m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

4 February 2008, 6:30PM

If members of the public are not interested in any business recommended to be

considered in Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

 commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, Lower Ground Floor, 48 Longueville Road, Lane Cove on Monday 4 February 2008 commencing at 6:30PM. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Ian Longbottom. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website wwww.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm of the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items of the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under section 12(6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 4 February 2008

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 DECEMBER 2007

 

 

 

Referred Reports

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 523

SUBJECT: 52B Cliff Road, Northwood

 

3.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

SUBJECT: 10 Second Avenue Lane Cove

 

General Managers Reports

 

4.       General Managers Report No. 2

SUBJECT: Submission to NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

5.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 8

SUBJECT: 2nd Quarter Review of 2007-2010 Management Plan

 

6.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 5

SUBJECT: Councillor Superannuation

 

7.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 6

SUBJECT: Policy RO4004 - Public Liability Insurance - Civic Centre

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

8.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

SUBJECT: Graffiti Removal

 

9.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 2

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Parking Permit Policy

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

10.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 10

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme

 

11.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 11

SUBJECT: Draft Enforcement Policy

 

12.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

SUBJECT: Earth Hour 2008

 

13.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 13

SUBJECT: 16 Private Road, Northwood

  

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

 

 

        


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 523

 

4 FEBRUARY 2008

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 4 February 2008

3/12/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 523

Subject:          52B Cliff Road, Northwood

Inspection Committee at its meeting on 02 February 2008 resolved that the matter be referred to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 04 February 2008.   

Record No:    DA98/287 - 36967/07

Author(s):       May Li 

 

 

Property:                     52B Cliff Road, Northwood

 

DA No:                         287/1998

 

Date Lodged:              20 September 2007

 

Cost of Work:              $650,000.00

 

Owner             :                       I H Rozenauers

 

Author:                         May Li

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 96 Modification Application to Development Consent No. 287/1998 for a redesign of the dwelling house and the above ground swimming pool

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?

Yes

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a & 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes – 15 days

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours:

46, 48A, 48, 50A, 50, 52, 56, 56A, 56A, 56B Cliff Road, Northwood

 

Ward Councillors:

Councillor Hassarati, Freedman, & Smith

 

Progress Association:

Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society

 

 


REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The Section 96 Modification is reported to Council because the development application was determined at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 16 October 2000. 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

The Section 96 application seeks Council’s consent to modify conditions of the Development Consent No. 287/1998 relating to the design of proposed dwelling house, the floor space ratio, and the location of the proposed swimming pool.

 

-           The proposed FSR is 0.54:1 (0.5:1 approved)

 

-           Extending the length of the northern wall of the dwelling house by 1m toward the eastern boundary (the edge of the eastern cliff)

 

-           Relocation of the above ground swimming pool toward the edge of the eastern cliff.

 

-           Increasing the finished level of the deck of the above ground swimming pool by 1.35m from RL 23.5m to RL24.85m.

 

SITE:

 

The subject site is a battleaxe block located at the south-eastern side of Cliff Road, Northwood.  The site slopes steeply away from Cliff Road and incorporates two cliff faces to the western and eastern ends of the site.  A dwelling house on the site is under construction.  Adjoining properties include:

 

-           Gore Creek Reserve to the east of the site

-           A single storey dwelling house at 50A Cliff Road to the north of the site

-           A vacant lot located at 52C Cliff Road to the south of the site; and

-           A two storey dwelling house located at 52A to the west of the site.

 

The owner of the subject site owns two of the adjoining properties at 52A and 52C Cliff Road.  Other surrounding developments comprise a mixture of single and two storey dwelling houses.

 

Notification Plan attached (AT1).

 

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY:

 

10 November 1998

 

Development Application No. 287/1998 for construction of a two storey dwelling house with basement carpark and storage area and an above swimming pool was lodged with Council.

 


2 February 2000

 

The development application was refused under delegated authority for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposal contravenes the objectives of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.

2.         The proposal contravenes Council’s Building Policy Code.

3.         The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

4.         The proposal will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

5.         The proposal contravenes State Environmental Policy No. 56.

6.         The public interest.

 

2 March 2000

 

A Section 82A Review application was lodged with Council.

 

24 October 2000

 

The development application was conditionally approved by Council.

 

22 March 2002

 

An Order was issued by the Land and Environment Court to amend Condition No. 3(a) and 3(c) of the development consent relating to the requirements for dilapidation reports and the indemnity insurance requirements for the proposed works.

 

The comparison of the FSR and the pool deck level is summarised in the following table:

 

 

Original DA proposal

S82A proposal

Development consent

S96 proposal

FSR

0.64:1

0.53:1

0.5:1

0.54:1

Pool Deck Level

RL24.7

RL23.5

RL23.5

RL24.85

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

Site Area (663.8m2)

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio       (max)

0.54:1

0.5:1

No

Soft Landscaped Area            (min)

No change to the original proposal

35%

N/A

Side Boundary Setback (min)

1m

1.5m

No

Overall Height (m)       (max)

7.7m

9.5m

Yes

Ceiling Height (m)       (max)

6.9m

7.0m

Yes

No of Storeys

2

2

Yes

Building Line    (max)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Cut and Fill      (max)

3.2m

1m

No

Deck/Balcony width    (max)

6.5m

3m (if elevated by >1m)

No

Solar Access  (min)

More than 3 Hours

3 hours to north elevation

Yes

 

 


SWIMMING POOL

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Distance of concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House  (min)

7m

3m

Yes

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open space   (min)

The concourse of the pool is 2.5m above the natural level.  It has a setback more than 1:1 to Gore Creek Reserve

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

Yes

Height (max)

1.5-2.5m

1.8m

No

Setback if height is >1800mm (min)

1m

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge (2.5m required)

No

Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?

Screen planting is sufficient to the eastern boundary

 

No screen planting is proposed at the northern boundary.  However, any screen planting on the northern boundary will further obscured the view of the adjoining property at 50A Cliff Road, Northwood

Screening required

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

Copy of the proposed plans attached (AT2).

 

REFERRALS:

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The Section 96 proposal has been referred to Council’s development engineer for comment.  No objections were raised and the following additional conditions are recommended to be imposed:

 

Excavation greater the 1m Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all council infrastructures, located within five meters of the proposed excavation.

 

The applicant shall:-

 

(a)        Seek independent advice from a suitably qualified Engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties;

 (b)    Detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining during construction;

(c)     Provide Council with a certificate from the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of support for the adjoining properties;

(d)     Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a practicing engineer.

 

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the works. 

 

The above matters are to be completed PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

All recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.

 

Manager Open Space

 

The Tree Assessment Officer has advised that the owner of the property has established mulched garden areas and planted a variety of native tree species at the rear of the site along the back boundary line and on the top of the ridge.  These garden beds and the trees planted would screen the pool area as the plants mature from Council’s reserve and the waterway.  No objections are raised to the proposed Section 96 application.

 

Rural Fire Service

 

The subject site is located within Bush Fire Prone Land and the proposal was referred to NSW Rural Fire Service for comment. 

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service recommended that the following conditions to be imposed in the conditions of the development consent:

 

Design and Construction

 

1.         Construction is to comply with Appendix 3 – Site Bush Fire Attack Assessment of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.  In this regard the following design standards for construction are to be incorporated into the development:

 

a)         The building is required to be upgraded to improve ember protection.  This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen.  This includes any sub floor areas where applicable and eaves. 

 

b)         Roofing shall be gutterless or have leafless guttering and valleys to prevent the build up of flammable material.  Any materials used shall have a Flammability Index no greater than 5.

 

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

 

The Section 96 proposal does not alter the compliance of the development with the aims and objectives of the Lane Cove LEP 1987.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

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

 

The Section 96 application seeks Council’s consent for a redesign of the approved dwelling house and the swimming pool.  As indicated in the compliance table, the design of the dwelling house does not comply fully with the requirements of the Code.  A number of the variations, such as boundary setbacks have been approved by Council in determining the original proposal.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The floor space ratio proposed is 0.54:1 and the gross floor area of the proposal is approximately 24m2 in excess the maximum permitted floor area.  This calculation excludes the basement area of 184m2  as it is less than 1.5m above ground level.  The Council in considering the original proposal required compliance with the 0.5:1 floor space ratio.  This requirement is reaffirmed.

 

Swimming Pool

 

A swimming pool concourse and deck was approved in the original proposal.  The Council required that the structure be located at RL23.5.  The applicant seeks to increase the height to RL24.85. 

 

The pool has been redesigned and located further towards the edge of the eastern cliff.  On the northern side, it ranges in height from 1.5 to 2.5m above the natural ground level and the decking area of the swimming pool is 1m from the northern boundary.  It is considered that the pool at the proposed level would create an overlooking impact to the adjoining neighbour at 50A Cliff Road, who have objected to the proposal.

 

The decking area and the swimming pool would be clearly visible from the living room and the southern balcony of the dwelling house at 50A Cliff Road.  Any privacy screens for the swimming pool area would cause a loss of views currently enjoyed from this property to Gore Creek. 

 

The applicant states that if the pool area is lowered it would result in the proposed residence, the pool and the terrace being unworkable.  The resultant change would make the basement level unusable - (no head room), or there would need to be excavation at the cliff edge to accommodate the pool and further excavation was objected to by the objectors.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Stepping the pool and deck to the level required would result in additional excavation and also would reduce the basement area.  The area under the deck is designated pool plant and storage.  The basement area is substantial and remains available for storage and pool plant.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects lodged with the Section 96 application states that the dwelling house has been redesigned to meet the applicant’s engineering advice.  The gross floor area of the basement has been changed from 138m2 to 184m2 and basement has been located further toward the eastern boundary of the site.  The orientation of the swimming pool has been rotated by 90° parallel with the northern boundary of the site. 

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

This has been dealt with in the preceding section.

 

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

 

The Section 96 proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy.  Three submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows.

50A Cliff Road, Northwood

 

·          The height of the pool deck above ground level and the non-compliance with the Foreshore Building Line.

 

The pool deck was originally proposed at RL24.7 (ground floor level was RL24.85) but this was amended and eventually approved at 23.5.  The main reasons for lowering the pool deck by 1.2m were its excessive height above ground level and the loss of views and privacy to No.50A Cliff Road, which obtains views across this area towards Woolwich and Balmain, including the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers. 

