Supplementary Agenda of Local Planning Panel meeting

LPP Report No. LPP15/24

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 31/07/2024

2 ELECTRONIC - DA/371/2024 - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO A DWELLING HOUSE - 3 NARENA CLOSE, BEECROFT

DA No:	DA/371/2024 (Lodged on 15 April 2024)
Description:	Alterations and additions to a dwelling house
Property:	Lot 2 DP 237044, No. 3 Narena Close, Beecroft
Applicant:	Eligra Pty Ltd
Owner:	Mr Matthew Richard Balfour & Ms Kirsten Elizabeth Terry
Estimated Value:	$360,400
Ward:	C Ward
Clause 4.6 Request:	Clause 4.3 Height of buildings in the HLEP R2 Low density residential zone
Submissions:	Nil
LPP Criteria:	Proposal contravenes a development standard by more than 10%
Author:	Elvin Keung, 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 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. The Panel is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has demonstrated the matters required in 4.6(3)(a) and (b) 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 Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, approve Development Application No. DA/371/2024 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house at Lot 2 DP 237044, No. 3 Narena Close, Beecroft subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of LPP Report No. LPP15/24.

executive summary

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

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

· No submissions have been received in respect of the application.

· The application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Council Local Planning Panel as the proposal would contravene the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 development standard for height of buildings by more than 10%.

· It is recommended that the application be approved.

BACKGROUND

On 15 April 2024, DA/371/2024 was lodged with Council.

On 28 May 2024, a request for information letter was sent to the applicant for a survey plan; privacy screen to be installed on the eastern elevation of the balcony; amendments to the design to address heritage concerns and a revised clause 4.6 request to remove references to a historical approval on a neighbouring site which is irrelevant to the proposal.

On 28 June 2024, amended documentation was submitted to address the above items.

On 28 June 2024, a second request for information letter was sent to the applicant requesting that the clause 4.6 request and SEE be amended to accurately identify the maximum height as calculated from the submitted survey plan. This letter was subsequently superseded on 1 July 2024 by a new letter requiring additional survey marks below the area of non-compliance to enable an accurate assessment.

On 3 July 2024, an amended survey, clause 4.6 request and SEE were submitted to address the above issue.

SITE

The 752.5m² site is located on the northern side of Narena Close and is contains a two storey brick dwelling.

The site experiences a 10.7m fall over 39.4m from the south-west front corner towards the north-east rear corner. This results in a gradient of approximately 27%.

The site is mapped as bush fire prone land, situated within the vegetation buffer zone. It is not mapped as flood prone.

The site does not contain a heritage listed item. However, it is located within the Beecroft-Cheltenham Heritage Conversation Area (HCA). It also adjoins the heritage item No. I 140 (Bushland Reserve) to the north-east.

The site is burdened by an easement for support along the front of the site.

A Sydney Water sewer line runs across the rear of the site near the boundary.

The site does not contain any ecologically endangered species but adjoins a public reserve to the north-east mapped as containing the Blue Gum Shale Forest vegetation community.

PROPOSAL

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

· Reconfiguration of internal room layout

· Demolition of the existing rear balcony on the upper storey

· Construction of a new balcony on the upper storey and associated extension to the roof to cover

· New bin storage area west of the garage

· Extension of the pool deck

· New stairs to the pool area

The ground floor would comprise: an open plan family and multi-purpose room; two bedrooms; a bathroom; a laundry; a cellar; a gym; a storage room; a linen; and a rear terrace.

The upper level would comprise: an open plan kitchen, living, and dining room; a bedroom with ensuite; a bedroom; a powder room; a double garage; a front porch; and a rear balcony.

The application proposes demolition associated with the proposed works.

No trees would be removed or impacted by the proposed development.

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

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.

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 provide an additional 4,350 dwellings by 2021 with further strategic supply targets to be identified to deliver 97,000 additional dwellings in the North District by 2036.

The proposed development would not be inconsistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities and the 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 ‘dwelling house’ and is permissible in the R2 zone with Council’s consent.

2.1.2 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of the HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land should not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 8.5m. The proposal has a maximum height of 9.998m and does not comply with this provision.

The application is supported by a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the HLEP to contravene the maximum height of building development standard, which is discussed below in Section 2.1.3 of this report.

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 exceeds the Clause 4.3 Height of buildings development standard.

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.

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.

2.1.3.1 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:

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

· The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development.

· That the objective would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required.

· That the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in departing from the standard.

· The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate.

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 written request prepared by Watermark Planning, dated July 2024 provides a detailed assessment of the proposal with respect to the development standard sought to be contravened.

Figures 1 and 2 depict the extent of the contravention of the height of buildings development standard, being a maximum of 1.498m (17.62%).

Figure 1: Site plan showing area of non-compliance shaded in purple.

Figure 2: Eastern elevation showing 8.5m height limit in purple.

The request argues that:

The development proposes to extend the existing roof at the rear entry level to cover a portion of the relocated deck. As a result of the steep site topography, a small portion of the roof will extend above the maximum 8.5 metre height control for the site. It is noted that a portion of the roof currently exceeds the maximum height control, measuring 8.885 metres.

Due to the scale of the proposed variation, the proposed works will not substantially alter the existing built form or visual appearance of the dwelling. As the additional height is located at the rear of the dwelling it will have a nil impact on the public domain and the streetscape. It is also compatible in scale to both the existing and neighbouring developments.

The height non-compliance is a small portion of the roof above the balcony and results only where the site falls away rapidly towards the rear of the site overlooking the heavily vegetated bushland. The development retains compliant side setbacks, therefore being well distanced from adjoining lot boundaries and minimising any potential impacts on adjoining land.

It is therefore considered this objective is met, despite the numerical variation.

Council notes that the objectives of Clause 4.3 of the HLEP are as follows:

“to permit a height of buildings that is appropriate for the site constraints, development potential and infrastructure capacity of the locality”.

With reference to the reasoning provided by the applicant above, Council does not object to the conclusion that the proposed additions meet the objectives of Clause 4.3. In reaching this conclusion the following points are noted:

· The site is highly constrained by slope.

· The proposed roof extension retains the existing roof form and is architecturally well-designed to integrate with the existing dwelling.

· The height non-compliance is not perceivable from the street.

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the written request to contravene the height of building standard adequately demonstrates that the objectives of the Height of buildings development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of the HLEP are achieved, notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

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 variation in height will have a negligible impact on neighbours. The balcony roof breach in these circumstances is considered small, being located at the rear where the site topography falls away rapidly. This is of no significant impact to neighbours, particularly given the compliant setbacks from boundaries and there are no key views across the site in this location.

· The design, including the variation to the height, is largely a result of working with the existing site constraints and topography. It would be unreasonable to require compliance with the development standard, when the variation result allows for the orderly and economic use of the site and allows for an ecologically sustainable development.

· The inclusion of the height variation has no impact on the natural environment. The variation sits at the rear of the existing dwelling and will not result in any impact to the existing natural components of the site or neighbourhood. No landscape area is lost or impacted through the height variation.

· The proposal represents an environmentally sustainable design, making an appropriate enhancement to the liveability of the existing dwelling.

· The variation does not result in a roof form or height beyond that which is found in the general locality. The maximum height of the varied portion of the roof form is located at the rear of the site, will be compatible within the context in which it sits and is reasonable in the circumstances.

· Removal of the non-compliance would not result in any meaningful reduction in the perceived bulk and scale of the proposal due to its minor nature, siting and topography.

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.

Council is therefore satisfied that Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the HLEP is adequately addressed.

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

2.1.4 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 item:

· Item I 140 - Bushland Reserve, Sutherland Road, Beecroft

· Item I 139 - Bushland, Sutherland Road, Beecroft

The Hornsby Development Control Plan 2024 (HDCP) describes the Beecroft Cheltenham Plateau Precinct as being significant for the early release subdivisions from the Field of Mars and is characterised by well-articulated and predominantly single storey buildings from the Victorian, Federation and Inter-War periods, large domestic gardens amongst mature trees and remnant tree forest communities.

The subject site is located in a cul-de-sac on the fringe of the Beecroft-Cheltenham Plateau Precinct that was created in 1968 (DP 237044) and contains a split storey face-brick and hipped tile roof dwelling responding to the steep topography of the site. The dwelling is situated significantly below street level presenting single storey-built form and double garage door to the streetscape. The rear contains a two-storey habitable footprint and lower ground level subfloor access and opens onto a terraced garden area and swimming pool with paved surrounds. The existing dwelling exhibits an intact early residential form and materiality, which has a neutral contribution to the values of the HCA.

The modifications to the internal layout, the demolition and replacement of the rear balcony with an extended roof and aluminium privacy screen, and the addition of new door and window openings on the rear and side elevations, as well as the installation of skylights, have all been deemed to have no adverse impact on the significance of the HCA or the streetscape. These changes are contained within the rear of the dwelling and will not be visible from the public domain.

The proposed timber finish for the garage and front door, the bagged render, and the painted roof tiles were considered incompatible with the common characteristic finishes within the precinct. Similarly, the new balustrade design was not compatible with the building period or style.

The proposal was amended to address these heritage concerns. The amendments include retaining the existing face-brick finish, applying a black colour finish to the new garage and front door, and replacing the existing roof tiles with Monier urban shingles. These changes would ensure that the new works have no discernible impact on the dwelling’s neutral contribution to the character of the Beecroft-Cheltenham HCA. Consequently, the proposed works now satisfy the heritage requirements of the HLEP and HDCP.

2.1.5 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.

