Trees at 109 Copeland Road

Following the last blog about the JRPP Copeland Road development, people have asked about the 109 Copeland Road trees.

Since the auction of 109 Copeland Rd, the two trees at the north end of the block both have 1 inch holes bored into them with roundup added, and the leaves are already dying.  The Trust wrote to Council suggesting that any future DA should require the requisite area around the trees (10m or whatever) to be retained in perpetuity clear of development even after the trees have died and been removed, and that the owner should be responsible for planting new trees when that happens.

But that solution won't affect the DA1305 project because the development will have been completed and there will be no way to punish whoever poisons the trees in front of a multi-occupancy block of flats!

NWRL Submission Report

From NWRL Project:

The North West Rail Link has reached another planning milestone. The Submissions Report has been lodged with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The report addresses issues raised by the community, local businesses, government agencies and councils to the first Environmental Impact Statement. It is now available to view by visiting http://northwestrail.com.au/document/index/1#

One relevant item from the report is:

Cheltenham: The size of the construction site will be reduced by 2,250m2, cutting the amount of bushland that needs to be cleared. A previously proposed access road to the site from Castle Howard Rd will no longer be required, with access for light vehicles to the site to be from existing roads used to get to Cheltenham Oval;

 

The detail about the Cheltenham site is in Part 6, paras 6-43 to 6-46:

The plan still shows the construction of a concrete dual lane road out to Kirkham Street, with only the comment "Possible access from/egress to M2 Motorway" indicating what the Trust believes is the only sensible solution to this requirement. 
We do NOT want 1000 trucks transporting excavated soil through Beecroft, when they could go straight onto the motorway!  Nor would the NWRL be happy with just the Beecroft fire engine if there's a problem down under later on, with all the massed emergency service vehicles from the M2 and other regions queuing up to get onto Kirkham Street!

DA1305 Development Hannah / Copeland Road

There was another good attendance of opponents to the development at the final JRPP hearing into this development on 26 July.  We sat through a submission on another similar development in Castle Hill first, in which the developer described the extensive community consultation they had provided including holding two town hall meetings, a very different attitude to Uniting Care’s approach.

Then it was our turn.  As always at these meetings those against the proposal speak first, then the developer can respond and the panel retires to decide.  Most of those opposing the proposal submitted that the five storey buildings are totally out of character with the heritage area in which the Uniting Care intends to build.  “Rezoning by stealth” was one phrase that stuck in the mind.  The point was made that the changed drawings make no significant improvement, and the speaker asked why Hornsby Shire Council changed its recommendation from “refuse” to “approve” based on those minor changes.

The Chairman’s legal consultant explained that Affordable housing prevails over local government planning and each council must provide sufficient affordable housing.  The audience felt that zoning the Beecroft Shopping Village for five storey mixed development provided sufficient apple scope for this!

Then the Uniting Care developers spoke, mostly talking about the exposure of the buildings from Hannah Street, which of course is the high side.  Because of the sloping ground, it’s Copeland Road that these buildings will dominate.  Their response to that was basically that the buildings will be hidden behind tall trees.  One wonders how long the tenants in the upper levels of the buildings will put up with breathtaking views being screened by those trees.

Just down the road at 109 Copeland Road, two beautiful Blue Gums have recently been poisoned with roundup.  Can we really believe that the trees Uniting Care are proposing to use as screens will survive for long?  How will Uniting Care compensate the people of Beecroft once these screening trees have been poisoned and those bulky blocks of flats are exposed to view?

But protocol meant that those opposing the development couldn’t challenge what the developers said.  Felicity Finlay, the local representative on the panel, did well, asking how what the drawings showed was a seven storey building could be hidden by trees, and pointing out that one drawing shows the building is four storeys above the existing houses on Copeland Road.  The developer quoted tree and building heights.

So the Panel retired.  They took fifty minutes deliberating, which gave those present hope that the Panel would find against the development, but when they returned there was a split decision, Felicity Finlay and Stuart McDonald voted against, and the other two voted in favour.  The Chairman Bruce McDonald, cast a second, deciding, vote in favour of the development proceeding.

