Agenda of Ordinary Council - 5 November 2007

ORDINARY COUNCIL
OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 37
5 NOVEMBER 2007

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 5 November 2007

30/10/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 37

Subject: Open Space Plan

Record No: su1270 - 32836/07

Author(s): Susan Butler

Executive Summary

The Draft Open Space Plan has been on public exhibition for 60 days and a number of submissions have been received. Some amendments have been made to the draft Plan and now the final Open Space Plan has been prepared for adoption by Council.

Background

Council at its meeting of 6 November 2006 resolved in part that:-

“The General Manager be requested to report back to Council with an Open Space and Recreation Plan integrating the Bushland Plan of Management, Estuary Management Plan, Golf Course Plan of Management, Playground Strategy, and to establish overriding principles for a Sport and Recreation Plan and Plan of Management for Blackman Park.”

The Draft Open Space Plan was presented to Council at its meeting on 16 July 2007 prior to being placed on public display for 60 days during August and September. A number of briefing sessions were carried out with Council’s Community Reference Groups, and with other community based groups including the Bushland Management Advisory Committee, Golf Course Management Advisory Committee and Sports Committee. The Draft Plan was exhibited on 6 to 8 September at a staffed display suite at Lane Cove Plaza. The Draft Open Space Plan was available on Council’s website over the consultation period and there was an on line survey.

Further, at the Council meeting of 16 July 2007, the report on the “Recreational Needs In and Near Charlish Park” was considered. It was resolved:

1 Council receive and note the report “Recreational Needs In and Near Charlish Park”

2 The report be updated with comments received up to Friday 20 July and be publicly exhibited for a period of 60 days as a supporting document in relation to the Draft Open Space Plan and Draft Major Projects Strategic Plan.

3 A further report be submitted to Council following the exhibition period on any submissions received.

The Draft Open Space Plan considered the open space values of Charlish Park, whilst the recreational needs of the park still need to be addressed. This will be undertaken in the Recreation Plan currently being developed and due for completion in February 2008. With the adopted Major Projects Strategic Action Plan recommending a new five (5) year lease for the Lane Cove West Bowling Club, the delay in considering the recreational needs of Charlish Park does not have an adverse impact on the proposed actions in either the Open Space Plan or Major Projects Strategic Action Plan. Further, the Open Space Plan delivers on the overriding principles for a Sport and Recreation Plan, as resolved by Council last November.

Discussion

Twelve (12) submissions were received and there were seven (7) responses to the survey. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions is detailed below. Given the small sample size of the survey response, it is not possible to reach any conclusion, therefore the individual issues raised have also been incorporated into the table below. These include submission from a number of groups including: Bushland Management Advisory Committee (BMAC); Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC); Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society (LCB&CS); RASAD; Lane Cove North Residents Association (LCNRA); Stringy Bark Creek Residents Association (SBCRA); Ku-ring-gai District Soccer Association (KDSA) and 5 individuals.