Council’s assessment of the proposed works and excavation concludes that the impacts would be minimal. The existing foundations of the dwelling house will be utilised for the proposed alterations and additions. No cut or fill is required to construct the development. The proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regards 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 1.2.6.1 of the HDCP prescribes works that can be undertaken with or without consent to trees and objectives for tree preservation.

No trees would be removed or impacted by the development. No further consideration is required.

2.2.2 Chapter 6 Water Catchments

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.

1.2 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 (A1736084_02) 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.

2.3 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.

2.3.1 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.

2.4 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.

2.5 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2024

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant desired outcomes and prescriptive requirements within the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2024 (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	752.5m²	N/A	N/A
Building Height	9.998m	8.5m	No
No. storeys	2	max. 2 + attic	Yes
Site Coverage	22% (existing)	50%	Yes
Floor Area	341m²(existing)	380m²	Yes
Setbacks
- Front	7.713m (existing)	6m	Yes
- Side (eastern)
Ground floor	2.448m (existing)	900mm	Yes
First floor	2.447m (existing)	1.5m	Yes
- Side (western)
Ground floor	1.934m (existing)	900mm	Yes
First floor	1.623m (existing)	1.5m	Yes
- Rear
Pool deck	1.05m	3m	No
Ground floor	10.3m	3m	Yes
First floor	11.843m	8m	Yes
Landscaped Area (30% of lot size)	256.88m²	225.75m²	Yes
Private Open Space
- minimum area	>24m²	24m²	Yes
- minimum dimension	>3m²	3m	Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces (existing)	2 spaces	Yes

As detailed in the above table, there are a number of non-compliances with the HDCP controls which are discussed below including a brief discussion on compliance with relevant performance requirements.

2.5.1 Height

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

This is supported by the prescriptive measure that states the maximum height permissible is 8.5m comprised of 2 storeys + attic. The proposal is a maximum of 2 storeys. The non-compliance with the height has been discussed in detail in Section 2.1.3 of this report.

2.5.2 Setbacks

The desired outcomes of Part 3.1.2 Setbacks of the HDCP are to encourage “setbacks that are compatible with adjacent development and complement the streetscape” and “setbacks that allow for canopy trees to be retained and planted along the front and rear property boundaries”.

These are supported by the prescriptive measure that states the minimum rear boundary setback for single storey elements is 3m.

The pool deck extension proposes a 1.05m setback to the northern rear boundary which represents a encroachment of 1.95m (65%). The HDCP allows for a single storey outbuilding with a maximum floor area of 25m² to encroach to within 900mm of the rear boundary. The proposed deck extension would encroach into the rear setback for a total area of 24.4m². The deck being an open structure would have an arguably smaller impact compared to a regular outbuilding such as a shed. Additionally, adjoining the rear boundary is a public reserve comprised of dense bushland; thus, the proposed deck would not result in any separation issues with other land uses. Figure 3 outlines the existing interface at the rear of the site.

As such, the proposal meets the desired outcomes of Part 3.1.2 Setbacks of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

Figure 3: Interface at the rear of the site between the deck and public reserve.

2.5.3 Sunlight Access

The desired outcome of Part 3.1.5 Sunlight Access of the HDCP it to encourage “development designed to provide reasonable sunlight to adjacent properties”.

This is supported by the prescriptive measure that states “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”.

The proposal is supported by shadow diagrams which demonstrate a minor increase in overshadowing because of the proposed works. However, despite the height non-compliance due to the rear roof extension, adjoining sites would continue to receive in excess of the 3 hours minimum sunlight access as prescribed by the HDCP.

As such, the proposal meets the desired outcome of Part 3.1.5 Sunlight Access of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.5.4 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 measure that states “decks and the like that need to be located more than 600mm above existing ground should not face a window of another habitable room, balcony or private open space of another dwelling location within 9 metres of the proposed deck unless appropriately screened”.

The proposed balcony on the upper storey has a floor level approximately 5.5m above existing ground level and would be within 9m of the private open space of the adjoining dwelling to the east. The applicant has not proposed a privacy screen but relies upon existing mature vegetation along the eastern boundary which would act as a natural screen. The image (figure 4) provided by the applicant demonstrates the current situation when viewed from the existing balcony.

Figure 4: Looking east towards the neighbouring site from the existing balcony.

The vegetation which provides the natural screening is located on the adjoining site, thereby ensuring that the impacted neighbour would retain control of their own privacy situation.

As such, the proposal meets the desired outcome of Part 3.1.6 Privacy of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.5.5 Heritage

The subject site is located within the Beecroft-Cheltenham HCA and Part 9.3 Heritage Conservation Areas of the HDCP provides controls that apply to all Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA) with detailed controls appropriate for specific HCAs.

The proposal is supported by a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) prepared by Edwards Heritage Consultants. The proposed works are sensitively designed, respectful to the key characteristic elements of the existing dwelling and sympathetic to the heritage value and character of the HCA. Further discussion is found in Section 2.1.4 of this report.

As such, the proposal meets the requirements of Part 9.3 Heritage Conservation Areas of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.5.6 Bushfire

The desired outcomes of Part 1.3.3.1 Bushfire of the HDCP are to encourage “development that is located and designed to minimise the risk to life and property from bushfires” and “development that balances the conservation of native vegetation and bushfire protection”.

These are supported by the prescriptive measure that states “development on land identified as bushfire prone on Council’s Bushfire Prone Land Map should address the bush fire protection measures in the publication Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019”.

The subject site is mapped as bush fire prone land and a Bushfire Assessment Report prepared by BlackAsh Bushfire Consulting was submitted to support the development application as the proposed alterations and additions would be located within an area with a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) of BAL FZ. The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) in accordance with Section 4.14(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for comment.

The proposal seeks to utilise a ‘better bushfire outcome’ approach as follows:

· New works (excluding pool deck) to comply with BAL-40.

· A formal APZ will be established with the entire site managed as an Inner Protection Area.

· Landscaping will be designed to comply with Appendix 4 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019.

· All existing windows will be replaced with new double glazing.

· Preparation and adoption of a Bush Fire Management, Operations, and Maintenance Plan, which will also include an Emergency Operations and Evacuation Plan. This will include maintenance schedules as well as requirements to close all windows and doors on high fire danger days and/or when there is bush fire activity that would be expected to pose an inappropriate risk to occupants.

· The existing dwelling will be upgraded to improve ember protection. This will include enclosing all openings (excluding glazing, openable windows and roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a noncorrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. This also includes any vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors will be fitted with draft excluders.

The RFS raised no objections to the development and the ‘better bushfire outcome’ approach detailed above, subject to the conditions recommended in Attachment 1. All newly constructed alterations and additions (excluding the pool deck extension) are to conform to BAL-40 construction standards and the existing building upgraded to improve ember protection as stated in the Bushfire Assessment Report version V1.1 prepared by BlackAsh Bushfire Consulting, dated 23 May 2024.

As such, the proposal meets the desired outcomes of Part 1.3.3.1 Bushfire of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.6 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

The proposed development does not require the removal of any trees from the site.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

The application proposes to dispose of stormwater by connecting to the existing internal drainage system. The site slopes naturally towards the public reserve at the rear; therefore, there would be minimal risk of runoff impacts to adjoining residential sites. Appropriate conditions have been recommended.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The proposal would result in a maximum height of 9.998m. However, the built form is considered acceptable as discussed in Section 2.1.3 of this report.

3.2.2 Traffic

The proposal being for alterations and additions to a dwelling house would not have any adverse impact on 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.

4.1 Bushfire Risk

As noted in Section 2.5.6 of this report, the subject site is identified as being bushfire prone and was referred to the RFS for comment in accordance with Section 4.14(1A) of the Act.

Conditions provided by RFS have been included in the draft conditions of consent in Attachment 1.

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 24 April 2024 and 8 May 2024 in accordance with the Hornsby Community Engagement Plan. During this period, Council received no submissions. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who were notified.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

5.2 Public Agencies

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

5.2.1 Rural Fire Service

The development application was referred to the NSW Rural Service for comment and no objections were raised to the proposed development subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

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.

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.⇩	Architectural Plans
3.⇩	Clause 4.6 Variation

File Reference: DA/371/2024

Document Number: D08920505

LPP Report No. LPP1/24

Local Planning Panel

Date of Meeting: 31/07/2024

3 ELECTRONIC - DA/794/2023 - CONSTRUCTION OF A 5-STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING COMPRISING 20 UNITS - 21-25 THORNLEIGH STREET, THORNLEIGH

DA No:	DA/794/2023 (PAN-361793 - Lodged on 23 August 2023)
Description:	Demolition and construction of a 5-storey residential flat building comprising 20 units
Property:	Lots 34, 35 and 36 Sec 4 DP 1854, Nos. 21-25 Thornleigh Street, Thornleigh
Applicant:	Pillar Management Services Pty Ltd
Owner:	Pillar Management Services Pty Ltd
Estimated Value:	$8,420,265
Ward:	B Ward
Submissions:	One
LPP Criteria:	SEPP 65 development
Author:	Katrina Maxwell, Senior Town Planner
COI Declaration:	No Council staff involved in the assessment of this application have declared a Conflict of Interest.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Hornsby Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, approve Development Application No. DA/794/2023 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5-storey residential flat building comprising 20 units at Lots 34, 35 and 36 Sec 4 DP 1854, Nos. 21-25 Thornleigh Street, Thornleigh subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of LPP Report No. LPP1/24.

executive summary

· The application involves the construction of a five storey residential flat building comprising 20 residential units, two level basement parking and associated landscaping/civil works.