 

The S96 modification proposes to increase the height of the pool deck again, to RL24.85.  This is a  concern due to the potential for loss of view and privacy. 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

This objection is supported.  It is considered that the pool deck should be reduced to the approved level to maintain views and privacy to the adjoining property. 

 

In relation to the variation to the foreshore building line, Council has previously accepted variation to the foreshore building line for the deck/ pool structure.

 

·          The bulk and scale of the dwelling that included an extremely large basement area, storeroom and plant room that was excluded from the floor space ratio calculations.

 

The proposed S96 modification increases the overall floor space, which is again of concern given the size of the proposed dwelling and the size of the proposed basement which is not included in the FSR.  The basement area has been moved further to the east, closer to the cliff edge down to Gore Creek, yet and there is no information provided as to whether this requires increased excavation in this area, or a further geotech report in relation to this change. 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The basement level of the proposed development is 1.5m lower than the natural ground level.  The basement level is not included in accordance with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses.

 

·           Side setbacks

 

The proposed modification provides only 1.0m setback from the northern boundary that adjoins to No.50A Cliff Road.  Council’s Code requires a 1.5m setback for two storey dwellings.  As the modifications make a number of changes in siting, including increasing the extent of the basement area along this boundary (and the excavation associated with the basement), we consider that the dwelling should be designed to comply with the 1.5m setback. 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The setbacks proposed for the dwelling house are in accordance with the plans approved by Council in 2000.

 

 

48 Cliff Road, Northwood

 

·           The pool deck

 

The extensions proposed, particularly to the pool deck, will add to the adverse environmental aspect of the building when viewed from Gore Creek Reserve, Lane Cove River and Greenwich.  We ask that height poles and templates should be erected to allow proper assessment.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Height poles were previously requested for the Section 82A Review assessment.  The concerns of the height of the pool deck were considered in the previous Section 82A Review application and the pool deck level was conditioned to be at RL23.5.  Given the changes in level of the site and the location of the building works, it is not considered that the proposed rear pool and deck at RL 23.5 will be detrimental to the bushland area.  Council’s Tree Management Officer has not raised objection to the proposal.

 

·          It is not clear whether further excavations will be required, and we are concerned that our property could be affected.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The subject site does not share any boundary with No.48 Cliff Road, and two properties are separated by No. 50A Cliff Road.  Excavation for the proposed development would be unlikely to create any impact to the structural conditions of the dwelling house at 48 Cliff Road.

 

54 Cliff Road, Northwood

 

There is no “existing” 1000mm high guard wall on the driveway

 

Drawing 0710 CC 1.01A has a note stating “Existing safety guard wall 1000mm high to driveway – (not shown on plan)”.

 

We object to this notation calling up a 1000mm high wall as “existing” as there is no wall and there has never been an existing wall on the edge of the driveway slab which slab was only concreted recently.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

No details of the guard wall have been provided and this aspect of the proposal is to be deleted from the plans at Construction Certificate stage.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The assessment of the Section 96 application has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  It is considered that the increasing of the pool deck level would create an adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining property and the proposed floor space ratio should be reduced to comply. These two issues are to be addressed by the draft conditions of approval.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Development Consent 278/1998 granted on  24 October 2000 for construction of a two storey dwelling house with basement garage and storage area and an above ground swimming pool at Lot 4, DP625754, known as 52B Cliff Road, Northwood is amended in the following manner:

 

(1)        Condition No.1b to be amended and read as the follows:

 

1b.      Deleted

 

(2)        Condition 1 to be amended and read as the follows:

 

1.        The proposal being amended to comply with the 0.5:1 floor space ratio, the finished level of the decking area of the swimming pool is to be at RL23.5 and the guard wall to the driveway deleted.  The plans are to be amended plans prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.”

 

(3)       Condition No.10 to be amended and read as the follows:

 

“10.     (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 0710, CC2.01B, 0710-CC2.02D, 0710-CC2.03B, 0710-CC2.04A, 0710-CC3.01B, 0710-CC3.02B, 0710-CC3.03B, and 0710-CC3.04B, dated 04.08.07, prepared by Antonio Caminiti, except where required to be modified in accordance with Condition 1.”

 

(4)        The following additional conditions be imposed in the conditions of the development:

 

 

41.      Excavation greater the 1m where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within five meters of the proposed excavation.

 

The applicant shall:-

 

(a)        Seek independent advice from a suitably qualified Engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties;

 

(b)       Detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining during construction;

 

(c)        Provide Council with a certificate from the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of support for the adjoining properties;

 

(d)       Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a practicing engineer.

 

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the works. 

 

The above matters are to be completed PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

All recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.

 

42.       Conditions from NSW Rural Fire Services - Design and Construction

 

Construction is to comply with Appendix 3 – Site Bush Fire Attack Assessment of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.  In this regard the following design standards for construction are to be incorporated into the development:

 

(a)        The building is required to be upgraded to improve ember protection.  This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen.  This includes any sub floor areas where applicable and eaves. 

 

(b)       Roofing shall be gutterless or have leafless guttering and valleys to prevent the build up of flammable material.  Any materials used shall have a Flammability Index no greater than 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Proposed Plans for 52B Cliff Road

15 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

Subject:          10 Second Avenue Lane Cove

Inspection Committee at its meeting on 02 February 2008 resolved that the matter be referred to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 04 February 2008.   

Record No:    DA07/323-01 - 3486/08

Author(s):       Kristy Wellfare 

 

 

Property:                     10 Second Avenue Lane Cove

 

DA No:                         D323/07

 

Date Lodged:              23 October 2007

 

Cost of Work:              $46,000.00

 

Owner             :                       B C Hall & S C Scanlan

 

Author:                         Kristy Wellfare

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Construction of a swimming pool

ZONE

Residential 2(a1)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

The proposal is permissible within the zone

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

The property is not listed as a heritage item

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

The property is not located within a conservation area

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

The provisions of DCP1 apply to the property

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes, 51 days

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                   8, 11, 12 and 13 Second Avenue

Ward Councillors         East Ward

Progress Association   Osborne Park Progress Association

Other Interest Groups  Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

This application is being referred to the Inspection Committee as it has been called by Councillor Tudge given the concerns of the applicant.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

The development application is for the construction of a swimming pool which has been assessed against Council's Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings and involves a number of non-compliances with the Code in terms of:

 

§ setback from neighbouring dwelling houses,

§ setback from side boundaries, and

§ maximum height.

 

Council has requested amendments to the plans which would result in compliance with the maximum height and side setback controls, and the applicant has declined to amend the proposal. It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to design change conditions requiring an increase in the side setback by at least 400mm, and a lowering of the pool body by 400mm which would result in compliance with Council's height and side setback controls.

 

SITE:

 

The site is located on the southern side of Second Avenue, between Panorama Road and Osborne Road. The site is 759.5sqm in area, 53.99m in depth and features 14.865m oblique boundaries to Second Avenue and to Lane Cove Bushland Park to the rear. The site falls substantially to the rear, with a relief of 6.79m, and the rear yard has been landscaped into distinct terraces. The site features several mature trees to the middle and lower terrace levels as well as at the front of the site.

 

Existing development on the site features a two storey masonry and tile dwelling house which is currently undergoing renovation work approved under D395/02. Adjoining properties feature dwelling houses of similar construction.  Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The applicant seeks consent for the construction of a concrete swimming pool which is set in-ground at ground level to the northern end and continues at the same level as the land falls away, resulting in a maximum height of 2200mm at the southern end.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS:

 

D395/02: Alteration and additions. Approved under Delegated Authority on 19 March 2003

 

HISTORY:

 

A meeting was held on site on 5 December 2007, with Council's tree assessment officer and the Manager of Assessments in attendance. Following that site inspection, Council's advice of 20 November regarding the proposal's non-compliance was confirmed and Council suggested amendments to the plans which would result in compliance with the controls as follows:

 

1.       Increase the setback from the side boundary by at least 400mm: this would result in at least 900mm setback from the boundary to the pool concourse and would increase the setback from edge of the concourse to the neighbouring dwelling house.

2.       Lower the level of the pool by at 400mm: this would decrease the maximum height of the pool to 1800mm which would not only comply with the maximum height control; it would reduce the required side setback to 900mm and, subject to the amendment required in point 1 above, would comply with the side setback control.

 

The applicant has declined to alter the plans as requested, and the assessment of this development application is based on the plans submitted to Council on 23 October 2007.

 


PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

Site Area (759.5m2)

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio       (max)

As approved

 

No change

Soft Landscaped Area            (min)

68%

35%

Yes

Side Boundary Setback (min)

As approved

 

No change

Overall Height (m)       (max)

As approved

9.5m

No change

Ceiling Height (m)       (max)

As approved

7.0m

No change

No of Storeys

As approved

2

No change

Building Line    (max)

As approved

 

No change

Foreshore Building Line            (min)

As approved

 

No change

Cut and Fill      (max)

As approved

1m

No change

Deck/Balcony width    (max)

As approved

3m (if elevated by >1m)

No change

Solar Access  (min)

As approved

3 hours to north elevation

No change

NaTHERs Rating        (min)

Not applicable

Min 3.5 stars

Not applicable

 

SWIMMING POOLS

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House  (min)

Approximately 2.3m

3m

No

Setback from boundary if concourse is <500mm above natural ground level  (min)

Not applicable

900mm -         from internal face of pool

450mm            from edge of concourse

Not applicable

 

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level  (min)

500mm from edge of concourse

900mm from edge of concourse

No

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open space   (min)

11m from rear boundary

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

Yes

Height (max)

2200mm

1800mm

No

Setback if height is >1800mm (min)

500mm

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge – 2200mm

No

Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?

None proposed

Screening required

No

 

REFERRALS:

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The proposal was referred to Council's Development Engineer for assessment. No concerns were raised in respect of this development, subject to conditions.

 

Manager Bushland

 

Council's Bushland Manager has raised concerns throughout the assessment process regarding the access to the property during construction and excavation works. Upon the request for further information pertaining to the access of machinery to the back of 10 Second Ave to construct the swimming pool, the applicant provided the following information:

 

·      The size of the machinery that will be used to excavate the pool area will be approximately 1.50 ton excavator – e.g. a KabotaKX121.

·      Entry and Exit Points will be at the southern boundary (through the track in the reserve) for the digger and on the western side of the site through to the front (northern end) for excavated materials. 

