m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

6 December 2010

The meeting commences at 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 on Monday

6th December 2010 commencing at 7:00pm. 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 Win Gaffney. 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 www.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 the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, 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 6 December 2010

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 15 NOVEMBER 2010

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee - 4 December 2010

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 444

SUBJECT: 9 Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards

 

3.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 455

SUBJECT: 43 Berry Road, St Leonards

 

4.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 457

SUBJECT: 43A Berry Road, St Leonards

 

5.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 473

SUBJECT: 16 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

Orders Of The Day

 

6.       Order Of The Day No. 29

SUBJECT: Division of Local Govenrment - Councillor Information Sessions

 

7.       Order Of The Day No. 30

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - February 2011   

 

Notices of Motion

 

8.       Notice of Motion No. 13

SUBJECT: Proposal for the Declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas

 

9.       Notice of Motion No. 14

SUBJECT: Parking PODS

 

10.     Notice of Motion No. 16

SUBJECT: Commercial Waste Removal


 

General Managers Reports

 

11.     General Managers Report No. 20

SUBJECT: Proposed Closure Friedlander Place, St Leonards

 

12.     General Managers Report No. 22

SUBJECT: Code of Conduct matter - Clr Ian Longbottom

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

13.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 66

SUBJECT: Infrastructure Levy - Background and Way Forward

 

14.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 69

SUBJECT: Revised Internal Audit Committee Charter

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

15.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 52

SUBJECT: Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrades

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

16.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 45

SUBJECT: Business Use of Footpath Policies

 

17.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 49

SUBJECT: LEP 12-month review - supplementary report

 

18.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 50

SUBJECT: Delegated Authority Report - November 2010

 

19.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

SUBJECT: DCP 12-month Review - Priority Issues

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

20.     Human Services Division Report No. 35

SUBJECT: Using Technology to Reach Library Borrowers  

 

 

 

 

             


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 444

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 444

Subject:          9 Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 06 December 2010.   

Record No:    DA10/94-01 - 46400/10

Author(s):       Andrew Thomas 

 

 

Property:                     9 Holdsworth Avenue, St. Leonards

 

DA No:                         94/10

 

Date Lodged:              Section 82A Review – 3 September 2010

 

Cost of Work:              $320,000

 

Owner:                                    S. Southall

 

Applicant:                    Ian Middleton and Sarah Southall

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

The proposal is a section 82A Review of conditions 2,4 and 5 and part of condition 6 of the development consent DA10/94 which approved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and ancillary structures.

ZONE

R2 : Low Density 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 BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a, 10a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

 

The notification of the Section 82A Review is the same as for the original development application

Neighbours                        5–13 and 12–16 Holdsworth     Avenue and 6–10 Berry Road

Ward Councillors              East

Progress Association       St. Leonards – Wollstonecraft

Other Interest Groups        N/A

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The original application was determined under the delegated authority of the Manager Development Assessment, and is referred to the Planning and Building Committee Meeting at the request of Councillor Palmer on behalf of the owner.

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     The application is a Section 82A Review of Determination which has been submitted following the approval of DA10/94 for major alterations and additions to an existing single storey dwelling house.

 

·     Conditions were imposed that sought to address non-compliances with the Development Control Plan (DCP) 2009 in relation to the following:-

 

-           a front terrace that in part was forward of the building line; and

-           a detached garage that proposed a trafficable roof and that was located on the front boundary.

 

In addition a condition was imposed to reduce potential overlooking from two first floor level decks.

·     Two submissions – one from each adjoining owner – were received in response to the notification of the development application.  Concerns raised by both adjoining owners included potential overlooking.

 

·     The application was approved on 16 August 2010.

 

·     The Section 82A Review was notified and one letter of objection was received from one of the adjoining owners.

 

·     The Section 82A Review is submitted to the Planning and Building Committee for review and determination. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Under the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 an applicant may request Council to review its determination. 

 

Relevant detail follows which place the request in context with those pertinent subclauses of the legislation highlighted in bold. In relation to subclause (3A) below no amendments have been made to the development application as originally submitted and notified.

 

82A   Review of Determination

“(1)    If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a determination of the applicant’s application…

(3A)   In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described in the original application….

(4)     The Council may review the determination if:

         (a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:

              (i) the regulations….

          (b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review….

(4A)   As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the determination.

(5)     The decision whether or not to review the determination must not be made by the person who made the determination unless that person was the council, but is to be made by a person who is qualified under subsection (6) to make the review.

(6)     If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a)   if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination….

(7)     The council must give notice of the result of the review to the applicant as soon as practicable after the review.

(8)     If on the review the council grants development consent, or varies the conditions of a development consent, the council must endorse on the notice the date from which the consent, or the consent as varied, operates.

(9)     If on a review the council changes a determination, the changed determination replaces the earlier determination as from the date of the review.

 (11)  A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under this section.”

 

SITE

 

The subject site is a rectangular lot with a frontage of 15.24m and an area of 557.4m2. The site is located on the high west side of the street and towards the street’s intersection with Marshall Avenue to the north. The site has a fall of 6m from its rear to its front boundary. The site’s rear yard is generally level. The front yard has a rise of 3.5m from the street. There is a major tree along the site’s north side boundary and a mature street tree in front of the site.

 

Existing development on the site consists of a partly demolished single storey dwelling house that is elevated at the front. There is no existing parking on the site.

 

Adjoining development to the north, at 7 Holdsworth Avenue, and to the south, at 11 Holdsworth Avenue, consists of a part single and part 2 storey dwelling house. Each site has a detached garage at the front with trafficable roofs.

 

The locality is residential and contains a mix of generally older single storey dwelling houses and more recent 2 storey dwelling houses located on the high side of the street.  Some of the dwelling houses on the high side of the street include a garage at the front of the site.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is a Section 82A Review seeking the deletion of three and the amendment of a fourth condition of  the development consent  for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house’s ground floor level; a first floor level; a garage and store; a swimming pool and cabana; and fences to the front and rear yards. The four conditions are summarised below:-

·     Condition 2 : deletes a portion of an attached front ground floor terrace and steps;

·     Condition 4: requires a setback and splay for a detached double garage at the front of the site;

·     Condition 5: ensures that the garage roof would not be trafficable; and

·     Condition 6: requires privacy screens on the north side of both the front and rear first floor level decks.

 

The review requests the deletion of conditions 2, 4 and 5 and the amendment of condition 6 by requiring only the screen for the front deck to be removed.

 


The applicants have submitted and/or refer to the following documents with their request for a Section 82A Review:-

·     A covering letter dated 2 September 2010;

·     Their town planning consultant’s report dated 3 September 2010; and

·     The Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by their architect dated 10/5/10.

 

The above three documents are attached at AT1-AT2. The town planner’s report addresses each of the four conditions that are the subject of this review.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

The development application was for significant alterations and additions to the dwelling house and a proposed garage, swimming pool and a front fence and retaining wall.

 

Two submissions were received, one from each adjoining owner. In summary the main concerns raised were overlooking and overshadowing. Overlooking was addressed by conditions whilst the level of overshadowing was assessed as reasonable.

 

The application was approved under the delegation of the Manager Development Assessment. A copy of the assessment report on the development application is attached at AT3.

 

Council has subsequently issued a Construction Certificate (CC) for the approved works to the dwelling house on 19 October 2010.  The CC excludes works at the front of the site that are the subject of this review. Demolition of part of the dwelling house has commenced and the front yard has generally been cleared. 

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

 

One submission was received in response to the notification of the Section 82A Review. The issues raised in the submission are:

 

·     the garage roof should not be made trafficable;

·     whilst not objecting to the proposed use of the front terrace as an entertaining area this should satisfy Council’s safety and privacy guidelines; and

·     should Council agree to the request privacy screens should be provided on the southern side of the front terrace to ensure privacy and reduce noise.

 

COMMENTS

 

The assessment report on the development application that is attached at AT3 sets out the reasons for imposing each of the four conditions.  The relevant section of the report in relation to each of the four conditions is confirmed below in addition to a comment on the applicant’s reasons for a review of the condition.

 

·     Condition 2:  Table 1 on page 3 of the report confirms the degree of non-compliance and is discussed under the sub-heading (i) Front setback on pages 5 and 6.  Under the DCP minor design features may project forward of the building line.  The proposed front ground floor terrace adjoining the living and dining areas is not a minor feature.

 

·     Condition 4:  Table 4 on page 4 of the report addresses the non-compliance of the proposed garage relative to the required setback of a carport under the DCP and is discussed under the sub-heading Table 4: Garage on pages 7 and 8.  In addition although the DCP may only require a splay for fences over 900mm on major roads and on corner allotments, a splay was included to provide a reasonable line of sight.  Other garages in this street have been constructed with both a setback and a splay provision.

 

·     Condition 5:  Table 4 of the report also addresses the issue of a trafficable roof and this is also discussed under the sub-heading Table 4: Garage on pages 7 and 8.  Although the DCP only states that a carport forward of the building line should not have a trafficable roof the same principle has been applied to the trafficable roof for the proposed garage.  The intended use of this garage roof is confirmed under the sub-heading 8.2 Passive Surveillance on page 19 of the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects and this states:

 

A barbeque terrace, which overlooks the street, is planned above the proposed garage.

 

·     Condition 6:  Point 2 Overlooking under the sub-heading Response to Notification on page 8 of the report addresses the concerns raised by both adjoining owners.  This condition was imposed because the pine tree referred to by the applicant’s consultant would not totally prevent the potential overlooking from the proposed front first floor level deck.  The intended use of this deck/terrace is confirmed under the sub-heading 1.7.3 Private open space on page 27 of the applicant’s Statement and this states:

 

The roof top terrace fronting Holdsworth Avenue is a paved area designed for entertainment.

 

In addition to the sections of the attached assessment report referred to above that report also included comments in relation to the impacts of the front ground floor terrace; the trafficable garage roof and the general design of the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house under the sub-heading Impacts on pages 9 and 10.

 

OPTIONS FOR PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER

The two options available are:-

1.         Reaffirm the original decision of 16 August 2010 to approve the proposal subject to all of the original conditions including conditions 2, 4, 5 and 6; or

2.         Delete some or all of conditions 2, 4 and 5 and part of condition 6 as requested by the applicant.

 

CONCLUSION

The development application that is addressed in this report was approved under the delegation of the Manager Development Assessment subject to conditions including conditions 2, 4, 5 and 6.  This report is a review under Section 82A of the EP&A Act 1979 of those four conditions of the development consent.

Two of these four conditions, i.e. conditions 4 and 5, relate to a garage forward of the building line. Although Council’s DCP does not have provisions for the setback or the trafficability of a garage in front of the building line, it does provide provisions for both the setback and the trafficability of a carport in this position. These two carport provisions have been applied to the garage that forms part of the original development.  

In relation to the other two conditions; condition 2 addresses the DCP requirement to maintain a reasonable building line, whilst condition 6 seeks to reduce overlooking from the two first floor level decks over both the front and rear yards of the adjoining property to the north of the site.  Whilst the Section 82A Review was notified and one objection has been received from the owner of the adjoining property on the site’s south side, the owner of the adjoining property on the site’s north side raised concerns in relation to overlooking in a submission to the original development application. 

The application is submitted to the Planning and Building Committee for review and determination.  Two options have been suggested for the Planning and Building Committee’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the request for a Section 82A Review be referred to the Planning and Building Committee for review and determination based on the two options outlined above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Ian Middleton and Sarah Southall and Town Planning Consultant's Report

4 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Statement of Environmental Effects dated 10.5.10

41 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Delegated Authority Report No. 334

20 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 455

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 455

Subject:          43 Berry Road, St Leonards

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 06 December 2010.   

Record No:    DA09/292-01 - 47853/10

Author(s):       Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                     43 Berry Road, St Leonards

 

DA No:                         D292/09 Section 96 Modification

 

Date Lodged:              18 October 2010

 

Cost of Work:              $150 000 (original cost)

 

Owner:                                    L Beuchat & K Stansfield

 

Applicant:                    L Beuchat

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 96 modification to DA 09/292 - Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling (attic and dormer addition)

ZONE

R2 Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                 24, 26, 28, 39, 41, 43A, 45 Berry Rd, 38, 40A, 40B Park Rd

Ward Councillors       Clr W Gaffney, Clr D Brooks-Horn, Clr P Palmer, Clr R Tudge

Progress Association St Leonards – Wollstonecraft Progress Association.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The application has been called by Councillor Brookes Horn on behalf of the neighbour at 45 Berry Road, St Leonards.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     Development consent was granted on 25 January 2010 for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling.  The alterations and additions comprised:-

Demolition of the exiting carport and deck towards the rear and rebuilding of a garage and deck;

Extension of the existing bedroom on the lower ground floor; and

Extension of the upper ground floor towards the rear.

·     No objections were received in response to the notification of the application.

·     A late submission from the owner of 45 Berry Road, was received after the release of the approval notice and therefore could not be considered.

·     The Section 96 modification seeks to:-

Provide an attic space in the roof space at the rear.

Increase the roof ridge height by between 300mm and 600mm.  The external walls remain unchanged.  The building complies with the overall height requirement.

A dormer window is proposed in the northern roof pane.  No objections were received from the immediate adjoining owner.

Provide a window at lower ground level.

Minor internal room reconfiguration and deletion of part of the approved ground floor addition.

·     One letter of objection was received.  Reasons for objection included:-

The resident of 45 Berry Road did not get an opportunity to comment on the original proposal as they were away;

Increased overshadowing;

Increased bulk and scale;

Internal changes unclear;

The boundary wall of 43 Berry Road is built on 45 Berry Road;

No dilapidation report carried out on 45 Berry Road; and

No indication of intention to demolish the existing shared boundary fence.

·     The application before Council, is for a Section 96 modification and Council cannot revisit the original approval.

·     The Section 96 modification complies with Council’s requirements and is recommended for approval.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the western side of Berry Road with a rear lane vehicular access from Berry Lane. The site is rectangular in shape with an area of 219.6 m2. The site falls towards the rear and north to south.

 

The site features a single storey brick and tile semi-detached dwelling with a two storey portion towards the rear. Towards the rear is a carport with a roller shutter providing vehicular access onto Berry Lane. There are no significant trees on the subject property.

 

The construction of the previously approved works is ongoing.

 

Neighbouring to the south is the other semi-detached dwelling. Towards the north is a single storey brick and tiled dwelling house with a double carport towards the rear which also gains vehicular access from Berry Lane.   Site Location plan and Notification plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).


PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is a section 96 modification to DA 09/292 which approved alterations and additions to the semi detached dwelling.  The amendments include the following:-

 

·     Addition of a window on the ground floor;

·     Addition of an attic and a dormer within the roof space;

·     Change to roof line;

·     Removal of side extension (for cost saving); and

·     Amendment to floor plan (for cost saving).

 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

D292/09 -   Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house - approved 25 January 2010.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

The original proposal was determined under LEP1987.  The Section 96 modification must be considered under the current LEP 2009 and DCP.

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential

 

Site Area:        219m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Floor Space Ratio

0.7:1

0.7:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

8.8m

9.5m

Yes

 

DCP 2010

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Number of Storeys (max)

2

Attics are permitted within existing roof forms.

Dormer windows are to be provided away from the street frontage.

2

Yes

 

 

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

8.8

9.5m

Yes

Basix

Amended certificate provided

Amended certificate required

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Given the nature of the Section 96 modification no new referrals were required.

 


S.96(2) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

96(2)(a)  The Development to Which the Consent Relates to is Substantially the Same Development

 

The proposed changes are relatively minor in nature and as such the proposed development is substantially the same as to that which was approved by Council.

 

96(2)(b)  Consultation with Relevant Minister, Public Authority or Approval Body

 

There is no requirement to consult with the Minister, public authority or approval body as a result of the proposed modifications.

 

96(2)(c)  Any Submissions Made

 

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s requirements. One submission was received. The issues raised in the submission have been discussed later in the report.

 

79(C)(a)(i)  The Provisions of Any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.  The proposal is permitted with development consent of Council.

 

79(C)(a)(ii)  The Provisions of Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

 

There are no draft instruments that require consideration.

 

79(C)(a)(iii)  The Provisions of Any Development Control Plan

 

The original development application was assessed against Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses. 

 

The Section 96 modification has been assessed against Council’s Development Control Plan. The proposed amendments comply with the requirements of the DCP.

 

79(C)(b)  The Likely Impacts of the Development

 

This application seeks to include an attic within the existing roof form incorporating a dormer window.  The modification would not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of the adjoining and adjacent development. 

 

79(C)(c)  The Suitability of the Site for Development

 

The proposed modification would not affect the suitability of the site for this development.

 

79(C)(d)  Any Submissions Made

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s Policy.  One submission was received from the resident of 45 Berry Road. The issues raised in the submission have been addressed below:-

 


The resident of 45 Berry Road did not get an opportunity to comment on the original application because it was lodged during the Christmas holiday period.