DA1305 Lost by a Whisker

After some excellent speeches, all against the proposal, the JRPP took 50 minutes to deliberate their verdict, finally voting two against (Felicity Finlay and Stuart McDonald) and two for.  The Chairman, Bruce McDonald used his position as Chairman to cast the deciding vote in favour of the UnitingCare development.
A fuller report of the meeting will be posted soon.

M2-F3 Tunnel Link

Transurban has offered to build a tunnel under Pennant Hills Road connecting the F3 at Wahroonga with the M2 at West Pennant Hills.  Roads Minister Duncan Gay says the cost of this has yet to be determined.  "The government would consider the community benefit of the tunnel over the next six months."

The BCCT is firmly of the view that the funding for this project and the Third Rail Northern Freight Rail Corridor project should be combined and put toward the only long term proposal that anyone has considered, "The Northern Solution" of a new road and rail link from Kariong across the Hawkesbury and down to the M7 at Dean Park.  This was Option C in the Federal Government's study in 2002.  In that study, Option A was selected, pretty much what is now proposed, because it was cheaper than Option C - estimated costs c$2B for Option A and $3.6B for Option C in 2003 dollars.

Of course that version of Option C didn't include the rail link, but doing the road and rail link together would enormously reduce the costs of land acquistion, bridge building, and so on, where the terrain allows the two to run together.

The one thing that seems clear is that Option A for trucks and the NRFC third (and possibly fourth) rail for freight trains remain frought with long term problems including pollution and noise, as well as concentrating all the inter-state traffic (that should be going around our city) in perpetuity.  After building Option A and the NRFC, it seems improbable that future politicians would ever build the proper solution to the state's traffic and rail freight problems.

You should be interested in this!

This excellent article is taken directly from the Pennant Hills District Civic Trust newsletter.

If you haven’t been interested up to now you should be from now on with the NSW Government proposing new planning laws that will limit community involvement to ‘broad area’ development

planning and deny them the opportunity to object to a development ‘next door’.

It so happens that Hornsby Council has a revised Hornsby Shire LEP and a new DCP on exhibition now with submissions closing on August 7. Driven by Government to have a common LEP format across all shires and a single ‘all purpose” Shire DCP (replacing in Hornsby’s case 32 subject specific DCP’s) the result is the 583 pages currently on exhibition.

It might have been easier to respond to if the new LEP and DCP were just a transposition from the old format to the new without introducing any changes, but this is not the case. For example:

- Pennant Hills and West Pennant Hills are predominantly zoned ‘Low Density Residential’ with the intensity and scale of development controlled under the existing LEP by the minimum lot size of 500 sqm (unchanged) and Floorspace Ratio (FSR) which is not in the new LEP.

- Council advises that this control is now covered in the new DCP but when the detail is examined the FSR has increased by 65% and the Site Coverage by 25%.

- The existing DCP restricts dwelling house height on battleaxe lots to single storey. The new DCP does not.

- Council advises that it was impractical to continue this restriction so a 2 storey/8.5m high building is now

permissible in a battleaxe lot.

- The 5 storey Residential Flat Development for the Fisher Avenue / Trebor Road block in central Pennant Hills was approved on the basis of its “relatively low” traffic generation and with no traffic improvement measures.

The new DCP differs.

- the new DCP includes a ‘median’ strip on Trebor Road from Pennant Hills Road to the corner with Fisher Avenue. Why ? Has Council’s estimate of “43 dwellings within this precinct” changed? And what is the new number?

Issues such as these must be addressed by Council, but the advent of Council’s elections in September is important

in this context. Any pre-election attempt to fast track the LEP and DCP approval needs watching.

The new Council must not be provided with the ‘out’ that the new LEP and DCP are a fait accompli.

Beecroft Forum August meet cancelled

Janet Hayes advises that they have had problems with the speakers organised for their August dinner so thye have cancelled the dinner.

Community Voice Survey

COMMUNITY SURVEY by Community Voice             2012
Please send to:  Community Voice, PO Box 2158 Westfield, Hornsby NSW 1635
Or Email:  Secretary@communityvoice-hornsby.com.au
Your Suburb: ___________   Are you Male  ÿ  Female  ÿ    Your Name: ________
Do you currently live as a Family/Group  ÿ  Couple  ÿ  or as a Single  ÿ 
Circle your age group: Up to age 25   Age 26-45   Age 46-65   Age 66-79   Age 80+ 

1. In 3 brief points, what do you like best about your immediate area?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. What do you like best about Hornsby Shire as a whole? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. What improvements would make a difference to your immediate area?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. What improvements would make a difference to Hornsby Shire?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Regarding future development, what principles or factors should be taken into account?