·      Access for the digger will be a SINGLE RETURN journey only, with the intention to reinstate any damage to the bushland.

·      Excavated materials will be removed by small dingo type machines and loaded onto trucks at the front of the property for immediate removal.

 

In response to this information, Council's Bushland Manager had the following concerns:

 

Access through Bushland Park is not permitted for a number of reasons. Bushland Park is zoned as Open Space (6)b Bushland which has good quality remnant urban bushland.  Council manages these reserves for the benefit of the whole community and the natural environment.  Furthermore the whole of Bushland Park is declared a Wildlife Refuge under the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1994, and classified as Threatened Ecological Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.  This means that any action that is to be considered under either of these Acts must not contribute to further environmental degradation of the park, or insinuate further actions which will amplify any impact. 

 

It is estimated that from the Osborne Rd entrance to the property through the Park it is approximately 120m with a number of steps, narrow paths and fragile slopes.  To take a machine through this area would create slope instability, destroy understorey vegetation, damage tree roots, damage tree trunks, and damage the fragile soil which harbours fungi spores and fruit - some of which are listed as vulnerable or endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.  The environment where fungi grow is extremely fragile and is difficult to manage due to their generally microscopic nature.  Damage to the vegetation and soil may impact fungi, but to measure that impact is near impossible in this situation. 

 

Illegal activities in the past have shown that movement of machinery through bushland, even once, has impacted an area so much that years later the impact is still seen and managed.  The cost to repair damage to vegetation is often underestimated with Council having to endure further costs years after the damage has been done.  The good condition of the bushland has involved decades of bush regeneration in Bushland Park, with the high amount of time and money going often unnoticed by the general community. 

 

This reserve is not designated for private access for neighbouring properties. Neighbours have no legal right to be granted access over Council reserves for building works and there are alternate arrangements that can be made to construct the pool without using the reserve.  If the applicant is able to remove soil through the front of the property using a smaller machine, then a suitably sized excavator can access the backyard from the front of the property as they are only allowed to access the backyard from the front of the property. 

 

Council's Bushland Manager has requested further additional documentation confirming that they will not use Bushland Park to access their backyard for any machinery prior to the determination of this application, and, based on the information currently available, the application will not be supported. It is considered that a condition requiring the approval of a comprehensive Work Plan prior to the release of the Construction Certificate would achieve the same objective without further delay to the assessment of the application. A condition to that effect has been included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Rural Fire Service

 

The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for comment. No concerns were raised in respect of the application and no conditions were required.

 

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

 

The proposal is for the construction of a swimming pool, which is ancillary to the main residential dwelling house on the site. Dwelling houses are permissible in the Residential 2(a1) zone in accordance with Clause 9(3) of the Lane Cove LEP 1987. The proposal accords with the objectives of the zone and raises no issues with regard to the provisions of the Lane Cove LEP1987.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANs

 

Development Control Plan No 1 – Control of Development Adjacent to Bushland

 

The proposed swimming pool is located wholly within the Building Area on the site and does not encroach on the buffer area as defined by the policy. The original proposal was submitted without the landscape plan as required by DCP1. This plan was submitted to Council on 21 December 2007 for assessment and no concerns were raised in relation to the landscape plan. The proposal did not include any information regarding the proposed finish for the exposed underside of the pool shell between the ground level and the pool concourse. A condition has been included in the recommendation of this report requiring that this area be appropriately finished and screened in order to harmonise with the natural environment in accordance with the plan.

 

As noted in the Bushland Manager's comments above, concerns were raised regarding the manner by which machinery and excavated material would be passed through the site and transported to and from the site. The applicant submitted further information on 9 January 2008 regarding the site management during the works, particularly during excavation, which proposed access through the reserve to the rear and does not accord with the requirements of the DCP. Conditions have been included in the recommendation of this report prohibiting access to the property via the reserve to the rear and requiring the submission of a comprehensive Work Plan outlining the site access and management during construction given the prohibition on access from the reserve. The proposal, as recommended, is considered to accord with the objectives of the plan and raises no further issues in this regard.

 

Some limited access for construction is available down the sides of the property.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

 

The site is immediately adjacent to land which is zoned "Bushland B" under Lane Cove LEP 1987. The proposal has been assessed with regard to the provisions of SEPP 19 and, subject to conditions, is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated Lands

 

Clause 7 of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding the fact that site investigations have not been carried out, the site history of the site and adjoining sites indicates a history of residential development. The proposal does not raise any concerns in relation to SEPP55 and further investigation is not required in this instance.

 

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

 

The application was accompanied by a BASIX Certificate and the commitments required to be noted at the development application stage are shown on the accompanying plans. The proposal therefore satisfies the policy and raises no further issues in this regard.

 


Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The proposal raises no issues in this regard.

 

 

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with. Each of the departures is discussed below.

Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings: Section 5 - Private Swimming Pools and Spas

 

The proposal does not comply with the following provisions within Section 5 of the Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings:

 

a.         Setback to neighbouring dwellings

 

The plans submitted with the application do not dimension the setback from the proposed pool to the neighbouring dwelling at 8 Second Avenue; however this setback has been scaled at approximately 2.3m and does not achieve the required 3.0m setback. The supporting information accompanying the application states that the setback is acceptable, as the pool level would be at or near the ground level at the part closest to the neighbouring property and will be appropriately screened. It should be noted that no privacy screening has been applied for as part of this application.

 

c.         Setback to side boundaries for swimming pools more than 500mm above the existing ground level

 

The proposal involves a 500mm setback from the edge of the concourse to the property boundary, and 900mm from the boundary to the water. As the pool is greater than 500mm above the natural ground level for much of its length, the pool is required to be setback from the common boundary by at least 900mm to the edge of the concourse and the proposal does not comply with this control.

 

d.         Maximum height

 

The proposed swimming pool would be a maximum of 2200mm above ground level at its highest point, with a side setback of 500mm. Whilst Section 5d of the Code for Dwelling Houses, fences, private swimming pools and outbuildings states that the maximum height of the concourse shall not exceed 1800mm above natural ground level at any point, this part does allow for situations where part of the pool structure is greater than 1800mm above natural ground level, provided that an appropriate setback  from the property boundary of 1:1 is maintained. In this instance, a 2200mm setback from the side boundary would be required which is substantially greater than the 500mm proposed.

 

As demonstrated above, the pool is substantially non-compliant with respect to a number of Council's controls. Council has requested that the side setback be increased by at least 400mm and that the pool itself be lowered by 400mm. If these design changes were implemented, the proposal would comply with the side setback and height requirements and the setback from the neighbouring dwelling would be increased to approximately 2700mm which would present a more favourable case for the variation of the setback requirements to neighbouring dwellings.

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons in seeking Council’s variation to the controls:

§ concern regarding the impact of any additional excavation on the trees in the immediate vicinity

§ a desire to avoid the creation of "dead space" within a compliant side setback

§ a desire to install the pool at the ground level of the uppermost portion of the rear yard for aesthetic and safety reasons

§ the slope of the site does not allow the installation of the pool at ground level

§ the pool will be appropriately screened from neighbouring dwelling house

 

Council's tree preservation officer was present during a site inspection and was consulted regarding any potential impact that might arise from a lowering of the proposed pool in the upper tier of the rear yard by 400mm. Due to the amount of fill present and the tiered nature of the rear yard combined with the difference in level between the site and the neighbouring site at 8 Second Avenue, it was not considered that lowering the pool by 400mm would impact upon the existing trees on the site or surrounding sites. It is not considered that sufficient justification for the proposed non-compliance with the site setback and maximum height controls has been provided and it is therefore considered appropriate that conditions be included in the recommendation of this report requiring that the pool be lowered by 400mm and the side setback be increased by at least 400mm.

 

e.         Screening of Pool

 

Although the proposal would result in a pool façade of greater than 1.0m above natural ground level for part of its length, the proposal does not include any screening/landscaping of the pool's elevation. It is considered that this may be addressed by way of a condition of consent and is acceptable in this regard.

 

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

 

No submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with matters for consideration outlined in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to all of the relevant instruments and policies. The proposal complies with the objectives of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987, and, subject to conditions, would not result in any adverse impacts for the locality and is not considered to be contrary to the public interest. The matters in the DOP Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Council as the consent authority grants development consent to Development Application No D293/07 for the construction of a swimming pool on lot 68 Do 19003 at 10 Second Avenue Lane Cove, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       That the development be strictly in accordance with the details set out in the following table and on the application form and on any supporting information received with the application except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.

 

Document

Prepared by

Number

Dated

Site Plan

Premier Pools

KA 5022-1

Sept 2007

Plan and sectional elevation

Premier Pools

KA 5022-2

Sept 2007

Sectional elevations

Premier Pools

KA 5022-3

Sept 2007

Landscape Plan

Premier Pools

MLS 5022-4A

Sept 2007

 

2.         Amended Plans are to be submitted incorporating the following amendments:

 

a)         The side setback from the swimming pool to the common side boundary between the subject site and 8 Second Avenue shall be increased to at least 900mm.

b)         The swimming pool shall be no more than 1800mm above natural ground level at any point.

c)         The pool shell between ground level and the pool concourse shall be appropriately finished and screened to harmonise with the natural landscape.  Any exposed undercroft is to be painted a dark recessive colour.

 

The amendments are to be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

3.         Access to the site for all vehicles and machinery associated with the development must be gained via the Second Avenue frontage. Access through Lane Cove Bushland Park is prohibited.

 

4.         A Comprehensive Work Plan must be approved prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The Work Plan must outline how all vehicles and machinery will access the site in light of condition 3 above, including entry and exit points, and details of the site management during excavation and construction works, including Stormwater and Sediment Control Plans in accordance with DCP1.

 

5.         The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

6.         The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met.  Plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au see Your Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

            The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must:-

 

·           Ensure that a Quick Check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

7.         Approval is subject to the condition that the builder or person who does the residential building work complies with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 whereby a person must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to the proposed work.  It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council or the PCA that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6.  Council as the PCA will not release the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance or an owner builder permit is submitted. THE ABOVE CONDITION DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, OWNER BUILDER WORKS LESS THAN $5000 OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS LESS THAN $12000.

 

8.         An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the swimming pool is filled.

 

9.         The retention on site, without damage, of all existing trees, excepting those shown in the approved plan, to be removed.  The consent of Council to be obtained for the removal of any trees.

