Membership Payments and BCCT AGM

The BCCT Annual General Meeting will be held in the Cheltenham Rec Club,date to be decided. Trust memberships will be taken, or renewed, on the day but it would help a lot to have them in before the meeting so we can quote our membership numbers.
Please note that you cannot use Paypall to pay, despite the website still indicating that you can.  The BCCT website is very ancient and very hard to modify, and we have not been able to delete the remaining links.  Please pay by cheque to The Treasurer, BCCT, PO Box 31, Beecroft 2119, or by EFT to Commonwealth bank Beecroft, BSB 062 113 AC No 1006 8238 Name Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust Inc.  If you do renew or join by EFT please send the secretary contact details, especially email address, by emailing secretary@2119.org.au.
Last year we clocked 696 members, let's aim for more in 2012.

Wheel Squeal / Flanging Trials

We have received a pamphlet from NSW Transport relating to train wheel squeal in the Cheltenham / Beecroft area, it's not in a format I can post on the blog but summarising it shows they have done trials along our rail section and the result so far is no noticeable noise reduction from the first trial type "Rail Damper Test", but there are another eight trial types continuing.
This blog will keep you informed as more trial results are received.

DA1305 - Second Letter from the BCCT, other issues

Joint Regional Planning Panel

23-33 Bridge Street

Sydney

NSW 2000

The General Manager

Hornsby Shire Council

PO Box 37 Hornsby NSW 1630

RE DA 2011SYW128 / 1305/2011

7-11 Hannah St and 129-131 Copeland Rd Beecroft

Second Response

Dear Sirs,

Introduction

This document should be considered along with the First Response submitted by the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust on 30 January.

The Trust objects to the above Development Application proposing development of 51 units across three buildings to be built in the Beecroft Heritage area.  The first response of 30 January argued that the application demonstrably fails to meet the character test.  This second response relates to other concerns held by the Trust and by local residents.

Community Responses

The response time limitation imposed by Council has not permitted distribution of bulletins or letter drops to the residents of the Beecroft / Cheltenham heritage area, all of whom are affected by this threat to the character of their lovely village.  But it is clear from responses received so far that this DA has elicited and will continue to elicit widespread vociferous protest, and Council will be required to defend any recommendation in favour of the application.

Other than a very small group of residents living around the proposed development, all other residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham whom the Trust has been able to contact consistently say they have heard nothing about this proposal from any Council communications.

Responses to an on-line survey have been 100% opposed to the overall application, and very nearly 100% negative to each of six specific questions asked about the application.

Comments from the public in response to one question, “Have local residents been given enough time (to 1 Feb) to consider the application?” include phrases like “unreasonable”, “an insult”, and “morally wrong”.  Perhaps the best quote from the many emails the Trust received was “the way it was handled by the Uniting Church to get this through over the holiday period was devious and I believe shows the Church and its officials up to be completely unchristian and morally bereft.”

The Trust’s blog, BCCT2119.blogspot.com, has received more hits in the last month than at any previous time in the blog’s history.  Public interest in this issue is obviously great.

Other individual residents and protest groups have independently been campaigning against this development, with petitions and street corner protests at Beecroft Village and elsewhere. 

Overwhelmingly the feeling is that the Beecroft Shopping Village, with its proposed large number of residential units, is enough to meet Beecroft and Cheltenham’s obligations to the NSW state government for extra housing.  The Uniting Church’s development proposal is without merit in its own right, and seems to be grossly excessive considering the existing approved rezoning of the Village.

Affordable Housing

The only question in the Trust’s email survey which has not provoked a unanimous “NO” response relates to affordable housing, where the responses are typically “Not sure, don’t know enough about it”, and this is very true.  There is indeed very little easy-to-read information about how the affordable housing will be implemented and managed.

Some responses have been very well researched and suggest that affordable housing is being used as a cloak to mask blatant profiteering by developers.  With the only long term requirement being that 20% of the units must remain in assisted resident hands after ten years, it is suspected that many “affordable housing” developments will be used by developers to sell off profitably 80% of the units. 

Presumably the other units after being sold off will be available for rent to all comers.  Some respondents are concerned that people from outside the area will apply for these cheap flats simply to get their children into the excellent local schools.  This is hardly fair to people who have grown up and raised their families in the area, who should be rewarded with primary access to those schools.