Comment

The application was notified in accordance with Council policy (including an extended period over Christmas). 

 

The change in the roof form would increase the height of the roof resulting in more overshadowing.

Comment

The height of the external wall remains unchanged. The roof form increases between 300mm and 600mm at the ridge.  This increase in the height of the roof ridge is located towards the rear of the building. The increase in height is considered small and any increase in overshadowing would be minor. The proposed development remains within the maximum permissible height limit. The proposed dormer is on the opposite side of the building to 45 Berry Street.

 

Increase in Bulk and Scale.

Comment

The amended proposal complies with the DCP requirements with regard to floor space ratio and height. The height of the external wall remains unchanged. Therefore, it is considered that the increase in bulk of the proposed development would be reasonable. The building would maintain a single storey appearance from the street.

 

The internal changes are unclear.

Comment

The internal changes include substantial retention of the existing layout. The internal changes do not impact upon the bulk of the proposed development and do not raise any concerns.

 

The boundary wall of the development at 43A Berry Road is built on 45 Berry Road.

Comment

43A Berry Street is not the subject property and this matter is not subject to the section 96 modification.  It is the adjoining property (semi detached dwelling house) towards the south of the subject property. Therefore, this issue is not relevant in this development application.

 

No dilapidation report has been carried for out for 45 Berry Road in accordance with condition 18(3) of the consent.

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification, however condition 18 of the original consent requires dilapidation reports if rock-pick machines are to be used. The proposed development is substantially a first floor addition and does not require the use of rock pick machines.

 

Notification drawings do not show boundary lines.

Comment

Boundary lines are clearly indicated on the lower floor plan and the ground floor plan.

 


There is no indication that the intention is to demolish the existing shared boundary wall.

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification. The shared side boundary fence is between 45 and 43A Berry Road and not between 45 and 43 Berry Road (the subject property). Therefore, this issue is not relevant in this Section 96 modification.

 

The survey submitted does not depict the existing side boundary fence.

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification.  As indicated above, the side boundary fence is between 45 and 43A Berry Road and not between 45 and 43 Berry Road (the subject property). Therefore, this issue is not relevant in this section 96 modification.

 

79(C)(e)  The Public Interest

 

The proposed modification does not create any additional environmental impacts or in any way adversely affect the adjoining properties.  As such it is considered that the development is in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning Instruments and Council controls. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory subject to the following conditions. The matters under Section 96 and Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and are considered to be adequate and satisfactory.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D292/09 granted on 25 January 2010 for alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house on 43 Berry Road, St Leonards be amended in the following manner:-

A          Amend condition number 1 to read:-

1.    (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 9A, 10A, 11, 12A, 13Aand 14A dated 10 October 2010 by Chris Thompson Building Design except as amended by the following conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 457

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 457

Subject:          43A Berry Road, St Leonards

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 06 December 2010.   

Record No:    DA09/293-01 - 48064/10

Author(s):       Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                     43A Berry Street, St Leonards

 

DA No:                         D293/09 Section 96 modification

 

Date Lodged:              15 October 2010

 

Cost of Work:              $150 000 (Original cost)

 

Owner:                                    J Death and S E Death

 

Applicant:                    J Death and S E Death

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 96 modification to DA 09/292 - Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling (Change to roof line to match 43, internal alterations and alteration to windows)

ZONE

R2 Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                  24, 26, 28, 41, 43, 45, 47 Berry Rd, 38, 40A, 40B Park Rd

Ward Councillors       Clr W Gaffney Clr D Brooks-Horn, Clr P Palmer, Clr R Tudge

Progress Association St Leonards – Wollstonecraft Progress Association.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The application has been called by Councillor Brooks Horn on behalf of the neighbour at 45 Berry Road, St Leonards.

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMERY

 

·     Development consent was granted on 25 January 2010 for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling.  The alterations and additions comprised:-

Demolition of the exiting carport and deck towards the rear and rebuilding of a garage and deck;

Extension of existing bedroom on the lower ground floor; and

Extension of the upper floor towards the rear.

·     No objections were received in response to the notification of the application.

      A late submission from the owner of 45 Berry Road was received after the release of the approval notice and therefore could not be considered.

·     The Section 96 modification seeks to:

Increase the roof ridge height by between 300mm and 600mm to match the roof line of the adjoining semidetached dwelling.  The external walls remain unchanged.  The building complies with the overall height requirement;

Change to rear terrace door and reduce the south elevation window to a highlight window; and

Minor internal changes.

·     One letter of objection was received.  Reasons for objection included:

The resident of 45 Berry Road did not get an opportunity to comment on the original proposal as they were away;

Increased overshadowing;

Increased bulk and scale;

Internal changes unclear;

The boundary wall of 43a Berry Road is built on 45 Berry Road;

No dilapidation report carried out on 45 Berry Road; and

No indication of intention to demolish the existing shared boundary fence.

·     The application before Council is for a Section 96 modification and Council cannot revisit the original approval.

·     The Section 96 modification complies with Council’s requirements and is recommended for approval.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the western side of Berry Street with a rear lane vehicular access from Berry Lane. The site is rectangular in shape with an area of 217 m2. The site falls towards the rear and north to south.

 

The site features a single storey brick and tile semi-detached dwelling with a two storey portion towards the rear. Towards the rear is a carport with a sail over a roof framework.  There are no significant trees on the subject property.

 

Neighbouring to the north is the second semi-detached dwelling. Towards the south is a single storey brick and tiled dwelling house with a garage on the lower floor and an upper storey addition above. The garage gains vehicular access from Berry Lane.  Site Location Plans and Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to make amendments to the previously approved development application DA293/09 alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house. The amendments include the following:-

·     Increase the roof ridge height by between 300mm and 600mm to match the roof line of the adjoining semi detached dwelling.  The external walls remain unchanged.  The building complies with the overall height requirement;

·     Change to rear terrace door and reduction in size of south elevation window to highlight window; and

·     Minor internal changes.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

DA293/09 - Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling – approved 25 January 2010.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential

 

Site Area:        217m2

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Height of Buildings

8.8m

9.5m

Yes

 

DCP 2010

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Maximum Ridge height

8.8m

9.5m

Yes

Basix

Amended certificate provided

Amended certificate required

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Given the nature of the Section 96 modification, no new referrals were required.

 

S.96(2) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

96(2)(a)  The Development to Which the Consent Relates to is Substantially the Same Development

 

The proposed changes are relatively minor in nature and as such the proposed development is substantially the same as to that which was approved by Council.


 

96(2)(b)  Consultation with Relevant Minister, Public Authority or Approval Body

 

There is no requirement to consult with the Minister, public authority or approval body as a result of the proposed modifications.

 

96(2)(c)  Any Submissions Made

 

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s requirements. One submission was received. The issues raised in the submission have been discussed later in the report.

 

79(C)(a)(i)  The Provisions of Any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.  The proposal is permitted with development consent of Council.

 

79(C)(a)(ii)  The Provisions of Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

 

There are no draft instruments that require consideration.

 

79(C)(a)(iii)  The Provisions of Any Development Control Plan

 

The original development was assessed against Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses.

 

The Section 96 modification has been assessed against Council’s Development Control Plan. The proposed amendments comply with the requirements of the DCP.

 

79(C)(b)  The Likely Impacts of the Development

 

This application seeks to make minor amendments to increase the ridge height of the roof between 300 and 600mm, alter windows and carry out internal amendments. The proposed modification will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of the adjoining and adjacent development. 

 

79(C)(c)  The Suitability of the Site for Development

 

The proposed modification will not affect the suitability of site for this development.

 

79(C)(d)  Any Submissions Made

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s policy. One submission was received from the resident of 45 Berry Road. The issues raised in the submission have been addressed below:

 

The resident of 45 Berry Road did not get an opportunity to comment on the original application because it was lodged during the Christmas holiday period

Comment

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy (including an extended period over Christmas). The application was also determined while the neighbour was on holidays.

 

The change in the roof form would increase the height of the roof resulting in more overshadowing

Comment

The height of the external wall remains unchanged. The roof form increases between 300mm to 600mm at the ridge. This increase in height of the roof ridge is located towards the rear of the building. The increase in height is considered small and any increase in overshadowing would be minor. The proposed development remains within the maximum permissible height limit.   There is no dormer window proposed in this side of the roof form and the proposal complies with the 3 hours of sunlight requirement.

 

Increase in Bulk and Scale

Comment

The amended proposal complies with the DCP requirements with regard to floor space ratio and height. The height of the external wall remains unchanged. Therefore, it is considered that the increase in bulk of the proposed development would be reasonable. The building will maintain a single storey appearance from the street.

 

The internal changes are unclear

Comment

The internal changes include change to laundry. The internal changes do not impact upon the bulk of the proposed development and do not raise any concern.

 

The boundary wall of the development at 43A Berry Street is built on 45 Barry Street. The boundary wall was recently built and sponsored by the owners of 45 Berry Road.

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification.  The lower floor plan indicates that the southern wall of the proposed garage is wholly within the subject property. Any dispute between a common boundary fence is a matter between the neighbours.

 

No dilapidation report has been carried for out for 45 Berry Road in accordance with condition 18(3) of the consent

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification.  However condition 18 of the original consent requires dilapidation reports if rock-pick machines are to be used. The proposed development is substantially a first floor addition and does not require the use of rock pick machines.

 

Notification drawings do not show boundary lines

Comment

Boundary lines are clearly indicated on the lower floor plan and the ground floor plan.

 

There is no indication that the intension is to demolish the existing shared boundary wall

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification. The shared boundary wall has been indicated in dotted to indicate that it is proposed for demolition. Any dispute between a common boundary fence is a matter between the neighbours.

 

The survey submitted does not depict the existing side boundary fence

Comment

This matter is not subject to the section 96 modification.  The side boundary fence is indicated on the lower floor plan and the ground floor plan.

 


79(C)(e)  The Public Interest

 

The proposed modification does not create any additional environmental impacts or in any way adversely affect the adjoining properties.  As such it is considered that the development is in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning Instruments and Council controls. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory subject to the following conditions. The matters under Section 96 and Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and are considered to be adequate and satisfactory.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D293/09 granted on 25 January 2010 for alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house on 43A Berry Road, St Leonards be amended in the following manner:

A          Amend condition number 1 as under:-

1.       (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 4, 9A, 10A, 11, 12A, 13A and 14A dated 10 October 2010 by Chris Thompson Building Design except as amended by the following conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 473

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 473

Subject:          16 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 06 December 2010.   

Record No:    DA10/174-01 - 49637/10

Author(s):       May  Li 

 

 

Property:                     16 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

DA No:                         174/2010

 

Date Lodged:              11 August 2010

 

Cost of Work:              $1,024,000.00

 

Owner:                                    Thu Nguyen

 

Applicant:                    Thu Nguyen

c/- Glendenning Minto and Associate

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Demolition of an existing single storey dwelling house and construction of a boarding house containing 16 single rooms and a caretaker’s accommodation

 

ZONE

R4 – High Density Residential

 

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 3, 7a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes – 83 days

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours:                 13, 15, 17, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 Anglo Road , 8, 10, 12 14, 18-20, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

Ward Councillors:      Councillor Brooks-Horn, Gaffney, Palmer and Tudge

Progress Association   Greenwich Community Association

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The development application has been called by Councillors Palmer and Tudge, although a number of other Councillors have flagged the application due to concerns raised by nearby residents. 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     The proposal involves demolition of a dwelling house and construction of a boarding house on the site.

 

·     The proposed use is permissible within the zone in accordance with Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP).

 

·     State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP) outlines the development standards for boarding house developments and the proposal complies fully with the SEPP.

 

·     22 submissions were received during the notification of the development proposal and all submissions raised objections to the proposed development.  The main objection stated the proposed boarding house would not be compatible with the character of the neighbourhood.

 

·     The applicant has submitted amended plans to address a number of the concerns of the submissions including increasing the sizes of the private courtyard and the common kitchen and living areas.

 

·     The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s building surveyor, community service manager, development engineer, environmental service manager or Council’s tree assessment officer and provided draft conditions for Council’s consideration.

 

·     The proposed development must comply with the provisions of the SEPP – (Affordable Housing) 2009.  Council consent to this development cannot be refused on any of the development standards in the SEPP – (Affordable Housing), if the application meets the requirements of the SEPP.

 

·     Approval is recommended.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located at the eastern side of Greenwich Road between Pacific Highway and River Road, Greenwich.  The site enjoys two street frontages facing Greenwich Road and Anglo Road.  The slope of the site falls from its front boundary at Greenwich Road to its rear boundary at Angola Road by approximately 6.5m.  An existing single storey dwelling house comprising 4 bedrooms is located on the site.  Site Location Plans and Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).  Surrounding developments comprises the following developments:

 

To the North and East

 

A mixture of single and two storey dwelling houses are located along the eastern side of Greenwich Road and in Anglo Road.  Immediately to the north of the site at 14 Greenwich is a semi detached dwelling (zoned R4 – High Density Residential zone) and a dwelling house at 17 Anglo Road (zoned R2 – Low Density Residential).

 

To the South

 

A group of town houses are located on 18-20 Greenwich Road, Greenwich located within the R4- High Density zone.

 

 

To the West

 

Residential flat buildings are located along the western side of Greenwich Road within R4 zone. 

 

PROPOSAL

 

The initial proposal involves demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house development comprising 17 boarding rooms with a common kitchen/common living area and a three bedroom caretaker’s dwelling.  The proposed building also contained a double garage for the use of the caretaker.  Each of the boarding rooms contains a private bathroom.  Kitchenettes are proposed for two of the boarding rooms

 

The amended proposal has increased the size of the common kitchen/living area by reducing the number of rooms from 17 to 16.  The size of the courtyard has also been increased to meet the requirements of the SEPP.  Bike parking facility and clothing lines have also been included in the proposed plans. 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There are no previous development consents relevant to this application.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP) states the aims of the policy as the follows:-

“Aims of Policy

The aims of this Policy are as follows:

(a)  to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b)  to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c)  to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)  to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e)  to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f)  to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g)  to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.”

 

The SEPP also states the definition of boarding room means a room or suite of rooms within a boarding house occupied or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied by one or more lodgers.

 

Division 3 – Boarding Houses of the SEPP outlines the development standards for boarding developments.  The compliance is listed in the following table


 

Site Area (598.19m2)

 

 

PROPOSED

LEP/SEPP

COMPLIES

Zoning

R4

R1, R2, R3, R4, B1, B2, and B4

Yes

 

Clause 29 – Standards that Cannot be Used to Refuse Consent

 

The SEPP states that a consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds if compliance has been achieved.

 

 

LEP/SEPP

Proposed

Complies

Floor Space Ratio             (max)

(0.8+0.5 bonus given by Clause 29(1)(c)(I) of the SEPP) = 1.3:1

 

0.94:1

Yes

Building Height

12m

11.3m

Yes

Landscaped area

The landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located

The front setback of the proposed development is consistent with the streetscape of Greenwich Road

Yes

Solar Access

Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

 

The  proposed north facing living room would receive more than 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter

Yes

Private open space

One area of at least 20m2 within a minimum of 3m is provided for the use of the lodgers

 

 

One area of at least 8m2 with a minimum dimension of 2.5m is provided adjacent to the accommodation for a boarding house manager

 

A 21.4m2 (4.28m x5m) court yard on the ground level is proposed for the lodgers

 

The caretaker’s accommodation comprises a 17m2 (2.5m x6.8m) balcony

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

Parking

Not more than 1 car space per 10 boarding rooms and 1 car space for each employed person

A double garage is proposed for the caretaker’s accommodation

 

Yes

Accommodation size

At lease 12m2 for a single room and 16m2 for any other case

 

Only single rooms are proposed and the minimum room size is 12m2.

 

Yes

Bathroom and kitchen facilities

A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room

A bathroom is proposed for each room and two private kitchens are proposed for two rooms

Yes

 


Clause 30 of the SEPP - Standards for Boarding Houses

 

The SEPP states a consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

 

 

SEPP Standards

Proposed

Compliance

(a)  Communal Living room

If a boarding house has 5 or more rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided

The proposed boarding contains 16 rooms.  A communal living room in a size of 20m2 (5.8mx3.6m) is proposed

 

Yes

(b)  Maximum room size

No boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25m2

 

The sizes of the proposed rooms are less than 14.3m2

Yes

(c)  Maximum occupancy rate

No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adults lodgers

Single rooms are proposed

Yes

Will be confirmed by a condition of development consent

 

(d)  Bathroom and kitchen facilities

Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger

A private bathroom is proposed for each rooms and a common kitchen is proposed

 

Yes

(e)  Boarding house manager

If the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager

 

A caretaker’s accommodation is proposed

Not required

(f)  Parking

If the boarding house is on land within a zone where residential flat buildings area permissible, no new car parking for lodgers will be provided on the site

The site is located within a R4 – High Density Residential zone and no parking for lodgers is proposed

 

A double garage is proposed for the caretaker’s accommodation

 

Yes

(g)  Boarding house on land within commercial zone

If the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposed, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use

 

The proposed boarding house is not on land zoned commercial

N/A

(h) Bicycle and motorcycle parking

At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for motorcycle , for every 5 boarding rooms

Parking area is provided

Yes

 

As stated in the above compliance tables, the proposed development fully complies with all requirements of the SEPP.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The SEPP and Council’s DCP are silent on setback requirements for this type of development.