 

10.       A Tree Preservation Order applies in the Municipality of Lane Cove.  The Order prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree except with the consent of Council and the penalty for contravention of this Order is up to Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00).  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of the bushland character of the Municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Tree Preservation Order must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

 

11.       The swimming pool being surrounded by a fence:-

 

a) That forms a barrier between the swimming pool; and

 

i)   any residential building or movable dwelling situated on the premises; and

ii)   any place (whether public or private) adjacent to or adjoining the premises; and

 

b) That is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the standards as prescribed by the Regulations under the Swimming Pool Act, 1992, and the Australian Standard 1926-1976, "Fences and Gates for Private Swimming Pools".

 

      SUCH FENCE IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE FILLING OF THE SWIMMING POOL.

 

12.       In accordance with the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Regulations thereunder a warning notice is to be displayed in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool at all times.

 

The notice must be in accordance with the standards of the Australian Resuscitation Council for instructional posters and resuscitation techniques and must contain a warning "YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS POOL".

 

13.       Fibrecrete Swimming Pool Shell being constructed in accordance with AS.2783-1985 "Concrete Swimming Pool Code, AS 3600-1988 - "Concrete Structure" and "AW1 Fibresteel Technical Manual, November 1981".

 

14.       Standard Condition (56) Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages during the construction process.  Forty eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being required:-

 

a)         Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete.

b)         The swimming pool safety fence and the provision of the resuscitation poster prior to filling of the pool with water.

c)         Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

d)         Completion.

 

15.       Structural Engineer's details being submitted to Council and approved PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

 

16.       All machinery used on the site during demolition shall have a noise emission no greater than 75dB(A) when measured at a radius of 7.0 metres from the specified item.

 

 

17.       (a)       The use of mechanical rock pick machines on building sites is prohibited due to the potential for damage to adjoining properties.

 

(b)        Notwithstanding the prohibition under condition (a), consideration will be given to the use of rock pick machines and may be approved by Council subject to:-

 

(1)        A Geotechnical Engineer's Report that indicates that the rock pick machine can be used without causing damage to the adjoining properties.

 

(2)        The report details the procedure to be followed in the use of the rock pick machine and all precautions to be taken to ensure damage does not occur to adjoining properties.

 

(3)        With the permission of the adjoining owners and occupiers comprehensive internal and external photographs are to be taken of the adjoining premises for evidence of any cracking and the general state of the premises PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING.  Where approval of the owners/occupiers is refused they be advised of their possible diminished ability to seek damages (if any) from the developers and where such permission is still refused Council may exercise its discretion to grant approval.

 

(4)        The Geotechnical Engineer supervises the work and the work has been carried out in terms of the procedure laid down.

 

                        COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

18.       All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

19.       The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

20.       An approved type of hoarding being erected along the street frontage.

 

21.       Submission of documentation detailing the destination of materials in accordance with the Waste Management Plan approved under this application.  These details are required PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

22.       All overflow water and drainage including backwash from filter washing from the swimming pool must be directed to the sewer in accordance with Sydney Water's requirements.

 

23.       Lane Cove Council charges a fee of $30 for the registration of any Part 4A Certificates (compliance, construction, occupation or subdivision certificates) issued by an accredited certifier under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

24.       Long Service Levy  Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

25.       BASIX - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificate lodged with Council as part of this application.

 

Engineering Conditions

 

General Engineering Conditions

26.       Design and Construction Standards.  All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant Development Control Plans except as amended by other conditions.

 

 

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior To Construction Certificate

 

27.       Pool Construction

Connect to existing system Stormwater

            The stormwater runoff from the any new impervious areas surrounding the pool shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP Stormwater management.

 

Overland Flow around pools:

The pool design shall ensure that either during construction or upon completion, surface water is not directed or diverted so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

 

To prevent overland flows from entering the pool the coping level must be a minimum of 150mm above the adjacent finished ground level. The entire outside perimeter of the pool surround must have overland flow escape routes which will protect the pool from flooding.

 

28.       Services Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the applicant.

 

29.       Excavation greater the 1m

            Where there are structures on adjoining properties, including all council infrastructures, located within five meters of the proposed excavation.

The applicant shall:-

(a)        seek independent advice from a Engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties

(b)        detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction

(c)        provide Council with a certificate from the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of  support for the adjoining properties

(d)        Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a practicing engineer.

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the works.  

 

The above matters are to be completed and documentation submitted to Council PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

All recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.

 

30.       Footpath Damage Bond. The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000 cash bond or bank guarantee to cover damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

31.       Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction“ prepared by LANDCOM  ‘Fourth Edition 2004, Volume 1’.These devices shall be maintained during the construction works and replaced where considered necessary.

 

The following details are to be included in drawings accompanying the Erosion and 

Sediment Control Plan:

 

·     Location and design criteria of erosion and sediment control structures,

·     Site access point/s and means of limiting material leaving the site

·     Means of diversion of uncontaminated upper catchment around disturbed areas

·     Procedures for maintenance of erosion and sediment controls

·     Details and procedures for dust control.

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with prior to Commencement of Construction

 

32.       Restoration.  Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed Council land is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

 

33.       Materials on Roads and Footpaths. Where the applicant requires           the use of council land for placement of building waste skips or storage of materials an application for “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” is to be made. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

34.       Works on Council Property. Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, to Council's standards and specifications, any associated works on Council property.  This shall include vehicular crossings, footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the start of any works on Council property.

 

35.       Public Utility Relocation. If any public services are to be adjusted, as a result of the development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected services. Any such work being carried out at the applicant’s cost and prior to the commencement of works.

 

36.       Pedestrian Access Maintained. Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS 1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

37.       Sediment and Erosion Control. The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to any disturbance of the existing site. The devices are to be installed in accordance with an approved plan. These devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced where considered necessary. Suitable erosion control management procedures shall be practiced. This condition is imposed in order to protect downstream properties, Council's drainage system and natural watercourses from sediment build-up transferred by stormwater runoff from the site.

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

38.       Certificate of Satisfactory Completion. Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber, Builder, or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters.  The plumber, builder is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant Certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

1)         Confirming that any new element of the drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP Stormwater management. 

 

2)         All works have been completed in accordance with the issued Construction Certificate and Conditions of this determination.

 

            If Council is appointed the Principal Certifying Authority then the appropriate inspection fee is to be paid to Council with the subject documentation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 

     


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

General Managers Report No. 2

 

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 2

Subject:          Submission to NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding    

Record No:    SU3137 - 3574/08

Author(s):       Peter Brown 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide a submission to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for Council’s consideration.

 

Discussion

 

At the Council Meeting on 17 December 2007, Council resolved to:-

 

“prepare a draft submission to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding to candidates seeking office for Local and State Government and report back to the first Council meeting in February 2008”. 

 

A draft submission has been prepared and is attached as AT 1.  In brief Council’s submission calls on the banning of political donations by developers as:-

 

Lane Cove Council supports a ban on donations from property developers to candidates seeking office for local government.  Developer donations can distort the election process and, particularly in local government, compromise the availability, transparency and openness of the Development Application process.  The decision making processes within Council can be unduly impacted by developer donations, hindering the proper exercise of Council functions as a level of government”.

 

 

The deadline for submissions is 15 February 2008. 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider the Draft submission prepared for the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Submission to NSW Legislative Council Inquiry into Electoral and Political Party Funding

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 8

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 8

Subject:          2nd Quarter Review of 2007-2010 Management Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 3568/08

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Local Government Act requires Council to report on quarterly progress of the activities and projects listed in the Management Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

 

Discussion

 

This report discusses the highlights of the second quarter in 2007-2008 and provides a detailed analysis of the Second Quarter progress against the performance measurements adopted by Council in the 2007-2010 Management Plan, shown attached to the report as AT 1.  A new feature of the review is where applicable a cumulative year-to-date figure for performance measures.  Some of the highlights for the quarter include:-

 

·     Successful Rotary Fair included launch of Sustainability Lane (October 2007)

·     Synergy Band Night (October 2007)

·     Bushwalk Guide 7th Edition Launched (October 2007)

·     Major Projects Strategic Plan 2007 – 2016 adopted by Council (October 2007)

·     First Council Vehicle converted to use E85 ethanol fuel (October 2007)

·     Upgrade to 4th tee at Golf Course commenced (October 2007)

·     Kindy Cove receives “High Quality” Accreditation Status (November 2007)

·     Draft Local Environmental Plan 2007 adopted for exhibition by Council (December 2007)

·     DA and tender approved for Blackman Park Girl Guides Hall (December 2007)

·     Launch of Northern Sydney Aboriginal Social Plan (December 2007)

·     Tender approved for reconstruction of Tambourine Bay Rowing Shed (December 2007)

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Second Quarter Review of the 2007-2010 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

2nd Quarter Review of 2007 - 2010 Management Plan

25 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 5

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 5

Subject:          Councillor Superannuation    

Record No:    SU834 - 3450/08

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides advice to Councillors on the recent Australian Tax Office ruling on Councillor Superannuation.

 

Discussion

 

The Local Government Superannuation Scheme has been in discussions with the Australian Tax Office in relation to an “interpretative decision” that disallowed the ability for councillors to reduce their assessable income by forgoing a portion of their fees in lieu of superannuation contributions.

 

This decision has recently been withdrawn and a subsequent decision issued.

The subsequent decision acknowledged that councillors are not employees and that monetary matters (fees and expenses) are regulated by Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 9 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The effect of this arrangement is that a councillor can agree to forego part of their fees in return for contributions made to a superannuation fund for their benefit. In such a case, contributions made by the council will not be taken to have been derived by a councillor and will, therefore, not be classed as assessable income.

 

Specifically, the Australian Tax Office Interpretative Decision (ATO ID 2007/205) states that:

“Amounts paid by a local government council in the form of contributions to a complying

superannuation fund that are assessable to the fund under section 295/160 of the ITAA 1997, do not represent assessable income of the councillor for the purposes of the ITAA 1997.”