Scale

The scale of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the existing housing in the neighbourhood.  As such, the proposal will have a very significant and negative visual impact in the area.  While it may to some extent be screened on the higher (Hannah Street) side, the fall of the land exposes the 5-storey scale on the other aspects.

This monumental scale will have a severe negative impact on the existing properties due to issues around overlooking and loss of privacy. There will also be significant loss of solar access to the existing neighbours.

Traffic

The traffic survey commissioned for the review was conducted during school holidays, and therefore is clearly irrelevant.  In reality the existing road system and local parking provision is already highly congested, especially during business hours.  The RTA’s intended construction of a third railway track through Beecroft is expected to take out a significant portion of the commuter parking spaces currently available alongside the railway, further aggravating the traffic problem.  The anticipated, and already approved, development of the Beecroft Shopping Village precinct with mixed commercial and residential five storeys will further compound the traffic problem.  Nothing is planned to improve the road system in the area, so it must be considered the height of folly to add a further development to the area.

There is also community concern about egress from the development, especially in the morning rush hour.  The “S” shaped driveway feeding into Hannah Street, with blind corners, minimal passing bays and a steep grade, is a significant concern and would become a weakness and management problem for the complex.  Given the commuter parking along both sides of Hannah Street, exiting right into the traffic heading for Beecroft Road will be a serious problem with significant inherent accident risk.  Exiting left onto Copeland Road feeds directly into a school crossing, and drivers forced to wait for gaps in the long stream of traffic waiting to turn right will be likely to take steps that could put pedestrian school children at risk.

Landscape

The development proposes very significant loss of trees across the site, both in the native and cultural landscapes. These trees represent a core element of this long-established neighbourhood, and their loss will impact significantly on both the flora & fauna of the area, and the overall character of the local landscape.

When considered with the ongoing attrition and loss of trees in other local developments, including that along the M2 and the Northern Freight Line, the overall significance of this proposed clearing is only heightened.

Overshadowing

The SEE states that the house at 125B Copeland is currently already overshadowed  by trees, so a large building up sun of it will make no difference!  This argument is totally unacceptable under the development assessment regime.  Trees filter the sun and can be trimmed but a 5 storey building provides no relief.  Also trees look nice and most people accept their shadow and are indeed happy to live in a shaded woody glen.  That does not mean they would be happy to live under the shadow of a tower block. 

The other houses in Copeland Road will also suffer from a loss in amenity from overshadowing and loss of quality of outlook. While the other houses are further away from the proposed development they will still experience a shear wall of units towering behind their houses, which of course is completely out of character in the Residential AS area.  The houses in Beecroft Road will lose their rear outlook and privacy, with this block of units looking straight down into their back windows.

Summary

The BCCT and other local groups have done their best in the limited time allowed to bring this application to public attention by email and blog, but it is estimated that so far only a small percentage of the local population has been alerted to this hugely significant proposal with potential to damage the character of their suburb.

Even so the responses that have been received are all totally opposed to the Uniting Church’s proposal, on a wide range of planning, quality of life, livelihood, and ethical reasons.

Recommendation

The Trust has previously asserted that the proposed development demonstrably fails the required character test under clause 16A of the ARH SEPP.

This document, the Trust’s second response, covers some of many other concerns that residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham have brought to the Trust’s attention in opposing the application.

The Trust submits that the proposed development must be recommended for refusal.

Yours sincerely,  

Peter Hewitt

Secretary

Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust

DA1305 - Letter from the BCCT

The General Manager

Hornsby Shire Council

PO Box 37 Hornsby NSW 1630

Joint Regional Planning Panel

23-33 Bridge Street

Sydney

NSW 2000

RE DA 2011SYW128 / 1305/2011

7-11 Hannah St and 129-131 Copeland Rd Beecroft

Dear Sirs,

Introduction

The Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust objects to the above Development Application proposing development of 51 units across three buildings to be built in the Beecroft Heritage area.  We understand the DA is to be  assessed by the JRPP under State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (ARH SEPP) under recommendations provided by Hornsby Shire Council.

Zoning of the Beecroft Cheltenham Area

Respecting their heritage value, Beecroft and Cheltenham are zoned Residential AS (Low Density Sensitive Lands), which prohibits further multi storey residential unit buildings. 

