The immediate streetscape contains a mix of single and two storey-built forms from various development periods of the HCA, and the additions would be generally compatible with this mixed housing style character.

The additions are located to the side and rear of the existing dwelling and are of a larger footprint than the original dwelling. The design of the proposal minimises impacts by locating the additions behind the existing dwelling, with large front setbacks (over 23 metres) from the street boundary. Other elements including rooms in the roof, gables, articulation, landscaped front garden area and materials are compatible with the streetscape character.

The architectural style and detailing of the front elevation additions is considered to be sufficiently compatible with the variety of original Federation and Inter-war styles and the existing dwelling.

The proposal also involves the removal of some original internal and external fabric, including internal layout, stairs, and rear chimney. As the dwelling is not a heritage item, the removal of fabric would not have an adverse impact on the Inter-war dwelling’s contribution to the streetscape character or significance of the HCA. No heritage concerns are raised to the streetscape character of the new works in the HCA.

2.6.3.2 Materials and Finishes

The additions would contain clean face brick and terracotta roof tiles to match the existing which would complement the period and style of the dwelling and HCA. The street facing copper clerestory roof feature would also be a compatible material in the conservation area, being a traditional material.

The side dormers are proposed to have timber shingles. Although timber shingles are not an original feature of the Inter-war style of the existing dwelling, the area of timber shingle is small and is considered to have minimal impact on the existing dwelling or conservation area. No heritage concerns are raised to the materials and finishes.

2.6.3.3 Garage and Driveway

Basement car parking is proposed, and the garage entrance is well setback from the street and is not visible on the street elevation, due to excavation. The proposed bitumen paving with cobblestone kerb would be complementary to the existing driveway and streetscape. Therefore, no heritage concerns are raised to the proposed garage and driveway.

2.6.3.4 Landscaping and Fencing

The proposal retains the large, landscaped area of the front garden and generally replacement planting compensates for trees removed as shown on the landscape plan.

Two large evergreen Cypress trees (T22 & 23) on either side of the driveway entrance, contribute positively to the Inter-war period and the streetscape. Council requested that these trees be retained due to their contribution to the site and streetscape. An amended landscape plan was submitted indicating retention of Tree 22 and 23.

The front boundary contains a hedge and sandstone pillars at the driveway entrances. Although the streetscape is not characterised by fencing, the proposed fence would be located behind the existing hedge, maintaining the landscape character. Wrought iron and stone are a traditional material compatible with the conservation area. No heritage concerns are raised to the proposed fence and gates.

2.6.3.5 Heritage Items in the Vicinity

There would be no adverse impacts on the heritage items in the vicinity, due to physical separation and the additions are well setback from the street and to the rear existing dwelling.

In summary, the proposed works to the retained contributory Inter-war dwelling are of a scale and form that that is larger than the existing dwelling. However, the location, large street setbacks, articulated elevations, and compatible materials result in minimal impact on the mixed housing style character of the streetscape. The additions are also sympathetic and compatible with the historic Inter-war and Federation styles significant to the HCA. No heritage concerns are raised to the proposal.

2.6.4 Domestic Solid Fuel Burning Appliances

As part of the application, the installation of a fireplace is proposed within the outdoor alfresco area and in the rear yard. It is also noted that gas fireplaces are proposed within the formal lounge room, formal dining room and family room, no concerns are raised regarding these gas fireplaces as solid fuel would not be used.

Council cannot approve a free-standing fireplace without a flue to control the smoke. A condition of consent has been recommend requiring the deletion of the fireplace in the rear yard as indicated on red on the approved plans.

As specified under Section 4.9 of the ‘AS/NZS 2918:2001 Domestic Solid Fuel Burning Appliances - Installation’ BCA standard, “the flue exit shall be located outside the building in which the appliance is installed so that:

a) the flue pipe shall extend not less than 4.6m above the top of the floor protector;

b) the minimum height of the flue system within 3m distance from the highest point of the roof shall be 600mm above that point;

c) the minimum height of a flue system further than 3m from the highest point of the roof shall be 1000mm above roof penetration;

d) no part of the building lies in or above a circular area described by a horizontal radius of 3m about the flue system exit”.