 

The front setbacks is in line with the established setback of the neighbouring properties to Greenwich Road and is 6.4m.  The setback to Anglo Road is 7.5m.  These setbacks are considered in keeping with the streetscape.

 

The setbacks proposed are 1.5m from both side boundaries.  For comparison purposes, the 1.5m side boundary setbacks are what would equate to those required for a 2 storey dwelling house. The building is part 2 and part 3 storey.  The setback for residential flat buildings exceed this setback requirement and would be 6m from side boundaries.  Such setbacks, could not be achievable on this site, which is 12.2m wide.  The site is not located in a low density residential zone, the site is zoned R4 - High Density residential.

 

REFERRALS

 

Building Surveyor

 

A preliminary assessment of the amended plans has been carried out against the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions (DTS) of the Building Code of Australia (2010) (BCA).

 

The proposed development may be constructed to generally comply with the DTS provisions of the BCA without major design modification.

 

Despite this, it is proposed to protect all opening within 3m from a boundary to be provided with self closing windows with drenches in accordance with Part C3.4 (Acceptable methods of protection) of the BCA.  Drenchers to all windows within 3m of boundary are shown on the amended plans.

 

No objections are raised to the proposed development.

 

Manager Community Services

 

The proposal seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling followed by the construction of a boarding house containing 16 rooms and ancillary facilities together with a caretaker’s garage upon land at 16 Greenwich Road, Greenwich. One room would be suitable for a person with a disability, 2 rooms will have kitchenettes and all will be for use of single people. The application is made pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

My understanding is that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 encourages the development of new affordable rental housing and assists the retention of existing affordable rental housing. This Planning Policy is consistent with Council’s current Social Plan which identifies affordable housing as a key priority social need. In the Social Plan at 9.2 Affordable and Appropriate Housing, Goal X2: Encourage affordable and appropriate housing, particularly for Seniors, People with a Disability and Youth, ID 4 recommends that Council:

 

“Develop an affordable housing policy, with strategies to increase its provision.”

 

Boarding houses are an important place for people to access low-cost affordable housing.  Many boarding houses have disappeared over the years changing the social fabric of the community.  As a general principle, because they offer affordability in areas where rental costs can be high, boarding house stock needs to be retained and/ or added to where possible.

 

I have no objection to the development.  It is consistent with both the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Council’s current Social Plan which recommends the encouragement of affordable housing.

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The development engineer has provided the following advice:-

 

An exemption from OSD has been granted based on the storage requirement (SSR) for the site using the storage criteria for OSD would be SSR = 329 m2 imp. area x 0.025 m3/m2 = 8.2 m3. A 10,000L rainwater reuse system exceeds this requirement and is a more sustainable option.

 

The new driveway and proposed excavation have been conditioned. New footpath and kerb and gutter along the Greenwich Road and Anglo Road have been conditioned.

 

Where Council is to issue an approval the recommended conditions should be applied to the determination.

 

Manager Open Space

 

The Tree Assessment Officer has provided the following advice:-

 

The proposed development consists of demolition of the existing house and the construction of a boarding house. I have no objections to this proposal from an arboriculture or landscape perspective. There are no trees on the site worthy of retention save the Avocado tree on the Greenwich side of the allotment that is designated for retention.

 

All street trees adjacent to the property must be retained and protected for the duration of the proposed development. The Avocado tree shall also be protected from mechanical damage.

 

Manager Environmental Services

 

The Waste Contract Coordinator has provided the following advice:-

The main concerns from the application related to on-going waste management.  Concerns relating to possible odour and adverse visual impact for the neighbouring properties were considered.

While the proposed bin location is not enclosed the bins are being screened by a retaining wall and with the provision of a caretaker on site the proposed bin location is satisfactory. 

Draft  conditions of consent have been provided (see conditions 66 and 67).

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79c(1)(a))

 

The proposed boarding development is permissible within the R4 – High Density Residential zone. 

 

The proposed development complies with the aims and objectives of the LEP 2009.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

As stated in the compliance table, the propose development complies with the development standards of the SEPP.

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan

 

The proposed development complies with the stormwater management requirements of the DCP.

 

The development standards of the SEPP override the requirements of residential development of the DCP.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

The proposed development would increase the population on the site.  There would be 16 boarding rooms and a 3 bedroom caretaker’s accommodation.  Given the existing dwelling house comprising 4 bedrooms, the net increasing of population of the site is calculated as the follows:

 

16 + 2.4 – 3.6 = 14.8 (persons)

 

The current rate of the S94 contribution is $8595.00 per person.  The required amount of the S94 contribution is:

 

$8595.00 x 14.8 = $127,206.00

 

A condition requiring S94 contribution is included in the recommendation (See draft condition 9.)

 

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

 

The development proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy.  24 submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows.

 

The bulk and scale of the proposed building is excessive

Comment

The proposed building height and FSR are below the development standards of the SEPP.  The SEPP encourages boarding house development.  Given that the site is located in a zone which permits residential flat buildings, a bonus of 0.5:1 on the permitted FSR is allowed under the SEPP for the purposes of a boarding development.

 

Overshadowing

Comment

It is agreed that the proposed building would overshadow the adjoining site to the south between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.  This is also due to the site topography and orientation of the subdivision pattern in Greenwich Road. 

 

The LEP has increased the building height for the site and any redevelopment on the site would increase shadow impact to the adjoining property to the south.

 

Visual impact to adjoining properties

Comment

The proposed building has a two storey appearance from Greenwich Road and a three storey appearance from Angola Road.  There is no significant view loss impact to the adjoining dwelling houses.  The SEPP does not limit the number of storeys, and the building is less than the LEP height requirement of 12m for the zone.

 

 

Privacy impact to adjoining properties

Comment

It is agreed that the external stairs in the initial proposal would have over looking impacts to the adjoining dwelling houses to the north.  The external stairs have been deleted by amended plans. 

 

Highlight windows are proposed for the common kitchen and living room areas and a 1.8m high privacy screen to the common court yard is also proposed to minimise over looking impact to the adjoining houses to the north.

 

Window panels that are less than 1.5m above floor level on the north and south elevations would be required permanently fixed and obscure glass (condition 3).

 

Inadequate off street car parking provision

Comment

The proposal complies with the parking requirements of the SEPP.  The SEPP advises that no parking for lodgers may be provided.

 

Inadequate landscaping area

Comment

The proposal complies with the landscaping requirements of the SEPP.

 

Incompatible with the area character

Comment

The proposed development is different to the existing dwelling house developments in the neighbourhood.  However, the scale of the proposed development would be smaller than the future residential flat building development in Greenwich Road.  The SEPP encourages affordable housing developments in residential areas.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied.  The proposed development complies with the development standards of the State Environmental Planning Policy and would provide affordable housing in the Greenwich area. 

 

The various submissions area correct in their observation that this development proposal would be different to existing dwelling types in the area.  The SEPP – (Affordable Housing) 2009 provisions provide developers with particular rights and responsibilities when developing under this SEPP.  If the development proposed fully complies with the provisions of the SEPP, then Council cannot refuse the application on those grounds.  The generous development standards seek to encourage affordable housing opportunities for individuals.

 

The development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application 174/2010 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house on Lot 12, DP 3044 and known as 16 Greenwich Road, Greenwich subject to the following conditions:-

 

General Conditions

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with the following drawings with No. 1038-10-DA01, dated 25-11-10, prepared by Hans Wildman and Associated Building Design Consultants except as amended by the following conditions.

 

-           Site/Site Analysis Plan, Sheet 1, Revision G;

-           Ground and First Floor Plans, Sheet 2, Revision G;

-           Garage and Lower Floor Plans, Sheet 3, Revision G;

-           Elevations, Sheet 4, Revision G;

-           Section A-A, Sheet 5, Revision F, dated 23-11-10.

 

2.         All boarding rooms must be used for single room only and can not be leased for more than one person at the same time and must not be used for back-packer type accommodation.

 

3.         Window panels that are less than 1.5m above floor level on the north and south elevations must be permanently fixed and obscure glass.

 

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

 

5.         (2) All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

6.         (3) If there is a change of building use the provisions of Clause 78B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1998 must be complied with.

 

7.         (11) 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 and Developing then Building and 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.

 

8.         (12) 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.

 

9.         (14) THE PAYMENT OF A CONTRIBUTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL *PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL'S SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN.  THIS PAYMENT BEING MADE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE AND IS TO BE AT THE CURRENT RATE AT TIME OF PAYMENT.  THE AMOUNT IS $127,206.00 AT THE CURRENT RATE OF $8,595.00 PER PERSON.   NOTE:  PAYMENT MUST BE IN BANK CHEQUE.  PERSONAL CHEQUES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

 

THIS CONTRIBUTION IS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION AND ROAD UNDER THE LANE COVE SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNTER, LANE COVE COUNCIL, 48 LONGUEVILLE ROAD, LANE COVE.

 

10.       (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the building.

 

11.       (35) All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)                     7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                   7.00am to 4.00pm

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

12.       (36) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

13.       (37) The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

14.       (45) A “Fire Safety Schedule” specifying the fire safety measures that are currently implemented in the building premises and the fire safety measures proposed or required to be implemented in the building premises as required by Clause 168 – Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 are to be submitted and approved PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

15.       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)         The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete.

b)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

c)         The dampcourse level, ant capping, anchorage and floor framing before the floor material is laid.

d)         Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering.

e)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering

f)          Waterproofing of wet areas

g)         Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

h)         Completion.

 

 

16.       Standard Condition (57) Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing.

 

17.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile or colour bond corrugated galvanised or include iron, in a mid to dark range colour and having an approved anti-glare finish.

 

18.       Standard Condition (64) A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

 

a)         The establishment of the first floor level;

b)         The roof framing; and

c)         The completion of works.

 

Note:    All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.

 

19.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Safety Act and the Regulations details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

20.       (67) 

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), the principal certifying authority may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

 

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

 

ii)         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.

 

iii)         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.

 

iv)        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.

 

21.       (72) The proposed works must be confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

22.       (73) The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.

 

23.       (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.

 

24.       (76) 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.

 

25.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

26.       (78) The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

27.       (79) Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

28.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application.

 

29.       (132)  It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

30.       (137)  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.

 

31.       (141) 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.

 

32.       (142) BASIX - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificate lodged with Council as part of this application.

 

General Engineering Conditions

33.       (A1) 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.

 

 

34.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the applicant requires the use of Council land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

 

35.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, 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.

 

36.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

37.       (A5) 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.

 

38.       (A6) 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. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

 

39.       (A7) 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’.

 

40.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement. If a Council stormwater line is located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where necessary the stormwater line is to be relocated to be clear of the proposed building works. All costs associated with the relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the applicant.

 

41.       (A9) 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.

 

42.       (V8) Car Parking: All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 Series.

 

43.       (D7) Safety fence along the boundary of the property: Before commencement of any works, barrier or temporary fencing is to be provided along the full frontages of the property. This fence is for the safety of pedestrians on the public footpath.

 

44.       (F1) Overland Flow around Buildings: To prevent stormwater from entering the building the finished habitable ground floor level of the building must be a minimum of 150mm above the adjacent finished ground level.

 

45.       (R2) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The applicant is to install a rainwater reuse system with a minimum effective capacity of 10,000 Litres. Rainwater tanks are to be installed in accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards. The plumbing requirements are as follows:-

·        Rainwater draining to the reuse tanks is to drain from the roof surfaces only. No “on - ground” surfaces are to drain to the reuse tank.  “On - ground” surfaces are to drain via a separate system.

·        Mosquito protection and first flush device shall be fitted to the reuse tank.

·        The overflow from the rainwater reuse tank is to drain by gravity to the receiving system.

·        Rainwater tank is to be connected to all new toilets, one cold water washing machine tap and one outside tap within the development.

 

Engineering Conditions to be Complied with Prior to Construction Certificate

 

46.       (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed generally in accordance with plan numbered GO100429 issue 2 pages C1-C3 prepared by ACOR Apple yard dated 11/2010.

 

Certification by a suitably qualified engineer of the above plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority stating that the design fully complies with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater Management. The plans and certification shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority is to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the certified plans for the purposes of construction. They are to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the construction certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

47.       (D1) Excavation Greater Than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within 5 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

 

The above matters are to be completed and documentation submitted to principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

d)      Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 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 suitably qualified engineer.

 

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed shall be submitted to the principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

All recommendations of the suitably qualified 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.

 

48.       (V1) Proposed Vehicular Crossing: The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. A ‘Construction of residential Vehicular Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All works associated with the construction of the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

 

49.       (A10) Boundary Levels: The levels of the street alignment shall be obtained from Council. These levels are to be incorporated into the design of the internal pavements, car parking, landscaping and stormwater drainage plans and shall be obtained prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Note: The finished floor level of the proposed garage or carport shall be determined by Council.

 

50.       (K1) Council Construction Requirements: The applicant shall construct / reconstruct the following:-

-     New 1.5m wide concrete footpath along the entire frontage of Greenwich Road and Anglo Road.

-     New Kerb and Gutter along the entire frontage of Greenwich Road and Anglo Road.

-     Re turf all nature strips areas along the entire frontage of Greenwich Road and Anglo Road.

Each item is to be inspected prior to the pouring of any concrete (formwork) and on completion of the construction. An initial site meeting is to be conducted with Council and the contractor prior to the commencement of any of the above works to allow for discussion of Council construction / set out requirements.

An Inspection fee of $480.00 is to be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 

51.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $5000.00 cash bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation Certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

52.       (C1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: 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 Fourth Edition 2004 Volume 1’’ prepared by LANDCOM. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority to prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Engineering Condition to be Complied with Prior to Commencement of Construction

53.       (C2) Erosion and sediment control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to be installed in accordance with the approved plan satisfying condition ‘(C1) Erosion and sediment control plan’. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

Engineering Condition to be Complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate

54.       (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters. The plumber 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.

·           Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. 

Landscaping Conditions

55.       (300)  A Tree Preservation Order applies in the Lane Cove local government area. The Order prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree except with the consent of Council, which must be strictly and fully complied with, and the penalty for contravention of this Order is up to one million, one hundred thousand ($1,100,000).  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.

56.       (302)  The applicant must obtain a Tree Preservation Order Work Authority prior to pruning of any trees; greater than 4 m in height, located on the property or in neighbouring properties including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter.

57.       (303)  There must be no stockpiling of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or any other construction material or building rubbish on any nature strip, footpath, road or public open space park or reserve.

58.       (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a locked container / cage.  Any building rubbish that is not contained must be cleaned up immediately, including the immediate worksite, surrounding area and/or public open space.

59.       (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3m of any tree greater than  4m in height; including neighbouring trees, must be carried out using hand held tools only with no tree roots greater than 40mm diameter to be severed or damaged

60.       (317) A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 2.4 m from the trunk of the two Paperbark street trees located at the rear of the allotment and all street trees on the Greenwich Road side must be contained in the same way. The tree protection areas shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and soil levels within the tree protection areas shall remain undisturbed.

61.       (317) A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 2.4 m from the trunk of the Avocado tree located at the front of the allotment. The tree protection areas shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and soil levels within the tree protection areas shall remain undisturbed

62.       (new) A waterproof sign must be placed on all tree protection zones stating ‘NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION ZONE – this fence and sign are not to be removed or relocated for the work duration.’  Minimum size of the sign is to be A4 portrait with NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION ZONE in capital Arial Font size 100, and the rest of the text in Arial font size 65.

63.       (new) All tree protection measures and signage must be erected PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE OR THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. This includes demolition or site preparation works, and tree protection measures must remain in place for the duration of the development, including construction of the driveway crossing.

64.       Bond on Street and Council Trees

(327)  A bond of $10 000 must be paid to Council prior to the issue of Construction Certificate to ensure adequate protection measures are taken during the development to prevent mechanical damage to all street trees adjacent to the allotment.  This bond shall refundable on completion of works and following an inspection and certification of the tree by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer. This certification must be obtained by the Private Certifying Authority prior to issue of the occupation certificate. In the event of damages to the tree, as determined by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer, the cost of replacing the tree including labour will be incurred in addition to forfeiting the bond. The following formula shall be used for retention of all or part of the tree bond:

Breach of any condition - 25% of bond for each offence.