· The application is required to be determined by the Hornsby Council Local Planning Panel as State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Development applies.

· One submission has been received in respect of the application.

· It is recommended that the application be approved.

BACKGROUND

Site History

On 24 September 2021, a pre-lodgement meeting was held with the applicant for the proposed development under PL/57/2021. The application sought preliminary planning advice on the development of 21-25 Thornleigh Street for a childcare and residential flat building in the form of shop top housing.

On 15 September 2022 Development Application No. DA/374/2022 for demolition of structures and construction of a mixed used development with a 72-place childcare centre and a residential flat building over basement carparking was withdrawn.

Application History

On 23 August 2023, this development application (DA/794/2023) was lodged.

On 12 October 2023, the proposal was presented to the Design Excellence Panel (DEP). At this meeting, the panel recommended of design changes.

On 12 December 2023, the Applicant submitted additional information partially addressing the concerns of the design excellence panel and Council’s assessment staff.

On 22 January 2024, Council’s Assessing Officer and Waste Management Officer met with the Applicants to discuss the proposed waste servicing of the development.

On 6 February 2024, General Terms of Approval were received from Water NSW/ NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

On 7 February 2024, amended ground floor plans were received regarding waste management requirements.

On 15th of March 2024, a meeting was held with the Applicants and Council to address Council’s concerns with building separation.

On 10 May 2024, amended plans were received addressing Council’s concerns.

On 13 May 2024 the amended development application was Referred to Water NSW/ NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

On 4 June 2024 amended plans were received reducing the height of the retaining walls within the front setback of the site.

On 1 July 2024, amended General Terms of Approval were received from Water NSW/ NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

SITE

The development site comprises three allotments (total area 1338m²) on the northern side of Thornleigh Street, Thornleigh. The allotments, being Nos. 21-25 Thornleigh Street currently contain dwelling houses and associated outbuildings in a landscaped setting.

The site experiences a fall of approximately 4m towards the front, south-eastern corner of the site.

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

The site is located within the Station Street Thornleigh High Density Precinct, which extends from the southern side of Bellevue Street to the northern side of Thornleigh Street, Thornleigh. The southern side of Thornleigh Street is not located within the precinct and is currently comprises of low-density residential allotments in a garden setting.

To the east and west of the site are existing five storey residential flat buildings. To the north of the site are low density dwelling houses located within the high-density precinct. These allotments have not yet been redeveloped for high density housing and no adjoining allotments to the north have any development applications under consideration with Council.

Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Site (Source: Intramaps)

PROPOSAL

A Development Application has been received for the proposal to construct a residential flat building at Nos. 21-25 Thornleigh Street, Thornleigh to be known as Trinity Towers. The residential flat building would consist of 20 residential units over five storeys. A dry (tanked) two level basement carpark would contain 25 car parking spaces.

The unit mix would comprise:

· 3x 1 bed unit

· 15x 2 bed units

· 1x 3 bed

· 1x 4 bed unit

Two of the units would be adaptable units (10%). Four units would be Liveable Housing - Silver Level (20%).

Kerbside waste collection is proposed.

Stormwater would be managed through on-site detention which is then piped under Thornleigh Street via a proposed kerb inlet pit on the southern side of Thornleigh Street.

The proposal includes the removal of 12 trees for the development. The proposal includes landscaping, incorporating replacement trees, deep soil planting, shrubs, screening plants and ground covers at ground level.

The Applicant states the intent of the development is to provide housing for people with a disability, however, do not intend to use the provisions of SEPP (Housing) 2021.

Figure 2: Extract of Southern Elevation (Prepared by Urban Link)

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

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

The proposed development would be consistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities and the North District Plan, by contributing to achieving the dwelling targets for the region.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

2.1 Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013

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

2.1.1 Zoning of Land and Permissibility

The subject land is zoned R4 High Density Residential under the HLEP. The objectives of the R4 zone are:

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

· To provide a variety of housing types within a high-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 a high-density residential development and complies with the zone objectives by providing a variety of housing types and new housing stock. The proposed development is defined as a ‘residential flat building’ and is permissible in the R4 zone with Council’s consent.

2.1.2 Height of Buildings

The original proposal maximum height of 16.75m, a contravention of 1.5% which did not comply with the height of building development standard. The applicant had submitted a written request to contravene the Height of Buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the HLEP.

However, amended plans were submitted reducing the height of the lift overrun to 16.5m. Therefore, the proposed development complies with the maximum building height requirement under Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of HLEP.

Figure 3: Height Plane Diagram (Source: Urban Link)

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

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

The application proposes excavation associated with a two-level basement.

No fill is proposed to facilitate the building footprint. Minor fill would be required for retaining walls for landscaping. Excavation would be required to facilitate construction of the basement level. Retaining walls at the front of the site have been reduced in height, to a maximum height of 900mm, reducing the extent of fill required.

This excavation would entail the removal of approximately 5139.4m³ of material from the site. At its deepest point, the excavation would be 7.5m below the existing ground level, with the majority of the excavation works being confined within the building footprint. As the topography falls towards the font of the site excavation depth reduces with some fill being proposed for the rear of the site to create a level building platform. Minor landscaping work is also proposed.

The geology of the site is identified as bedrock comprising topsoil of sandy clay overlain on weathered sandstone bedrock.

The matters for consideration listed under Clause 6.2 of the HLEP are discussed below.

Matter for Consideration	Comment
(a) The likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development	The proposed excavation on site would have negligible impact on any drainage patterns in the locality. Soil stability would be unimpacted upon completion of the proposed works, as basement walls would retain soils.
(b) The effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land	The proposed excavation is required to facilitate the use of the site as medium density residential development.
(c) The quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both	There will be no fill imported. Appropriate conditions are recommended in the consent for the classification of all excavated material prior to disposal off site.
(d) The effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties	Amenity impacts as a result of the excavation would largely be confined to the construction period. Appropriate conditions of development consent are recommended in the consent to control amenity impacts during construction. Post construction, during the buildings operation phase, negligible impacts are expected as a result of the proposed excavation.
(e) The source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material	No fill is proposed to be imported to the site. Appropriate conditions are recommended in the consent for the classification of all excavated material prior to disposal off site
(f) The likelihood of disturbing relics	Council has no record of any historical items or events of note on the subject site, of either Aboriginal or European Heritage. It is therefore considered that the proposed works are unlikely to disturb any relics.
(g) The proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area	The development site is not in close proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area.
(h) Any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development	Appropriate measures have been included as conditions of development consent to avoid, minimise and mitigate the impacts of the development.

The application was accompanied by a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Ei Australia (8 May 2024), which included a number of recommendations for the construction of the building.

Accordingly, a is recommended in Attachment 1, that the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Ei Australia (8 May 2024) 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 a geotechnical engineer.

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.

2.1.5 Clause 6.8 - Design Excellence

Clause 6.8 of the HLEP sets out matters for consideration to determine whether a proposed development exhibits a high standard of design. The Clause applies to development proposals on land with a permitted height limit over 29.5m (10 storeys or more) as well as attached dwellings, multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and shop top housing.

Clause 6.8 states that development consent must not be granted to development to which this Clause applies unless, in the opinion of the consent authority, the proposed development exhibits design excellence.

To enable the implementation of ‘Clause 6.8 Design Excellence’ in the HLEP, Council has established a panel of suitably qualified architecture and urban design professionals to undertake a review of the design quality of relevant developments. A Design Excellence Panel Meeting was held on 12 October 2023. A summary of the Design Excellence Panel advice is provided below:

· The Panel did not raise any objections regarding the desired future character, streetscape, or height. The panel acknowledged that there were some non-compliant setbacks. However, these setbacks could be acceptable if commitments to design quality, deep soil provision and landscape in these areas are achieved.

· Concerns were raised regarding the entry circulation, lift orientation and location of the waste bin room on the ground floor. The deeply recessed lobby entry could create CPTED issues.

· The design of the ground floor seating area and communal open space should be reconsidered to protect the privacy and amenity of users of these areas, and other site users.

· Additional landscaping is encouraged to reduce the significant extent of driveways along the street frontage including a pergola for large climbers above the carpark opening. Service gates or screens could also improve the street presentation.

· Consider reconfiguring the undercover communal open space to reduce impacts on the adjoining unit and provide easy access from the entry lobby.

· Kitchens should be located on the outside walls of units to ensure amenity.

· The mix of housing choice is to be reviewed.

· Include the provision of ESD measures such as PV panels and EV charging points for cars.

Response from the Applicant

On 29 May 2023, the applicant submitted final set of amended plans (Issue F) address the matters raised by the Design Excellence Panel. However previous amended plans were previously submitted addressing the concerns of the Design Excellence Panels and Council. The details of the cumulative amendments as described by the applicant are provided as follows:

Enty Lobby/Bin Room

· The entry of the proposed bin room is relocated away from the building entrance, and the bin room entry door will be treated to have the same look as the proposed louvres/battens on the front façade to minimize the visual impact of the bin room entry door. With the relocation and special treatment implemented to the bin room entry door, the overall width and spatial quality of the entry area are increased and improved. An additional basement level has been included in the development with bin room relocated to this level.

· An additional door with glazing is proposed to separate the lobby and seating area. The proposed additional door also provided flexibility for the seating area to be fully isolated from the ground residents for different uses, to minimize the impact that may be created by different activities within the seating area.