DA1305 tries to use the recent gazettal of the Beecroft Shopping Village (BSV) precinct for 5 storey mixed commercial and residential development to support this new application. In fact, the BSV rezoning clearly defined the shopping precinct (between Chapman Avenue, Beecroft Road , and Wongala Crescent), as the only area where 5 storey development is permissible. In doing this it can be seen as Council’s and the State Government’s clear desire and intent to restrict all multi storey development to within that shopping village precinct, prohibiting any similar scale development on the western side of Beecroft Road or elsewhere, so as to avoid compromising the character of the area covered by the Residential AS zoning.

The objectives of the AS zoning are clear:

Residential AS (Low Density—Sensitive Lands) Zone

Objectives of Zone

(a)  to provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area.

(b)  to promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment and sensitive to the land capability and established character of this environment.

(c)  to provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a sensitive low density residential environment

Character of Local Area

Because of the character of the Beecroft Cheltenham heritage area, the ARH SEPP requires any development to satisfy a character test.  SEPP Affordable Housing - Character of Local Area Clause 16A states:

“A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.”

The character of the local area is controlled by Hornsby Council’s zoning of the area. The zoning of the subject land is Residential AS Low Density Sensitive Lands.  Within Hornsby Shire, this zoning is unique to Beecroft and Cheltenham and was, amongst other things, created to protect the suburb from inappropriate development such as residential flat buildings.  The zoning was introduced after some three-storey residential flat buildings were built along Beecroft Road opposite the Shopping Village.  The zoning was intended to prevent any further building of such residential flat buildings of any height.  Yet DA1305 is now quoting those older buildings in justification for building of more residential flat buildings of even greater height.

So any character test must take into account the objectives of the Residential AS zoning that have a strong clear emphasis on low density environmentally sensitive development. 

DA1305

The application includes a detailed Urban Design Review (UDR), Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), and Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) to claim compliance with this character test.  The Trust considers all three documents to be deficient as they either do not address certain critical criteria, or have commented in a selective manner to support the proposal. Examples are provided below.

Urban Design Review

In UDR section 4.2 Density, the review refers to “minimal impacts” on the existing character of the surrounding public domain because the density is concentrated predominately within the middle of the super block.  This is demonstrably untrue.  The proposed complex will be completely out of character behind the existing Hannah Street streetscape.  More significantly, because of the steep downward slope of the land, these tall buildings will tower over the Copeland Road streetscape. For such a significant issue, on a $17M development, it would seem reasonable for a scale model to be built before locals are asked to respond to the development, or the consent authorities are required to make a finding.

The review refers to varying densities of multi unit developments in the surrounding streets, with emphasis on “higher density developments” such as a medical centre (which is in fact a single storey house on a large lot), the bowling club (a single storey building surrounded by bowling greens) and recreational clubs (none exist in this locality). 

The UDR highlights the 3 storey units facing Beecroft Rd as “representative”, whereas, as stated before, those buildings were the very reason why the AS zoning was introduced: to prevent further building of that nature.  Anyway these existing 3 storey buildings are only ribbon developments facing Beecroft Road and are not representative of any other part of the rest of the urban area to the north, south, or west.

The review fails to state that many of the Beecroft Road units were built prior to the gazettal of the Residential AS zoning, and that these units would now be non-compliant with that zoning. Even so, those existing Beecroft Road units are only short frontage 3 storey blocks with 12 units, clearly not characteristic of the proposed long frontage 5 storey buildings containing 51 units.

Similarly Section 4.3 Built Form Scale Height and Setbacks, and Section 4.4 Architectural Expression are very selective in their comments.  In particular 4.4 Architecture makes generic statements and limits any detailed reference only to “Eltham” on the corner of Beecroft Road, nothing else.  Obviously even the authors could not think of anything constructive to say to justify the architectural expression of their proposal.

The scale of the proposed development has not been properly addressed and is considered to be totally out of keeping with the existing housing in the neighbourhood. As such the proposal will have a very significant and negative visual impact in the area. While it may be screened to some extent on the higher (Hannah Street) side, the fall of the land exposes the 5-storey scale on the other aspects. This monumental scale will have a severe negative impact on the existing properties due to issues around overlooking and loss of privacy. There will also be significant loss of solar access to the existing neighbours

 

As stated above, the DA review tries to use the recent gazetting of BSV precinct to 5 storey mixed development as justification for spreading 5 storey development outside that precinct, whereas the review should concede that the BSV rezoning prohibits any similar scale development on the western side of Beecroft Rd.