Issue	Submission	Response
Comments Relating to Part A: Open Space Plan
Page 6. Open Space Plan needs to be in the context of knowing Council’s overarching community plan	Individual submission	Council’s Corporate Plan provides planning framework
Page 3. All Open Space is zoned RE1 in draft LEP. Bushland needs to be zoned separately from other open space as in the existing LEP	BMAC; LCB&CS	Council will continue to make submissions to Department of Planning requesting this to be considered
Page 4. Rewrite values in plainer English	BMAC; LCB&CS; SAC	done
Pages 4, 11, 15, 31. Need to emphasise the value of passive open space for uses such as sitting and looking, visual value of open space. Value of small parks should not be underestimated; small pockets of green are essential in high density areas as a place to sit and read, think or just look about, providing visual relief, retreat for residents wishing to escape high density living for a time.	LCB&CS; RASAD; LCNRA	added to Part A section 3.3, rewritten key issues in Part B Sections 2 and 3, added to Appendix 1
Comments Relating to Section 1 – Environment and Heritage
Page 9. Not sufficient emphasise on the importance of the Plan of Management for Bushland	LCB&CS	added new action in Section 1 Goal 2. Action 7
Page 7. No action to address impact of drought on trees like swales on contours to reduce runoff, recharge groundwater	Individual submission	These are included in site specific plans eg Bushland Plan of Management
Pages 7 to 10. Needs to be more explicit canvassing of issues arising from linkages between public open space and private open space and grey areas between. Sustainability conception of open space is not limited to land use zonings and includes wildlife corridors, street scapes, biodiversity, social well being. This can be beneficial (no fences) or unwanted (encroachments) capture of open space.	SAC	Plan refers to Open Space on both public and private land. Section 1, Goal 2 actions are not limited to public land only.
Comments Relating to Section 2 - Community
Page 13. Need for policies and practices to be developed to increase the sustainable capacity of grounds to meet the demands from growing population	KDSA, survey responses	add as new action in Section 2 Goal 2 Action 6
Page 14. Need for policy for community contribution to infrastructure and associated tenure of Open Space areas, particularly sports grounds	KDSA	Add as new action in Section 2 Goal3 Action 9
Page 11. No mention of scout, guide halls and boat sheds	Individual submission	added in key issues in Section 2 Key Issues
Page 12. Need for parks for group activities, including carpark, game field, playground, barbeque and big undercover eating areas	Individual submission	added to Section 2, Goal 1 Action 2
Page 12. Need to mention parks that are accessible and what facilities they have	Individual submission	added to Section 2 Goal 1 Action 3
Page 11. Clarify who are the partners mentioned in aims	LCB&CS	Added to Section 2 Key Issues
Page 13. Plan misses opportunity to make Lane Cove more self sufficient in relation to food, should include community gardens where residents can grow their own food. Considers the use of native species as street trees as short sighted and sometimes inappropriate; suggests turning nature strips and easements over to food growing and planting fruit and nut trees as street trees	Individual submission	Comments have been noted. New action added at Section 2 Goal 2 Action 7
Page 12. Recreational needs study – consult with all groups not just sporting groups	RASAD, individual submission	noted
Page 12. Fees and charges for Open Space should not rise to point where they price out members	RASAD	noted
Page 13. Applaud decision to establish community based working groups for relevant programs eg playground strategy	RASAD	noted
Page 13. Applaud idea of partnerships with appropriate groups, Involve residents in working groups to identify local character, key values, existing and potential experiences	RASAD	noted
Page 13. Continue to involve community to provide advisory and input into management of open space	BMAC	noted
Page 13. Look at community based programs similar to Bushcare for revitalising neglected open space areas	SBCRA	noted
Comments Relating to Section 3 – Diversity, Amenity and Quality
Pages 15 & 16. More facilities for the younger community - skateboarding, dirt push bike jumps, mountain bike course, adventure playgrounds, netball hoops and practice courts, tennis practice walls, real athletics fields, graffiti wall, on ground chess or draughts, youth co-ordinator to run experience parks	3 individual submissions	matter to be considered further in Recreation Plan
Comments Relating to Section 4 - Accessibility
Page 20. Need to ensure the exclusion of bicycle tracks from bushland	LCB&CS; BMAC	amend Section 4 Goal 3 Action 3 and link to Bushland Plan of Management
Page 21. Maximise participation as priority rather than equity and diversity which can lead to not meeting the demands of the majority	KDSA	amend Section 4 Goal 4 Action 1
Comments Relating to Section 5 – Planning, Management and Monitoring
Page 23. Recreation Study should involve a working group that includes community members of appropriate groups, plan should include key demands and desires of the community	LCNRA	noted
Page 23. Blackman Park Plan of Management needs to include all users not only sporting clubs	SBCRA	noted
Page 24. Increase capacity eg changing grass types, artificial surfaces, changes to zonings to allow games under lights, etc	KDSA	matter to be considered further in Recreation Plan
Page 26. Need some way of educating/encouraging community members to report problems	Individual submission	included in Section 5 Goal 3 Action 11
Page 25. Policy for personal trainers – procedures and fees should not be too restrictive but use of megaphones totally banned from parks near residential areas	RASAD	noted
Page 25. Need very strong reasons for deleting any playgrounds, maybe substitute outdoor training equipment for playgrounds in some areas	LCNRA	noted
Comments on Section 6 - Provision
Pages 28 to 30. An aim of the plan should be no net loss of open space.	BMAC	Council has adopted guiding principles for the sale or development of open space as part of the Major Projects Strategic Action Plan
Pages 28 to 30. When open space is sold or alienated for another purpose, a space of equal size is established in area of need	RASAD	Major Projects Strategic Action Plan refers to purchase of other land. The objective should be the strategic value of land to be purchased rather than the size of the land.
Page 28. Little opportunity to acquire substantial areas of additional open space in the future	BMAC	added to Section 6
Page 30. No mention of acquisition of foreshore land referred to in Major Projects Plan	Individual submission	added to Section 6 Goal 1 Action 9.
Pages 28 to 30. Do we have sufficient unencumbered open space to satisfy the needs of the growing population	RASAD, survey response	matter to be considered further in Recreation Plan
Pages 28 to 30. Quarantine bushland from pressure to encroach and develop within it		Bushland specifically excluded from consideration in Major Projects Strategic Action Plan
Page 29. Community needs to be involved in any decision to declare open space redundant	RASAD	add reference to Community Consultation Plan
Pages 36 & 37. Area of open space per 1000 people should reflect areas such as drainage reserves, and figure not used as justification to sell off open space	BMAC	include reference to Open Space without bushland in App 4
Comments on Specific Sites Discussed in the Major Projects Strategic Action Plan
266 Longueville Rd – suggestions for low-key recreation, children’s playground, quiet forms of recreation eg personal trainers. Tree planting should be an essential part of all changing open space	Individual submission	noted
Has there been a proper consideration of alternate uses of the open space, particularly Burns Bay and Richardson St sites, what were the options, how was the community informed	Individual submission	addressed in recent report to Council on the Major Projects Strategic Action Plan
Comments Regarding funding
Formidable number of worthy tasks that will require significant resources	LCB&CS	Noted
Funds for the critical actions for environment and heritage	RASAD	Noted
Council to maintain adequate funding to continue best practice for sustainable management of open space	BMAC	noted