(a)  For your immediate area. (Please briefly specify or give examples); 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(b)  For the Bushland Shire generally. (Please briefly specify or give examples);

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6.  Any other comments/suggestions:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION IN WORKSHOP -  (Nos. 7 – 9 inclusive)
Please consider & submit ideas on:
7.  In brief specific points, what would you not accept or want in Hornsby Shire  –  and why? 
8.  As population growth and need for more housing is a fact of life within the shire (and indeed, throughout Sydney) - What is your long term vision for your local area and the shire?
9.  How can this be achieved in a way that can enhance community life throughout the shire?  
PRINTED FOR WRITTEN FEEDBACK: 
10.  Of the following, number issues you consider to be of importance to your local area or Hornsby Shire (one being of highest priority), and add detail if you wish:
Issue Number your priorities – 1 being the top priority Additional Comments: what/where (shire or local area)/how
a)  Crime Prevention
b)  Community Events
c)  Community/Council consultation
d)  Community Involvement  
e)  Cultural programs
f)  Environmental/green policies/carbon footprint
g)  Fire Plans
h)  Healthcare facilities
i)  Housing Strategy
j)  Infrastructure, e.g. roads, pavements, bridges, stormwater, etc
k)  Personal Safety in Shire
l)  Sporting facilities
m)  Traffic Congestion
n)  Transport and Parking
o)  Tree Policy
p)  Wildlife corridors / Green belts
q)  Other…. (name)
11. Are there any more comments; observations; or suggestions you would like to make about planning issues:  
(a)  In your local/ immediate area? 
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………
(b)  In Hornsby Shire?
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………
    …………………………………………………………………………………………
12.  Is there anything further you would like to add about Shire issues?  
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………
    …………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your participation.

JRPP Hearing on DA1305

The JRPP will re-hear the Uniting Care application for six storey multi-unit development between Hannah Street and Cheltenham Road on Thursday 26 July, starting at 5pm.  They are also hearing an application for 115 units to be built at 284 Castle Hill Road, Castle Hill.  Not sure which will be heard first.

If you wish to speak at the panel meeting you MUST register by 4pm Tuesday 24 July, by phone on 9228 2060 or email at suzie.jattan@planning.nsw.gov.au.

Oral submissions should be based on the assessment report and its recommendation.  Should be lots of scope to challenge the assessment report that a six storey building is "In Character" with houses on Copeland Road.

Aboriginal Art Exhibition

BCCT Response on Uniting Care DA 1305

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,

The Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust has reviewed the amended plans for the above Development Application and sees no reason to change its outright opposition to the entire proposal.

Zoning of the Beecroft Cheltenham Area

The proposal still flies in the face of the zoning rules.  As Councillor Hutchence so eloquently stated during the JRPP hearing, Council has already gazetted the Beecroft Shopping Village (BSV) precinct for 5 storey mixed commercial and residential development specifically to provide for the need for more housing.  If Uniting Care wish to provide affordable housing, they can purchase land in the BSV and develop it with no basis for local opposition.

Character of Local Area

The only speaker at the JRPP who claimed the 5 storey development will be in character with the rest of the area was a paid representative of the developer, and he didn’t attempt to justify his claim, he just said that it was in character.  No unbiased observer would agree with this statement.

DA1305

Concerns about the Urban Design Review (UDR), Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), and Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) listed in the Trust’s earlier objection remain unaffected by the modifications made since the first JRPP hearing.

Comment on the JRPP Hearing

It must be noted that both community representatives on the JRPP were absent at the JRPP meeting on this issue.

The JRPP agenda was to hear from the opponents to the development before the proponents spoke, so the opponents were unable to challenge the developer’s evidence.  While the panel members questioned witnesses about their evidence, the public was not offered the same privilege.

One obvious question must be how the developer can claim traffic volumes of only five to ten cars an hour, given there are 41 units remaining, most of whose occupants are working and a significant proportion of whom will wish to drive to work.  One must assume the stated traffic volume is an average taken over the full day and week, which is irrelevant to the rush hour problems foreseen on Copeland Road.