 

To reflect the requirements of Section 252 of the Act, council will provide a

superannuation facility to councillors whereby part of a councillor’s fees can be paid into a

complying superannuation fund.  Councillors wishing to utilise these arrangements can contact the Executive Manager, Corporate Services.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the interpretative decision of the Australian Tax Office that allows Councillors to make superannuation contributions to a complying Superannuation Fund out of their Councillor fees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 6

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 6

Subject:          Policy RO4004 - Public Liability Insurance - Civic Centre    

Record No:    SU1604 - 3451/08

Author(s):       Gordon Hush 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The requirement under Policy R04004 – Public Liability Insurance – Civic Centre, that all hirers of Council’s facilities obtain Public Liability insurance is onerous, particularly on individuals and unincorporated groups wishing to hire a Council facility for an occasional booking. 

 

It is therefore proposed to abolish Policy No. R04002 – Public Liability Insurance – Civic Centre and replace it with guidelines for the use of facility booking staff that are more accommodating to individuals and unincorporated hirers of Council’s facilities.

 

Background

 

Council’s Policy No.R04004 requires that “all users of public facilities are to take out Public Liability cover of $5 million directly or through a scheme with Council’s insurance brokers”.  On this basis it is necessary for individuals and unincorporated bodies wishing to hire Council’s facilities for one-off events such as weddings, parties, meetings and the like to take out Public Liability insurance which can be both difficult and/or expensive to obtain.

 

To alleviate the situation, Council purchased a class of insurance called Authorised Users (Casual Hirers) Liability Insurance (Casual Hirers Liability Insurance), which was taken out on behalf of the individuals and unincorporated groups i.e. the policy was in the name of the “Casual Hirers of Council’s Facilities”, and covered the liability of the individuals or unincorporated groups if an attendee of the function was injured, or their property damaged, because of the negligence of the organiser of the function.

 

In 2002 the underwriter declined to offer renewal, therefore, as cover could not be obtained, all affected hirers were advised that it would be necessary for them to obtain Public Liability insurance themselves for their function. This again created difficulties, because it was difficult to find an insurer that would cover a one-off event and the cost prohibitive if one could be found that would provide cover. 

 

In 2005 the new Metro Pool insurance broker, Willis Australia, was again able to arrange Casual Hirers Liability Insurance cover through Community Care Underwriting Agency and cover was effected by Metro Pool which absorbed the cost of the insurance in the contributions to the pool .   However, in October, 2007 it was advised by Metro Pool that the premium for the 2007-2008 had increased substantially and therefore was no longer financially viable and it was decided not to renew the cover. It was also advised by Metro Pool that it is proposed to self insure the Casual Hirers cover but as it would take time to arrange it would not occur for some time. 


Discussion

 

There is differing opinions between the members of Metro Pool and its associated pool, Westpool, whether there is a need for Casual Hirers Liability Insurance at all, with only a few Councils in the pools affecting the cover.

 

Lane Cove Council has always arranged the cover because of its policy that all users of Council’s facilities must have Public Liability Insurance, however, there is an opinion among some members that it should not be an impediment to hiring a facility if an individual or unincorporated group does not have Public Liability Insurance and that it is a matter for them to take out cover to protect themselves. It is argued that an Indemnity protecting Council’s interests signed by the hirer would suffice and that if there is personal injury or damage to property at a function that is caused as a result of Council’s negligence then Council’s Public Liability insurance would cover Council’s liability.

 

Both Metro Pool and Westpool have now determined that members should not require individuals or unincorporated groups hiring Council facilities to have Public Liability Insurance.

 

In this regard, suggested guidelines have been developed by a combined sub-committee of Risk Managers which state that all hirers ought to sign a Facility Hire Agreement form with an Indemnity clause included providing protection for Council against being included in any claims or law suits arising from the hiring of a facility.

 

In accordance with the suggestion by Metro Pool that each member should adopt guidelines on this matter, draft guidelines have been developed for the use by Council’s facility booking staff which requires only incorporated bodies and companies etc. to have insurance. All hirers must sign the Indemnity clause forming part of the Facility Hire Agreement form.  

 

Conclusion

 

In view of the fact that Casual Hirers Liability insurance is no longer in effect, and to facilitate the hiring of Council’s facilities to individuals and unincorporated bodies, it is suggested that the existing policy No.R04004 – Public Liability Insurance – Civic Centre ought to be abolished and the draft Insurance and Indemnity Requirements for Hirers of Council’s Facilities guidelines be introduced together with the Facilities Hire Agreement form with Indemnity clause included.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Policy No. R04002 – Public Liability Insurance – Civic Centre be abolished and the draft Insurance and Indemnity Requirements for Hirers of Council’s Facilities Guidelines be introduced together with the Facilities Hire Agreement form with Indemnity clause included.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

Subject:          Graffiti Removal    

Record No:    SU1690 - 3556/08

Author(s):       Fiona Edwards 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Village Graffiti Reduction Program was requested by the Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group to be included as a Sustainability Levy Project as part of the Council’s 2007/08 financial budget.

 

Open Space & Urban Services is responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of the Village, and is also responsible for managing graffiti removal throughout the municipality.

 

A business case has been developed by the Open Space & Urban Services Division that details Council’s in-house capability to manage graffiti removal in the Village. A Graffiti Management Plan, and draft Policy has also been developed to provide clear guidance to the community on Council’s plans to reduce graffiti, not only in the Village, but overall throughout the municipality.

 

It is recommended that Council place the draft Policy and the Graffiti Management Plan on public exhibition whilst implementing the in-house Village Graffiti Reduction Program.

 

Background

 

Graffiti has become an epidemic in today’s society. Where ever there is a surface with public visibility, graffiti will invariably be found. The Lane Cove Village is no exception to this. Attachment 1 shows a collection of photos taken recently around the Lane Cove Village of the graffiti that has been sprayed/drawn over any surface that is visible to the public.

 

Up to now Council has removed graffiti from public facilities only. In the Village and its surrounds, this includes the Library, Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Toilets, Pottery Green Clubhouse and Storage Facility, and the Council Offices.

 

Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter 6, Part 3, Division 4 (Graffiti Removal Work) Clauses 67A, 67B, 67C, now permit councils to remove graffiti – with owners’ or occupants’ permission.

 

The purpose of this report is to further the Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group’s proposal to introduce a Village Graffiti Reduction Program by Council initiating agreements with the owners’ or occupants’ to remove graffiti from their premises.

 

Discussion

 

The Village Graffiti Reduction Program was included in the Council’s successful Sustainability Levy Program, to be undertaken as part of the 2007/08 budget with funds of $40,000 provided.

This program initiative was suggested by the Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group, and responsibility for developing and then maintaining a program of graffiti reduction for the Town Centre was allocated to the Open Space & Urban Services Division (OSUS), as  the responsible division for maintaining the Plaza and its’ surrounds.

To assist in determining the best solution for graffiti reduction in the Village, OSUS investigated a number of options. This included liaison with a number of our neighbour councils, Willoughby, North Sydney and Ku-ring-gai to review their graffiti removal programs, procedures and policies.

It was identified that Willoughby City Council utilises the services of graffiti removal company, Graffiti Clean, whilst North Sydney and Ku-ring-gai use both in-house and various contract labour for their graffiti removal. Lane Cove currently utilises a mix of in-house and contract labour (Graffiti Gone) for our graffiti removal.

For the Village Graffiti Reduction Program, it is considered that a choice needs to be made between whether Council has the capability in-house to undertake graffiti removal and how this compares with specialist graffiti removal contractors on an financial basis.

At present, larger graffiti removal projects on Council’s facilities have been outsourced to Graffiti Gone due to the fact that Council did not have the equipment to manage larger graffiti removal jobs. However, Council has recently purchased a truck and a high-pressure water equipment system that will be utilised for the maintenance of our stormwater system. This high-pressure water equipment is the same as that used by graffiti removal contractors for the removal of graffiti. As such, it was considered appropriate to investigate what additional capability would be required for Council staff to be able to utilise this equipment for graffiti removal.

To be able to assess the cost effectiveness of Council undertaking graffiti removal in-house opposed to utilising contract graffiti removal services, a business case was developed for the supply of an in-house service, and quotes were requested from two graffiti removal contractors. The OSUS business case for in-house graffiti removal is attached as Annexure 2.

In the development of the OSUS business case, it was considered that additional labour will be required in the first three (3) months whilst all the existing graffiti is identified and removed from the Village Centre. For this reason, the cost for labour is higher during this period, about $7200 per month. It was estimated that the cost of graffiti removal by Council would equate to about $15/m2. Following this initial period, it is envisaged that the amount of labour and materials required to remove the graffiti will decrease as all pre-existing graffiti will be removed and only fresh graffiti will be required to be removed from that point within the Town Centre. However, it will still remain at a slightly higher level for the next three (3) months (about $3000 per month) than that required thereafter (about $1800 per month). The reasoning behind this is that the graffiti taggers will likely intensify their efforts to ‘take over’ the Town Centre in this period.

This analysis of graffiti removal resources equates to 60 hours labour per month initially, 25 hours labour per month (in the 4-6 months period) and then 15 hours per month thereafter. This analysis will be reassessed following the first 3 months of the program to determine whether the initial considerations have been accurate and will allow a determination as to whether to continue with the in-house option.

Reviewing one of the graffiti contractor’s options it was found that their proposal actually involves a fully equipped graffiti removal unit with a full-time contractor working solely within the whole Local Government Area from Monday to Friday, for 8 hours each day. This contractor’s proposal costs $12,915 + GST. This actually equates to over $170,000 per annum, but does provide a municipal wide service. The contractor’s proposal does not provide a per metre rate or per hour rate nor does it allow for any reduced service. That is, the contractor would not consider just providing a service to the Lane Cove Town Centre. The other contractor that provided a quote, charges out their service at a rate of $18/m2.  This is comparable with Council’s estimated cost per square metre to remove graffiti.

The OSUS proposal allows for an initial service which will be concentrated in the Village. It also ensures that expenditure on graffiti removal will remain within the budgetary constraints detailed above. In saying this, OSUS also envisages that once the initial six (6) month clean-up is undertaken in the Village, that a wider service will be provided by our in-house labour and still remain within the existing budgetary constraints.

To supplement the business case for the Village Graffiti Reduction Program, it was identified that Council should also have a Graffiti Policy and Graffiti Management Plan that define the Council’s objectives and strategies with respect to graffiti removal and control to cove the whole municipality. A draft Graffiti Policy is included as Attachment 3. A draft Graffiti Management Plan is included as Attachment 4. Council should seek feedback from the community in accordance with the following Community Consultation Plan on these documents prior to adopting them.


Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to gather community feedback and comment on the draft Graffiti Policy and draft Graffiti Management Plan.  Any comments received will be utilised to amend these documents as required prior to Council adoption.

