Autumn BCCT Walk

15 April start at 2pm at Cheltenham Oval.

2012 Annual General Meeting

The Meeting took place yesterday, approximately 60 people attended, the proposed changes to the constitution were passed, and the ten nominations for committee were elected.
A most valuable presentation by the Northern Rail Corridor project explained in some detail present intentions for the Beecroft and Cheltenham stations, car parking, platform access etc.  More information will be posted on this blog soon, but in the meantime anyone who wants to find out more can contact the secretary, Peter Hewitt, 0417 215 774.

BCCT Committee Nominations

The following nominations have been received, three from Cheltenham residents, and will be put to the AGM on Monday 26 March. 

Stuart Pittendrigh

1.  Resident of Cheltenham for 12 years

2. Member of BCCT committee for 6 yrs, Sec for 2 yrs, member of Development Housing S/Cmty

3. Chair Development and Housing Committee for last 3 yrs

4.  Practicing landscape architect, consultant arborist and horticulturist.

5. I use my professional skills and experience toward establishment and preservation of the natural and built environment and landscapes related to development issues.

Carolyn Watt

1. Lifelong family connection to Cheltenham

2. BCCT committee member for 10 years, former President and Secretary

3. Editor BCCT Bulletin 8 years

4. Passionate about preserving our heritage and environment

5. Active fighting development which threatens to destroy our suburbs

6. Listen to and represent the community

David Clark

1. Solicitor

2. Providing legal advice to the Trust Committee

3. Local government regulator

4. Lived in Beecroft over 20 years

Ross Walker

1. Member of trust committee for 15 years

2. Resident of Beecroft for 20 years

3. Bush Regeneration for 20 years

4. Active in assessing DAs for 15 years

5. Experience and knowledge of development approval process

Peter Hewitt

1.  Resident in Beecroft since 2004, partner owns business in Beecroft.

2.  Engineer by profession (MSc), 20 years in the Royal Navy before emigrating to Australia

3.  Managed major projects inc 19 yrs with Australian Submarine project

4.  Elected to BCCT Committee at AGM March 2011, took on Treasurer and acting Secretary.

5.  Actively involved with BCCT papers on DA1305 (Hannah St Multi Storey) and others.

6.  Created and now running the BCCT blog bcct2119.blogspot.com

Jo-Anne Cox

1.Qualifications: Degrees in mechanical engineering (1967) medicine and surgery (1978)

2. Residency in Cheltenham:18 months in Old Beecroft Rd then 54 yrs in Chorley Ave.  My father Bill Clarke was patron of the Cheltenham Rec Club when he died in 2005

3.Experience: Successful outcome from the North West Rail Link campaign.  Past committee member

4.Effective Representation:  I’m ready to speak out to help residents who need extra support.  We need to build up better access to our many highly-qualified local experts, whose voices aren’t sufficiently heard.  Expertise combined with local knowledge is a powerful tool.

5. My chief value to this community lies in my determination to help expose Hornsby Council’s carelessness, incompetence, bias, and intention to deceive – wherever we see it displayed by executives of the planning department, or by non-vigilant Councillors.  Brad Hazzard and Barry O’Farrell have said they will respond to demands for public accountability at all levels of government, let’s hold them to that.

Rod Best

1.            Resident in Beecroft over 8 yrs. 

2.            Chair of the local history group. 

3.            Active in local Presbyterian Church and the Beecroft Forum

4.            By profession a lawyer working in the area of child law

5.            Vice president of the BCCT for 3 yrs

David White

1.                   Professional architect in private practice in Beecroft for 22 years.

2.                   Resident in Beecroft 24 years

3.                   President of Civic Trust for 3 years from 2001 to 2004, rejoined committee 2011.

Michael Stove

4.                   34 years in the aviation industry covering general aviation, military aviation and airlines

5.                   Committee W Epping Pre-School, Judo Instructor, Police Citizen Youth Club, Football Coach

6.                   Landcare volunteer, Trustee for local scouting group, Clean Up Australia site manager

7.                   Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust Committee, currently President