There are also a number of more minor changes and corrections to the draft Plan and a number of priorities have been changed. Changes are underlined in the attached Open Space Plan and a summary of the minor changes has been prepared.

Recreational Needs in and around Charlish Park

A report was presented at the Council meeting on 16 July 2007 regarding the recreational needs in and around Charlish Park. At the time of the meeting, 27 replies had been received in response to a survey to residents living nearby. A further 51 responses were received following this, and these responses reinforced the value placed by the community on the importance of Open Space, especially in an area with many residential units. The survey results have been incorporated into the Open Space Plan and will also be considered as part of the Recreation Plan.

Conclusion

The community has had the opportunity to comment on the Draft Open Space Plan. Submissions from the community have been reviewed and a number of changes as noted above have been made to the draft Plan. The Open Space Plan is now ready for adoption by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That the amended Open Space Plan dated November 2007, included as Attachment 1, be adopted.

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Amended Open Space Plan - November 2007, incorporating final changes

40 Pages

CNL051107US_37.doc

***** End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 37 *****

ORDINARY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 453
5 NOVEMBER 2007

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 5 November 2007

24/10/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 453

Subject: S96- 6 Private Road, Northwood

Record No: DA06/377-01 - 32020/07

Author(s): May Li

Property: 6 Private Road, Northwood

Section 96 Application No: 377/2006A

Date Lodged: 17 July 2007

Cost of Work: $985,000.00 (cost of the original development)

Owner : N L P & H E Symons

Author: May Li

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Section 96 Modification to Development Consent 377/2006 including minor amendments to the design of the dwelling house and removal of a Brushbox tree at the rear of the property
ZONE	2(a2) - Residential
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?	Yes
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?	No
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?	No
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?	No
BCA CLASSIFICATION	Class 1a & 10a
STOP THE CLOCK USED	No
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours: No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 10 Private Road, No.43, 45, 47 Cliff Road, Northwood Ward Councillors: Councillor Hassarati, Freedman, & Smith Other Interest Groups: Northwood Action Group

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

The Section 96 application has been called to the Planning and Building Committee by Councillor Smith due to the possible increased impact of the proposal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The development application No. 377/2006 for demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house with basement garage was conditionally approved under delegated authority on 25 May 2007.

The removal of a Brushbox tree at the rear of the property was included in the original development proposal and was not supported. Measures relating to the retention and protection of the tree were imposed in the conditions of the development consent (Conditions 67, 68, 70, and 75).

The applicant has lodged a Section 96 application for removal of the Brushbox tree and minor amendments to the design of the dwelling house relating to the rear deck, rear roof and ridge height of the building.

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has reviewed the Section 96 application relating to the Brushbox tree and he has advised that the tree should be retained and protected.

The minor amendments to the design of the dwelling house are unlikely to change the bulk and scale of the approved building and are also unlikely to cause any significantly adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining properties. The amendments to the design of the dwelling house are supported.

SITE:

The subject site is a regular shaped parcel of land located at the southern side of Private Road, Northwood between Upper Cliff Road and Northwood Road. Surrounding development comprises a mixture of a single storey and two storey dwelling houses.