Trunk or root damage of any protected tree - 50% of bond for each offence.

Death or severe decline of any protected tree - 100% of bond and possible legal action by Council.

65.       (new) The proposed Landscape Plan produced by Concept Landscape Architects is to the satisfaction of Council and must be adopted as part of the development approval.

66.       (383)  The Applicant must ensure that all landscaping is completed to a professional standard, free of any hazards or unnecessary maintenance problems and that all plants are consistent with NATSPEC specifications.

67.       Waste Cupboard

An internal waste/recycling cupboard must be provided for each boarding rooms.  Details must be included in the plans for the Construction Certificate application. 

68.       Ongoing Waste Management

(a)        Caretaker

A caretaker shall be engaged to undertake the following duties:

·           Maintain and clean garbage area

·           Monitor contamination and sort recycled waste into appropriate recyclables

·           Transport garbage and recycling bins weekly to the street for collection and return bins when emptied, and

(b)        Provision of waste services:

(143) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant must make written application to Council for the provision of domestic waste services.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Amended Site Location Plans

3 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Notification Plan and letter

2 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Order Of The Day No. 29

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 29

Subject:          Division of Local Govenrment - Councillor Information Sessions    

Record No:    SU2385 - 51343/10

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 26 November, Councillors Forrest and Palmer attended the second in a series of seminars designed to improve councillors’ knowledge of the Local Government Act and Division of Local Government (DLG) guidelines.

 

The main topics for this seminar were:-

1.   Financial Reporting – understanding and interpreting the Quarterly Budget Review Statements

2.   Recruitment and Oversight of General Managers

3.   Update on the Code of Conduct.

 

Discussion

 

Financial Reporting

 

There are new financial reporting requirements within the Integrated Planning & Reporting framework.  The budget-related reports which should be provided to councilors include:-

·     Resourcing strategy plans;

·     Annual Budgets;

·     Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS); and

·     Annual Financial Statements.


The DLG has developed QBRS templates which show the minimum information councilors are to receive every quarter and include:-

·     Income and Expenses Review Statement;

·     Capital Budget Review Statement;

·     Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement;

·     Key Performance Indicator Budget Review Statement; and

·     Budget review for Contracts and other expenses.

 

Recruitment and Oversight of General Managers

 

This topic covered recruitment, performance management and contract renewal/termination.  The GM must be appointed using the standard contract approved by the DLG, the terms of which may not be varied.

 

The DLG has prepared Guidelines aimed at assisting councillors to be aware of their obligations when recruiting, appointing, reappointing and overseeing general managers.  The Guidelines, which were developed in consultation with the Local Government and Shires Associations and Local Government Managers Australia (NSW), are designed to provide a summary of essential matters that must be addressed by councils when engaging in these processes.

 

The draft Guidelines have now been released for comment (closes Friday 17 December).

 

Code of Conduct

 

This topic focused on:-

·     Conflicts of interest;

·     Complaints handling;

·     Conduct reviewers’ reports; and

·     Misbehaviour and the DLG’s role.

 

The DLG will be undertaking a review of the Model Code in 2011.  Councils will be invited to participate.  Options being explored include:-

·     Establishing a panel of conduct reviewers to be used by all councils;

·     Whether there is a need for an appeal or review process and who should undertake this role; and

·     Clarifying a number of provisions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Order Of The Day No. 30

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 30

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - February 2011 

    

Record No:    SU1915 - 51345/10

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

The Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for February 2011 is proposed as follows:-

 

February                      5          Inspection Committee

 

February                      7          Ordinary Council

                                                Planning and Building Committee

                                                Services and Resources Committee

 

February                      21        Ordinary Council

                                                Planning and Building Committee

                                                Services and Resources Committee

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for February 2011 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Notice of Motion No. 13

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 13

Subject:          Proposal for the Declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas    

Record No:    SU3912 - 51327/10

Author(s):       Councillor Shauna Forrest 

 

 

Executive Summary

Subject to the proposal being placed on public exhibition and a follow-up Report to Council being prepared, this report to Council proposes the declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas (WPAs) in Lane Cove Council bushland reserves and as proposed in Lane Cove Council’s Bushland Plan of Management 2007. The declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas would enhance the effectiveness of currently funded programs.

Wildlife Protection Areas balance the protection of native animals with the needs of residents who use these areas, especially dog owners who enjoy walking their pets in reserves.  Studies show that predation of native wildlife (both feral and domestic) can have serious implications for the viability of susceptible native species, particularly small birds and reptiles in urban bushland.

Willoughby, North Sydney and Warringah Councils have already declared Wildlife Protection Areas. Community consultation in North Sydney showed an overwhelming community support for the proposal, over 90%.

Approval is sought for the funding of the initial cost of $9,800 this financial year in order to employ a consultant to undertake the necessary work for the introduction of Wildlife Protection Areas in Lane Cove.

Councils Assistant Manager Open Space – Bushland estimates that it would cost approximately $9,800 (140 hrs @ $70/hr) to employ a consultant to undertake the necessary work for the introduction of Wildlife Protection Areas in Lane Cove.    The works would include:-

·      Background Research into Lane Cove Wildlife, including consultation with NPWS, Wires etc;

·      Community Consultation Process; and

·      Production of report for Council.

The cost estimate is based on information provided by North Sydney Council for the time taken to introduce Wildlife Protection Areas. After the consultants report and exhibition phase is finalised and presented to Council, the remaining costs for follow up actions would be presented to Council for funding from the following financial year’s budget.

 

Background

Lane Cove Council’s Bushland Plan of Management 2007 (BPM) identifies avenues for the control of feral animal impacts on biodiversity through participation in regional management programs, as well as consideration of a declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas (WPA) (see AT-1).

Under the BPM, Management Actions clause (f) asks Council to consider classifying all bushland reserves as wildlife protection areas under the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998, to become Lane Cove’s first WPA’s designated areas. However, as was the case with North Sydney, a consultant may find that not all bushland is considered suitable.

Along with the development of an integrated community education program regarding responsible pet ownership in Lane Cove and the importance of urban bushland as wildlife havens and notification of  all residents adjoining the key bushland reserves, a WPA declaration places the onus of responsibility on cat owners to ensure their cats are prevented from entering bushland and hunting native wildlife.

The relationship with the Management Plan is as follows:-

Direction:    Environmental Sustainability

Program:     Bushland Management

Example of WPA Policy by Willoughby Council

Willoughby Council recently decided to designate selected Bushland reserves in the City as Wildlife Protection Areas in an effort to preserve and protect native wildlife. The areas chosen were selected following a Fauna Study undertaken by Council found that these areas provide the natural habitat for many of the native animals found in Willoughby.

Council will be erecting signs to identify the Wildlife Protection Areas and an education campaign will be undertaken to inform residents and visitors about the requirements to be observed when using these areas.

Fines can be issued if people do not observe the Wildlife Protection Area requirements; however, Council’s Rangers will initially be seeking to educate people using these areas. http://www.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/

Example of WPA Policy by North Sydney Council - %202004.pdf

North Sydney Council resolved to place a proposal for the declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas in five of Council’s fourteen bushland reserves on public exhibition on the 30th of Nov. 2009. The result of the exhibition period informing the community and the subsequent community response showed an overwhelming community support for the proposal. http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/resources/documents/ES015.pdf

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council supports the provision of the initial funding (estimated $9,800) this financial year in order to employ a consultant to undertake the necessary work for the introduction of Wildlife Protection Areas in Lane Cove in accordance with the Lane Cove Bushland Plan of Management 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Shauna Forrest

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Extracts form the 'Bushland Plan of Management' - Feb 2007

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Wildlife Protection Areas - Cost Estimate - Yr 1

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Notice of Motion No. 14

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 14

Subject:          Parking PODS    

Record No:    SU3297 - 51330/10

Author(s):       Councillor David Brooks-Horn; Councillor Ann  Smith 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   The General Manager prepares a report for Council about the Parking PODs in Lane Cove.  This report is to contain but not be limited to:-

a)    The intended utilisation of the currently deployed PODs;

b)    The intended future utilisation of PODs throughout the Lane Cove Municipality;

c)    The current cost of the current and future deployment including: PODs, relays, computer systems, hand held equipments etc; and installation costs;

d)    Expected revenue by fines;

e)    The public consultation used before the current deployment; and

f)     The intended public notification.

2.   The currently deployed PODs only be used for information gathering purposes and not for parking enforcement until the report is presented to council and the future of the PODs is decided by the council.

3.   No further PODs be deployed until points 1 and 2 are completed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Councillor

 

 

Councillor Ann  Smith

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Notice of Motion No. 16

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 16

Subject:          Commercial Waste Removal    

Record No:    SU3176 - 51441/10

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison; Councillor Ann  Smith; Councillor David Brooks-Horn; Councillor Ian  Longbottom 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At present the commercial shop owners in Lane Cove Plaza do not recycle their waste.  A contractor is paid to collect all waste types i.e. bottles, paper, food scraps etc.  Some of the shop owners are using the bins in the Plaza to dispose of their plastic bottles and other waste.  Residents of Lane Cove are currently able to recycle their waste and this opportunity should be afforded to the commercial shop owners of Lane Cove.   

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.    A report be prepared for Council which includes the following information with the view of providing recycle waste disposal options for commercial shop owners in Lane Cove:-

a)    If Councils current waste contractor used for residents offer waste recycle options for business;

b)    The type of options available and costs to provide such a service to commercial shop owners;

c)    If Councils current waste contractor does not provide this service then investigate other contractors including commercial shop owners current contractors of what waste option are available and the cost to provide such a service; and

d)    Prepare a comparison report between current waste contractors currently used by commercial shop owners and recycle waste alternatives.

2.    Council convene a meeting with commercial shops owners in Lane Cove Plaza to discuss options of using recycle waste options;

3.    If, the cost differential between what commercial shop owners are currently paying with no waste recycling to waste recycling options being offered, Council consider subsidising the differential from Lane Cove Sustainability Levy; and

4.    Depending on the success of the above consider adopting the above strategy in other shopping areas within Lane Cove.

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison                              Councillor Ann  Smith

Councillor                                                      Councillor

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn                        Councillor Ian  Longbottom

Councillor                                                      Councillor

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

General Managers Report No. 20

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 20

Subject:          Proposed Closure Friedlander Place, St Leonards    

Record No:    su3378 - 51106/10

Author(s):       John Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines submissions received in regard to the proposed closure of Friedlander Place, St Leonards between the Pacific Highway and Nicolson Street.

The upper part of Friedlander Place was closed to vehicular traffic when the current structure over Friedlander Place was completed around 1989, providing a landscaped plaza with a hexagonal based geometric design theme on 2 separate levels, incorporating steps between the plaza levels and down to the lower part of Friedlander Place. Pedestrian access through Friedlander Place connects Nicholson Street and Pacific Highway.

The lower part of Friedlander Place would still continue to provide access to adjacent properties via rights of way from Nicholson Street but limited in height 5m above the existing road surface.

Public notification as per the requirements of the Department of Lands was undertaken in April and May 2009.  All submissions have been considered.  Issues generally related to protection of public utility installations, protection of existing access rights including height restrictions, retention of and proposed location of a public pathway between Pacific Highway and Nicholson Street, traffic management and ongoing responsibility for maintenance of the road pavement within the proposed rights of way.

The report recommends that Council resolves to advise the Department of Lands (DOL) that with appropriate easements protecting public utility installations and rights of way protecting the public and private interests, there are no other reasons preventing the Department from approving the proposed road closure.

 

Background

The proposal to close Friedlander Place has been progressed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between DOL and Council dated 28 April 2006.  This MoU authorised Council to act on behalf of the Crown in progressing a number of administrative functions associated with the closure of public road. 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 21 July 2008 considered a report on the redevelopment options and closure of Friedlander Place and resolved to close Friedlander Place as a public road subject to:-

1.   Maintaining and protecting the existing rights of way of the adjacent property owners; and

2.   Maintaining a pedestrian Right of Way 1.5 metre wide through the site connecting Pacific Highway to Nicholson Street. 

The proposed road closed lot has future development potential either as a separate entity or in conjunction with a consolidation of one or more adjacent lots.  Should the proposed road closed lot be closed and a certificate of title be issued, at that time it would be appropriate to explore future development or disposal options in more detail.

 


Public Agencies and Service Providers

Prior to public notification, the views of various public agencies and service providers were sought. 

In general terms, provided that existing electricity and water utilities are protected by appropriate easements, the objections to the road closure raised by these public agencies will be withdrawn.  Telstra and Optus have indicated that they have no objection provided access to telecommunications infrastructure is maintained.

 

Public Notification

The public notification (AT-1), approved by DOL, commenced on 25 April 2009 in the Public Notices section of the Sydney Morning Herald and repeated on 28 and 29 April 2009.  The notice also appeared in the Public Notices section of the Northside Courier - Sydney Weekly and North Shore Times issues dated 29 April 2009 and 1 May 2009 respectively.  The notification period closed 4 pm on 26 May 2009.

 

Adjacent Properties

Adjacent properties directly affected by the proposed road closure and Public Utilities who will be the beneficiaries of the proposed rights of way are identified on the survey plan and referenced in this report as:

 

Property Address

Folio Identifiers

Submitter /Owner / Public Utility

Alias used in this report

486 Pacific Highway

SP73071

Leighton Pacific St Leonards P/L (including Urbis / Herbertgeer / Dibbs Barker acting on behalf of Leighton)

Leighton

500 Pacific Highway

1/3175

BMax

Bmax

504 Pacific Highway

2-6/3175

Macquarie

Macgroup

69 Christie Street

SP69455

Body Corporate Services – BCS Strata Management P/L on behalf of the Executive Committee SP 69455

69 Christie

 

 

Energy Australia

EA

 

Submissions

No Objections

Submissions advising no objections were received from:-

·     Jemena Asset Management P/L (Jemena);

·     Department of Primary Industries (DPI); and

·     Sydney Water.

 


Qualified Objections

Submissions advising qualified objections requiring further assurances/information were received from:-

·     Roads and Traffic Authority NSW (RTA);

·     Telstra;

·     Optus;

·     Energy Australia (EA);

·     North Sydney Council;

·     Leighton;

·     Macgroup;

·     Bmax; and

·     69 Christie.

All submissions have been taken into consideration and are summarised as relating to the:-

·     Protection of public utility installations;

·     Protection of existing access rights including height restrictions;

·     Retention of and proposed location of a public pathway between Pacific Highway and Nicholson Street;

·     Traffic management; and

·     Ongoing responsibility for maintenance of the road pavement within the proposed rights of way. 

We have worked through these issues with relevant stakeholders in drafting an acceptable S88B instrument creating the easements, rights of way and responsibilities of the parties

 

Discussion

Since commencing the road closure process, it is noted that Leighton acquired 486 Pacific Highway, expanding their future options associated with their current head office at 472 Pacific Highway.

The upper part of Friedlander Place was physically closed to traffic when it was reconstructed as a plaza area in 1989. 

The lower part of Friedlander Place with access off Nicholson Ave provides vehicular access to Leightons, Bmax, Macgroup and 69 Christie.  The Plaza provides a covered access (i.e. limited in height) into the off street parking areas for the private properties of Leightons and Bmax.

It is intended that the existing access provisions to private properties will be maintained and protected by way of appropriate rights of way.

A copy of the survey Plan of subdivision creating the proposed road lot and the draft S88B instrument setting out the terms of the various rights and easements to be created is included in AT-2 and AT-3 respectively.

The following précis identifies how those issues or concerns originally raised have been resolved:

 

RTA

The RTA required and has subsequently approved a Traffic Management Plan for the proposed closure of public road and has recommended concurrence to the proposed road closure.

 

Sydney Water

Sydney Water, in its letter dated 8 September 2008 indicated that it has no objection to the proposed road closure. 

 

Telstra and Optus

Telstra and Optus have advised that they no objection in principle provided access for augmentation and maintenance is maintained.  It is noted that these carriers’ access to their facilities is provided for in the Telecommunications act 1997.

 

North Sydney Council

North Sydney Council have advised that they have no objections subject to the protection of existing vehicular and pedestrian access to adjoining properties and a 1.5m wide minimum pedestrian access between Pacific Highway and Nicholson Street.

 

Leighton

The initial request by Leighton to create a public pathway across the width of the proposed road closed lot to link up with their open podium has not been supported as it would adversely impact on the development potential, and is unnecessary in achieving the intent of a pedestrian link through the site between Nicholson Street and Pacific Highway.

Leighton has since advised that they have no objection to the proposed road closure subject to appropriate easements for access being documented and registered.

 

Macgroup

Following discussions with Macgroup, their initial requirement for unlimited height applying to the right of way into their property appears to have been satisfied with the 5m height restriction being applied to their right of way.  This height limitation allows ample clearance for access to their site by any construction equipment likely to be required in a future redevelopment.