Statement of Environmental Effects

Similarly with the SEE.  It is a matter of what is not stated or commented on rather than what is stated in support of the proposed development.  As an example under part 4 Strategic and Statutory Planning, referring to the recent rezoning of the nearby Village Precinct, the report states “The proposed development is consistent with these aims although located to the west of Beecroft”.  This unqualified statement implies compliance and consistency, where in fact no such compliance or consistency exists.

Later, the SEE discusses the character of the local area, and emphasises how the proposed development and the recently up-zoned BSV Precinct are both within the 800 metres radius for infill affordable housing, concluding “and consequently is an area with a desired future character of urban consolidation.”  This is totally misleading as the zoning of the BSV Precinct and the proposed development are completely different and the latter is very far from being desirable under any assessment of future character of the area!

The next paragraph in the SEE is selective, stating “residential flat buildings are located immediately to the east of the site” but not mentioning the low density residential development and heritage dwellings surrounding the site in all other directions.  As discussed above, the 40 year old flat buildings to the east, facing Beecroft Rd, are in no way representative of the character of Beecroft and Cheltenham.  

History tells us that the Residential AS zoning was introduced precisely to prevent any more of that type of development, and thereby to protect the suburb’s heritage character and preserve the renowned environmental qualities throughout the suburb.  The only subsequent high rise permitted was The Bentley, which replaced a very old and dilapidated three storey block (the disused former Masonic Hall) with a smart new three storey building, which can hardly be criticised.

Heritage Impact Statement

 The HIS follows a similar line of selective evaluation with emphasis in certain paragraphs downplaying heritage elements.  Under Section 5.3 Contribution, the report dismisses three of the key heritage elements as “non representative”:

• bushland within and surrounding “is not applicable”;
• dominant character of the area is “no longer representative” of the conservation area; and
• intactness of the early residential area is “no longer applicable” in the streets. 

If the area proposed for development is in poor condition, this is due to neglect by the owners.  Locals say that despite its condition the trees there currently provide habitat for all manner of bird species including gang gang parrots and other endangered species of wildlife.  

Once again there is a clearly selective emphasis in the report relating to specific local development such as the units facing Beecroft Road.  The three houses in 25 Hannah Street have not been subdivided and remain as a single title in accordance with the requirements of the Residential AS zoning.

The Trust strongly disagrees with the HIS evaluation against the LEP and Heritage DCP under section 5.5 and more so 5.6 respectively. For example under section 5.5, the objective of providing continuity with the past, there is a clear adverse impact on European heritage significance. With respect to development in the vicinity of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, the report provides no opinion at all, except to state that “it is Council’s decision”.  Indeed it is, and the Council should clearly decide against allowing the application to go forward.

Similarly the Trust disagrees with many of the comments under Section 5.6, considering them to be selective and subjective. The Trust sees little point in continuing to quote individual examples, but is happy to do so if required.   

Second Response

Given the limited time made available for consultation and responding, this first response is focused on the issue of character of the proposed development.  A second submission will be forwarded shortly covering many other aspects of local concern.

Summary

In summary, DA1305 is full of selective and subjective statements which do not stand up to rigorous assessment.  Approving the application would be totally counter to the wishes of the local population that the Council is tasked to represent as well as being counter to the requirements of the SEPP.

Recommendation

The Trust asserts that the proposed development demonstrably fails the required character test under clause 16A of the ARH SEPP and for this and many other reasons the proposed development must be recommended for refusal.

Yours sincerely,  

Peter Hewitt

Secretary

Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust

DA1305 - Letter from Rt Hon Greg Smith

The General Manager

Hornsby Shire Council

PO Box 37

Hornsby NSW 2077

29 January 2012

Dear Sir,

Representations concerning a DA for a proposed development at Beecroft on land currently described as 7,9 and 11 Hannah Street and 129-131 Copeland Road, Beecroft-for multi unit flat buildings up to 5 storeys, described as “affordable housing”

I have received scores of emails, letters and phone calls from my constituents who live nearby the subject site, seeking my support in opposing the abovementioned DA. I have examined various documents on Council’s web site, including the Statement of Environmental effects.