· The main building entry has been relocated forward slightly and the mailbox has been relocated inside the lobby. Proposed main switchboard relocated from ground floor to basement 01.

· The layouts of units G01 & G03 are updated, having the units’ entry relocated within the redefined lobby area, separated from the seating area, and the study is removed from unit G03. The layout of U401 has also been redesigned as per council’s comments. The layout of the penthouse unit (U104) has been redesigned.

Building Separations/Setbacks

· Side setbacks increased by 500mm for 6m to 6.5m

· Balconies at the font removed to reduce the side setback encroachment.

· Bedroom windows facing the side boundaries changed to high-light windows.

· Planters at the front of level 4 removed to reduce the side setback encroachment.

Private Open Space/Landscaping

· The stair egress from the basement has been relocated, and brought forward towards the street, to increase the landscape area between the side boundary and the unit G04’s POS.

· A pergola with climbers is proposed above the driveway to the basement. An additional planter garden is also provided in front of the stair egress, next to the driveway to minimize the visual impact of the stair egress and soften the hardness of the driveway.

· Proposed driveway amended to optimize the deep soil and landscape area along the side boundary and the Basement footprint amended to increase the side setback, optimizing the deep soil and landscape area between the basement and the side boundary. The Proposed pump room relocated to avoid encroachment into the front deep soil planting zone.

· Access to the Private open space of unit G04 replaced by a deep soil landscape planter facing the street to increase soft landscaping at the front of the site.

Security and Safety

· Appropriate lighting and surveillance systems will also be installed to minimize the CPTED issues.

Ecologically Sustainability Development

· AC units are shown on all balconies. EV charging station is shown on the basement plan. A condition of consent has been included in Attachment to ensure EV charging stations are constructed to the relevant standards.

Internal Layout

· Layouts of ground floor units, COS and unit mix amended accordingly.

· Planters at the rear and the sides were amended due to the footprint amendments of the levels below.

· Proposed roof was amended due to the footprint amendments of the level below.

· Height of proposed lift overrun reduced 250mm to comply with maximum building height.

· Covered communal open space provided.

Items not amended (justification provided)

· The applicant justifies retaining the proposed layout of G02, 101,102,103, 201,202,203, 301, 302 and 303 due to the amenity requirements of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)/ accessible units. While the development has not be specifically designed for persons with a disability, it is understood the Applicant plans for some or all of the units to be occupied by NDIS participants.

· The applicant proposes to retain the location of kitchens in UG02, U101 and U103 as they were able to demonstrate that relocating the kitchens to the outside walls of units would interfere with access widths for persons with a disability.

· The Applicant proposes to retain the proposed building materials, preferring to establish specific materials at Construction Certificate stage. Materials have been selected having regard for the ADG which requires that “building facades should use materials that are long lasting and weather well over time, such as brickwork, tiles and glass” and “material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs - natural materials that weather well and improve with time such as face brickwork”.

Response From Council

The Applicant has made several changes to address the concerns of the Design Excellence Panel and Council. Additional deep soil planting and landscaping has now been achieved. This has been partially achieved through the rationalisation of pathways/ hardstand areas. The ground floor seating area has been reconfigured. The lobby entry has been reconfigured and the waste room has been relocated to the basement. The ground floor seating area and communal open space has been redesigned and now provides a more cohesive flow between indoor and outdoor communal spaces, while affording greater amenity to individual units.

The housing mix has been varied to create increased housing choice.

The communal mailbox location is considered safe and convenient for servicing by Australia Post and couriers.

Solar panels are now shown on the roof plan. A provisional EV charging station has now been shown on the basement plan. A condition has been included in Attachment 1 of this report requiring electric vehicle (EV) ready connections to at least 25% of allocated on-site parking spaces.

Following a detailed review of the final set of amended plans by Council, it is noted that the refinements requested by the Design Excellence Panel have been implemented. It is considered by Council, that the development demonstrates satisfactory urban design quality.

Figure 4: Extract of Photomontage (Source: Urban Link)

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 commenced on 26 November 2021. The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) were transferred into Chapter 4 of Housing SEPP on 14 December 2023.

On 15 March 2024 the NSW Government published the State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Housing) 2024. This document revised the transitional provision set out in section 8(1) of Schedule 7A of the Housing SEPP. The Housing SEPP now applies to all pending development applications, even those lodged before 14 December 2023. The relevant design quality principles are in Schedule 9 of the Housing SEPP.

Chapter 4 of the Housing SEPP provides for design principles to improve the design quality of residential flat development and for consistency in planning controls across the State and adopts the Apartment Design Guide which prevails in the event of any inconsistency with a Development Control Plan. The Policy includes objectives to meet housing and population targets, affordable housing and to facilitate timely and efficient assessment of development applications.

Chapter 4 of the Housing SEPP makes further provision for design review panels; includes additional provisions for the determination of development application and for standards for car parking, visual privacy, solar and daylight access, common circulation and spaces, apartment size and layout, ceiling heights, private open space and balconies, natural ventilation and storage, which cannot be used as grounds for refusal of development consent.

An assessment of the proposal against the design quality principles contained within Schedule 9 of the Housing SEPP is addressed in the following table:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 - Schedule 9 Assessment
Principle	Compliance
1. CONTEXT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER	Yes
Comment: The site is located within a precinct planned for five storey residential flat buildings in close proximity to Thornleigh Railway Station and the Thornleigh Commercial Centre. The desired future character of the area, as outlined in the HDCP, is that of a locality characterised by residential flat buildings of 5-storeys in height in landscape settings with underground car parking. Development should seek to complement and enhance the adjacent public domain environment and building footprints by maintaining landscape corridors around and through development sites. The proposed development is considered to adequately respond to the desired future character of the area by proposing a built form that is generally consistent with Council’s controls. The proposed development is of a five storey built form and has adequate landscaping to appropriately integrate the built form with the surrounding development.
2. BUILT FORM AND SCALE	Yes
Comment: Despite the minor height non-compliance, it is considered that the proposed development achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. The building presents as highly articulated and of appropriate proportions and materiality. The concept would contribute to the character of the streetscape and offer residents a high level of amenity. The proposal is consistent with the built form and scale of the adjoining development immediately to the North West and South East.
3. DENSITY	No
Comment: The HLEP does not incorporate floor space ratio requirements for the site. The density of the development is governed by the height of the building and the required setbacks. As outlined above and in the body of this report, the proposed development does not comply with the height of building development standard or side setback requirements. However, the density of the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory and a reasonable response to the desired future character of the site and the precinct.
4. SUSTAINABILITY	Yes
Comment: The applicant has submitted a BASIX Certificate for the proposed development. In achieving the required BASIX targets for sustainable water use, thermal comfort and energy efficiency, the proposed development would achieve efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including demolition and construction. The proposal promotes the longer-term sustainability of the local area as follows: · Natural ventilation is provided to at least 60% of apartments. · Over 2 hours of sun are provided to at least 70% of units between 9-3pm on the 21 June. · Balconies provide shelter from the summer sun while allowing winter sun to penetrate well into living areas. This will reduce the need for mechanical heating and cooling. · Substantial Communal open space is provided with well-designed landscaping area and amenities.
5. LANDSCAPE	Yes
Comment: The proposed development provides for landscaping along the site frontage with ground covers, shrubbery, and feature trees. Four street trees are also proposed. The landscape areas accommodate for canopy trees, the landscape design enhance the development performance and contribute to the local context. The communal open space is also well incorporated into the development providing a range of recreational opportunities for future residents, providing a transition between indoor and outdoor entertaining including tables and seating, and barbeque facilities. Landscaped areas are provided to the front and rear of the ground level where possible. Retaining walls at the front of the site have been reduced in height contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.
6. AMENITY	Yes
Comment: The proposed units are designed with appropriate room dimensions and layout to maximise amenity for future residents. The proposal incorporates good design in terms of achieving natural ventilation. All units incorporate balconies accessible from living areas and privacy has been achieved through appropriate design and orientation of balconies and living areas. The proposed units will have considerable internal amenity and are compliant with the minimum sizes contained within the Apartment Design Guide. They are of a sufficient size and appropriate room dimension to meet the needs of future occupants. Storage is provided within all units. The outdoor areas (communal and private) are of sufficient size to meet the recreational needs of future occupants. The building has been designed in compliance with the principal development standards to achieve high levels of internal and external amenity with at least 70% of units achieving the solar access requirements, and 85% of units achieve cross ventilation.
7. SAFETY AND SECURITY	Yes
Comment: The design orientates the balconies and windows of individual apartments towards the street, and rear providing passive surveillance of the public domain and communal open space areas. Both the pedestrian and vehicular entry points are secured and visibly prominent from Thornleigh Street. A condition of consent would require that the main ground level entry be secured and fitted, with an intercom for visitors. The entry to the building lobby is accessed from the street frontages of the property and is transparent, maximizing the potential for casual surveillance. The basement carparking is accessed from a secure garage entry. The Proposed layout provides a high level of privacy and security. A condition of consent requires that CCTV cameras must be installed at the entry and exit point and the around the mailbox. Adequate lighting to be provided for the lobby, car parks and communal open spaces. A condition of consent requires that communal open spaces within the site must be illuminated with high luminance by motion sensor lighting. Security deadlocks are to be provided to each apartment door; and Peep holes are to be provided to individual apartment doors to promote resident safety as required by conditions of consent. It can be concluded that the proposed development has been designed in accordance with the objectives and better design practice of the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).
8. SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY	Yes
Comment: The proposal incorporates a range of unit sizes to cater for different budgets and housing needs. The development complies with the housing choice requirements of the HDCP by providing a component of adaptable housing and a mix of 1-, 2- and 3+ bedroom dwellings. The proposal responds to the social context in terms of providing a range of dwelling sizes with good access to social facilities and services as the site is located in close proximity to Thornleigh railway station and shops.
9. AESTHETICS	Yes
Comment: As outlined in the body of this report, and the commentary of the Design Excellence Panel, attached to this report, the proposed development considered to be of an acceptable design and is supported.