An unlimited height restriction was not supported as it would adversely impact on the development potential, and is unnecessary in achieving the intent of maintaining access into their property.

 

69 Christie

Advice has been received in respect of 69Christie that the rights of way and S88B instrument (as amended) suitably provide for their access requirements.

 

Public Pathway

Bmax and Leighton raised question in relation to the location of the public pathway through the proposed road closed lot.  The current location of the proposed public pathway between Nicholson Street and Pacific Highway is along the north western boundary.  It is expected that the public pathway will be relocated to include a route through arcades, corridors, stairs / lifts /escalators/ etc to suit a future development in a similar manner to the Market Square development.

The S88B instrument makes provision for the location of the public pathway to be modified in a subsequent development.

 


Responsibilities

The responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the road pavement in Friedlander Place will transfer to the owner of the proposed road lot.  Until sold, Council would as the land owner, continue its current responsibility for road maintenance. 

 

Conclusion

The easements, rights and responsibilities proposed to be created by way of a S88B instrument to be registered with the creation of the proposed road lot addresses the basis of each submission with qualified objections.

Submissions relating the location of the public right of way between Nicolson Ave and Pacific Highway are not validly based, as the proposed location is notional only until the site is redeveloped.  Until then, no change to the plaza or stairs to / from the plaza is proposed.

With advice that Macgroup is prepared to accept a 5m height restriction the submission requiring unlimited height to rights of way appears to have been resolved.

We have carefully assessed the issues raised in the submissions and/or objections received in relation to the proposal as outlined above.  Based on advice received from the submitted or their expert advisers these issues can be resolved by the inclusion of relevant easements / rights of way.  It is therefore appropriate for Council to request the Department of Lands to approve the road closure and effect gazettal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council, having considered the issues raised in the submissions and/or objections received in relation to the proposal to close Friedlander Place, St Leonards as outlined in this report, request the Department of Lands to approve the road closure and effect gazettal, noting that:

1.       Valid requirements raised by Energy Australia requiring an easement over their infrastructure have been included in the S88B instrument;

2.       Valid requirements raised by adjacent land owners currently having access of Friedlander Place requiring rights of way over the existing road pavement have been addressed by Rights of Way and appropriate provisions included in the S88B instrument;

3.       The responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the proposed road lot will transfer to the owner of the proposed road lot.  Until the land is sold, that responsibility remains with Council;

4.       A public pathway will be provided between Nicholson Street and Pacific Highway, with provision in the S88B instrument to effect its relocation to suit a future redevelopment; and

5.       The RTA has recommended concurrence with the proposed road closure.

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AT 1 Public Notification

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

AT 2 Draft Survey Plan of Subdivision for Proposed Road Lot

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

AT 3 Draft Section 88B Instrument

20 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

General Managers Report No. 22

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 22

Subject:          Code of Conduct Matter - Clr Ian Longbottom    

Record No:    SU3942 - 51295/10

Author(s):       Peter Brown 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The General Manager received two complaints under Council’s Code of Conduct by correspondence on the 15 and 17 August concerning the behaviour of Clr Longbottom at the Council meeting of 2 August, 2010.

 

The complaints were referred for assessment to an independent Sole Reviewer, Mr Christopher Shaw.

 

This report to Council completes the process and makes recommendations as detailed by Mr Shaw.

 

 

Background

 

The complaints received alleged that at the Council meeting of 2 August, 2010 Clr Longbottom used inappropriate language, undertook verbal abuse, did not treat others with respect, made derogatory comments of fellow Councillors and left the Chamber thereby not fulfilling his duties as a Councillor.

 

Mr Shaw was appointed to review the complaints from Council’s panel of Reviewers and as part of his review examined all information, listened to and considered Council’s recording of the 2 August meeting, interviewed the complainants, Clr Longbottom and the General Manager.

 

The Code of Conduct outlines the obligations the Reviewer has and the matters for consideration in making findings and recommendations.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Sole Reviewer has concluded that a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred and in his

opinion an apology by the Councillor to a public meeting of Council is deemed appropriate.

 

Mr Shaw notes that such an apology was made by Clr Longbottom and that this apology was accepted by Council. 

 

Mr Shaw notes Clr Longbottom’s acknowledgement of the breach of the Code, his assistance in carrying out the investigation and the apology made and accepted, and recommends that no further action be taken.

 

In line with the Sole Reviewer’s recommendation his report has been provided to all Councillors on a confidential basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Note that a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred;

 

2.   Note that an apology has been made and unanimously accepted by Council and take no further action on this matter as recommended by the Sole Reviewer; and

 

3.   Provide Mr Shaw’s report to any future Code of Conduct Review Committee should such a body be called upon to investigate a similar breach by the Councillor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 66

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 66

Subject:          Infrastructure Levy - Background and Way Forward    

Record No:    SU4162 - 47775/10

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson; Jane  Gornall; Wayne Rylands  

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Earlier in 2010 Council considered the option of implementing an Infrastructure Levy and resolved to receive a further report outlining, in detail, Council’s current and future infrastructure needs.

Council staff have finalised asset management strategies and a 10 year financial plan, as required for the new Community Planning and Reporting Framework introduced by the State Government, and determined that there is a $22.9M infrastructure renewal gap. Based on a combination of, existing reserves and budgets and the imposition of a levy, the $22.9M current infrastructure gap can be funded over a 10 year period. It is recommended that Council apply under s508A of the Local Government Act 1993 to implement a nett 6% (after removing $25 Stormwater Management Charge) special variation (levy) on all rateable properties.

 

Background

Council at its Meeting of 21st June, 2010 resolved that a report be submitted on the possible implementation of an Infrastructure Levy for Lane Cove.

Council at its Meeting of 16th August, 2010 received a report on the matter and resolved:-

“1.   The report be received and noted;

2.    Council pursue the implementation of an Infrastructure Levy; and

3.    A further report be submitted to Council outlining, in detail, Council’s current and future infrastructure needs.”

 

A workshop with Councillors was subsequently held in November, 2010 to brief Councillors on the matter, this report provides a summary of the material presented to Councillors and a way forward for Council to pursue implementation of an Infrastructure Levy.

 

Discussion

The introduction of Rate-pegging some 30 years ago has led to a reduction in services and standards over time. Maintenance and renewal of a councils’ infrastructure is limited to what a council can afford rather than what is optimal. This when combined with growth in terms of population and quality arising from changing community expectations (for example, child care demand) has seen a gap between present and optimal infrastructure.

Lane Cove is by no means alone with this problem. The 2006 Inquiry, Financial Sustainability of Local Government in NSW (Allan Inquiry) identified an immediate $6.3 billion shortfall in infrastructure needs across NSW, estimated to worsen by up to $800 million annually to 2020, in the absence of financial remedies. In response councils, including Lane Cove, commenced assessments of the condition of their assets stock.

In 2009 Council commenced the preparation of Asset Management Plans for Roads, Footpaths, Drainage and Facilities as required for the new Community Planning and Reporting Framework introduced by the State Government.  This brought with it unprecedented levels of knowledge about asset quantity and quality. For example, the number of drainage pits Council had in its registers doubled from 2200 to 4247, because for the first time a comprehensive audit was undertaken of each pit and the drainage system was electronically mapped to allow previously hidden pits to be identified. In addition each pipe length was assessed for its condition and capacity. Where pipes were poor condition CCTV was used to examine the situation more fully.

Council has adopted the asset rating system of the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, which is a 1 – 5 scale where, 1 is in “as new” and 5 is at the end of its useful life.

 

Description

Condition

Excellent Category

1

Good Category

2

Fair Category

3

Poor Category

4

Failed Category

5

The following provides commentary in relation to each asset class.

Roads

Council has now completed an Asset Management Plan for Roads, Footpaths and Drainage as required by the new Community Strategic Planning Regime. In short, Roads need to be kept in a good to excellent condition, otherwise there is too much potential for public safety to be compromised and once they get to a fair condition the rate of deterioration increases. Photographic examples of the 5 condition ratings for roads are shown below:-

 

 


 

 

      Category 1                   Category 2                       Category 3                  Category 4                  Category 5

 
 


Council currently has a total of 101 kms (93km Local and 8km Regional) of roads. The roads segments have been assessed as being in the following condition: Condition 1 – 258, Condition 2 – 395, Condition 3 – 23, Condition 4 – 0, Condition 5 – 0. If a road only contains a part of the segment in a Condition 4 or 5, it can still result in an overall condition of 3. Current examples of roads with a current condition rating of 3, include; Best Street  - Penrose Street to Dead End, Cope Street  - Caroline Chisholm Lane to Burns Bay Road, Harrison Street  - George Street to Dead End, Kingslangley Road  - Hinkler Street to Balfour Street, Kooyong Parade  - Kooyong Road to Dead End South, Manns Avenue  - George Street to Gother Avenue, Miramont Avenue  - Surada Avenue to Romani Avenue, Mowbray Road  - Mindarie Street to Kullah Parade, Pengilly Street  - Sofala Road to Hamilton Street.

Footpaths

Like roads, footpaths need to be kept in a good to excellent condition otherwise there is too much potential for public safety to be compromised and once they get to a fair condition the rate of deterioration increases. Photographic examples of the 5 condition ratings for footpaths are shown below:-

      Category 1                 Category 2         Category 3            Category 4                Category 5

 
 

 

 

 

 



Council currently has a total of 124 kms of footpaths. The footpath segments have been assessed as being in the following condition: Condition 1 – 539, Condition 2 – 135, Condition 3 – 152, Condition 4 – 75, Condition 5 – 17. Examples of footpath segments with a current condition rating of 3 or below, include; Bellevue Avenue - Pacific Highway to dead end, Centennial Avenue - Karilla Avenue to Epping Road, Cowper Street - William Edward Street to Dead End, Cumberland Walk - Cumberland Avenue to Epping Road, Flaumont Walk - Flaumont Avenue to Tambourine Bay Road, Manns Avenue - Gother Avenue to Greenwich Road, Yallambee Road - Barina Road to Warraroon Road.

With the additional funding for footpath maintenance there is potential to provide shared user paths (2.4 metres) in place of footpaths (1.2 metres) where they have been nominated in the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan.

Approximately $980,000 (approximately 30%) of Bike Paths could be funded through this initiative. The following map shows (in heavy black), the footpaths which are scheduled for renewal in the next 10 years, which are suitable for upgrading to shared paths, to provide off road cycle routes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Stormwater Drainage

The asset backlog relating to stormwater was recognised by the State Government in 2007, when it introduced the ability for all councils to levy a flat charge of $25 per dwelling to be used towards stormwater upgrades. Council currently receives $275,000 from this levy, which unfortunately is not enough to address the size of the backlog. (If Council implements an infrastructure levy, the stormwater charge could no longer be levied).

The lifecycle of stormwater pipes is somewhat different to roads and footpaths as stormwater pipes in fair condition can still safely convey water through a catchment. These assets are generally repaired when or just before they are in a poor or failed condition. With the increase in development activity since the majority of the drainage network was designed, asset renewal will often also include amplification. There are already areas which currently are susceptible to inundation. With the projected increase in dwellings under Lane Cove LEP 2009, this situation will worsen, however, the amplification components of works directly related to new development can be funded from the s94 developer contribution paid as part of the development.

Photographic examples of the 5 condition ratings for footpaths are shown below:-

 

 

 

 

     Category 1             Category 2                  Category 3                  Category 4                  Category 5

 
 


Council currently has a total of 93 kms of pipes. The pipe segments have been assessed as being in the following condition:- Condition 1 – 644, Condition 2 – 3401, Condition 3 – 125, Condition 4 – 30, Condition 5 – 9. Examples of pipes with a current condition rating of below 3, include; Anglo Lane, Bridge Street, Centennial Avenue, Eastview Street, Eva Street, Innes Road, Ronald Avenue, Lloyd Rees Drive, Phoenix Street, Penrose Street, St Vincent Road and Stokes Street.

Asset Condition Commentary

The following graph depicts the overall condition ratings of Assets in the identified classes of assets.

5

 

3

 

3

 

4

 
 

4

 
 


3

 
 

2

 

2

 

2

 

1

 

1

 

1

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council’s existing accounting treatment of assets has largely centred around a straight line deterioration model based on historical costs.  With the advent of the Asset Management Plan a new model was implemented which better reflects actual asset deterioration. This model as shown in the following diagram, shows that deterioration is a curve, with initial deterioration low, but increasing over time. Based on this model, many of Council’s assets currently rated 3 or above will require renewal in the 10 years, well in excess of current expenditure levels.  An Acceptable Average Condition Rating has been determined for each asset class, even with increased funding, some assets will moderately deteriorate, compared to current condition levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The projected expenditure per year required to achieve the acceptable level of asset condition over the next 10 years is as follows:-

 

Asset Class

Current Annual Spending

Required Annual Spending

Shortfall In Annual Spending (Acceptable)

Roads

$860k

$1,650k

$790k

Footpaths

$200k

$450k

$250k

Stormwater

$390k

$1,200k

$810k

Totals

$1.45M

$3.3M

$1.85M

 

Facilities

For a small Council, Lane Cove owns a large number of community buildings and provides a wide range of facilities. In terms of their management the key issues are:-

·     “Best Value”, needs vs wants – Some facilities meet needs such as child care, whilst others meet wants such as Scout Halls.

·     Cost vs usage – Many facilities are occupied by community groups with low revenue streams, a balance needs to be maintained between the facility been maintained in an appropriate condition and at an affordable price.

·     Council initiated vs inheritance – Council did not construct many of the facilities that it now owns, with ownership of the facility transferring by virtue of the fact that Council owns the land on which the facility stands, but leases it to a group. Council has not traditionally funded these facilities, but with increasing maintenance and low revenue streams, community groups are finding it difficult to meet the maintenance challenge.

Excluding parks buildings, Council owns over 50 buildings that are used for a variety of civic and community purposes. These can be split into the following categories:-

1.   Council Occupied / Run;

2.   Child Care Centres;

3.   Cultural / Arts Centres;

4.   Scout and Guide Halls;

5.   Seniors and Neighbourhood Centres;

6.   Rowing and Sailing Clubs;

7.   Tennis, Bowling and Sporting Clubs;

8.   Commercial / Residential; and

9.   Swimming Baths – Built and Tidal.

 

The level of detailed analysis for facilities is not to the same as for Road, Footpaths and Drainage. Unlike these types of Assets, facilities have many components, including electrical, plumbing, structural, roofing etc this makes preparing asset management plans a site by site proposition, which is both timely and expensive. Council has had external firms prepare individual asset management plans for:-

·    Council Offices;

·     Lane Cove Community Centre; and

·     Longueville Sporting Club.

 

Council staff have identified that the following facilities are in need of a detailed Asset Plan:-

·     Lane Cove Library / Market Square; and

·     Lane Cove Aquatic Centre.

 

The remainder of the maintenance and renewal of facilities is managed via inspections by Council staff, which have received training in the IPWEA assessment methodology outlined earlier in the report.

 

The following photographs show examples of Council facilities in the respective categories.

Building Condition Rating 1 - Excellent

 

 

Building Condition Rating 2 - Good

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Condition Rating 3 - Fair

 

 

Building Condition Rating 4 - Poor

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Condition Rating 5 - Failed

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Asset Condition Commentary

The following graph depicts the overall condition ratings of Council’s facilities:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Councils funding of asset renewal for facilities is based initially on OH&S requirements, including Asbestos, Electrical, and Structural, whether or not the building is Council owned and occupied and finally the Leasing / management arrangements. Many of Council’s existing leases require tenants to undertake maintenance in exchange for low rent.

 

The cyclic nature of maintenance and asset renewal for facilities means that there is not a constant level of funding for individual facilities in Council’s budget. The projected additional expenditure required to achieve the acceptable level of asset condition over the next 10 years for facilities is shown in the following table. It only includes asset renewal by Council, it excludes known requests for Enhancements / Improvements and capital investment by lessees (e.g. North Shore Rowing Club, Centrehouse, Meeting House, and Aquatic Centre Rectification Works). Council has adopted the Major Projects Strategic Plan which over the long term is designed to deliver $56M in assets, including new accommodation for Centrehouse and Meeting House.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Funding the Gap

 

The total funding gap for asset renewal over the next 10 years for Road, Footpaths, Drainage, and facilities is $22.9 million.

 

Council has 3 main sources to fund the gap:-

·     Existing Reserves and Budgets;

·     S94 Funds; and

·     Infrastructure Levy.

 

Existing Reserves

 

As at 30 June 2010, Council’s accounts identified $5.9M available in working capital which could be put towards funding the gap. However, Council has existing short/medium term commitments for the funds of, $4.5 Million for the Meeting House Renewal Project, and $2.5 Million for Aquatic Centre Repairs. Council in the medium term will recover these funds, therefore they will be available for infrastructure renewal. If Council chooses to do this however, new revenues will be required to fund any new projects. Having said this, the Major Projects Plan, if fully implemented, over the long term is designed to deliver $56M in new assets without impact on existing programs.