The context

To put the application in context, it seeks to make use of the provisions of  the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH), which was introduced by the former Labor State Government to stimulate building activity during the 2009 Great Financial Crisis. Under certain conditions, the SEPP ARH allowed developers exemptions from Council zoning laws which prohibited the building of home units and flats in single dwelling areas. This understandably aroused fierce resistance among residents living in affected areas. As a consequence, with the election of the O’Farrell Government, the new Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Hon Brad Hazzard announced on 20 May 2011 that as a result of concerns that developers were using to override local codes in order to build flats in single home zoned areas, the Government had decided to limit the ambit of the SEPP. His Media Release of 21 May 2011 stated:

“The NSW Coalition Government today dumped Labor's laws that allowed private developers to override local communities' planning controls under the guise of 'affordable housing'.

"Getting affordable housing delivered is critical but Labor's laws were just a backdoor deal for small-time developers to make a fast buck," Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard said today.

"Labor's promise to deliver affordable housing through private developments turned into nothing more than an opportunity to deliver overdevelopment, out of character with local areas.

"Communities have expressed concern about this issue right across the state."

"The Liberals & Nationals made a promise to address community concerns and today we have delivered.

"Under Labor's policy, 20% of each development was supposed to be leased to middle income workers at below market rates.

"There is no evidence that the butchery committed on communities has resulted in housing being made available to those in need.

"There is evidence developers were using this Labor law as a backdoor method to make vast amounts of money out of overdevelopments.

"The Liberals & Nationals Government has therefore stopped all new private development applications while an Affordable Housing Taskforce is established to reform the failing system.

"For existing applications there will now be a requirement that developers build in accordance with the existing character and landscape of neighbourhoods.”

"Developers will also be stopped from producing a few small units to satisfy the 20% affordable housing rule, while delivering 80% as large money making housing.

"This is a clear message that the Liberals & Nationals Government is serious about delivering affordable housing but stopping developers destroying local communities in the process," Minister Hazzard said.”

On the same day an amendment to SEPP ARH was gazetted, which made significant amendments to the 2009 instrument, notably amending Clause 10, deleting Clauses 11 and 12 and adding Clause 16A.

Reasons to reject DA

In the light of theses major changes, I submit that there are compelling reasons why the Panel should reject the application.

Firstly, the design of the development is incompatible with the character of the local area. The buildings to be demolished are homes, which are surrounded by other homes, as  there are no home unit/flat buildings in either Hannah or Copeland Streets. None of the neighbouring dwellings approach the 5 storey proposal for which this DA seeks approval. The houses to be demolished have many trees growing, some of them large and trees are an important feature of this beautiful suburb. Yet a large number of trees, 71 out of 95 are proposed to be cut down to complete the development.

The amended SEPP included Clause 16A:

16A Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. (emphasis added)

I agree with comments in the submission of the Beecroft and Cheltenham Civic Trust when it stated:

The character of the local area is controlled by Hornsby Council’s zoning of the area. The zoning of the subject land is Residential AS low density – sensitive lands. This zoning is unique to Beecroft and Cheltenham and was, amongst other things, created to protect the suburb from inappropriate development such as residential flat buildings. The objectives of the zoning are clear…

Hornsby LEP 1994—Reg. 7 includes in the Zoning Control Table the following definition:

“Residential AS (Low Density-Sensitive Lands) Zone

Objectives of Zone

(a) to provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area.

(b) to promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment and sensitive to the land capability and established character of this environment.

(c) to provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a sensitive low density residential environment.

Without Development Consent Development for the purpose of:

Home occupations; special care homes.

Exempt development.

Only With Development Consent Development for the purpose of:

Child care centres; commercial home catering; community facilities; demolition; dwelling-houses; group homes; home offices; housing for aged or differently abled persons; multi-unit housing; recreation areas; recreation facilities; utility installations.

Subdivision.

Prohibited Development that is not permitted without development consent or permitted only with development consent.

Description on Map Coloured pink with red edging and lettered “AS””

There is no support for the applicant in the reference to “multi-unit housing”, as it is defined in the dictionary to mean: "2 or more dwellings, whether attached or not, but does not include a hotel or motel"

Clearly the emphasis in this zoning is on achieving and preserving a low density residential environment.