2.3 Apartment Design Guide

The Apartment Design Guide (ADG), NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2015 provides design criteria and and best practice benchmarks for achieving the design principles of the Housing SEPP. The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the ADG:

Apartment Design Guide
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Deep Soil Zone (3E)	37%	7% of site area	Yes
Communal Open Space (3D-1)	28%	25% of site area	Yes
Solar Access (Communal open space areas) (3D-1)	50% solar access between 12pm-3pm	50% direct sunlight access for 2 hours	Yes
Building Separation (3F-1)
- Side boundaries	See below	6m between habitable windows and balconies	No
- Rear boundary	8m 9m	4.5m between non-habitable rooms for lowest 3 floors, 9m for 4^th floor	Yes Yes
Solar Access (4A-1)
- Living rooms	Complies	2 hours for 70% units	Yes
- Private open space	Complies	2 hours for 70%	Yes
No Solar Access allowable for units (4A-1)	15%	15% of units (max)	Yes
Natural Cross Ventilation (4B-3)	85%	60%	Yes
Ceiling Height (4C-1)
- Habitable rooms	2.9m	2.7m	Yes
- Non-habitable rooms	2.9m	2.4m	Yes
Minimum Dwelling Size (4D-1)
- 1 bed units	64.3m²	50m²	Yes
- 2 bed units	72.2m²	70m²	Yes
- 3 bed +5m² for additional bathrooms (x1)	99.3m²	90m²	Yes
Minimum Window Size (4D-1)	>10%	10% of the floor area of the room	Yes
Habitable room depth (4D-2)	>8m	Max. 8m from a window	Yes
Apartment Layouts - Minimum Bedroom Size (4D-3)
- Master bedroom	11.6m²	Min. 10m²	Yes
- Bedroom	10.0m²	Min. 9m²	Yes
Apartment Layouts - Combined Living / Dining Rooms Minimum Width (4D-3)
- Studio and 1 bedroom	4.3m	3.6m	Yes
- 2 and 3 bedrooms	4m	4m	Yes
Minimum Balcony Size (4E-1)
- 1 bed units	10.8m²2.5m depth	Min. 10m², 2.5m depth	Yes
- 2 bed units	12m²2.5m depth	Min. 10m², 2m depth	Yes
- 3 bed units	13m²2.5m depth	Min. 12m², 2m depth	Yes
Maximum Number of Units on a Single Level (4F-1)	5 units	Max. 8 units off a circulation core	Yes
Car Parking (3J-1)
- Resident	21 spaces	21 spaces	Yes
- Visitor	4 spaces	3 spaces	Yes
- Total	25 spaces	24 spaces	Yes
Total Storage Area (4G-1)
- 1 bed units	min.9m³	Min 4m³	Yes
- 2 bed units	min.8m³	min. 8m³	Yes
- 3 bed units	min.12m³	min. 10m³	Yes
- % storage in units	Min.50%	min. 50%	Yes

2.3.1 Building Separation

Objective 3F-1 of the ADG requires any side building setback up to 4 storeys to be a distance of 6m to habitable windows and balconies or 3m to non-habitable rooms; and any side building setback over 4 storeys to be a distance of 9m to habitable windows and balconies or 4.5m to non-habitable rooms. Further, this section of the ADG requires a rear boundary setback over 4 storeys of 9m between habitable windows and balconies or 4.5m to non-habitable rooms.

The proposal generally complies with the building separation requirements under Section 3F of the ADG with the exception of the following:

· 9m building separation is between habitable and non-habitable rooms is required on the ground to third floor. 8.6m building separation is proposed.

· 18m between habitable rooms/ balconies is required on the fourth floor. 11.1m building separation is proposed.

The applicant provides the following justification for the non-compliance with building separation:

Regardless of not meeting the recommended separations the proposed is seen to be suitable for consent in its current form.

The development has demonstrated built form scale that is compatible with the desired future character through appropriate massing and spaces between buildings.

The development has demonstrated the provision of commendable residential amenity including visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight and daylight access and outlook.

The development has demonstrated the provision of suitable areas for communal open spaces, deep soil zones and landscaping.

In support of these non-compliances, the following is noted:

· Amended plans have been received removing the wrap around balconies.

· Windows to bedrooms on the eastern and western side elevations have been amended and are now highlight windows. This gives the effect of these rooms being considered non-habitable.

· Living and entertaining spaces are oriented towards front and rear boundaries and where this was unavoidable, privacy screens have been proposed to minimise amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

· The building separation variations provide visual interest to the building design, ensuring the building provides appropriate indentation and consideration of amenity of adjoining properties.

From the plans that were presented at lodgement and to the Design Excellence Panel, substantial changes and additional clarification has been provided, improving the overall development.

While minor variations are proposed to the building separation, the proposal now better addresses the side setbacks/ building separation which improves the amenity to adjoining properties.

Additional landscaping is provided, including deep soil planting which improves environmental outcomes, the amenity of the residents and the streetscape.

Overall, it is considered that the building separation non-compliances would result in minimal amenity impacts to adjoining neighbours and achieve an acceptable building design and separation within the context of the site and the adjoining RFB’s and no further objections are raised in this regard.

2.4 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.

2.4.1 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.

It is proposed to remove 11 trees to facilitate development of the site.

Section 2.8.1 of this report provides an assessment in accordance with Part 1.2.6.1 Tree and Vegetation Management of the HDCP.

2.4.2 Part 6 Water Catchments

The site is located with the Sydney Harbour catchment. Part 6 Division 2 of this Plan contains general planning considerations and strategies requiring Council to consider the impacts of development on water quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.

Subject to the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater management to protect water quality, the proposal would comply with the requirements of the Policy. Groundwater was observed on site during borehole testing. The development application was referred to Water NSW and NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW - previously Department of Planning and Environment for hydrogeological assessment. Subject to compliance the General Teams of Approval (GTA) from Water NSW the development is considered to comply with Part 6 Water Catchments of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

2.5.1 Chapter 4 - Remediation of Land

A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) Report was prepared by (dated 3 December 2021) as part of the previous development application (DA/374/2022). The PSI was assessed by Council’s Environmental Protection Officer and found to be satisfactory. Conditions of consent require the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Survey and a Demolition and Construction Management Plan before demolition.

Subject to conditions, the proposal complies with Section 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazard SEPP and is considered acceptable.

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

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 which seeks to encourage sustainable residential development.

The proposal includes a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the BASIX 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 thermal comfort, water and energy.

2.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

The application has been assessed against the requirements of Chapter 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021.

2.6.1 Ausgrid

Written notice to Ausgrid was not required in accordance with Chapter 2, division 5 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP.

Notwithstanding, the applicant submitted correspondence (LCI Consultants dated 3 August 2022) that the installation of a kiosk type substation’ would not be required for the development. The proposed development would connect into existing electricity infrastructure within the street.

In addition, a condition is recommended in Attachment 1 that the applicant must submit written evidence prior to the issue of a construction certificate that a letter of consent has been obtained from Ausgrid demonstrating that satisfactory arrangements have been made to service and construct the proposed development.

A condition has also been included in Attachment 1 stating that if an electrical substation is required, architectural plan must be submitted to Council for approval demonstrating an appropriate location for the substation to protect the visual amenity of the streetscape.

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

2.8 Hornsby Development Control Plan 2024

Hornsby Development Control Plan 2024 - Part 3.4
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Site Width	36.6m	30m	Yes
Height	16.5m	16.5m	Yes
No. of storeys	5 storeys on podium (excluding lift overrun)	5 storeys	Yes
Lowest Residential Floor Above NGL	0.6m	1.5m (max)	Yes
Maximum Floorplate Dimension	20.8m (N/S) 27.9m (E/W)	25m 35m	Yes Yes
Building Indentation	5.5m 5.9m Front 4.4 x 4.2m rear	4m x 4m	Yes
Setbacks
- Front	8m for 3/4 building length	10m 8m < 1/3 building length	No
- Side (Eastern)	6m 4.5m for ½ building length	6m 4.5m < 1/3 building length	Yes No
- Side (Western)	6m 4.5m for ½ building length	6m 4.5m < 1/3 building length	Yes No
- Rear	10 m 8m for >1/3 building length (balconies)	10m 8m < 1/3 building length	Yes Yes
- Fifth Storey setback	Yes	3m additional setback for exterior walls of the fifth storey, measured from the walls of the lowest storey	Yes
- Basement Ramp	2.6m	2m	Yes
Deep Soil Landscaped Areas
- Front	7m	8m	No
- Side (Eastern)	4m	4m	Yes
- Side (Western)	4m	4m	Yes
- Rear	7m	7m	Yes
Private Open Space
- 1 bed units	10.8m²	10m²	Yes
- 2 bed units	12m²	12m²	Yes
- 3 bed units	58.2m²	16m²	Yes
Communal Open Space
- minimum area	28%	25% (334.5m²)	Yes
- minimum active area	115.9m²	50m²	Yes
- minimum dimension	4m	4m	Yes
Parking
- Resident	22 spaces	19 spaces	Yes
- Visitor	3 spaces	4 spaces	Yes
- Bicycle	spaces	5 spaces	Yes
- Motorbike	space	1 space	Yes
Solar Access	Complies	At least 70% of dwellings receive 2 or more hours of sunlight access to at least half of the dwellings principal living room windows and principal private open space. Principal communal open space should receive a minimum 50% direct sunlight to for a minimum of 2 hours.	Yes
Housing Choice
- 1 bed units	15%	min. 10%	Yes
- 2 bed units	75%	min. 10%	Yes
- 3+ bed units	10%	min. 10%	Yes
Adaptable Units	50% (10 units)	min. 10% (2 units)	Yes

2.8.1 Tree and Vegetation Management

The subject site contains trees that would be impacted by the development and are protected by the Tree Preservation Measures contained in Part 1.2.6.1 of the HDCP. An Arborist Report was prepared by Anderson Environment & Planning (AEP) dated May 2023.