8.                   Rainbow Club Committee

9.                   Qantas Foundation Ambassador

Anthony Whipps

1.  Lived in Beecroft 11 yrs

2. Member of BCCT since 2007

3. Served on Committee 2007 – 2009 and 2011 to present

4. 2 children at local schools

5. Actively involved in local community and sporting associations

6. Qualified hydraulic engineer and company director

M2 Guest Speakers at the BCCT AGM Confirmed

We have arranged for a short talk by the Northern Rail Freight Corridor project, starting at 7:30pm immediately before the AGM gets under way.
The M2 Upgrade Project also offered to give a short talk.  Last year they were kept until after the AGM, 11pm, which was a bit rude.  This year we will halt the AGM for twenty minutes at around 9pm to give the M2 Upgrade Project team a fair go at a fair time.  The Project have agreed to this, and ask for questions in advance of topics that people would like covered.

President Shaving Off for Leukaemia Research

Michael Stove is taking part in the World's Greatest Shave 2012.  So far he has raised over $600, but his target is $2,012.  Please help, you can donate at this web site:

You can use your credit card and sponsor me online at :  http://my.leukaemiafoundation.org.au/michaelstove

Why is he doing this?

 - Blood cancer research is expensive but vital. The money you give will help the Leukaemia Foundation fund important research into leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and other blood disorders.

- Every 46 minutes someone in Australia gets the news they have blood cancer. The money you give will also support them from diagnosis, during their treatment and beyond.

All the Leukaemia Foundation's services are free.  Let's keep them that way.

AGM Guest Speaker - Rail Freight Corridor Project

At the BCCT AGM, the Project Manager and members of the team for the Epping – Thornleigh section of the 3rd rail track will give a 15 minute talk and presentation on how the Rail Freight Corridor will affect the Cheltenham Beecroft Pennant hills sector of the track, what will happen to Cheltenham and Beecroft stations, the parking, playgrounds etc, design features, and noise issues with the new line.

They will then answer questions, but please understand that they are not able to talk on issues of existing rolling stock, existing noise and pollution, or weed control in the corridor, as these are all state rail matters.
We are advised that the team will comprise the Executive Program Director, Project Manager, and members of the Public Affairs and Planning teams, a most impressive line up.

BCCT2119 Blog

For a long time the March 2011 post about Carmel, the heritage building at 115 Beecroft Rd, had logged more posts than any other post.  But now the 5 Jan 2012 post on the Uniting Care DA1305 tops the list, demonstrating the extent of community interest in this multi storey flat development proposal.

Minutes of Last Year's BCCT AGM 2011

Minutes of Annual General Meeting

Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust

Monday, 7 March 2011 - Cheltenham Recreation Club

1.         Opening:  President Michael Stove opened the meeting at 7.35pm, noted that the meeting would be audio recorded, and welcomed some 120 members & residents including:

• Hon Philip Ruddock (Federal MP)
• Councillors Michael Hutchence (Deputy Mayor, Andrew Martin and Robert Browne (Hornsby Shire Council, C Ward) and Bruce Mills (B Ward)
• Marcia Horvai, Vice President PHDCT
• Peter Colacino and staff from Transurban (M2).

Apologies were received from:

• Greg Smith SC, MP
• Councillor Nick Berman – Mayor of Hornsby
• Daryl Watson
• Stuart Pittendrigh
• Robert Raymond
• Peter Downey
• Pamela Bough.

President’s Report

The President referred to the Agenda and Reports distributed on seats and prior to the meeting.  He then spoke to his report, including achievements and highlights of the year for the Trust.  He thanked the Committee for its work, including Ross Walker for the Autumn & Spring Walks, Ilona Kernick for representing the Trust and community at Council Meetings, and Dr Raimond Pohl and his helpers for Clean-Up Australia Day.  He also spoke to all points set out in the published Agenda & Reports noted above.

[Moved by Carolyn Watt, seconded by Felicity Findlay.  Accepted by meeting.]

2.         Minutes of Previous Annual General Meeting

The minutes of the 2010 Annual General Meeting were read and confirmed.