 

Existing Budgets

 

Part of the reason that there is an infrastructure backlog has been underspending on asset renewal from Council’s annual budgets over time compared to the depreciation expense incurred. There has been a tendency in local government (an indeed all levels of government) to accumulate such shortfalls to fund new assets to meet the currents community’s needs, rather than simply replace existing assets. This is because the accounting standards do not require the depreciation expenses to be reserved solely for asset renewal. The following table outlines the extent to which this has occurred over the past five years, excluding the Market Square Development.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fully reinvesting all depreciation, i.e. no under expenditure, exclusively in asset renewal, not additional infrastructure, will yield an estimated $6.3M over 10 years.

 

 


S94 Development Contributions

 

S94 Development Contributions are designed for asset enhancement not asset renewal. Specifically it provides “If a consent authority is satisfied that development for which development consent is sought will or is likely to require the provision of or increase the demand for public amenities and public services within the area, the consent authority may grant the development consent subject to a condition requiring: (a) the dedication of land free of cost, or (b) the payment of a monetary contribution, or both.”

 

With the adoption of Lane Cove LEP 2009 there will be significant development with the local government area, which will require the utilisation of the relevant S94 Development Contributions for asset enhancement in the area of Open Space, Transport and Drainage, including:-

·     Enhancement of Blackman Park to increase its active recreation capacity;

·     Lane Cove Village Transport and Public Domain;

·     St Leonards Transport and Public Domain; and

·     General drainage capacity improvements associated with development and Gross Pollutant Trap’s.

 

On this basis, there are no specific funds available from S94 Development Contributions for funding the Infrastructure Gap.

 

Infrastructure Levy

 

The payment of a levy for the purpose of funding an infrastructure gap is now not uncommon.  A significant proportion of surrounding councils have sought & been granted approval by the Minister to implement environmental, infrastructure & sustainability levy’s, see below.

 

Council

Type of Levy

Purpose

Levy Amount

Mosman

Population: 27,973

 

Community Environmental Contract

Stormwater / Bushland / Integrated Projects / Seawalls

5% p.a.

Infrastructure Levy

Roads / Footpaths / Drainage

6% p.a.

Hunters Hill

Population: 12,570

Environmental

 

Environmental sustainability program

2.6% p.a.

 

Community Facilities Asset Infrastructure

“to fund the ten year works program for building and community facilities”

4.53% p.a.

Manly

Population: 38,790

Environmental

Creekline Restoration / Stormwater / Bushland

4.2% p.a.

Infrastructure Levy

 

2.2% p.a.

Warringah

Population: 136,874

Environmental

Environmental / Stormwater / Bushland

6.9%

Sportsground

Sportsground Upgrades

2%

Infrastructure Levy

 

6.5%

Willoughby

Population: 62,869

Environmental Levy

 

12.16% p.a.

North Sydney

Population: 59,226

Environmental Levy

Stormwater Management / Bushland Rehabilitation / Energy Efficiency

6.15% p.a.

Infrastructure Levy

 

5.51% (currently seeking to replace with a 3% levy)

Ku-Ring-Gai

Population: 108,212

Infrastructure Levy

Road Rehabilitation /  Bushland / Waterways / Urban Environment

4.98% p.a

Environmental Levy

5.13% p.a

Special Facilities Levy

3.15%

Hornsby

Population: 154,563

Catchment Remediation

Environmental Restoration Projects

5%

Infrastructure Levy

 

5.6% (Not yet approved)

Whilst the percentages vary between councils, the need to raise additional funds is consistent. Based on the target of $22.9M over 10 years, a levy in the order of 6% nett would be required (see AT-1), which would raise some $1M per year or potentially $10M over 10 years. Note, a levy can initially only be for a maximum period of 7 years under s508A of the Local Government Act. Council would need to make a further application for continuation of the levy beyond that period.

As it is proposed to utilise the levy for Stormwater Drainage enhancements, it is not possible for Council to maintain the existing “Stormwater Management Charge” of $25 per property. This charge currently raises some $281,000 p.a and equates to a levy of approximately 1.7%. As this charge would need to absorbed into the levy, if for example Council wanted to raise $1,000,000 in additional revenue, the levy would be for $1,281,000 or approximately 7.5%. The nett additional rate income, however, is 6%.

Percentages are somewhat misleading in terms of levy’s, because large councils raise significantly more in dollar terms from smaller percentages, than can be achieved from smaller councils such as Lane Cove. Lane Cove would, if implemented, have total levies of 12%, 6% sustainability and 6% infrastructure. Of the councils in the above table, all but Hunters Hill and Manly have combined levies which total at least 11%. Later in the report the process for the application for a levy is outlined.

Council staff have prepared a 10 Year a Long Term Financial Plan as required under the new Community Planning and Reporting Framework. Included as Scenario 1 in AT-2 is the current 10 year forecast, which shows Council’s cash position run down to $4.2 million over a 10 year period, if the asset renewal program is implemented without a levy. At this level Council would have a unrestricted current ratio of less than 1:1, which is unacceptable as Council would effectively be insolvent. With the introduction of a levy, Scenario 2 in the attachment, Council’s cash position would remain above the 1:1 ratio for the full 10 year period, with a nett cash reduction of $12.9 million over the period.

If Council was to implement and Infrastructure Levy it would be appropriate to give commitments to the community in relation to its use. The following is suggested:-

·     All funds from the levy will be used for asset renewal.

·     Council will not reduce its existing asset renewal program funding.

The Funding Equation

Based on a combination of, existing reserves and budgets and the imposition of a levy, the gap can be funded over a 10 year period by:-.

Existing Reserves.                                                                                                  $5.9M

Fully expending depreciation under expenditure on asset renewal.                       $6.3M

6% Infrastructure Levy*.                                                                                       $10.2M

Total    $22.4M

* Dependent on the rate of development under the new LEP, the levy will grow to cover the majority of the projected $500,000 shortfall. E.g. The levy on 2500 additional dwellings at the minimum rate $677 x 6% = $101,500 p.a.

Financial Implications

 

Council staff when modelling a levy, had regard to a rule of thumb, that for residential properties, the amount payable for the majority of properties should be no more than $100. The impact of the levy on Residential Rates is outlined in Table 2. The first part of the table shows the % of properties at the respective level of Rates (based on the 2010/11 levy). The second part of the table indicates the amount payable for the respective level of Rates. The table indicates that for a nett levy of 6%, 84% of properties would pay $90 or less, while 46% of the 84% will pay less than $30 p.a.  Note, the large value residential properties relate to non-strata titled multi-occupancy properties.

 

In relation to the Business Rate based on a 6% levy, 85% of properties would pay $300 or less, while 58% of the 85%, pay only $41. The impact on the Business properties is not considered unreasonable.

 

Impact of an Infrastructure Levy on Residential Rates

 

Rates Paid P.A.

Existing Rates Band

<$500

<$1000

<$1500

<$2000

<$2500

<$3000

<$10000

>$10,001

% of Assessments.

46%

11%

27%

8%

4%

2%

2%

0.02%

% Assessments - Cumulative

46%

57%

84%

92%

96%

98%

100%

100%

 

 

Max Additional Rates Paid P.A.

Proposed Levy

<$500

<$1000

<$1500

<$2000

<$2500

<$3000

<$10000

>$10,001

7.5% (Nett 6%)

    $30

    $60

      $90

    $120

    $150

    $180

$600

$962 AVG

 

Impact of an Infrastructure Levy on Business Rates

 

Rates Paid P.A.

Existing Rates Band

$677

<$1000

<$2000

<$5000

<$10000

<$20000

<$30000

>$30001

% of Assessments.

58%

9%

11%

7%

8%

4%

2%

2%

% Assessments - Cumulative

 

67%

78%

85%

93%

97%

98%

100%

 

 

Max Additional Rates Paid P.A.

Proposed Levy

$677

<$1000

<$2000

<$5000

<$10000

<$20000

<$30000

>$30001

7.5% (Nett 6%)

$41

      $60

    $120

    $300

      $600

   $1,200

   $1,800

$3335AVG

Infrastructure Levy Process

A new special variation process will apply for the 2011/12 financial year, where IPART will now be responsible for considering special variations and setting the Rate pegging limit. The IPART special variation guidelines were scheduled to be released in September 2010, however, to date this has not occurred. The IPART determination will also co-inside with Lane Cove’s move to the new Integrated Community Planning process, from 1 July 2011. The new Integrated Planning and Reporting framework is intended to facilitate the process for a council to apply for a special variation under section 508A of the Local Government Act (Fixed Term, maximum 7 years) and this is the relevant form of application for Lane Cove to prepare should council elect to proceed. 

The following outlines the current process under the Division of Local Government Guidelines of December 2009.  As stated this may change under IPART.

The key matters considered as part of the assessment of a section 508A application are:-

·           Sound business case;

·           Impact on council sustainability;

·           Efficiencies;

·           Impact on ratepayers;

·           Consultation and feedback; and

·           Special variation application history.

The application must include a general overview of the purpose and reasons behind the application, including the period covered by the variation, the financial impact of the proposed increases and how the application reflects the Community Strategic Plan.

A council’s application must be supported by a Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and asset Management Plan that has been developed in accordance with the prescribed Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements. These will be on exhibition at the same time as the levy application consultation.

It must also include information on key assumptions that underpin the LTFP and the special variation application. These assumptions will include projections such as:-

·           the community’s priorities and expectations;

·           the rate peg;

·           level of cost recovery for provision of services (e.g. full/partial cost recovery);

·           expenditure growth rate;

·           major asset disposals/investments/capital commitments;

·           population/ rate assessment growth rate;

·           major borrowings/repayments;

·           grants and other revenue; and

·           proposed level of service for assets.

 

Community Consultation

Given its significance, any council considering applying for a section 508A variation must demonstrate its ongoing consultations with its community in relation to the variation.

Details must be provided of the steps the council has taken to inform the community of the special variation proposal and the mechanisms it has implemented to obtain community feedback on the proposal. This includes community engagement through a deliberative poll, surveys, media publicity, public exhibitions etc.

Consultation Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to determine if the community is willing to escalate infrastructure renewal via a levy to fund the projects. Comments received will be utilised to determine whether or not to proceed with the levy.

Methods of Consultation

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined in the table below. Council when preparing for the Sustainability Levy utilised the same consultation methods, which was well regarded by the community. The dates outlined are draft and subject to final confirmation. 

It is also proposed to use a “Budget Allocator” which is an online tool facilitated by Bang The Table Pty Ltd designed to help ratepayers and residents understand community priorities and to help them understand the processes in preparing a budget. The Budget Allocator has been used by North Sydney, Waverley and Port Macquarie Hastings Councils as part of consultations for their proposed levys.

The Budget Allocator will be used in conjunction with the Deliberative Poll to help the community to understand the difficult choices that Council has to make, specifically that rates needed to rise significantly just to maintain current service levels. Bang The Table will provide a summary reporting including quantitative and qualitative data arising from the forum to Council.

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Levy Consultation Strategy

 

Collaborate

Involve

Consult

Consult

Consult

Target Audience

Council’s Community Reference Groups

400 members of the Lane Cove Community demography based.

Key message givers e.g. presidents of local resident associations

Lane Cove Community

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Briefing sessions and discussion at Meetings

Deliberative poll

Briefing sessions

Staffed exhibition over 2 days, Thursday Evening and Saturday Morning

Community Newsletter

e-Newsletter

Fact Sheets

Website

Survey

Public Exhibition

Indicative Timing

February to April 2011

February to April 2011

February 2011

March 2011

February to April 2011

 

 

Conclusion

Council’s Infrastructure backlog is the same issue confronting councils across Australia. The majority of councils in the region have responded to this by raising an Infrastructure Levy in addition to their environmental focused levies. Based on a combination of, existing reserves and budgets and the imposition of a levy, the $22.9M current infrastructure gap can be funded over a 10 year period. The Special Variation process available to Council under s508 of the Local Government Act provides for a maximum period of seven years, such a levy combined with the funding sources outlined report will go along way to Council meeting the Infrastructure challenge.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the report.

2.   Apply under s508A of the Local Government Act 1993 to implement a 7.5% (Nett 6%) special variation on all rateable properties for a seven year period.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Infrastructure Levy Yield

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Cash Flow Statements for Infrastructure Levy Report

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 69

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 69

Subject:          Revised Internal Audit Committee Charter    

Record No:    SU740 - 51173/10

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

On the 3rd September 2010 the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet – Local Government Division released revised Guidelines for Internal Audit.  These revised Guidelines provide more guidance on the requirements of the Independent Audit Committee and the role of the General Manager.  As a result of this publication minor amendments to the Internal Audit Committee Charter adopted by Lane Cove Council in March 2010 are required.

 

Background

In October 2008 the Department of Local Government (now NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet – Local Government Division) released Guidelines for Internal Audit under its General Circular 08/64.  Following adoption by the Internal Audit Committee, the Lane Cove Council adopted the Audit Committee Charter, which was based on these Guidelines, in March 2010.

 

A review of the Internal Audit Guidelines led to the publishing of subsequent revised Internal Audit Guidelines which were published on 3rd September 2010.  Under the provisions of Section 23A(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must take the Guidelines into consideration prior to exercising its functions in relation to Internal Audit or the Audit Committee.

 

At its meeting of the 27th October 2010, the Internal Audit Committee resolved to endorse the revised Audit Committee Charter and submit to Council for adoption.

 

Discussion

 

The revised Internal Audit Guidelines, attached as AT-1, have provided more guidance on the requirements of the Independent Audit Committee and the role of the General Manager.  Significant changes to reporting provisions have been included in sections 2.4, 3.4 and 3.9, while more substantial guidance for the Audit Committee and General Manager have been provided in sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Guidelines.  Further guidance in relation to the management of conflicts of interest has also been provided at section 4.4.3.

 

Subsequently, minor changes to the Internal Audit Committee Charter are now required, including changes to the reporting requirements, attendance and conflicts of interest provisions in sections 5, 6.2 and 6.4, which have been highlighted in the revised Audit Committee Charter attached as

AT-2.  The authority for approval of the Charter has also been revised in section 6.7 of the Charter.

Conclusion

Following its endorsement by the Internal Audit Committee at its meeting of the 27th October 2010 the revised Internal Audit Committee Charter is submitted to Council for adoption.


   

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the revised Internal Audit Committee Charter as endorsed by the Internal Audit Committee on the 27th October 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson                                                             

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

DLG Guidelines for Internal Audit - Revised 3 September 2010

66 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove Council Internal Audit Committee Charter - Revised

5 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 52

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 52

Subject:          Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrades    

Record No:    su391 - 51219/10

Author(s):       Susan  Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council has been considering the matter of upgrading the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Forecourt (grassed area) since November 2008, when urban design consultants Spackman Mossop Michaels were engaged to undertake a Public Domain Master Plan for the Lane Cove Town Centre.

A major component of the Master Plan involved the upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand. The heritage value of the Bandstand was brought into question. The heritage issue surrounding the Bandstand has led to significant discussion, investigation and ensuing community consultation over the past 2 years.

Council staff have now developed a preliminary design plan for the heritage upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Forecourt (grassed area) that encapsulates the community feedback, Principles for Conservation developed by the Volunteer Working Group, and input from heritage architect Graham Edds & Associates.

It is proposed that Council proceed to develop detailed plans and documentation, based on the preliminary design plans provided in this report, such that the heritage upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand could be undertaken by suitably qualified contractors. A further report would be tabled for Council’s consideration at the tender assessment stage.

Due to their size, only attachments AT-6 through to AT-11 for this report have been produced in hard copy in the business papers.  All attachments can be viewed electronically in the Business Papers on Council’s website and a full set of all attachments have been circulated to Councillors separately.

Background

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 15 February 2010, Council considered a report on the progress of upgrading the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Lane Cove Plaza. Upon considering this report, Council resolved that:-

“1.      Council proceed with consultation for the Lane Cove Village Public Domain Master Plan, modified Lloyd Rees Bandstand proposals and Lane Cove Plaza Concepts as outlined in the consultation strategy in the report subject to:-

a)            The consultation period being for 90 days;       

b)            A workshop for the general community be conducted; and

c)            The Key Message Givers group leader session be conducted by Council staff for all community group leaders.

2.      The modified Lloyd Rees Bandstand proposals to be exhibited include:-

a)            Richard Goodwin Bandstand Concept;

b)            Suprun and Buchanan Bandstand Concept; and

c)            Staff Bandstand Concept.

3.      The Lane Cove Plaza Concepts to be exhibited include:-

a)            Spackman Mossop Michaels Plaza Concepts Options 1 and 2; and

b)            Staff Plaza Concept.