With respect to (a), a condition is recommended requiring the flue pipe of the fireplace within the outdoor alfresco area to extend 4.6 metres above the floor protector.

With respect to (b), it is noted that the flue system would be more than 3 metres from the height point of the roof, as a consequence this provision does not apply.

With respect to (c), it is noted that the flue system would be located more than 3m from the highest point of the roof, as a consequence a condition is recommended requiring the flue pipe to be 1000mm above the height point of the roof.

With respect to (d), it is noted that the proposed flue system would be located at a distance greater than 3 metres from any other structure.

A condition is recommended in Attachment 1 of this report requiring the installation to be completed in accordance with Section 4.9 of the ‘AS/NZS 2918:2001 Domestic Solid Fuel Burning Appliances - Installation’ and the ‘Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Amendment (Solid Fuel Heaters) Regulation 2016’.

The proposed fireplace within the outdoor alfresco area is considered acceptable, subject to conditions.

2.7 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

An amended Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (AIA) prepared by Jacksons Nature Works, dated 7 May 2024 was submitted with the proposal as well as a Tree Risk Assessment Report prepared by Arboricultural tree Services Pty Ltd, dated September 2023.

The proposed development would necessitate the removal of 12 trees numbered 5, 13, 14, 14a, 14b, 14c, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27 and 35.

Tree 5 (Eucalyptus pilularis) is a prominent tree with high landscape significance located behind the existing dwelling. The Tree Risk Assessment Report submitted for this tree included a detailed investigation to assess its structural defects by undertaking aerial Tomograph testing, Resitograph testing and Electrical Resitograph Testing. The report concludes that the tree has a short useful life expectancy with the tree colonised by unidentified pathogenic wood decay fungi and the tree is now predisposed to branch failure due to altered wind damping effects. The report recommends the tree be prioritised for removal with the residual risk being high and it be replaced by 3x 75L same Genus species trees.

Councils tree assessment reviewed the submitted documentation and concurs with the recommendations of the report and supports the removal of Tree 5. Council in this instance has not recommended redesign of the alterations and additions to retain this tree as the tree is at risk of failure. Further, it is noted that Tree 5 has had significant pruning of the canopy over time and a development application has been approved for alterations and additions at the adjoining property No. 5 Chorley Avenue further impacting the health of tree 5. Retention of this tree is not considered viable in this instance and replacement planting is therefore recommended. The landscape plan submitted indicates replacement planting and includes 1x Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt tree) with a 75 litre pot size. A condition is recommended to ensure the Landscape Plan is amended prior to issue of the construction certificate requiring two of the proposed tree replacement planting to be upgraded to a 75 litre pot size Eucalyptus pilularis. A further condition is recommended ensuring that the landscaping is completed in accordance with the approved Landscape Plans.

Tree 13 (Jacaranda mimosifolia), Tree 14 (Callistemon viminalis) and Tree 14A (Nerium oleander) are of low retention value and Trees 14b & 14c (Elaeocarpus eumund) are semi mature of good retention value. These trees are located within close proximity to the proposed masonry sandstone wall and would require removal. Council raises no concerns with the removal of these trees, subject to replacement planting.

Tree 15 (Triadica sebiferum), Tree 16 (Elaeocarpus eumundi) and Tree 35 (Camellia japonica) are located within the proposed building footprint and require removal. Trees 17, 18 and 27 would require removal for the driveway widening. No concerns are raised with the removal of these trees, subject to replacement planting.

Trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d, 26e, 26f, 26g, 26h, 26i, 26j, 26k, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36 would be retained.

The submitted AIA indicates that Tree 26f would require removal. However, Council’s Tree Management Team considers that this tree can be retained.

It is noted that the application includes a Landscape Plan that includes 89 trees that are capable of growing more than 3 metres high which compensates for the removal of the 12 trees, and over time would establish a landscape canopy.