Arising from that, a resident noted that the very dry season had made a significant impact on trees in our area.

[Moved by Felicity Findlay; seconded by Ilona Kernick. Accepted by meeting.]

3.         Treasurer’s Report

Colin Johnston presented this report and financial statement and paid tribute to Daryl Watson’s work combining Membership Officer and Treasurer’s roles so effectively.

[Moved by Bill McDonald; seconded by Clive Troy. Accepted by meeting.]

4.         Committee Reports – as circulated, from the following Trust committees (convenors), were received:

ü  Environment & Bushland (Ross Walker)

ü  Housing & Development (Stuart {Pittendrigh)

ü  History Group (Roderick Best)

ü  Bulletin & Special Projects (Carolyn Watt)

ü  Strategy & Policy (David Clark).

[Moved by Colin Johnston; seconded by Jim Vandore. Accepted by meeting.]

5.         Resolution – Life memberships:

The meeting agreed to confer honorary life membership on the following members for their exemplary service:

a.       Wayne Yeo (former Treasurer, with some 40 years prior service) presented by Hon Philip Ruddock MP

b.      Keith Coble (retiring Auditor with some 30 years recent service)
presented by Deputy Mayor, Councillor Michael Hutchence

c.       Ross Walker (who has given over 15 years of committee service, continuing in a notable array of roles) presented by his friend, Councillor Robert Browne

d.      Brian Sippel (who coordinates some 40 resident volunteers to distribute some 4100 bulletins, during every 2-3 months, for 10+ years) presented by his friend, Councillor Robert Browne.  Brian paid tribute to his great team of distributors – some who go back 20 years, including his neighbours, the Hallidays.

 [Moved by Michael Stove; seconded by Colin Johnston. Accepted by meeting.]

6.         Resolution – Constitutional Change

President Michael Stove advised the meeting that the resolution to adopt an amended Trust Constitution, set out on the materials with the Agenda, would not proceed as there were two versions in circulation.  He advised an amended Constitution would be presented to Trust members at a later date.

It was then proposed that the current Objectives of the Trust not be changed in such amendment.

[Moved by Malcolm Powell; seconded by Jo-Anne Cox. Accepted by meeting.]

 7.        Election of Committee

The President thanked retiring Committee members, including the following three who were not seeking re-election: Frank Murray (Hornsby Resident of the Year), Ilona Kernick (Council liaison for Trust and 2119) and Bill McDonald for his Architectural and committee skills.

The President then introduced Marcia Horvai, President of the Pennant Hills & District Civic Trust to conduct the election.  Whilst recognising two people seeking nomination were absent, she sought any declarations of conflicts of interests.  None were noted.

All positions were declared vacant. As 13 nominations for the committee were received and 10 were to be elected, the election procedure was explained. Ballot papers were distributed with members to mark ten boxes beside the candidates they wished to elect. Councillor Browne referred to the Constitution requiring a minimum of 3 from Cheltenham and 3 from Beecroft on the Trust Committee. The ballot then proceeded. The scrutineers, Gordon Winch and Wayne Yeo, were recognised.

During counting, the President presented a token of esteem to mark Hon Philip Ruddock MP’s birthday.  The President then invited local Councillors to present their reports:

8. Councillors’ Reports

Deputy Mayor of Hornsby Shire, Councillor Michael Hutchence

• Importance of the Trust advocating for 2119 – especially on town centre planning , and DAs – Ilona Kernick to also be congratulated
• Be active – communicate with Trust and Council
• Leaf litter in Council gutters and drains – Council is thinly spread on this
• Flood study submissions encouraged
• Adoption of Australian Standard - Tree Preservation on Construction Sites
• Mayoral election – will continue to be direct-elected by residents.