 

Method

 

Graffiti Policy Management Plan

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

Public Exhibition at Civic Centre, E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Web-Based Survey

Conclusion

In summary, in-house implementation of the Village Graffiti Reduction Program  is the most favourable option. The draft Graffiti Policy and draft Graffiti Management Plan should be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Community Consultation Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council adopt the Draft Village Graffiti Reduction Program Policy and draft Graffiti Management Plan dated 29 January 2008 for the purposes of public exhibition;

 

2.   At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a further report be submitted to Council advising of the results of the public exhibition; and

 

3.   Council implement the Village Graffiti Reduction Program as outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Village Graffiti Pictures - 22 January 2008

4 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Graffiti Reduction - Business Case

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Draft Graffiti Policy

4 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Graffiti Management Plan

6 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 2

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 2

Subject:          Lane Cove Parking Permit Policy    

Record No:    SU2491 - 3594/08

Author(s):       Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has resident Parking Schemes in approximately 30 streets, the majority being situated around the Greenwich area. Parking is at a premium in these streets, similar to inner city areas, where the on-street demand of parking exceeds the parking supply.

 

Lane Cove Council’s existing Resident Parking Scheme provides Permits for Residents and their visitors (including tradespeople) which exempt them from parking in streets which are signposted in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority’s (RTA) Manual for Permit Parking. It should be noted that the procedures in the RTA’s Permit Parking Manual are mandatory.

 

The current Permit charges, which are part of Council’s 2007-2008 Financial year Fees and Charges have been introduced for the Parking Permits, which are valid from the 1st of February 2008 to the 31st of January 2009.

 

Resident Parking fees have been introduced for the first time. However, last year there was a $30 charge for a yearly Visitor’s Parking Permit. Council has been receiving complaints this year related to charges mainly for the Visitor Parking permits. Council’s current fees and charges provide only for daily or weekly Visitor Parking permits. Community feedback suggests that the fees for Visitor Permits are high, particularly for some residents who have requested long term Visitor Parking permits. Combined with this is the fact that some residents do not find it practical to seek these permits in time when they require them. Currently, the daily or weekly charges for visitor parking permits are not practical for regular long-stay visitors. 

 

Therefore, it is recommended that in addition to the above daily or weekly permits, that Council also issue a 3-monthly permit, to be introduced at a fee which is relative to the other Visitor Parking permits.

 

In order to provide Council and Permit Holders with an official guide, a Permit Parking Policy has been developed for Council consideration and adoption. This is detailed in Attachment 1. This Permit Parking Policy is in accordance with the RTA’s latest Permit Parking Manual and its procedures which are covered by Legislation and are mandatory. This Parking Policy will be incorporated into Council’s existing Permit Parking Schemes and for any future extension of the existing Schemes.

 

 

Background

 

The RTA, through Legislation pertinent to Permit Parking allows Council’s to implement the following types of Permit Parking Schemes;

 

Business Parking Scheme (BPS)

Commuter Parking Scheme (CPS)

Resident Parking Scheme (RPS)

Residents Visitors Parking Scheme (RVPS) and

Special Event Parking Scheme (SEPS).

 

There are five (5) classes of permits, which correspond to the above parking schemes. They are; Business, Commuter, Resident, Residents Visitors and Special Events.

 

Lane Cove provides Permit Parking for the following Schemes:

 

·     Resident Parking Scheme (RPS)

·     Residents Visitors Parking Scheme (RVPS)

·     Business Parking Scheme (BPS)

·     Senior’s Permit Parking Scheme

 

The above Schemes except the Seniors Permit Scheme are in accordance with RTA’s Permit Parking Manual. The Seniors Permit Parking Scheme relates to a few parking spaces in the Town Centre which facilitates for the needs of Senior Citizens.

 

The Lane Cove Resident Parking Schemes are part of Council’s management strategy in the St Leonard’s/Greenwich and Lane Cove West areas, which experience very high parking demand due to rail interchange facilities, education, commercial and retail activity and the nearby hospital. The high parking demand and minimal on street parking available creates a real parking problem for the residents, which requires to be continuously monitored. The current projects on the State Road network combined with an increase of the usage of private vehicles and no increase of the use of Public Transport has resulted in some residents requests to extend the existing parking schemes. This will be further explored in the near future.     

 

Legislation

 

The Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (STMR) is the legislation, which covers the Permit Parking Schemes and the issuing of Permits. Specific clauses in the above legislation, empowers the RTA and Council’s to establish and operate Permit Parking Schemes subject to certain conditions of approval. For example, STMR clause 124(1) provides that a parking authority may issue a parking permit authorising the parking of a vehicle without charge or time.  STMR clause 124(4) provides that the parking authority issues Parking Permits only in accordance with RTA’s Permit Parking Manual. The Procedures in RTA’s Permit Parking Manual are mandatory.

 

Council must also bear all costs with PPS including administration, enforcement and the provision of the maintenance of all signs related to Permit Parking Schemes.

 

Common Features of Permit Parking Schemes (PPS)

 

There are common features in all Permit Parking Schemes in accordance with RTA’s Permit Parking Manual. Some of these features are:

 

·     There are no areas set aside exclusively for the permit holders

·     PPS can only be introduced with permissive Parking Schemes or pay parking schemes

·     Only Parking Authorities may issue a permit

·     The holder of a Permit is not guaranteed a parking space within the PPS

·     Information on the Permit Parking Signs and on the Permits must be in accordance with RTA’s Manual.

·     There are minimum eligibility criteria’s for each type of Permit, which is described in RTA’s Permit Parking Manual; for example permits cannot be issued to specific types of vehicles, such as a truck, bus, tram or tractor.

 

Discussion

 

Resident and Residents’ Visitors Permits - proposals

 

The most common and contentious types of permits that are issued are to Residents and their visitors. Residents are often challenging Council and Council’s Officers issues related to the eligibility criteria related to parking permits. Especially, the eligible number permits and the fees associated with the issuing of the Permits.

 

RTA’s Permit Parking Manual, the number of Parking Permits allowed to be issued is: One Permit per bedroom in a boarding house or two (2) per permits per household and in exceptional circumstances three (3). This number is off-set by the number of off-street parking spaces available at the specific property. For example; if property has two cars and one off-street parking space, only one parking permit is allowed to be issued.

 

In relation to the Residents Visitor’s Permits, the RTA describes Residents Visitor’s as: Family members, friends, carers, tradespersons or, any person, whom the resident confirms as being a legitimate visitor. 

 

The Resident applies for the Permits and can issue the Permit to the visitor and retrieve it. In the case of regular visitors for a long period, the Resident requires to provide Council with the vehicle’s registration number. This minimises the risk of abuse. There have been instances, where visitor’s permits have been sold to unauthorised users in Permit Parking Schemes within Sydney Metropolitan area, where similar permit parking schemes exist. Therefore, visitor’s permits that are issues more than one day require the visitor’s registration number to assist Council to monitor the use of the Permits. This is not possible in all cases.

 

Following Lane Cove Council’s introduction of Permit Parking Fees (2007-2008 financial year), complaints have been received by some residents, which relate mainly to the Residents Visitor’s Permits. This is due to practical reasons where it is not possible for some residents to obtain daily or weekly Visitor Permits as they are not able to establish the exact day when they will have visitors. In the case of regular visitors, or visitors staying for a long period the daily and weekly fees appear excessive. The one day and weekly fees are more suitable for Trades people or for Visitors on a one-off basis. There are residents who cannot obtain a Parking Permit when they required as they do not have enough notice from their visitors regarding the exact day or time of attendance.   

 

Residents Objections

 

The following comments are from an e-mail (24 / 01 / 2008) forwarded to the Mayor from Mr and Mrs Ryan from 7 Eastview Street Greenwich. Similar comments have been made by other Residents. In the e-mail the following is quoted:

 

We strongly protest against the changes to the Visitor Parking Permits which Lane Cove Council has introduced without notice to residents. 

 

To increase last year's annual fee of $30 to a daily fee of $10 (with the permit not being interchangeable between vehicles) is quite unacceptable in our residential area and the Parking Survey, carried out before the Resident Parking Scheme was introduced, certainly gave no hint of such a measure. The resulting increased revenue to Lane Cove Council will surely be negated by greater administration costs… What happens when?

 

     Friends call unexpectedly and we'd like to invite them to stay for lunch.  They'll be parked more than the mandatory 2 hours - are we expected to travel to Lane Cove Council Chambers for the necessary $10 permit, dated as valid for that day?

 

    A sick or elderly resident suddenly requires a carer for more than 2 hours

  

    Painters (or other tradesmen) are engaged to work for several weeks

 

    Maintenance or service people arrive the day after their anticipated call

 

    The man who comes fortnightly to help in the garden alters his regular day 

  

In any of these contingencies, the Visitor Permit we had last year would have been satisfactory”.

 

Another typical example of the need of longer term permits is the case of a resident from Canberra Ave who requires the services of a Nanny to look after her children. Therefore, the longer term Visitor permits are considered as necessary for cases like these. 

 

The proposal below for 3- monthly visitors Permits are aimed to improve the administration of issuing of Visitors Permits and satisfy Residents Parking needs for the high parking demand areas.

 

Number of permits Issued versus fees

 

Council at its meeting on 7 March 2005 adopted Urban Services Division Report No. 13, Permit Parking, which set new fees and charges for application from 1 January 2006, however there was a delay in their implementation. The Resident Parking fees were actually introduced for the first time in 2007. Subsequently, Council Officers have received complaints on a daily basis related to the Resident Parking charges mainly for the Visitor Parking permits. Council’s current fees and charges provide only for daily or weekly visitor parking permits. The current fees are:

 

Resident permit fees

1st Permit: $30 per vehicle

2nd Permit: $50 per vehicle

3rd Permits or for trailers boats and Caravans $100 per permit

Pensioners receive a discount of 50%

Visitors Permits current fees are: 

 

1ST Permit: $ 10 per day or $ 20 per week

2nd Permit: $ 20 per day or $ 40 per week

3rd and subsequent permit: $ 40 per day or $ 100 per week

 

There were a total of 239 permits issued last year (2007) including 88 Visitors permits and 4 business parking permits. The total number, of applications made for parking permits, this year (2008) are 90 for Residents Permits and 2 Business parking permits. Residents have made only enquiries at this stage for their visitors parking permits (as they require them after the 1st of February) there have been no Visitors permits at this stage. (There was a $30 fee attached only to Visitor Parking Permits in 2007).