The site is opposite a heritage item at 1 private Road, Northwood. Copy of Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

PROPOSAL

The application seeks to modify the Development Consent No. DA377/2006 as follows:

1) Deleted Condition 2 relating to the width of the deck on the ground floor.

Officer’s Comment

Section 3.6(3) of Council’s Code for Dwelling House, Fence, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings states:

‘Elevated decks, terraces or balconies greater than 1m above natural ground level are not to exceed a width of 3.0m of usable area. This clause does not apply where privacy is not an issue’.

The Section 96 Modification application requests that the proposed elevated ground floor deck be increased in width by an additional 600mm, to a total width of 3.6m and that 1.7m high privacy screens be provided along the eastern and western edges of the deck. The applicant states that the proposed privacy screens with a height of 1.7m would obstruct any potential over-viewing into the adjoining properties and would direct views towards the rear of the site. The proposed installation of the privacy screens is also consistent with Condition 3 of Council’s Consent DA377/06.

The small additional width with the privacy screens would not impact on the privacy of the adjoining properties and is supported.

2) Amended Condition No.35 to allow a ridge height of the dwelling house to be increased from RL 52.40 to RL56.60.

Officer’s Comment

The maximum approved building height of the dwelling house is 8.7m above natural ground level. The increase of the ridge height by 200mm is a minor change to the building’s height. The building height of the Section 96 application still complies with the maximum height requirement of the Code.

The proposed increase would not detrimentally impact on the design of the building or neighbours and is supported.

3) Replacement of the pitch roof with a flat roof over the rear ground floor patio

Officer’s Comment

The proposed flat roof is located at the rear of the proposed dwelling house and would present a roof form of lesser bulk than the original proposed pitch roof. If approved, the roof would be conditioned that it be retained as non trafficable and not used as a balcony.

4) Removal of the Brushbox tree

The Manager of Open Space’s Comment

The applicants have submitted a s96 application for the removal of the Brushbox tree and the conditions of consent that relate to this tree’s protection (amendment to Condition 67 and deletion of Conditions 68, 70 and 75). Council’s position from the lodgement of the original development application has been that this tree is a prominent tree in the streetscape and is to be retained.

Two further tree reports were provided with this S96 application; supplementary comments prepared by Guy Parossien of Landscape Matrix dated 10 July 2007 and a later report prepared by Stuart Pittendrigh dated August 2007.

The applicant’s justification for the removal of the Brushbox is on the basis of the tree’s vigour. Both tree reports refer to the tree’s declining vigour and the impact of excavation within the critical root zone of the tree from building works on this site and the neighbouring property at 8 Private Road.

Works on the site have been proceeding without full regard to the conditions of consent requiring tree protection measures for this Brushbox tree. Peter Maish, Council’s Tree Assessment Officer, inspected the tree on a number of occasions in late July and August and an on site meeting on 6 September 2007 and assessed the tree as still worthy of retention as he did not consider that it was in an irreversible state of decline. At the site meeting in early September the owner, builder and the arborists were advised that the tree protection measures were inadequate and the tree needed to be watered and mulched as a matter of priority. A number of breaches of the conditions of consent relating to this tree were identified for action on 24 September 2007.

The second development application for the swimming pool (DA07/161) indicates the applicant proposes further excavation in the immediate vicinity of the tree (which is shown to be removed on these plans). Peter Maish has provided comments regarding the need to ensure that there are no further negative impacts on the tree, including no further excavation within the root zone of the tree.

The failure of the applicant to take the required actions to protect the tree may lead to the tree’s continual decline. However, the applicant’s failure to apply the conditions of consent hastening the tree’s decline should not be used as the basis to justify the tree’s removal. The conditions of consent to retain the Brushbox should be retained.

Given the comments of Council’s Arborist, the section of the section 96 modification seeking the removal of the tree is not supported.

Refer to Attachment 1 for Plans of the Section 96 application

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 1987 (Section 79c(1)(a))

The proposed development for a dwelling house is permissible within the zone of the subject site.

The Brushbox tree is a prominent tree in the streetscape and the removal of the Brushbox tree would not improve the existing amenity and environmental character of the area. It is considered that the section of the Section 96 application for the removal of the Brushbox tree does not comply with the aims and the objectives of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 and is not supported.

Other Planning Instruments

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings

The Section 96 Modification proposal complies with the requirements of the Code.