Councillor Andrew Martin

• Green offsets policy by Council has not worked well for tree preservation
• Cost-cutting may threaten the existence of Council’s Heritage Committee
• Trust should monitor and scrutinise
• Over 900 submissions on Council’s Town Centre planning proposals
• Councils are still part of NSW government and that reduces the independence of local government to represent their community   

Councillor Browne

• Reiterated the concerns above that cost cutting may threaten the existence of Council’s Heritage Committee
• Green offsets policy for tree preservation – very hard to value trees, and local compensation for the loss of green in our area
• Location of new trees on public land, as private land size is becoming smaller, a trend that is likely to continue – with implications for green offsets policy
• Complying affordable housing issues in Pennant Hills – possibly for Beecroft?
• Imperative that Trust and community are vigilant on advocating local issues
• The issue of local School extensions ignoring heritage and local planning controls is hard for Council to police, in the absence of real legislation.

Resident Survey Results – the President invited Colin Johnston to present the results of email survey responses from residents about possible closure of the

Murray Farm Road

bridge over the M2 tollway during its widening. This showed overall agreement for interim one-lane, two-way flow across the bridge, controlled by traffic lights.

10. Other Business

a.         The Secretary noted the Trust committee was considering Mr Ray Barham as Honorary Trust Auditor, and should make an appointment at its next meeting.

b.         A motion was received from Felicity Findlay:

Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust wishes to express concern for any proposal to disband the Hornsby Shire Council Heritage Committee, and would strongly object to any such move. 

[As a former Councillor] she said, in support, that Council’s Heritage Committee does not just monitor heritage but recommends DAs be changed to reflect streetscape, to make new buildings more suitable and amenable to the area.

Councillor Browne noted concerns with careless cut-backs in Council that impacted heritage; Councillor Martin also exampled the practical importance of that Committee; Councillor Hutchence noted that once public input was sought by Council on such cut-backs the Trust and residents should respond directly.  Felicity Findlay did not exercise right of reply.

[Moved by Felicity Findlay; seconded by Jo-Anne Cox. Accepted by meeting.]

Committee Election Results

After a short recess, Marcia Horvai [President, Pennant Hills & District Civic Trust] declared the results of the ballot; the following 10 were elected to the Committee:

1.      David Clark

2.      Colin Johnston

3.      Stuart Pittendrigh ©

4.      Ross Walker

5.      Michael Stove

6.      Peter Hewitt

7.      Carolyn Watt ©

8.      Roderick Best (H)

9.      David White

10.  Felicity Findlay ©

(H indicates History Group, © indicates Cheltenham resident)

Marcia Horvai congratulated those elected.  President Michael Stove thanked her, all those who had nominated and members and residents for attending this AGM, which he closed at 9.40pm. 

A brief recess was declared to allow presentation set-up, by Peter Colacino and his staff from Transurban, on the M2 Tollway widening proposals and their local impacts.  Their presentation was augmented by questions from residents. 

President Michael Stove concluded the discussion at 10.30pm and thanked everyone for their attendance and participation.

President.

Clean Up Australia

Clean Up Australia this year is on Sunday 4 March, the Beecroft effort starting at the Beecroft Village Green (by the tennis courts) from 9am for a few hours in the morning.  If possible bring your own gloves.

Autumn BCCT Walk

The Autumn Walk will take place on April 15, starting and ending at Cheltenham Oval, from 2pm to about 4pm. 

Starting in the Cheltenham Oval car park next to the netball courts we walk through the bush to Kirkham St. Points of interest will be bushfire recovery and proposed access road for NW Rail.

Them across Kirkham and along the Transurban track to come out below Beecroft Scout hall. Features will be bush regen works. Turn left and go down to Devlins Ck then turn right and walk through to York St . Features will be bush regen.

Turn right and return to scout hall , along gravel access road to Kirkham.

Up Kirkham to Boronia, along Boronia.  Feature will be 37 Boronia subdivision.

Turn right down Cheltenham Rd and down steps to Castle Howard Rd   (more bush regen work) and then back to carpark

2012 Annual General Meeting

The AGM is now confirmed as March 26th. So it's time to nominate for the Committee if interested in standing for the committee.  Nomination forms can be obtained from the BCCT secretary, Peter Hewitt, at the Ray White Beecroft offices in the Module, Beecroft Shopping Village.

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.

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