The proposal meets the prescriptive measures of Part 1B.6.1 Tree Preservation of the HDCP and is considered acceptable, subject to conditions.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

The proposed development would be connected to Council’s street drainage system. The application is supported by stormwater concept plans prepared by ACOR consultants which included a below ground rainwater reuse tank with a capacity of 22,500 Litres and a basement pump out tank.

Council’s engineering assessment raised no objections to the proposed stormwater management system, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The built form would not be highly visible from the street and would be screened by existing landscaping/ trees. The proposal would be consistent with residential development within the locality and HCA.

3.2.2 Traffic

The proposal is for a single dwelling, and it would not intensify traffic generation.

3.3 Social Impacts

The alterations and additions to a dwelling house result in a positive social contribution by providing for the housing needs of the community within a low-density residential environment.

3.4 Economic Impacts

The alterations and additions to a dwelling house would not have any detrimental economic impact upon the locality.

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 is considered to be capable of accommodating the proposed development. The scale of the proposed development is consistent with the capability of the site and is considered acceptable.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 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 8 February 2024 and 29 February 2024 in accordance with the Hornsby Community Engagement Plan. During this period, Council received seven submissions. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who made a submission that are in close proximity to the development site.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

3 submissions were received out of map range

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

· Unacceptable traffic on local streets.

· Development does not comply with the floor area control.

· Development that is excessive in bulk and scale.

· Impact of construction vehicles and damage to the road and nearby driveways.

· Unacceptable noise from construction and extensive excavation.

· Safety concerns and obstruction resulting from the parking of workers’ vehicles.

· Damage to neighbouring dwellings from vibrations.

· Unacceptable dust and debris emanating from property.

· Tree Impacts and removal of significant trees.

· Unacceptable overshadowing of adjoining properties.

· Unacceptable non-compliant building height.

· Unacceptable non-compliant roof pitch not in keeping with the area.

· Concerns regarding reinforcement of the propped wall.

· Unacceptable privacy impacts.

· Unacceptable views from adjoining properties.

Two submissions supported, the development and made the following observations:

· The development would enhance the neighbourhood and increase property values in the area.

· The proposed design for the large house is sympathetic to the old-style architecture, ensuring that it complements and enhances the surrounding heritage landscape.

· By preserving the integrity of the existing heritage elements, this development will help maintain the unique character and charm of our neighbourhood for generations to come.

· The design of the new house reflects careful consideration of architectural styles, materials, and detailing, showcasing a high level of craftsmanship and attention to detail.

· The addition of a well-maintained older property will elevate the appeal of the area.

· In addition to its cultural significance, the development will generate economic benefits for our community by creating employment opportunities during construction and supporting local businesses in the area.

· It will serve as a focal point of pride for residents of Cheltenham and visitors alike, fostering a sense of place and identity within our neighbourhood.

· The development would provide an increase in much needed services in the locality.

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 Construction Management

Submissions have been received raising concerns regarding movement of construction vehicles, damage to the road and driveways, delivery of materials, safety issues as a result of construction work vehicles, noise impacts from construction and excavation and dust/debris emanating from the site.

Comment: It is noted that a construction management plan (CMP) has been submitted with the development application which includes measures to manage and reduce potential amenity, traffic and environmental impacts associated with demolition and construction works on the site. Conditions are recommended Attachment 1 to ensure compliance with the CMP.

5.1.2 Damage to Adjoining Properties

Submissions were received raising concerns regarding damage to adjoining properties.

Comment: A condition of consent is recommended requiring a Dilapidation Report to be prepared prior to the commencement of any works on site to record the condition of adjoining properties and public land. Any damage caused to adjoining properties is a Civil matter between the involved parties.

5.1.3 Tree Preservation

A submission was received requesting pruning of tree 19 and removal of trees 2, 3, 4 and 21 as the trees have caused damage to the adjoining property at No. 11 Chorley Avenue and are dangerous.