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))

The Section 96 Modification proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy. A submission from Mrs Baxter , the owner of 4 Private Road, Northwood was received in response to the notification of the development application. The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

· No objection to the ridge height increasing as long as the proposal does not reduce the winter sun to the living area of 4 Private Road, Northwood

Officer’s Comment

Mrs Baxter’s property is located to the east of the subject site. The minor increase to the ridge height of the proposed dwelling house is unlikely to increase any significant over shadowing impact to the living areas of 4 Private Road, Northwood.

· The amended flat roof has a potential to become a patio/outdoor living area and create over looking to the adjoining properties.

Officer’s Comment

The applicant states that the flat roof would not be used as an outdoor living area and would be separated from the decking area on the first floor by a balustrade. If approved, an additional condition would be imposed to ensure that the roof area would not be used as an extension to the deck.

CONCLUSION

The matters in relation to Section 79C and Section 96 of Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 considerations have been considered in this assessment.

The Section 96 amendments to the proposed dwelling house would not create any significant impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties. However, the Brushbox tree is a prominent tree in the streetscape and the removal of the tree is not supported. The conditions of consent to retain the Brushbox tree should be retained.

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, development consent DA8.2006.377 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house on lot 1 DP 170480 and known as 6 Private Road, Northwood is amended in the following manner:

1. By amending condition 1 to read as the follows:

“1. (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 06.24.1 D dated 3.7.07 and 06.24.2.B dated 3.4.07 by prepared by Meadowbank Homes Pty Ltd.”

2. By amending Condition 2 to read as follows:

“2. The flat roof over the patio area on the ground floor shall not be used for outdoor living area and must be separated by a balustrade at the southern edge of the rear deck on the first floor of the dwelling house.”

3. That the requested removal of the Brushbox tree be refused and the conditions associated are reaffirmed.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Site Location Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page

CNL051107ES_453.doc

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 453 *****

ORDINARY COUNCIL
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 24
5 NOVEMBER 2007

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 5 November 2007

26/10/2007 to Ordinary Council

Human Services Division Report No. 24

Subject: Kindy Cove Child Care Centre Accreditation

Record No: SU2047 - 32533/07

Author(s): Jane Gornall

Executive Summary

Through the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC), the Australian Government operates a quality assurance accreditation program for family day care centres, outside hours school care and long day care services in Australia.

The purpose of the accreditation process is to ensure that children in care have stimulating, positive experiences and interactions that will foster all aspects of their development.

The accreditation process originally was done every three years, but is now every second year.

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre has recently been re-accredited by NCAC.

Background

Kindy Cove is required to register with the NCAC and meet the requirements of the quality Assurance system for parents to be eligible to receive the Child Care Benefit.

The process of accreditation is long and involved including:

· Self-study Report and Continuing improvement assessment. The next study is due in November 2009.

· Validation. This process includes the completion of Validation surveys – completed by the Director, staff and families. The validator also visits and assesses the Centre.

· Moderation process - to ensure consistency on a National basis.

· Accreditation decision – Centres must achieve a score of satisfactory or higher on all of the 7 quality areas – listed below.

The accreditation process has changed since Kindy Cove undertook its last accreditation process in 2005. Originally there were ten (10) quality areas. Currently there are seven (7) areas.

Kindy has been advised that considerable changes will also be made to the accreditation process, due to start with Kindy Cove again in 2009.

Quality Area

1. Relationship with Children

2. Partnerships with Families

3. Planning and evaluation

4. Children’s Experience and Learning

5. Protective Care and safety

6. Health, nutrition and wellbeing

7. Managing to support quality

Attached is a copy of Kindy Cove’s quality profile Certificate (Attachment 1). As can be seen from the Certificate, Kindy Cove achieved a near perfect score in all the 7 quality areas.

Also included is the profile from the 2005 study for comparison (Attachment 2).

Council should be proud of this achievement and the work and enthusiasm of all of the staff involved.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1. Receive and note this Report.

2. Notes the receipt of accreditation at Kindy Cove Child Care Centre.

3. Congratulate the staff of the Centre on the excellent result achieved.

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	National Child Accreditation Council Summary of all Ratings 2007	11 Pages
AT‑2 View	National Child Accreditation Council Summary of all Ratings 2005	2 Pages

CNL051107HS_24.doc

***** End of Human Services Division Report No. 24 *****

ORDINARY COUNCIL
ORDER OF THE DAY NO. 22
5 NOVEMBER 2007

ORDINARY COUNCIL
CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 51
5 NOVEMBER 2007

ORDINARY COUNCIL
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 23
5 NOVEMBER 2007

ITEM REPORT CONTENT PAGE