It is proposed to remove eleven (11) trees to facilitate development of the site. The removal of these trees will be offset by a condition of consent requiring the replacement planting of a minimum of six (6) trees and 5 shrubs.

The majority of the trees required to be removed are located on the rear half of the site. Of the trees to be removed, the majority are camphor laurel, umbrella trees, privet and fruit trees which are exempt tree species. Other vegetation to be removed include a Stag (dead), a western red cedar tree, a weeping bottlebrush (shrub 2m in height).

A further twelve (12) trees would be subject to tree protection measures for the ground, trunk and canopy.

Council’s Tree Management Officer has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

The proposal generally complies with Part 1.2.6.1 Tree and Vegetation Management of the HDCP 2024 and is considered acceptable.

2.8.2 Stormwater Management

The desired outcomes of Part 1.3.1.2 Stormwater Management of the HDCP are “development that protects waterways from erosion, pollution and sedimentation, and maintains or improves water quality and aquatic habitats” and “water management systems that minimise the effects of flooding and maintains natural environmental flows.”

These desired outcomes are supported by prescriptive controls that “on-site detention (OSD) system, designed in accordance with the HSC Civil Works Specification, should be provided for the following types two or more dwellings”, and “stormwater should be gravity drained to Council’s drainage system, which may require inter-allotment drainage”.

The submitted stormwater management plans prepared by SGC Consulting Engineers (dated 16 November 2023 Iss.E) detail that stormwater would be connected to a below ground on-site detention system at the front of the site, and then piped under Thornleigh Street to a proposed kerb inlet pit on the southern side of Thornleigh Street. The proposed basement would be designed as a tank system.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcomes of Part 1.3.1.2 Stormwater Management of the HDCP 2024 and is considered acceptable.

2.8.3 Earthworks and Slope

The desired outcomes of Part 1.3.1.4 Earthworks and Slope of the HDCP are “development that is designed to respect the natural landform characteristics and protects the stability of land” and “development that limits landform modification to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties and streetscape character.”

These desired outcomes are supported by prescriptive controls that “earthworks involving filling should not exceed 1 metre in height from the existing ground level”, and “excavation that extends outside of the building platform should be limited to a depth of 1 metre from the existing ground level, unless the excavation is required to achieve a high quality built form or provide for safe vehicular access to the site.”

A bulk earthworks design plan was prepared by S&C Consultants Pty Ltd (dated 21/12/2023) in support of this development application. 5139.4m³ ofexcavated material will be excavated from the site with a maximum depth of 7.3m. There would no fill imported to the site. Minor fill will be required to create level landscape areas supported by retaining walls. It is expected that this fill would be sourced from the material excavated from the site.

Further information will be required to be provided within a demolition and construction management plan as a condition of consent.

A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Ei Australia (dated 1 June 2023) in support of the development application. Recommendations of the geotechnical investigation have been incorporated into the conditions of consent in Attachment 1.

Section 4.4 of the Geotechnical Investigation states that groundwater was observed in both monitoring wells as detailed in Table 3-2. Both groundwater levels were below the assumed bulk excavation level (BEL) reduced level (RL) of 156.9m to 157.5m. The application includes a tanked (dry) basement which may restrict the movement of the groundwater As such the development application was referred to Water NSW and DCCEEW, and General Terms of Approval have been issued.

Subject to conditions, the desired outcomes of Part 1.2.1.4 Earthworks and Slope of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.4 Vehicular Access and Parking

The desired outcomes of Part 1.3.2.1 Transport and Parking are “development that manages transport demand around transit nodes to encourage public transport usage”, “car parking and bicycle facilities that meet the requirements of future occupants and their visitors” and “development with simple, safe and direct vehicular access”.

A discussion on parking, access and traffic generation is provided below.

2.8.4.1 Car Parking

HDCP has a residential parking requirement of 0.75 spaces for one-bedroom units, 1 space for two-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces for three or more-bedroom units. In addition, visitor parking is to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 7 dwellings. In accordance with HDCP there is a requirement for 24 parking spaces, being 21 residential and 3 visitor parking spaces.

The RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Issue 2.2, 2002, has a parking requirement of 0.6 spaces for 1-bedroom units, 0.9 spaces for 2-bedroom units, and 1.4 spaces for 3 or more-bedroom units with visitor spaces provided at 1 space per 5 units. This gives a parking requirement of 23 spaces, being 19 residential and 4 visitor parking spaces. The development provides for 25 parking spaces, being 21 residential and 4 visitor parking spaces, and therefore complies with the minimum car parking requirement.

The proposed basement car park is accessed via a 6.1m wide driveway from Thornleigh Street.

The HDCP requires 10% of dwellings are adaptable dwellings, thus 2 disabled parking spaces are required for the development. The proposed development provides 3 disabled parking spaces.

2.8.4.2 Bicycle Parking

The HDCP has a requirement for bicycle parking at the rate of 1 space per 5 units for residents and 1 space per 10 units for visitors in the car park area, giving a requirement for 6 bicycle spaces. Six bicycle parking spaces are provided on-site.

Bicycle parking spaces are to be designed in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.3-1993 Bicycle parking facilities.

2.8.4.3 Motorcycle Parking

The HDCP has a requirement for motorcycle parking at the rate of 1 space per 50 car parking spaces, or part thereof, giving a requirement for 1 motorcycle space. One motorcycle parking space has been shown on the drawings.

Motorcycle parking spaces are to be designed in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1:2004 Figure 2.7.

2.8.4.4 Traffic Generation

A Traffic and Parking Assessment Report was prepared by Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd (dated 17 November 2023) in support of this development application. The report identifies that the proposed development would result in a nett increase in the traffic generation potential of 8 peak hour vehicle trips.

Council’s Traffic Engineer considers that traffic generation is not an issue with the proposed development.

2.8.4.5 Access

Access to the proposed development will be from Thornleigh Street and access for garbage vehicles is to satisfy the requirements of Council’s Waste Management Branch.

Any proposed landscaping and/or fencing must not restrict sight distance to pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the footpath.

The proposal complies with the desired outcomes of Part 1.3.2.1 Transport and Parking of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.5 Waste Management

The desired outcomes of Part 1.3.2.3 Waste Management of HDCP are to encourage “development that maximises the re-use and recycling of building materials” and “waste storage and collection facilities that are designed to encourage recycling, located and designed to be compatible with the streetscape, accessible, clean and safe for users and collectors”.

The development application is supported by a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan prepared by Elephants Foot Consulting (Ref: Urban Link - Rev D dated 01.12.23).

An operational Waste Management Plan was prepared by Elephants Foot Consulting (dated 16 August 2023).

The proposal initially proposed a ground floor waste room with the waste chute terminating on the ground floor which was not supported by Council due to safety and amenity concerns.

Amended plans were received providing a basement waste room serviced by a chute and a carousel. On ground, first, second and third floors, each floor is provided with a waste cupboard for recyclables and FOGO waste. As the fourth floor comprises a single unit, the waste chute would be available for general waste, however storage for recyclables and FOGO would be provided in the unit. It would be the responsibility of the residents to bring their FOGO and recyclable waste down the lift to the ground floor waste cupboard.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcomes of Part 1.3.2.3 Waste Management of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.6 Noise and Vibration

Part 1.3.2.5 of the HDCP applies to the development and aims to attenuate noise as best as possible on the occupants of residential dwellings and other noise sensitive land uses.

The development application is supported by Acoustic Report prepared by Pulse White Noise Acoustics (Ref: 230688-21-25, dated 1 December 2023).

Council’s Environmental Protection Officer reviewed Acoustic Report provided by the applicant. The Acoustic report is not considered to be a comprehensive assessment of noise impacts both as a result of the development, and external noise impacts to potential future occupants of the site. There is no assessment against the requirements of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP.

Notwithstanding, conditions can be applied to ensure that an acoustic assessment of mechanical services is provided prior to Construction Certification and acoustic certification is provided prior to Occupation Certificate demonstrating that the acoustic design achieves compliance with the applicable standards.

The development is 170m from a primary arterial road, Pennant Hills Road and approx. 250m from a rail corridor. A condition has been included in Attachment 1 requiring that prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, written certification from a suitably qualified person shall be submitted to the Principal Certifier and Council, stating that appropriate design and construction materials are to be utilised within the development to ensure compliance with the following noise criteria specified for managing the noise impact on residential buildings from rail corridors and/or busy roads.

It is noted that one objection was received in relation to potential noise and vibration during the construction process.

A construction management plan would be required to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and would include the requirement for a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNMP).