This is confirmed by the Hornsby Shire Council’s Low Density Multi-Unit Development Control Plan, which states at p.14 in relation to “Height”:

“Element Objective

To control the height of buildings in order to maintain a consistent residential character and maximise privacy, solar access and views

Performance Criteria

Dwelling height should suit the streetscape and topography of the area. Dwelling height should not unreasonably restrict sunlight to adjacent properties.

Prescriptive Measures

Multi-unit dwellings should generally not exceed 3.6m in height measured vertically from the natural ground level to the ceiling (ie. Generally not more than a single storey).

Any permitted encroachment into the setback areas should be single storey.

Council will allow two storey buildings at the street frontage where it does not adversely impact upon the streetscape, privacy, solar access and views enjoyed by adjacent properties.

Two storey buildings should generally not exceed 9m in height measured vertically from the natural ground level to the ridge line.”  

Respected environmental lobby group Bang the Table’s analysis of the Hornsby LEP states at p.54

The Low Density Multi-Unit Housing DCP applies to Residential A, AM and AS zoned land and promotes two unit detached and attached development. The DCP contains elements controlling setbacks, design, height, privacy, solar access, open space, landscaping, vehicular access and parking, acoustics and heritage.

Land and Environment Court decisions support rejection

On several recent occasions, the Land and Environment Court has interpreted the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH) to uphold a refusal by a local Council to grant development consent to a developer due to such incompatability.

In Peninsula Developments Australia Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2011] NSWLEC 1244, Commissioner Tuor dismissed an appeal against Pittwater Council for rejecting a development application which proposed:

o        Demolition of the two existing dwellings and associated outbuildings;

o        Excavation of the site;

o        Construction of a residential flat building comprising two basement car parking levels and part two and part three storey residential levels;

o        Associated tree removal and landscaping works;

o        Consolidation of the lots into one lot and strata subdivision of the completed development.

o       

The DA in that matter had been lodged before the changes were made to the SEPP  and was subject savings and  and a transitional provision.The development would contain 24 apartments (8x1 bedroom, 3x1bedroom + study, 8x2 bedroom, 3x2 bedroom+ study and 2x3 bedroom units). Of these units, 12 units (7x1 bedroom, 3x1 bedroom + study and 2x2 bedroom + study) were to be maintained as affordable rental housing managed by a registered community housing provider for 10 years. Nine of these units are designed as adaptable housing.

The proposal included basement parking for 38 cars of which 13 were accessible spaces. Vehicle access to the basement area was to be by a ramped driveway along the western boundary and pedestrian access to the building was along the eastern side of the site to two entry foyers. Two lifts would provide access to all levels.

In the course of his judgment, the Commissioner took into account another planning instrument, SEPP  No. 65-Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, which applied to the development and stated at [21]:

“Clause 30 of SEPP 65 requires a consideration of the design quality principles, which relevantly include.

Clause 9 Principle 1: Context

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location's current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

Clause 10 Principle 2: Scale

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings. Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

Clause 11 Principle 3: Built form

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building's purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

Clause 12 Principle 4: Density

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents). Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

22.The Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) is also a relevant consideration under cl 30 of SEPP 65.

I make the following submissions concerning these principles:

As to Clause 9 Principle 1: Context, the location’s current character is starkly different from the proposed development. The precinct is a part of mainly a village atmosphere and despite possible future developments close to the railway station, which have been strenuously opposed by many residents, there are no 5 storey units in amongst the single residential development, nor even town houses and villas in the immediate precinct. The Hornsby Council housing strategy deliberately omitted areas west of Beecroft Road, where the subject site is situated.

As to Clause 10 Principle 2: Scale, the proposed development does not satisfy the definition of “good design”. The bulk and height clashes with the scale of the street and surrounding buildings. The precinct is not undergoing a transition and the development does not achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

As to Clause 11 Principle 3: Built form , the proposed development would overwhelm surrounding homes and clash with the appearance of those homes. It would not contribute to the character of the streetscape and its size and appearance would be an eyesore to the neighbours and reduce their quiet enjoyment of their homes. For example, Katherine Edwards of 15 Hannah Street which is directly affected on 2 sides states that, “Building 1 (Hannah Street frontage) and Building 2 (immediately behind us mean that we have 20 units looking straight into our windows.” Also the proposed driveway which swings around at the back corner of her garden is 1.8 metres above the level of her garden. This could mean she ends up with a fence height of 3.8 metres

 As to Clause 12 Principle 4: Density, the number of units and residents proposed is excessive and unsustainable with the existing density in the area.