 

The above figures confirm that the fees associated with the parking permits directly impact the number of permits requested and issued. This is due to the fact that a suitable fee attached to the Permit allows Residents Eligible to obtain only the exact number of permits required for themselves and their visitors. Evidence from other Sydney Local Government areas show that if the fees are low or were visitor permits are free, there has been an abuse to the system. This is mainly due to the fact that parking is at a premium in the areas where Parking Permits are issued and Residents in these areas have either used Visitors permits for their own cars or there have been instances where these Visitor Permits have been sold to motorists who do not reside in the area but catch public transport.  

 

The costs associated with the administration and the staff resources required to operate Permit Parking Schemes should not be underestimated. Printing expenses only for issuing Permits in 2008 cost approximately $2500. The maintenance of parking signs for the Permit Parking Schemes is not covered by RTA’s yearly signage maintenance funds. 

 

 

 

Quarterly- year Visitor’s Permit Proposal

 

For the reasons above and in order to provide flexibility to Residents, within RTA’s Permit Parking Manual, it is proposed to allow for a 3-monthly Visitor’s Parking Permit at a cost of $50 per Visitor Permit. This new permit will be issued to residents who provide proof of Registration of the Visitor’s Vehicle. This Permit will be available for a maximum of no more than one at a time, but can be issued consecutively for more than one term (3-months).

 

The fees and charges for Residents, Businesses and Residents Visitors Parking Permits are recommended to be maintained as there are costs associated with the administration of the schemes, such as, printing, staff resources, and maintenance of signs, enforcement, monitoring and renewal of new Permit parking Schemes.   

 

Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to gather community feedback and comment on the draft Permit Parking Policy.  Any comments received will be utilised to amend these documents as required prior to Council adoption.

 

Method

 

Permit Parking Policy Consultation

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

Public Exhibition at Civic Centre, E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Web-Based Survey

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s current Resident parking Scheme provides the privilege to Residents and Business operators who are located in high demand parking areas, affected by public transport facilities, education, Hospitals and or commercial and retail activity to park on-street with no time limits.

 

The operation of Permit Parking Schemes should be in accordance with current Permit parking Legislation and is guided by RTA’s latest Permit Parking Manual. The introduction of current permit fees, are designed to provide better control to genuine requests for Permits and to reduce the abuse of Permits at the expense of other on-street parkers. Current applications and enquiries made to Council show that there is a need to introduce a longer term Resident Visitor Parking Permit. A 3-monthly Resident Visitor’s Parking Permit is proposed to improve the scheme and provide a practical solution for Residents parking needs. The Local Government Act requires that this new fee be advertised prior to implemtation.

 

The existing Resident Parking Schemes will be continuously monitored for further improvements and reviewed as the need arises to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council adopt the Draft Lane Cove Permit Parking Policy dated 29 January 2008 for the purposes of public exhibition;

 

2.         At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a further report be submitted to Council advising of the results of the public exhibition; and

 

3.         Subject to the proposal being advertised and no objections being received, Council introduce a 3-monthly Residents Visitors ‘Parking Permits at a fee of $50 for the 2007-2008 financial year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Lane Cove Permit Parking Policy

9 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 10

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 10

Subject:          Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme    

Record No:    SU727 - 3452/08

Author(s):       Steve Fedorow 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following investigation of different schemes to reduce the cost to our residents to purchase and install rainwater tanks, staff have recommended that Council establish a Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme, with rebates of up to $500 available to residents to purchase, install and plumb the tank for internal reuse.  This scheme would compliment existing Sydney Water rebates and provide flexibility for residents to select the tank/plumber that best suits their needs.

 

Background

 

The issue of Rainwater Tanks was discussed at the corporate planning weekend in February 2007, with an action arising to hold a workshop and further report to Council.

Subsequent to the corporate planning weekend, Council undertook widespread consultation with the community regarding the Sustainability Levy including identifying the projects to be funded out of the Levy.  Further, Council advertised two Management Plans & Budgets (both with and without the Sustainability Levy).

One of the key Sustainability Levy projects was to introduce a Community Water Tank Purchasing Scheme with the overall aim of reducing the cost to the resident to install a Rainwater Tank.  A total of $50,000 has been allocated in the 2007/08 budget to fund this program.

Discussion

Staff have researched a number of options available to Council to reduce the cost to our residents to purchase and install rainwater tanks for private use.  Following a review of current schemes, staff have recommended that the most efficient way for Council to reduce the cost of purchasing and installing rainwater tanks would be for Council to offer a system of rebate’s to residents.  This system would compliment existing State Government rebates and provide flexibility for residents to select the tank that best suits their needs.

Proposed Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme

 

The Proposed Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme will encourage residents to install rainwater tanks at their premises by:

 

·     Offering rebates of up to $500 for installing a rainwater tank and ensuring that the tank is plumbed for internal water use;

·     Partnering with Sydney Credit Union to provide interest free loans (up to $3000) to residents to install a Rainwater Tank;

·     Partnering with the EnviroPlumber arm of the Master Plumbers Association to provide free information workshops for residents; &

·     Scheme information package mail-out to all residents (including Council planning controls) and publicising the Sydney Water rebates.

 

 

 

 

 


Proposed Lane Cove Rebate Structure

Rebate

Amount

Eligibility Criteria

Rainwater Tank

$100

Tank must be greater than 5000L and connected to either the Toilet or Washing Machine.

Toilet Connection

$200

Tank must be connected to the Toilet.

Washing Machine Connection

$200

Tank must be connected to the Washing Machine.

 

This rebate structure:

 

·     Places a greater emphasis on connecting the tank for internal use as:

o              The tank rebate is dependant on the tank being internally plumbed (to toilet and/or washing machine).

o              The internal plumbing rebates are greater than the tank rebate

 

·     Ensures a reasonable size tank

o              By only offering the tank rebate on 5000L + tanks

o              A tank size of 5000L + also ensures a considerable rebate ($400) from Sydney Water

 

·     Rebates would only be payable to the resident once Sydney Water have completed a final inspection of tank installation and a copy of this certification provided to Council.

 

Interest Free Loans

 

As part of the proposed scheme, Sydney Credit Union will partner with Council to provide 12 month, interest free loans of up to $3000 for residents who install a rainwater tank under the program.

 

Education/Promotion

 

The proposed scheme will be communicated to residents through the following means:

·     Information package mailed to all ratepayers;

·     Deliver free information workshops/trade displays in association with Enviroplumbers/Master Plumbers Association.  These workshops would include:
            - A presentation from the Master Plumbers Association;
            - Council specific requirements;
            - Trade display of 4-5 local rainwater tank suppliers; &
            - Display by Sydney Credit Union regarding the interest free loans.

·     Advertisements in the local press; &

·     Information on Council’s website;

 

Note:

 

·     Enviroplumbers/Master Plumbers have undertaken additional training in sustainable practices and can provide advice and installation services for Rainwater Tanks, Recycled Water, Grey Water Systems, Solar Hot Water Systems & Aerated Wastewater Treatment Systems.

 

Indicative Rainwater Tank Pricing

 

Approximate tank prices (for tanks greater than 5,000L)

 

Type of Tank

Tank Cost

Footing Cost

Internal Plumbing Cost

Total

Bladder (5,200L)

$1958

$593

$1500+

$4051+

Slim Steel (5,200L)

$3549

$1445

$1500+

$6494

Slim Steel (2 x 2,800L)

$3640

$1914

$1700+

$7254

Round Plastic (6,200L)

$1856

$2001

$1500+

$5357+

Slim Plastic (5,000L)

$3053

$1445

$1500+

$5998+

Slim Plastic (2 x 3,000L)

$4036

$1914

$1700+

$7650+

Round Plastic (5,675L)

$1374

$2001

$1500+

$4875+

 

Note:

 

·     Total price would be less the Sydney Water $1,400 rebate and less the Lane Cove Council rebate. Plumbed in tanks must be inspected by Sydney Water;

·     An additional $300-$400 could be necessary to install a tank for non-gravity-fed systems.

 

As can be seen from the above analysis, purchasing and installing a rainwater tank (greater than 5000L in size) can cost our residents upwards of $4000.  Whilst many residents have indicated that they would like to install a rainwater tank, the cost to purchase and install could be a prohibitive factor in some residents’ decision to proceed.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme addresses this concern, with rebates of up to $2000 available (up to $500 through the proposed Lane Cove Rebate Scheme and up to $1500 through the current Sydney Water Rebate Scheme) to our residents, whilst providing full flexibility to our residents to choose that tank/plumber that best suits their specific needs.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report and;

 

2.   Endorse the proposed Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme as detailed in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 11

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 11

Subject:          Draft Enforcement Policy    

Record No:    SU1182 - 3453/08

Author(s):       Steve Fedorow 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In July 2007, the Department of Local Government recommended that Council develop a formal Enforcement & Prosecutions Policy as soon as practicable.

 

This report tables a Draft Lane Cove Council Enforcement Policy that has been based upon the model enforcement policy developed by the NSW Ombudsman.

 

Background

 

In July 2007, the results of a ‘Promoting Better Practice’ Review conducted by the Department of Local Government were received and noted by Council.

 

One of the recommendations of this report was that Council should develop a formal Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy as soon as practicable.

 

Discussion

 

In June 2002, The NSW Ombudsman released “Enforcement Guidelines for Councils” which were designed to help councils to act promptly, consistently and effectively when responding to allegations of unlawful activity.

 

The Draft Lane Cove Enforcement Policy has been based on the model enforcement policy that was developed by the NSW Ombudsman and included as part of these guidelines.

 

Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the draft enforcement policy.  Any comments received will be utilised to determine whether or not to proceed with the enforcement  policy.