Subject to conditions, the proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to the objectives of Part 1.3.2.5 of the HDCP.

2.8.7 Desired Future Character

The site is within the Station Street, Thornleigh Precinct character area as defined in Part 3.4.15 Key Development Principles of HDCP.

it is considered that the proposed development would meet the desired outcome for the housing precinct for well-articulated five storey residential flat buildings in garden settings with basement car parking. The building is generally well articulated and is appropriately setback to provide sufficient landscaping and streetscape presentation.

The application was reviewed by Council’s Design Excellence Panel with the design advice subsequently referred to the applicant and it was requested that the matters raised be addressed as well as additional Council concerns. The applicant subsequently provided amended plans to the issues raised by the Design Excellence Panel.

As discussed in detail in Section 2.1.5 of this report, it is considered that the proposed development would meet the desired outcome for the housing precinct for well-articulated five storey residential flat buildings in garden settings with basement car parking. The building is generally well articulated and is appropriately setback to provide sufficient landscaping and streetscape presentation.

The proposal complies with the key development principles of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.8 Height

The desired outcome of Part 3.4.4 Height of HDCP is “A built form not exceeding 5 storeys in height and comprising residential flat buildings”. This desired outcome is supported by prescriptive controls that require:

· Basement car parking that protrudes more than 1 metre above existing ground level is counted as a storey,

· That the height of the building must not exceed 16.5 metres.

· Roof fixtures and lift overruns or service plants should be incorporated into the design of the roof, to minimise visual intrusiveness and support an integrated building design.

The proposed five storey building has a maximum height of 16.5m which includes the lift overrun and complies with the 16.5m height control.

2.8.9 Setbacks

The desired outcomes of Part 3.4.5 Setbacks of HDCP are to encourage “well-articulated building forms that are set back to incorporate landscaping, open space and separation between buildings”, “developments which have coordinated basement and services located to minimise loss of landscaped open space and reduction of deep soil zones” and “setbacks that preserve and protect existing trees around the perimeter of sites and provide effective deep soil areas that are able to create a garden setting, including substantial tree canopy to all sides of the building”.

2.8.9.1 Front Setback

The HDCP requires a 10m front setback, which can be reduced to 8m for a maximum of 1/3 of the building width. 71% of the the proposed front setback would be 8m to the primary building line (ground floor).

The applicant has provided the following justification for this variation:

The proposed front setback is noted to be 8.0m to the primary building line (ground floor). This is seen to be compatible and compliant in the context of the prevailing streetscape setbacks.

Whilst it is noted there are some relatively minor contraventions to the recommended DCP setbacks the proposed is regardless seen to be suitable for consent when considered on merit.

The non-compliances are initially noted to not be applicable to entire massing elements. In this context, it is noted that the built form is subsequently well-articulated and provides commendable visual relief. The proposed has demonstrated the provision of open space, deep soil and landscaping areas significantly in excess of the prescribed minimums, inferring compliance with the setback controls to be unnecessary in the circumstance of the case. It is not apparent that there would be any observable benefit beyond the achievement of numerical compliance, rather than performance outcomes, at the sacrifice of internal and overall habitable amenity.

Ultimately it is considered that the proposed setbacks are able to demonstrate attainment of the objectives of the controls and that the proposed is suitable for consideration in the context of Section 4.15, (3A), (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203 –

“If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority—

(b) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application does not comply with those standards—is to be flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the development”

While the front setback is non-compliant, this is a negotiated reduced front setback to provide additional rear setbacks (building separation).

The proposal has been sympathetically designed within the context of the site and its surrounds and is consistent within the front setback of the neighbouring developments. Appropriate landscaping within the front setback would visually soften the development within the streetscape and the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard.

2.8.9.2 Side setbacks

As noted in the table above, the proposal fails to comply with the side boundaries setbacks.

The HDCP requires a minimum building side setback of 6m, which can be reduced to 4.5m for a maximum of one-third (33%) of the building width for non-habitable rooms.

The eastern and western elevations comply with the 6m setback requirement. There are non-compliances with the extent of allowable encroachment of 4.5m as follows:

· on the ground floor greater than one-third of the building width has a setback of 4.5m. 8m of the length eastern and western elevations (38%) would be setback 4.5m.

· On levels 1, 2 and 3, 10.4m-10.6m (50%) of the eastern and western sides of the building including balconies are proposed to be setback 4.5m.

· Level 4 (the 5^th storey) complies with the setback requirements of Part 3.4.5 Setbacks of HDCP.

In support of these variations, it is noted as follows:

· Bedroom windows facing the eastern and western side boundaries would be highlight windows and therefore do not give rise to any privacy issues.

· The wrap around balconies have been deleted to increase the side setbacks of the development.

· Effort has been made to ensure living and are oriented towards front and rear boundaries where possible. All living areas are setback 6m from their respective side boundaries.

· Where possible private open spaces are orientated to the front and rear boundaries. Balcony sides facing the western and eastern boundaries, are to be screened by solid walls 1.2m and full height privacy screens.

· The building separation variations provide visual interest to the building design, ensuring the building provides appropriate indentation and consideration of amenity of adjoining properties.

· The setback non-compliance would be suspended over the basement and would not result in any loss of deep soil landscaping to the side boundary.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcomes of Part 3.4.5 Setbacks of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.10 Building Indentation and Articulation

The desired outcomes of Part 3.4.6 Building Form and Separation of HDCP are to encourage “buildings that are limited in width and depth, incorporating articulated facades and separated by garden areas” and “quality architecture that evolves from the guidelines of the Apartment Design Guide”.

The HDCP requires a 4m x 4m building indentation to be provided on all buildings with a floor-plate dimension of 25m. The proposal incorporates a north-south width of 20.8m and an east-west building width of 27.9m which complies with this requirement.

The proposal complies with the desired outcomes of Part 3.4.6 Building Form and Separation of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.11 Landscaping

The desired outcomes of Part 3.4.7 Landscaping of the HDCP are to encourage “landscaping that integrates the built form with the locality and enhances the tree canopy”, “development that retains existing landscape features such as trees, flora and fauna habitats and urban stream”, “development that incorporates green roofs and walls to improve air quality, amenity, ambient air temperature, building insulation, bird habitat and aesthetic quality of the urban environment”.

The HDCP prescribes deep soil landscape area within all boundary setbacks, to allow for the growth of canopy trees in the front and rear of the site, as well as feature trees within side setbacks. Landscaping should integrate the built form with the existing vegetated locality and be 8m wide in front setbacks, 4m wide to side setbacks and 7m wide in the rear.

Compliant deep soil setbacks are provided to the rear and side boundaries.

A deep soil setback of 8m is required to the front boundary. A deep soil setback of 7m is proposed. With reference to the proposed landscaping in the front setback, the landscaping is provided as deep soil zones, with a terraced design and feature canopy trees to integrate the development into the streetscape. The applicant has provided space for bin storage, letterboxes, and fire hydrant which are considered essential for the site.

The development application is supported by Landscape plans prepared by CANVAS Landscape Architects dated 29 May 2024.

A mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers are proposed within the front setback including Water Gum. Smooth Barked Apple, and Spotted Gum. Four street trees are also proposed.

Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the application and raised no objections to the proposed landscaping subject to the recommended conditions in Attachment 1.

In summary, it is considered that the side landscaped areas achieve the intent of the HDCP despite the numerical non-compliance with deep soil planting width in the front setback No objections are raised to the proposed landscaping design.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcomes of Part 3.4.7 of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.12 Open Space

The desired outcomes of Part 3.4.8 Open Spaces of HDCP are to encourage “development that incorporates passive and active recreation areas with privacy and access to sunlight” and “communal open space comprising landscaped setbacks, landscaping between dwellings, and a principal communal open space area”.

The HDCP mirrors the ADG in terms of required site area for open space.

All units meet the minimum open space area and width requirements for their respective dwelling size.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcomes of Part 3.4.8 Open Spaces of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.13 Sunlight Access

The desired outcomes of Part 3.4.11 Sunlight and Ventilation of the HDCP are “development designed to provide reasonable solar access to living areas and open space areas” and “development designed to provide natural cross ventilation”.

A prescriptive measure of the HDCP requires at least 70% of the dwellings to receive 2 or more hours of sunlight to living room windows and private open space between 9am and 3pm on 22 June.

A further prescriptive measure requires that the principal communal open space should receive a minimum 50% direct sunlight to for a minimum of 2 hours.

A total of 75% of units achieve at least 2 hours of sunlight to living room windows and private open space with complies with the prescriptive control.

Of the units that do not achieve two hours of solar access, at least two of these units have their living rooms orientated south to achieve views of the Sydney CBD and the harbour. Unit U305 would living rooms face south potentially views to the harbour. Unit U401 would have a living room located on the southeastern corner of the building, large wraparound balcony with some north facing aspect. Living room windows likely orientated to take advantage of the view. Therefore, while there is minor of loss amenity from solar access, these views benefit from a highly valued amenity feature being the view of an iconic skyline.

The principal communal open space at the rear of the site complies with the minimum solar access requirements of the HDCP.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcomes of Part 3.4.11 Sunlight and Ventilation of the HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.14 Housing Choice & Accessibility

The desired outcome of Part 3.4.12 Housing Choice is to encourage “a range of dwelling types that match the demographic diversity of Hornsby Shire and are accessible or may be adapted to meet the needs of people who have limited physical mobility”.

The desired outcomes are supported by prescriptive controls that state that development should include a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings. For developments with 10 or more dwellings, at least 10% of each dwelling type should be provided. At least 10% of proposed dwellings should be adaptable housing, designed to meet the needs of residents as they age.