Comment: As outlined in Part 3.31 of this report, Trees 2, 3, 4, 19 and 21 are proposed to be retained as they would not be impacted by the development. The subject application can only consider tree removal in relation to the development proposed. A separate tree application can be lodged with Council to remove and prune trees.

5.1.4 Boundary Fencing

Submissions were received raising concerns with respect to the proposed boundary fencing and masonry wall.

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

5.1.5 Sunlight Access

A submission was received raising concerns with respect to sunlight access of the adjoining property No. 5 Chorley Avenue.

Comment: It is noted that the prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.5 Sunlight access of HDCP state that “on 22 June, 50 percent of the required principal private open space on any adjoining property should receive 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight access between 9am and 3pm”.

An assessment of the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant illustrate that the subject site and the southern adjacent neighbours, including No. 5 Chorley Avenue would receive at least 3 hours of unobstructed sunlight access to 50 per cent of their private open space between 9am and 3pm on the day of the winter solstice.

It is further noted that the shadow diagrams depict sunlight access during the winter season where the sun is lowest in the sky and a higher degree of overshadowing would result.

During the other seasonal cycles of the year, a higher degree of sunlight access would be achieved in comparison to what is depicted on the submitted shadow diagrams.

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

5.1.6 Views

A submission was received regarding the proposed dwelling resulting in blocking of the adjoining properties views of the bushland.

Comment: The prescriptive measures of Part 3.1.5 Design Details of HDCP state that “development should allow for the reasonable sharing of significant views, including water views and iconic views”. It is noted thay no significant view would be inhibited.

5.1.7 Geotechnical Report

A submission was received regarding the outcomes of the geotechnical report and how these recommendations would be applied.

Comment: The Geotechnical Report prepared by JK Geotechnics dated 27 June 2023 is considered acceptable and has been prepared by a suitably qualified consultant. Conditions of consent have been recommended requiring compliance with the geotechnical report recommendations when preparing construction drawings and during construction.

5.2 Public Agencies

The development application was not required to be 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 application is considered to have satisfactorily addressed Council’s and relevant agencies’ criteria and would provide a development outcome that, on balance, would result in a positive impact for the community. Accordingly, it is considered that the approval of the proposed development would be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application proposes alterations and additions to a dwelling house.

The development generally meets the desired outcomes of Council’s planning controls and is satisfactory having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council received seven 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, approval of the application is recommended.

The reasons for this decision are:

· The request under Clause 4.6 of Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 to contravene the ‘Height of Buildings’ development standard is well founded. Strict compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and sufficient environmental planning grounds have been submitted to justify the contravention to the development standard.

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

· The proposed development does not create unreasonable environmental impacts to adjoining development with regard to visual bulk, solar access, amenity or privacy.

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.

Cassandra Williams

Major Development Manager - Development Assessments

Planning and Compliance Division

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessments

Planning and Compliance Division

Attachments:

1.⇩	Draft Conditions of Consent
2.⇩	Clause 4.6
3.⇩	Architectural Plans
4.⇩	Landscape Plan

File Reference: DA/1443/2023/PUBLICACCESS

Document Number: D08886671

DA No:	DA/245/2024 (Lodged on 19 March 2024)
Description:	Construction of a Volunteer Bushfire Fighters Training Facility - PAN-415202
Property:	Lot 100 DP 1104687- The Tollgates, No. 1049 Pacific Highway, Cowan
Applicant:	NSW Rural Fire Service
Owner:	Hornsby Shire Council
Estimated Value:	$276,452
Ward:	Ward A
Clause 4.6 Request:	Not applicable
Submissions:	Nil
LPP Criteria:	Council owned land
Author:	Independent report prepared by Nicola Neil, Octagon Planning
COI Declaration:	No Council staff involved in the assessment of this application have declared a Conflict of Interest.

1.⇩	Independent Assessment Report
2.⇩	Draft Conditions of Consent
3.⇩	Architectural Plans
4.⇩	Plan of Management
5.⇩	Sydney Trains Conditions