 

Method

 

Draft Enforcement Policy

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

Public Exhibition at Civic Centre, E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Web-Based Survey

Indicative Timing

February/March 2008

February/March 2008

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Lane Cove Enforcement Policy will serve as an important tool, providing staff with guidelines on:

·     How to assess whether complaints of unlawful activity require investigation;

·     Options for dealing with unlawful activity; &

·     How to decide whether enforcement action is warranted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report;

 

2.   Adopt the Draft Lane Cove Council Enforcement Policy dated 29 January 2008 for the purposes of public exhibition; and

 

      3.   At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a further report be submitted to Council advising of the results of the public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Lane Cove Enforcement Policy ( 29 January 2008)

8 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

Subject:          Earth Hour 2008    

Record No:    SU2817 - 3578/08

Author(s):       Rob McKenna 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Earth Hour was started in Sydney in 2007 by World Wildlife fund as part of their campaign to combat global warming. Earth Hour 2007 resulted in a 10.2% drop in demand on the Sydney electricity grid by residents and businesses turning off their lights and appliances. Earth Hour this year is a global event occurring in Sydney at 8pm on Saturday 29 March and by signing-up Council would confirm Lane Cove’s commitment to a sustainable future.

 

Background

 

The idea behind Earth Hour 2007 was to reduce Sydney's Greenhouse Gas emissions by 5% by March 2008 and to demonstrate the difference Council can make by getting as many people and organisations as possible to switch off their lights for an hour.

 

Lane Cove Council participated in Earth Hour 2007 as did numerous other Councils, including both Sydney and North Sydney Councils, and schools, like St Ignatius College and Lane Cove West Primary School. Earth Hour 2007 received considerable media coverage around the world and was sponsored by the Sydney Morning Herald, Channel 9, Triple M, 2Day FM and more.

 

In the Sydney CBD the demand on the electricity grid dropped an average of 10.2% during Earth Hour ’07 according to Energy Australia. This is double what was anticipated and represents a reduction of 24.86 tonnes of CO2 or is equivalent to removing 48,613 cars from the road for an hour. 57% of 937 Sydney residents surveyed participated in Earth Hour 2007 by either switching off their lights, turning off their computer, turning off a household appliance or turning off the television (Source: AMR interactive surveys).

 

Discussion

 

Signing up to Earth Hour 2008 commits Council to turning our lights off for an hour, and confirms Council’s commitment to a sustainable future.

 

Conclusion

 

Earth Hour occurs this year at 8pm on Saturday 29 March, 2008 and it would be a very positive public message for Lane Cove Council to sign up.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council support Earth Hour 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2008

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 13

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 13

Subject:          16 Private Road, Northwood    

Record No:    DA05/357 - 3677/08

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting dated 17 December 2007 resolved the following:

 

            “That the matter be deferred until the 1st meeting in February 2008 and that the discussions be held with the applicant regarding the following amendments to the design:-

 

1.         The Roof Top Viewing Terrace be eliminated from the application design;

2.         The minimum standard of solar access should be maintained as it relates to the property at 80A Northwood Road.   In determining the minimum standard, the solar access as it relates to 80A Northwood road’s north facing windows and the key outdoor living area (comprising the courtyard/patio) should be based upon the criteria set out in Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai Council, a judgement which defined precisely what one would expect as reasonable solar access;

3.         The overall finished roof height of the building be lowered by 500mm.”

 

The Mayor declared the motion carried unanimously.

 

Background

 

The above actions have been referred to the applicant and his response submission presented in this report. The development proposal for 16 Private Road is substantially changed from that presented to Council’s meeting of 6 August 2007.  Council may now determine the final  application to construct a two storey dwelling house, a detached double garage and swimming pool on a vacant lot having regard to all relevant information and the applicant’s response to the above Council resolution.

 

Resolution 355 dated 17 December 2007

 

1.         The Roof Top Viewing Terrace be eliminated from the application design

 

Applicant’s Response

 

The applicants agree to the removal of this element – see AT1.

 

2.         The minimum standard of solar access should be maintained as it relates to the property at 80A Northwood Road.   In determining the minimum standard, the solar access as it relates to 80A Northwood road’s north facing windows and the key outdoor living area (comprising the courtyard/patio) should be based upon the criteria set out in Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai Council, a judgement which defined precisely what one would expect as reasonable solar access

 

            Applicant’s Response

 

            The applicant has provided pictorial sun studies that articulate the anticipated solar impacts to the north facing windows and the ground of property 80A Northwood Road (Mr & Mrs Berry) including 3D views at half hourly intervals at the winter solstice (22nd June) – see AT2.  The broader issue of what one would expect as reasonable solar access for 80A Northwood Road, having regard to the criteria set out in the Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai Council judgement, is addressed by the Land and Environment Court certified expert witness, Mr Kerry Nash, in his letter dated 15 January – see AT3.

 

Comment

 

The letter of response by Mr Nash refers to the solar access review by Mr Steve King, Architect and Land and Environment Court certified expert witness – see AT4.  Both experts refer to the Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai case in making their assessments and drawing conclusions.  Relevant excerpts:

 

Mr King:

 

       “……….

·     The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

·     Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines.  The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

 

I draw particular attention to the last two of the dot points above.  In my considered opinion, neither of the conditions implied by the Senior Commissioner’s test is satisfied by the proposed design of the dwelling at 16 Private Road.”  Refer page 3 of AT4.

 

            Mr Nash:

 

            “Mr King makes reference to the planning principle embodied in Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai Council (2004 NSW LEC347) and provides his considered opinion, neither of the conditions implied by the Senior Commissioner’s test (in the planning principle) is satisfied by the proposed design of the dwelling at 16 Private Road.

 

            However, Mr King fails to take into account a clear qualification in the planning principle on the impact of solar access of neighbours in respect to the following:

 

            “7.        The Court must, of course, take into account whatever guidelines are relevant to an application.  However, numerical guidelines should be applied with a great deal of judgement.  Consider a dwelling that now receives sunlight all day.  Taking away that sunlight from 9am til noon would satisfy most guidelines; and yet the occupants of such a dwelling are likely to perceive it as a devastating impact on their dwelling’s amenity.  The other side of the coin is that the impact on a neighbour’s sunlight must be assessed in the context of the reasonable development expectations of the proposal and the constraints imposed by the topography and the subdivision pattern.  Preserving 3 hours of sunlight on a neighbouring site may require an unreasonable reduction in the development potential of the proposal.”

 

            Mr Nash, interalia, sums up:-

 

            “The applicants and their architect have modified the design to respond to each of the concerns of the seven (7) adjoining neighbours.  To move the proposed dwelling further north to satisfy the Berry’s at 80A will compromise the existing rock shelf, result in the loss of two significant Brush Box trees and introduce privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts on dwellings at 74A Northwood Road, 12 and 14 Private Road.”  Refer page 3 of AT3.

 

            Mr King, interalia, concludes:

 

            “In my considered opinion , it is reasonable to apply the principles set out by Roseth SC in Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai (2004) NSWLEC347 to the determination of this application, because it fails both the relevant critical tests in those principles:

 

·     The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

·     Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines.  The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.”  Refer page 4 of AT4.

 

Additional Submission

 

Ms Amanda Berry of North Shore Lawyers on behalf of Mr J and Mrs J Berry, have submitted their views and concerns in relation to the proposal and the expert view of Mr King and the related Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai appeal by the Land and Environment Court – AT5.

 

Comment

 

The legal opinion, interalia, by North Shore Lawyers, supports the views of Mr King with regard to the Parsonage Principle and is critical of Mr Tyrril, the Council appointed mediator’s comments.

 

3.         The overall finished roof height of the building be lowered by 500mm

 

The Applicant’s Response

 

The applicant has advised (AT1) that Council’s new drainage code has enabled greater flexibility in addressing on site disposal issues.  The applicant states that “…. It is possible to lower the top water level and consequently the pool concourse and upper floor level [by] 150mm whilst maintaining the level of the base of the tank to ensure clearances from tree roots and Sydney Water Board sewers.”  Refer page 2 of AT1.

 

Review of proposed on-site drainage amendment

 

Council’s Development Engineer has endorsed the proposed on site drainage amendment as feasible (AT6).

 

Comment

 

The applicant has proposed a reduction of overall building height by 150mm in response to the request by Council to lower the overall finished roof height of the building by 500mm.  The applicant has advised that to lower the building further would result in further rock excavation and add expense to the project.

 

Executive Manager’s Comments

 

This development application has clearly been contentious and problematic for the applicant and neighbours alike.  The site is irregular in shape, uneven in slope, constrained by utility infrastructure, existing trees and orientation.  Add to this the reasonable expectations of eight neighbours that adverse impacts be minimised.  Notwithstanding the views of some neighbours, the applicant is of the view he has accommodated the issues and concerns of all neighbours and the final proposal reflects, within reason, not only those concerns, but also the Parsonage principle with regard to solar access to the dwelling house located at 80A Northwood Road.  The applicant, however, has declined to fully accommodate Council’s request contained in Resolution 355.

Item 1 of Resolution 355 requesting the deletion of the roof top terrace has been agreed to and amended plans would follow if Council is of a mind to approve the application.

 

Item 2 of Resolution 355 has been addressed by Mr Nash, Land and Environment Court expert witness who concludes that the degree of overshadowing to 80A Northwood Road is reasonable.  Notwithstanding a contested view by Mr King, Land and Environment Court expert witness and Ms Berry of Northside Lawyers.

 

Item 3 of Resolution 355 calls for the overall building to be reduced in level by 500mm.  The applicant has reviewed the proposal and advises he can only accommodate a drop of 150mm and any further reduction would have fundamental implications for the building and would incur further excavation expense.

 

Notwithstanding the applicant’s response to the three issues detailed by Resolution 355, Council must also consider all previous information and reports together with the submission by Mr King and Ms Berry.  Council reports of 6 August, 3 December and 17 December are provided as background to this final report – (AT7).

 

Options open to Council include the following:

 

A.         Having regard to the response and additional concessions by the applicant to the requests contained in Resolution 355 and considering all relevant information, Council approves the development proposal as finally proposed, subject to conditions – see (AT8).

 

B.        Having regard to the response and additional concessions by the applicant to the requests contained in Resolution 355 and considering all relevant information, Council refuses the development proposal as finally proposed for the following reasons [to be provided by Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the matter.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Response from Cant Dibden Pty Ltd

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Pictorial sun studies of anticipated impact to 80A Northwood Road by the proposed dwelling house

5 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Solar Access Review by Mr Kerry Nash

4 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Expert Solar Review - Steve King

11 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Legal opinion by Ms Amanda Berry of North Shore Lawyers

4 Pages

 

AT‑6 View

Review of proposed OSD amendment

1 Page

 

AT‑7 View

ESD Reports of 6 August, 3 December, 17 December

28 Pages

 

AT‑8 View

Recommended conditions of consent

14 Pages