Some 120 local residents attended the hearing as silent protest against the development. 

The minutes of the meeting list those who spoke, but fail to distinguish between the 13 concerned residents who spoke against the proposal and the five paid employees or servants of the developer who spoke in favour.  Clearly the minutes should reflect that only those in the employment of the developer spoke in favour of the proposal.

Comment on the Revised Plans

While the Trust absolutely rejects the idea of spreading affordable housing away from the Beecroft Shopping Village area, and is convinced this development is totally out of character, the annex to this letter contains thoughts on how the adverse impact of the design could be made less unattractive.

Recommendation

The Trust again asserts that the proposed development, even as now modified, 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 refused.

Yours sincerely,  

Peter Hewitt

Secretary

Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust

0417 215 774 

Copy to C Ward Councillors.

Enclosure – Thoughts on Improving the Proposal

Thoughts on Improving the Proposal

While opposing the overall concept of multi-storey development on this location, the Trust suggests the following amendments to the current plans:

·         The edge between No 15 Hannah St and the driveway needs better detail attention – both with respect to the scale difference of the proposed new 2 storey building, and the existing house on No 15.  Now that Uniting Care is moving to purchase No 15, such appropriate design attention can, and should, be given to this area before final approval.

·         One further unit should be removed from the top level of Building 3 ( the south building ) so that the massing is stepped more.  This would benefit the residences to the south, 127 Copeland Rd  in particular.

·         Good architectural modulation is required in the detail of the elevations – eg planters, operable shading devices, variety of material types, colours etc.  This detail may be in the drawings already but needs to be clearly identified to make sure that subsequent project management cost cutting does not happen to the detriment of the architectural quality.  Brewster Hjorths, the Architects named on the drawings, have done work of a very good design standard.  However it can be a long way between the design drawings and the Construction Team once the building gets underway and cost savings have to be made. The quality of the design intention must be carried through and mandated in the approval by the JRPP.

·         Similarly, detailed landscaping plans should be provided before the design is approved by JRPP.  This is particularly relevant for the eastern boundary at the rear of the existing four level home units on Beecroft Rd, the Hannah St frontage and the southern boundary to the rear of the properties on Copeland Rd. A detailed plan of management and a landscape plan should be provided for the “natural” area vaguely shown on the south west portion of the site.

·         The detail of the disabled access to the Hannah St footpath has not been provided, and this deficiency should be satisfied before final approval, to ensure an adequate arrangement can be achieved.

Just one of the letters sent to council!

To:  All Members of Hornsby Council

As a long term Beecroft resident of more than 35 years, we wish to express our strong and absolute opposition to the proposed development at Hannah St / Copeland Rd Development DA/1305/2011.

It is with shock and dismay that we became aware of the plans for the site and appeal in the strongest terms for re-consideration and/or rejection of approval as wholly unsuitable and out of character to the surrounding properties and the character of Beecroft as a whole. 

Whilst we appreciate the need for accommodating population growth and a somewhat denser residency, something that has been occurring in Beecroft already for years by subdividing and battle-axing existing properties, it is quite another matter to systematically destroy the Beecroft environment and its unique beauty for the sake of $-growth.  It is time that developers be at least somewhat curtailed in their relentless effort for profit at the expense of the surrounds of all and everything. 

We also appeal to the Council’s values and appreciation as to the kind of legacy they wish to leave for generations to follow and whether they wish to be remembered as having permitted and supported the destruction of a once beautiful suburb and its increasingly rare village character that its residents chose for those very reasons. 

Why does everything that is worthwhile as a living environment have to be sacrificed to the almighty dollar ($$’s) and all-encompassing greed of developers who clearly care nothing about the environment when much better options of design and use of space are available and perfectly achievable? 

A development of a 2-storey village design character would in our opinion be acceptable and suitable for that site – no more than that!

For your serious and conscientious consideration.

Survey on 3rd Rail Project

A student at Knox Grammar School, undertaking a school project, has set up a survey to determine community opinion on the Third Rail Project.  It would be useful if all local residents could submit their thoughts.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHlCakZ4QnF4RTU3eF9aVzR1ZW5mbGc6MQ

It only takes a few minutes to complete.