Many of the undesirable aspects of the development described by the Commissioner are relevant to this case, particularly those discussed under the heading, “Findings from Paragraphs 59 to 72.

See also Sterling Projects Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2011] NSWLEC 1020, where Commissioner Tuor stated at [27]:

“I accept Mr Harding's opinion that context or character is not limited to a consideration of streetscape but includes the wider context of the site. In particular, the characteristics of properties which adjoin the site. “

 Development Control

While Hornsby Council has not specifically made an Area DCP for Beecroft, the applicant’s solicitor concedes in Appendix 12 to the DA,

“As we understand it, Council has questioned whether Division 1 of Part 2 of the …SEPP ARH applies to the land (in accordance with clause 10 of SEPP ARH), such that the development for the purposes of residential flat buildings (where at least 20 percent of the dwellings in the building will be used for affordable housing) is permissible with consent (pursuant to clause 11(b) and 12).”

While the solicitor then seeks to demonstrate this view of the Council is wrong, he appears to overlook the fact that Clauses 11 and 12 have been deleted by the amending SEPP. The amended Clause 10 has a much narrower ambit than its predecessor. He also has overlooked the Height prescriptions outlined above for the Low Density Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

Other reasons for rejection

Traffic

Copeland Road is a very busy road in the morning and afternoon due to parents driving their children to and from Beecroft Public School, which is a very large school. It is also very busy in peak hours due to it being a through road between two other very busy roads, Pennant Hills Road and Beecroft Road.

The traffic is described by my constituents living in Copeland Road as follows:

Cynthia Kardell of no. 94:

“The proposed development lies only a short distance from the traffic lights at the intersections of Copeland Rd & Hannah St with Beecroft Rd. I will refer to the development as the DA.

Traffic is queued back to my home for about 20 minutes in peak hour now, and also on the weekend albeit at different times. The DA would unacceptably increase the time that the through & local traffic would queue and it would restrict entry / exit to the site for residents, service vehicles and visitors generally, given its proximity to the lights. It will increase carbon emissions, thereby reducing any gains from improved fuel & technological developments in the car industry.”

Rae Clarke of no. 105:

“My house..is between York Street and Hull Road and morning traffic is often banked back beyond my house.”

Environment damaged

The blue gum forest which is 150 years old is critically endangered yet I am informed the development would remove about 18 long growing blue gums and threaten others.

Parking

Hannah Street is parked out on weekdays on both sides for a considerable distance east of Beecroft Road. Much traffic struggles through and the development would aggravate this.

Heritage

The Hornsby Shire Heritage Development Control Plan aims to:

• Conserve the heritage significance of the natural and built environment;
• Ensure that alterations, additions and infill development are sympathetic to the identified heritage values of the Shire; and
• Control the demolition of heritage items.

The Heritage DCP supplements the HSLEP 1994 by providing controls to manage the heritage of Hornsby Shire. The purpose of the DCP is to provide guidance and outline specific controls for development relating to heritage items and within Heritage Conservation Areas. Controls include guidelines to conserve the heritage significance of the natural and built environment and ensure new development is sympathetic with the identified heritage values. The controls address design, streetscapes, siting, fences, gates and landscaping. Heritage controls do not prevent development, rather, they ensure that change takes place in a way that does not detract from the values that make heritage items special.

It is submitted that the development will damage the heritage of this part of Beecroft. The destruction of 71 trees will make the ambience less attractive and involve destroying birds nests and habitats of possums and other fauna. There are several heritage homes near to the site. I refer to the further details provided by  various constituents in their letters of objection.

Conclusion

It is submitted that the 2011 changes by the current Government to the SEPP tightened the ambit of development for affordable housing and that proper application of the amended SEPP strengthens the case for rejection. These changes laid particular emphasis on avoiding development which damaged the character of an area. It is submitted that this development would cause extensive damage to the character of the area, damage the heritage of the area, damage the amenity and is not in the public interest. Further, the development would greatly exceed the prescriptive measures set out in the Low Density Multi-Unit Housing DCP, defeating the purpose of zoning restrictions.

For these reasons the application should be rejected.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Smith SC MP,

Member for Epping