The proposed development includes a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom units (some with studies) including the required adaptable and liveable units and the proposed housing mix is considered acceptable in this regard.

· 1 bed: 3 (15%)

· 2 beds: 15 (75%)

· 3+ beds: 2 (10%)

Two of the units would be adaptable units (10%). Four units would be Liveable Housing - Silver Level (20%) under the National Construction Code 2022.

The proposal generally complies with the desired outcome of Part 3.4.12 Housing Choice of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.8.15 Privacy and Security

The desired outcome of Part 3.4.9 Privacy and Security of HDCP is to encourage “development designed to provide reasonable privacy to proposed and adjacent residential properties and high levels of security”.

These desired outcomes are supported by the following prescriptive controls requiring the development to “orient dwellings living rooms and principal private open space areas primarily towards the front and rear of the site to promote privacy to dwellings” and “balconies, terraces or bedroom windows near ground level should be screened or separated from the street and active communal areas by landscaping to protect the privacy of dwelling occupants”.

The proposed development is appropriately designed for privacy with the majority of units having an orientation to the street or rear boundary. Habitable rooms and balconies have been strategically located to provide adequate building separation to approved residential flat buildings to the east and west of the site with a minimum 8.6m building separation provided between the subject site and adjoining complexes which a minor albeit acceptable variation to the building separation requirements.

Balconies within the development do not adjoin each other and would be obscured from view of each other by the walls of the building.

Slatted privacy screens to balconies would provide privacy between the occupants of the subject site and the occupants of the adjoining properties.

Windows on the north-western elevation of Nos. 27-31 Thornleigh Street consist of highlight windows, narrow vertical windows and small windows which minimise overlooking into the subject site.

The proposed development would provide for casual surveillance of the public domain. Appropriate conditions are recommended for security access and crime prevention.

Subject to conditions, the proposal complies with the desired outcome of Part 3.4.9 Privacy and Security of HDCP and is considered acceptable.

2.9 Contributions Plans

Hornsby Shire Council Section 7.11 Contributions Plan 2020-2030 applies to the development as it would result in an additional 20 residential dwellings in lieu of the 3 existing residences. Accordingly, the requirement for a monetary Section 7.11 contribution is recommended as a condition of consent.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 Natural Environment

3.1.1 Tree and Vegetation Preservation

The proposed development would necessitate the removal of 12 trees from the site. The application has been supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) prepared by AEP.

The AIA assesses existing trees as camphor laurel, umbrella trees, privet and fruit trees which are exempt tree species, as well as a include a Stag (dead), a western red cedar tree and a weeping bottlebrush (shrub 2m in height).

Council’s assessment of the proposal included a detailed examination of the existing trees on site. Council’s Tree Management Team raised no objection to the removal of these trees subject to the replacement planting of a minimum of 6 indigenous trees and 5 shrubs as shown on the Landscape Plan.

3.1.2 Stormwater Management

It is proposed to discharge stormwater via on-site detention and then piped under Thornleigh Street a proposed kerb inlet pit on the southern side of Thornleigh Street

Council’s engineering review raises no objection to the proposed stormwater disposal method, subject to appropriate conditions recommended in Attachment 1 of this report.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The development achieves a scale consistent with the desired outcome for well-articulated buildings that are set back to incorporate landscaping, open space and separation between buildings. The proposal incorporates a high quality facade with a balanced composition of varied building elements including a mix of materials and colours to break up the development and reduce the overall bulk. The design of the proposal achieves an appropriate built form for the site and its purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, and the manipulation of building elements. An Indentation to the front of the top floor has been incorporated to minimise bulk and height of the building as required by the HDCP.

Accordingly, the built form of the proposal would be consistent with the desired future character of the precinct.

3.2.2 Traffic

A traffic and parking assessment by Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd (dated 26 May 2023) has been submitted with the proposal which estimates that the proposed development would generate an additional peak vehicle movement of 8 vehicles per hour. The proposal would not cause any unacceptable impact from the additional vehicle movement increase to the site.

Council’s engineering assessment of the traffic impacts of the development concludes that traffic generation is not considered as an issue for the proposed development.

3.3 Social Impacts

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

The location of the development is in close proximity to Thornleigh Railway Station and Thornleigh Commercial Centre providing services for future residents.

The development delivers 17 additional dwellings in an area close to public transport, recreation and shops and contributes to the goals of the National Housing Accord 2022 by improving housing supply which would have a positive social impact.

3.4 Economic Impacts

The proposed development would have a positive economic impact by creating housing within a predefined high-density precinct. This will have flow on effects including demand for goods and services in the local area, in a locality that is highly serviced and well located within existing public transport networks.

4. SITE SUITABILITY

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

The subject site has not been identified as bushfire prone or flood prone land. The site is considered to be capable of accommodating the proposed development. The scale of the proposed development is consistent with the capability of the site and is considered acceptable.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 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 August 2023 and 14 September 2023 in accordance with the Hornsby Community Engagement Plan. During this period, Council received one public submission. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who were notified of the proposed development.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

ONE SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED - ADDRESS NOT PROVIDED

One submission from an unknown address on the southeast side of Thornleigh Street objected to the development, generally on the following grounds:

· Suitability of the Site.

· Sunlight Access.

· Carparking.

· Traffic impacts.

· Amenity impacts during construction.

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 Suitability of the site

The objector raises concerns regarding the appropriateness of this development application given that the previous development application on the site was withdrawn. The objector considers the location of the development inappropriate in proximity to low density dwelling houses opposite to the site and asserts that the development may be more appropriate on a main road, such as Pennant Hills Road.

The objector raises concerns that this development in Thornleigh Street and others in Station and Bellevue streets are ruining a once peaceful suburb and it is distressing for the residents left to look at them.

The proposed development is permissible in the R4 High Density Residential zone. The site is at the interface of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. Council can only assess the development application that has been lodged and cannot suggest alterative locations for development.

5.1.2 Sunlight Access

One submission raises concerns regarding loss of solar access to the properties to the southwest side of Thornleigh Street. Of particular concern is the loss of morning sun to gardens at the front of the dwelling houses. Solar access diagrams were submitted in support of the development application. there will be some sunlight loss to the front yards and front windows of the properties to the south of Thornleigh Street at 9am. However, by 12pm the there is no overshadowing of these properties as a result of the development. Notwithstanding, the private open space of each of these properties, as defined under HDCP is at the rear of these properties. There is no sunlight loss to the private open space of any adjoining property.

5.1.3 Carparking

One submission raises concerns regarding the increase of carparking demand as a result of the proposed development. The submission contends that there is insufficient on-site carparking, and that no reliance should be given to the proximity to public transport and shops in calculating car parking demand. As discussed in the body of the report, the proposed development complies with the car parking requirements of the HDCP.

5.1.4 Traffic impacts

One submission raises concerns regarding traffic generation as a result of the development.

Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the development. It was concluded that the proposal would not cause any unacceptable traffic generation impact from the additional vehicle movement increase to the site. Refer to Section 2.8.4 of this report for a detailed discussion.

5.1.5 Amenity impacts during construction

One submission raises regarding amenity impacts on properties in the vicinity of the site during the construction process including construction noise and vibration, construction parking, and air pollution.

The submission requests a large sign stating the name and contact of the builders for complaints.

It is inevitable that with development comes some disruption and amenity impact to the neighbouring community.

Notwithstanding, there a number of conditions applied to the consent, including the implementation of a construction management plan approved by Council to manage and reduce any potential amenity impacts associated with demolition and construction works on the site.

5.2 Public Agencies

The development application was referred to the following Public Agencies for comment.

5.2.1 Department of Planning and Environment - Water (Water NSW)

The geotechnical investigation encountered groundwater approximately 3m below the proposed basement and that only negligible groundwater would enter into the basement during the construction process.

This development application was referred to Water NSW under Section 90(2) of the Water Management Act 2000 as advised by WaterNSW as an integrated referral, requiring General Terms of Approval (GTA). As part of this process WaterNSW referred the development application to the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for hydrological assessment.

Water NSW requested additional hydrogeological data to support a drained basement design in accordance with the requirements of the department’s document “Minimum Requirements for Building Site Groundwater Investigations and Reporting”.

Correspondence was provided by EI Australia (dated 12 December 2023) stating that a drained basement is not possible and that the proposed basement would be designed as a tank system.

On 6 February 2024, GTAs were issued by Water NSW. The GTAs issued by WaterNSW do not constitute an approval under the Water Management Act 2000. The Applicant must apply to WaterNSW for a Water Supply Work Approval before the commencement of any work on the site. A condition has been recommended in Attachment 1 requiring compliance with the GTAs.

On 10 May 2024 amended architectural plans were submitted depicting a two level basement. The amended plans were supported by an amended geotechnical report. Therefore, the development application was re-referred to Water NSW.

On 1 July 2024 amended GTAs were issued by WaterNSW.

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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

CONCLUSION

The application proposes demolition and construction of a 5-storey residential flat building comprising 20 units.

Council received one submission 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 proposed development complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and the Hornsby Development Control Plan 2024.

· The development delivers 17 additional dwellings in an area close to public transport, recreation and shops and contributes to the goals of the National Housing Accord by improving housing supply.

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

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.⇩	Architectural Plans
3.⇩	Landscape Plan
4.⇩	Shadow Diagrams
5.⇩	Civil Engineering Plans

File Reference: DA/794/2023

Document Number: D08789817