4.      Mechanisms and strategies be provided to offer summary and feedback to community members.”

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the three Bandstand proposals and three Plaza proposals were placed on public exhibition from April to June 2010. This was achieved through the provision of information display panels that were provided at the Council Offices, Lane Cove Library and on Council’s website. An Introduction to the public exhibition process is provided as AT-1, whilst a Summary of the Heritage Studies is provided as AT-2. The three Bandstand proposals are provided as AT-3, AT-4, and AT-5. The three Plaza proposals will be the subject of a separate report that will be provided to Council in early 2011.

 

As part of the public exhibition process, a number of surveys (on-line surveys, information days + briefings to resident associations, & IRIS Research phone surveys) were undertaken on the various proposals for the upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Lane Cove Plaza. These surveys were also conducted from April to June 2010.

 

Community Responses to Bandstand and Plaza Options

 

There were 125 survey responses and 25 written submissions lodged in response to the Council survey. The 125 survey responses consisted of 72 on line responses and 53 hard copy responses. The 25 written submissions consisted of 16 written submissions from individuals and 9 submissions from organisations.

 

There were also 302 completed interviews performed by Iris Research. These surveys were collected from a random sample of local residents.

 

The results of both surveys will be discussed in more detail in the Discussion below.

 

Responses to the Bandstand Options

 

The number of first preferences provided by the community was as follows:-

 

                                                Council Survey / 125                        Iris Research / 302

•    Council Staff Option                              50                                130

•    None of the above                                 32                                 90

•    Suprun Buchanan Option                      31                                39

•    Richard Goodwin Option                       13                                43

 

One Council survey response gave equal first ranking to both the Suprun Buchanan and Council staff options. There were 11 written responses in the same handwriting submitted to the Council survey, ranking “None of the Above” as first preference.

 

Common Responses about the Lloyd Rees Bandstand from the Council Survey
(based on the 125 surveys & 25 written submissions)

 

•      48 not in favour of lowering the bandstand to the same level as the grass.

•      28 in favour of extended grass with integrated seating.

•      26 in favour of removing or reconfiguring the retaining walls on the south side.

•      21 in favour of raising bandstand canopy back to original level.

•      19 in favour of raising the performance platform slightly.

•      19 in favour of steps instead of side walls around the bandstand.

•      17 didn’t want the ramp on the Market Square side, 12 didn’t want the ramp at the rear.

•      15 wanted backs (and armrests) on the seats, 8 also asked for more seats.

 

Mixed Responses about the Lloyd Rees Bandstand from Council Survey.
(based on 125 surveys & 25 written submissions)

 

•      Handrails on bandstand – 9 not in favour compared to 5 in favour.

•      Shade sails – 16 wanted more shade, 11 wanted less shade (removal of one of the existing sails). 10 were in favour of the raised shade structure.

•      An option for redesign of the shade structure to provide both shelter and shade was submitted by Jon Johannsen on behalf of Lane Cove Alive.

 

Responses on Features in the Options for the Lloyd Rees Bandstand that were most Disliked.
(Recorded by Iris Research)

 

•      42.7% disliked lowering the performance platform to be level with the existing grassed area.

•      29.2% disliked reducing the shade structure from 3 to 2 sails.

•      26.9% disliked raising the performance platform by one step compared to existing.

•      11.8% disliked the shade structure poles to incorporate festival banners/lighting/artwork.

•      11.8% disliked raising the stainless steel columns and canopy by 500 mm to their original height.

 

All of the above results were presented to the Councillors at a workshop on Monday 9 August 2010. Again, the results of the surveys with respect to the Lane Cove Plaza will form part of a separate report to be tabled in early 2011.

 

Discussion

 

Following the Councillors’ workshop, the results of the public exhibition were referred to the Bandstand Volunteer Working Group and discussed at their meeting, held on 25 August 2010. Council’s staff representative was advised that no further amendments would be made to the Supron Buchanan Bandstand proposal as a result of the community feedback from the public exhibition. The Working Group developed a set of Principles for Conservation to be applied to the Bandstand and its surrounds at that meeting. A copy of these principles is provided as AT-6. The Working Group also suggested that Council approach three heritage architects to submit fee proposals to draw up the initial plans and for an approximate cost of the final execution of the actual design work.

 

However, it was considered more appropriate at this stage for Council to make some minor amendments to its’ Bandstand design that had been supported by the majority of the community and would support the Principles for Conservation developed by the Volunteer Working Group. As such, Council’s Landscape Architect then modified the Council Staff Bandstand proposal, resulting from the community feedback listed above and the design components of the Principles for Conservation provided by the Volunteer Working Group. This updated proposal is made up of two (2) drawings. These are provided as AT-7 and AT-8.

 

The amended Council Staff Bandstand consisted of a relocated access ramp, from the rear to the northern side (current location), provision of an additional step around the Bandstand, and provision of a 3 metre wide flat area on the eastern side of the Bandstand (to allow additional performance area).

 

The three (3) heritage architects suggested by the Working Party were then approached to see if they would be interested in reviewing the proposed plans for the upgrade of the Bandstand and provide Council with their professional opinion on the status of the proposal with regard to the Volunteer Working Group’s set of Principles for Conservation and Dr Susan McLean’s Report on the Heritage Significance of the Bandstand.

 

Graham Edds was the heritage architect (out of the three suggested) engaged by Council for this. The other architects declined, as they did not have the time or resources available to undertake this project to ensure this matter could be considered at tonight’s Council meeting.

 

Graham Edds has visited the site and was provided with additional information, including the Suprun Buchanan Bandstand proposal and other heritage background reports. His comments in response are provided in a “Review of Heritage Impact” assessment report. This is provided as

AT-9. The main issue raised by Mr Edds in his report is in relation to the height and size of the bandstand plinth. Mr Edds is of the view that the plinth should remain at the current level, and the size of the bandstand plinth increased.

 

To take Mr Edds views into account Council has subsequently prepared additional plans. These plans are provided as AT-10 and AT-11. These plans detail maintaining the Bandstand plinth at its’ current level and extending the platform width by approximately 600mm. Mr Edds comments that further heritage review could only be undertaken once more detail design and documentation has been prepared by Council.

 

Conclusion

 

It is suggested that Council proceed with the latest staff proposal (as per AT-10 and AT-11) for the upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and forecourt area. This would result in Council staff finalising the design details and documentation of the proposal to a point that the upgrade heritage works can be tendered out.

 

It is also suggested that Mr Edds be retained, subject to a reasonable price being provided, to undertake further heritage review of the Bandstand through the detailed design process, and then to provide relevant heritage input through the construction stage of the project. Mr Edds, through his Heritage Impact report, has shown an objective perspective on the heritage value of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and the adjoining forecourt (grassed) area. It is staff’s view that Mr Edds would maintain a professional perspective on the upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand, ensuring that the heritage value is maintained, whilst the required upgrade meets the expectations of the Council and community.

 

Staff will report back to Council at the tender assessment stage of the process.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.         Council adopt the Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrade Preliminary Plans, LCP-DD-01A and LCP-DD-02A, shown as AT-10 and AT-11 as prepared by staff and dated 1 December 2010.

2.         Detailed design plans and documentation be prepared to proceed to the tender assessment stage for the heritage upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Forecourt.

3.         Council receive a report back at the tender assessment stage to allow authorisation of a suitably qualified contractor to undertake the upgrade works for the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Forecourt area.

                                

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Introduction to Lloyd Rees Bandstand & Lane Cove Plaza banner

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Heritage Reports on Lloyd Rees Bandstand & Lane Cove Plaza

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand - Richard Goodwin option

1 Page

 

AT‑4 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand - Suprun Buchanan option

1 Page

 

AT‑5 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand - Council staff option

1 Page

 

AT‑6 View

Bandstand Working Group Principles for Conservation

2 Pages

 

AT‑7 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrade 01

1 Page

 

AT‑8 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrade 02

1 Page

 

AT‑9 View

Review of Heritage Impact by Graham Edds Dec 2010

14 Pages

 

AT‑10 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrade 01A

1 Page

 

AT‑11 View

Lloyd Rees Bandstand Heritage Upgrade 02A

1 Page

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 45

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 45

Subject:          Business Use of Footpath Policies    

Record No:    SU1831 - 47490/10

Author(s):       Steve  Fedorow 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report describes and recommends that Council adopt for the purposes of public exhibition, draft policies relating to Street Vending and Footpath Dining.

 

Background

 

Council’s policies relating to the display of goods on footpaths (October 2002) and footpath dining (August 1998) have been in place for a number of years.  With the recent and planned changes to a number of Council’s commercial centres it is timely that they are updated to ensure that they remain relevant and clearly set out Council’s objectives of ensuring free and unrestricted public use of its footpaths whilst also permitting business uses where appropriate.

 

Discussion

 

The draft Street Vending Policy (dated November 2010) and draft Footpath Dining Policy (dated September 2010) have been prepared having regard to information obtained during general discussions with the Access Committee and Guide Dogs NSW, public safety and amenity, as well as feedback provided by Councillors at a series of workshops where Councillors expressed the view that they wished to encourage appropriate business uses whilst ensuring that there remains free and unrestricted public use of the footpath. These items are attached at AT-1 and AT-2.

 

The polices seek to achieve this balance by providing clear guidance regarding appropriate locations for business uses, maximum spaces permitted to be occupied, advertising, display furniture, insurance requirements and the like.

 

It should be noted that due to the varying nature of the activities the draft Street Vending Policy would permit limited displays to be located up against shop frontages, whilst the draft Footpath Dining Policy would require tables and chairs to be placed towards the kerb and away from the shop frontage.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to allow all residents and businesses within Lane Cove to view and comment upon the draft policies.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated when determining whether to proceed with the policies as drafted.

 

Method

 

The following table outlines how Council proposes to consult the community and interest groups regarding the policies. 

 

Whilst Council has previously held discussions of a general nature regarding the placement of items on footpaths with the Access Committee, the Access Committee have been identified as a specific group to consult with regarding the specific policies.

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key message givers eg. Local Businesses, Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce and Lane Cove Access Committee

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Brochure, Letterbox drop to Chamber and consultation with Access Committee

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

December 2010 and January 2011

December 2010 and January 2011

December 2010 and January 2011

 

Conclusion

 

The draft Street Vending and the draft Footpath Dining policies seek to ensure that Council’s footpaths maximise public safety and amenity whilst encouraging appropriate business use to support the long term viability and sustainability of Council’s commercial centres.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council adopt the draft Street Vending and the draft Footpath Dining policies for the purposes of public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

2.   At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a report be submitted to Council that outlines the submissions received and makes appropriate observations and recommendations for Council’s consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Policy - Street Vending

13 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Draft Policy - Footpath Dining

15 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 49

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 49

Subject:          LEP 12-month review - supplementary report    

Record No:    SU3813 - 51097/10

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 18 October 2010, Council considered the first of two reports relating to the LEP 12-month Review, and adopted a range of draft amendments for submission to the Department of Planning’s LEP Gateway seeking exhibition. Council also deferred items pending a subsequent site inspection.

 

This report is the second relating to the LEP Review. It proposes a further series of amendments, comments on the recent site inspections, provides additional information on certain areas received since the October meeting, and clarifies certain issues raised at that meeting.

 

Council is requested to adopt the recommendations for the LEP as listed at the end of the report.

 

Background

 

As part of Council’s commitment to undertake a 12-month review of LEP 2009, Council on 18 October resolved to submit to the Department of Planning approximately forty-five LEP amendments for exhibition.

 

This report additionally relates to the following:-

 

1.         Deferred sites - five locations were subject to a site inspection conducted on Saturday 30            October.

2.         The Mowbray/ Stringybark precinct – clarification has been requested by the public of the             resolution to rezone the area from high density to predominantly low density (that is, retaining flats zones existing under LEP 1987).

3.         150 Epping Road – Council’s decision to retain the current industrial zoning has been       superseded by a subsequent Part 3A application by the owner for the Minister to determine the site’s future.

4.         Marshall Avenue precinct – discussion with the Department is proposed in order to achieve          Councils’ objectives for the area through possible modification to its controls.

5.         Miscellaneous other matters are discussed.

 

A Councillor Workshop was held on 22 November to discuss these issues in detail.

 

A deferred item relating to supermarkets was considered at the Council Meeting of 1 November and relevant resolutions are to be incorporated into the planning submission to the LEP Gateway.

 

Discussion

 

1.         Deferred Sites

 

A final decision on the following sites was deferred to permit Councillors to inspect each site and ascertain the physical and community context. The discussions by the Councillors at the site inspections confirmed in each case the considerations outlined in the report of 18 October, as follows:-

 

(i)         194-206 Pacific Highway (between Bellevue Av & Nield Av, Greenwich): one owner had    requested an increase in the scale of these R4 sites:-

·     Councillors noted that the existing flats and motels are already comparable in scale with the residential flats extending along the Highway. The scale would have to increase significantly to be viable to cover replacement of the existing flats and motels – the tertiary college opposite was not seen as a residential precedent.

·     The properties extend along a ridge on Pacific Highway, uphill of a residential precinct to the south, so that their potential overshadowing and overlooking impacts were discussed.

·     Vehicle access and traffic generation on to the Highway was a concern.

 

Summary: The proposal to increase the scale is not supported, on the grounds of overdevelopment and related impacts including traffic and access issues.

 

 (ii)       15-17 Birdwood Avenue (two R4 lots to the west of the RTA/ Council carpark): the owners requested rezoning to Mixed Use B4 from High Density Residential R4:-

·     Councillors observed that the Birdwood Avenue’s residential character was distinct from the Mixed Use zone including the RTA car park to the east, which is compatible with the village’s commercial character at the northern end of Rosenthal Avenue.

·     The Mixed Use zone permits residential development, which would allow amalgamation of No13 with Nos.15-17 for flats, so that these are not isolated sites although themselves totalling only 1,233m2, and Council may in any case accept an application to develop a smaller than standard site if special circumstances were seen to apply.

·     Councillors confirmed concerns regarding retaining the Village’s commercial viability rather than extending its boundaries: Retail potential has not fully been taken up in the Village’s existing commercial B2 zone, for example on the western side of Little Lane. Additionally the options for Rosenthal Avenue’s Mixed Use site have not yet been determined, where substantial retail/ commercial land remains under capacity.

 

Summary: The proposal to rezone is not supported, on the grounds of the street’s residential character and the commercial viability of the Village.

 

(iii)       Birdwood Avenue generally: a number of owners requested a height increase from 5 to 7-            9 storeys and commensurate FSR rise above 1.7:1, to ensure financially viable         redevelopment of recently renovated houses:-

 

·     Councillors considered that it may be premature to increase the proposed scale while the precinct has only recently commenced redevelopment. Council had settled on the 5-storey scale for this area after consultation in 2008, and reduced the scale commensurately from Hill PDA’s exhibited FSR of 2:1 and 21 metre height.

 

Summary: The proposal to change the scale is not supported, pending monitoring of development rates in the short-to-medium term under the new LEP.         .

 

 (iv)      25-29 Longueville Rd (on north-western, high side): owners requested that the High Density

Residential R4 strip along the northern side of Longueville Rd (a) be increased in height from 12 metres to 18 metres and (b) retain the FSR of 4:1 as gazetted, or at least be a minimum of 3:1, for viable redevelopment.

The Department set a height of 12 metres (4 storeys) with FSR of 4:1 in the LEP.

Council’s DLEP had supported 18-25 metres but with FSR of 2:1.

·     Councillors considered the area’s residential mix of flats, townhouses and houses, and discussed the issues of overlooking and bulk relative to townhouses and houses across Taylors’ Lane.

·     It was noted that there is no precedent around Lane Cove Village for 3- 4:1.

·     Councillors have been provided confidentially with property value comments submitted recently by owners.

·     Traffic and access issues on Longueville Road and Taylor’s Lane/ cul de sac, including with a proposal to severely restrict onsite parking close to bus interchange, caused concerns.

           

Summary: The proposal to change the scale from DLEP 2008 (FSR 2:1 and height 18 metres) is not supported, pending monitoring of development rates in the short-to-medium term under the new LEP.

(v)      1A Burley Street (west of BP service station): the owner of one of the townhouses requested an increase in scale of the R4 site, to a height of 8 storeys and FSR 3:1 (as stated on page 11 of submission), aimed to             redesign buildings away from noise, light spillage and fumes of service station/ take way outlet causing reduced amenity for the existing townhouses.

·     Councillors were aware that the BP station has existing use rights and has had consent for 24/7 operations since the 1990s (D183/98). Concerns were expressed at the proposal to increase the number of dwellings potentially subject to amenity impacts including the “unacceptable noise” and light spillage (as described on page 5 of the submission).

·     It was noted that, as No.1A is only 678m2, the proposal would require amalgamation with Nos.1B and 1, creating an irregular L-shaped site which, even with relocation of an electricity substation at the centre of the frontage at No.1B, would be less than the 1,500m2 minimum area for flats (1,440m2).

·     Councillors noted that the 8-storey height proposed for the RTA worksite at 2-4 Burley St fronts the Longueville Rd/ Pacific Highway intersection and is intended for a gateway tower in scale with another on the east side of Pacific Highway, rather than being a precedent for the side streets.

·     Councillors noted that the subject site  relates with the quieter Burley Street’s scale, the opposite side being a townhouse zone, and Nos.3-5 to the west being 3-4 storey walkup flats, as is the predominant form of flats along the Highway northwards. The 5-6 storey building nearby to the north was noted to be commercial, and the approximately 15 storey flats opposite in Willoughby adjacent to the freeway were not seen as a precedent.

           

Summary: The proposal to change the scale is not supported, on the grounds of minimising the number of dwellings subject to potential environmental impacts and retention of the street’s low-medium scale character.

 

 

2.         Mowbray/ Stringybark Precinct

 

(i)         Clarification of the Resolution

 

Resolution No.386 of 18 October states: “That the area be rezoned to predominantly low-density housing including the Mindarie West Dept. of Housing area, in accordance with DLEP 2008, with the variation that Environmental Living E4 replace Low Density Residential R2.”

 

At the workshop, Councillors discussed a request by the public to clarify Resolution No.386, in particular in relation to 1-15 Centennial Avenue, which Council had supported for townhouses in DLEP 2008.  At the workshop Councillors discussed the combination of Environmental Living E4 fronting the roads along the Reserve with Low Density Residential R2 zone along Mowbray Road.

           

Summary: Council is requested to clarify its intentions for the zoning in the precinct’s various areas.

 

 

(ii)        Zoning Changes

 

At the Workshop Councillors considered the implications of their resolution of 18 October 2010 to downzone the precinct, including information not available at the October meeting relating to the rate of redevelopment already being proposed in development applications. The discussion included the following:-

 

•     One developer already has an interest in 23 sites, comprising over 30% of the land not owned by the Department of Housing.

•     There is a foreseeable impact on houses, unable to redevelop after the zoning is reversed, from flats adjacent and uphill.

•     Owners are concerned for financial certainty.

           

Summary: It is recommended that, if the Department rejects the downzoning, a report should be brought back to Council detailing likely implications and options available to Council.

 

 

 

3.         150 Epping Road

 

Council resolved on 18 October to retain the Light Industrial IN2 zoning. This altered Council’s former policy of support for high density residential under DLEP 2008, which had had regard to the need to achieve the residential target under the Metropolitan Strategy prior to the Department’s rezoning the Mowbray precinct for high density residential.

 

On 19 October, however, the Department’s advice was received that a Part 3A application had been lodged by Rose Group for the Minister, to permit mixed use residential with retail on the developable “spoon”, with preservation of the bushland “handle” for public access.

 

The application by Rose Group is consistent with the advice of Council’s independent consultant relating to a potential mixed use development at a scale of 9-12 storeys. In view of the possibility of the rezoning occurring, it is recommended that Council indicate a preferred height and FSR for consideration by the Minister. Based on the GMU urban design study of September 2010, that scale would consist of a maximum FSR of 1.1:1 over the site as a whole (equating to 1.89:1 over the developable portion) and height of 39 metres (12 storeys residential).

 

The bushland handle of approximately 1.35 hectares, agreed on by Rose Group to be protected for public access, should have an Environmental Protection zoning overlay, as applies generally in the LEP to private property of environmental significance.

           

Summary: Council is recommended to advise the Minister:-

            (a) of Council’s support for Light Industrial IN2 zoning,

            (b) that if, alternatively, Mixed Use proceeds, Council supports a maximum height of 39                metres and FSR of 1.1:1 over the site as a whole and

            (c) that Environmental Protection should apply to the eastern bushland handle of             approximately 1.35 hectares.

 

 

 

4.         Marshall Precinct

 

This area, bounded by Marshall Ave, Pacific Hwy, Berry Rd and Canberra Ave,  is proposed for variation to the development controls and land use, to optimise the transition between the commercial uses on Pacific Highway and the low density residential precinct south of Marshall Avenue.

 

Under the DLEP 2008, Council had submitted height controls for mixed use development stepped downhill to minimise overshadowing and visual impact (36-18-9.5m). It is recommended that the Department be requested to revert to a similar stepped height, and at the same time adjust the FSR appropriately, with these controls being the subject of a study in conjunction with Gateway approval. A moderated scale could then be exhibited and owners and developers could make submissions on the possible implications for both residential amenity and financial viability.

 

Councilllors at the workshop also raised the suggestion that mixed use or commercial development should be mandatory on the north side of Marshall Avenue to encourage employment growth. The “Mixed Use Zone” under the LEP template permits commercial and/ or residential, but does not actually require a development to contain combined uses. Two options are possible:-

 

·        A local clause could be requested to the Department to prohibit residential-only developments in the Mixed Use Zone. This would allow for a lower building form, as the commercial component would not require the same setbacks as for residential.

·        The block could be rezoned entirely for commercial. This would enable an even lower building form with minimal setbacks, minimizing shadowing to the south. Design and landscaping could soften the visual transition to the residential zone opposite, and this issue is considered a lower priority than minimizing overshadowing. It may be equally economically viable in that location, subject to submissions by property owners.

           

Summary: It is recommended that Council discuss with the Department appropriate options to achieve Council’s original intentions, including minimizing impacts from developments south of Pacific Highway on residences south of Marshall Avenue.

 

 

 

5.         Miscellaneous Matters

 

(i)         Foreshore Scenic Protection: An amendment is proposed to ensure appropriate   development being built within the vicinity of the foreshore. The aims are (a) to protect         viewlines from homes and public domain to the river and harbour and (b) to protect the          foreshore slopes’ visual catchment viewed from the water.

 

            The mechanism would be to apply a “foreshore scenic protection” label over the same area         already covered by the Sydney Harbour Regional Environmental Plan boundary. Under the            NSW Housing Code, complying development is excluded (prohibited) from being developed        within a “foreshore scenic protection area”.

 

            DAs for houses could still be submitted under the normal development application process.         When the Housing Code SEPP was      introduced in February 2009, Lane Cove’s DLEP 2008         had already been submitted to the Department and it was not possible to amend it before      gazettal.

 

 In the interim, complying development has already been excluded for properties immediately adjacent to the foreshore within the DCP’s “foreshore setback line”. This LEP amendment would merely extend this exclusion area a short distance, generally to the first street back from the water, aligning it with the Sydney Harbour REP boundary. (The SHREP requires consideration of the environmental qualities of a site but does not prevent development.)

           

Summary: It is recommended that Council apply a “foreshore scenic protection area” to the LEP to correspond with the Sydney Harbour Regional Environmental Plan boundary.

 

 

(ii)        Battleaxe blocks’ FSR: It is proposed to request the Department to add a local clause to   clarify Council’s long-standing policy that access handles are not to be included in site area            for the calculation of a development’s floor space ratio.

           

Summary: It is recommended that Council omit access handles from FSR calculations for battleaxe blocks.

 

 

 (iii)      Rail line use: It is proposed to request the Department for controls to permit moderate use           of the air space above the rail line immediately south of the Highway at St Leonards to use,             for example, for open space, cafes, bus interchange or etc.

.          

Summary: Council is requested to discus with the Department, and other relevant authorities, controls to permit such uses of the air space above the rail line near St Leonards station as open space, cafes, bus interchange or etc.

 

 

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to (i) conform with the Department of Planning’s requirements as may be advised at the LEP Gateway stage and (ii) seek the views of the community, and specifically individual owners, on a range of potential LEP amendments. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed, with or without variation, with those amendments.


Method

The Department of Planning will advise of the consultation requirements within its Gateway process if the LEP is permitted to proceed to exhibition.

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community, community groups, Precinct Committees, Lane Cove Alive and adjacent Councils

Key message givers eg. Relevant property owners

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisements, Letters,

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

 

Letters

 

Public Exhibition, Public Hearing

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

Early 2011

Early 2011

Early 2011

 

Conclusion

 

The series of amendments proposed at this meeting, within the LEP 2009 12-month Review, proceed from Council’s consideration of issues raised at site inspections and materials provided to Council since the meeting of 18 October. They are consistent with the principles of LEP 2009 and result from consideration of Councillors views and public submissions.

 

The intention is to submit amendments adopted both at this meeting and the meetings of 18 October and 1 November 2010, in one integrated submission to the LEP Gateway, to enable public consultation at exhibition stage. After exhibition Council would have the opportunity to confirm, vary or not proceed with the draft amendments.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       Council resolve in relation to the LEP to:-

a)  Retain the existing zoning and scale of:-

·   194-206 Pacific Highway;

·   Birdwood Avenue properties, and specifically 15-17 Birdwood Avenue; and

·   1A Burley St.

b)  Amend the scale of the R4 zone on the north side of Longueville Road (Nos. 11-47) to a height to 18 metres and FSR of 2:1, with height of 25 metres and FSR of 2:1 for 2-4 Burley Street

c)  In relation to 150 Epping Road, advise the Minister:-

i)     of Council’s support for Light Industrial IN2 zoning;

ii)    that if, alternatively, Mixed Use proceeds, Council supports a maximum height of 39 metres and FSR of 1.1:1 over the site as a whole; and

iii)    that Environmental Protection should apply to the eastern bushland handle of approximately 1.35 hectares.

d)  In relation the Mowbray/ Stringybark precinct, clarify Resolution No.386 of 18 October 2010.                

2.       Submit the LEP with adopted amendments from this meeting, together with those from 18 October 2010 and 1 November 2010, in a planning proposal to the Department of Planning LEP Gateway, requesting approval to proceed to exhibition;

3.       Community Consultation be undertaken for 6 weeks in accordance with the strategy outlined in this report; and

4.       Council receive a further report outlining the results of the Community Consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 50

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 50

Subject:          Delegated Authority Report - November 2010    

Record No:    SU1863 - 51216/10

Author(s):       Angela  Panich 

 

 

 

During the month of November 2010 a total of 31 Development Applications were determined under delegation by staff and one (1) by Council.  In addition six (6) Construction Certificates and 15 Privately Certified Construction Certificates were issued.  There were two (2) Privately Certified Complying Developments.

 

Developments under the new State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 in November were:-

 

                        12 Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards              -           Dwelling; and

                        6 Innes Road, Greenwich                               -           Swimming Pool

 

Status on Joint Regional Planning Panel Reports

 

 

 

Address

 

Date

Lodged

 

 

DA Type

 

 

Status

Panel Meeting Date

 

 

Decision

3-9 Finlayson St

25/06/10

Residential flat building with 56 units

Report finalised

06/10/10

Approved

290 Burns Bay Rd

09/07/10

Residential flat building with 36 units

Report finalised

06/10/10

Refused

1-5 Little Ln

10/08/10

9 storey Residential / Commercial / Retail building

Withdrawn

01/12/10

Withdrawn

284-288 Burns Bay Rd

29/09/10

Residential flat building with 85 units

Being assessed

 

 

532-534 Mowbray Rd & 72-74 Gordon Cres

13/09/10

Residential flat building with 52 units

Briefing held, amended plans to be submitted

02/02/11

 

554-560 Mowbray Rd

09/09/10

Residential flat building with 58 units

Briefing held, amended plans being assessed

02/02/11

 

544 -550

Mowbray Rd

21/10/10

Residential flat building with 62 units

Being assessed

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Applications Determined for November 2010

5 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

Subject:          DCP 12-month Review - Priority Issues    

Record No:    SU4269 - 48828/10

Author(s):       Vivienne Albin; Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As Councillors are aware, the Development Control Plan is currently undergoing a 12-month review and a future report to Council will discuss a range of resulting issues. The purpose of this report is to expedite certain issues ahead of those others due to their priority in relation to development assessment.

Council is requested to adopt the amendments listed in the Recommendations section at the end of this report. These proposals respond to issues identified during staff monitoring of development applications assessed both by Council and the Joint Regional Planning Panel since the introduction of the new LEP and DCP. A number of issues are presented to Council in this report for which further supporting background material would be provided at the exhibition stage.

 

Background

 

The DCP came into effect on 22 February 2010, supporting the LEP gazetted on 19 February. Development applications submitted under these new plans have been monitored by the development assessment and strategic staff, with a view to identifying errors, omissions and unintended effects of controls and fine-tuning such provisions if and as appropriate.

 

Discussion

 

1.         Tree Preservation

The Lane Cove LEP 2009 Clause 5.9 refers to the preservation of trees, and clause 2.2 of the DCP supports this LEP clause. Council’s legal consultant has, however, advised the Open Space section that the wording of the current DCP should be amended to ensure technical compliance with the LEP, in particular:-

·     The DCP must specifically refer to being prescribed for Clause 5.9 of the LEP;

·     Relevant tree species and permissible works must be specified in the DCP in accordance with the LEP’s reference.

·     The DCP’s reference to the Tree Preservation Order is to be deleted, as being obsolete terminology since gazettal of the LEP.

 

It should be noted that any reference to the TPO in Council documents is to be accordingly updated.

 

The draft amendment based on that legal advice is attached at AT 1.

 

Proposal: Amend clause 2.2 in accordance with legal advice as shown at AT 1.

 

2.         Car Parking

 

2.1       Residential Parking

It is proposed that car parking for residential flats close to the Lane Cove Village and St Leonards be moderately reduced to minimise traffic impacts from the new high density zones close to shops and transport, while providing appropriate parking for modern lifestyles. North Sydney Council was compared as being an adjacent council with shopping centres on bus routes (such as Neutral Bay and Cremorne) of similar distance from the CBD as Lane Cove.

 

            Table 1: Comparison of parking rates

1

2

3

4

5

 

Current  Lane Cove DCP - residential

North Sydney DCP - residential

North Sydney DCP – mixed use

Proposed Lane Cove DCP – residential & mixed use

Studios

0.5

1

0.5

1

1 bedroom

1

1

0.5

1

2 bedroom

1.5

1

1

1

3+ bedroom

2

1.5

1

1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal: It is proposed that within 400 metres (the Department of Planning’s standard for walking access to buses and retail) of the Village and St Leonards Station, parking rates for residential flats, including in mixed use developments, be as listed in Column 5 above.

 

2.2       Visitor Parking

 

Prior to the current DCP, Council applied the visitor parking rate for townhouses to any high density residential developments as no specific rate was in place for these types of developments. As new residential flat buildings were rare, there was no need to formalise the rate. However, with recent rezonings of parts of the LGA to high density residential, it is necessary to formalise Council’s policy approach and formally adopt this historical visitor parking rate.

 

It is noted that visitor parking is not required within the Little Lane section, having regard to the substantial public parking available in the proposal.

 

Proposal: Amend to clarify that one visitor car space per four new dwellings is required for residential developments, but not in the mixed use development at 1-5 Little Lane.

 

2.3       Accessible Parking Spaces

 

The current provision requires: “1 accessible parking space for each adaptable housing unit”. To avoid any ambiguity for developers, and to accord with standard interpretation by planning staff, the provision should be clarified to state that it refers to the dimensions for an accessible parking space under the Australian Standards. The full total of spaces for each unit are still to be provided.

 

Proposal: Amend Part F: clause 3.5 to state: “1 accessible parking space (of dimensions in accordance with relevant Australian Standards) is required for each adaptable housing unit within the total calculation of spaces required for that dwelling”.

 

2.4       Commercial Parking in St Leonards

 

It is proposed, for the purpose of exhibition, to amend the car parking rate for commercial development in St Leonards to 1 space per 400m2 floor space, and to investigate the opportunities for increasing underground public car parking.

 

The Department of Planning has expressed concern at the level of future vehicle generation in an area of excellent rail-bus transport. Lane Cove’s current rate is 1 per 110m2 as is that in Willoughby, while North Sydney’s is 1 per 400m2.

 

Council agreed on 1 November to fund a traffic study for St Leonards, and North Sydney Council is seeking funds for a related study at the meeting on 6 December, with the intention to coordinate the traffic and parking assessments for both sides of the Highway (Willoughby will also be involved in discussions) at a time of predicted high growth levels.

 

The exhibition of a comparable rate as that on the north side would allow discussion with stakeholders. It is not certain whether the proposal for 88 Christie Street would be affected, as its concept plan has been lodged with the Department but not its development application. However future developments would be required to provide less parking as may be appropriate having regard to the major proportion of commuters and students who will be using the centre. Visitor parking for businesses could be more equitably shared in common public parking. This suggestion has been raised with the Department and proponent for 88 Christie Street as a possible part of a voluntary planning agreement. In the interim while the traffic and parking study is undertaken early next year, Council is requested to endorse the draft amendment to ensure that there is an adequate parking level to accommodate study findings.

 

Proposal: Amend the commercial car parking rate in St Leonards to 1 space per 400m2 floor space, for the purpose of exhibition, pending traffic study investigation of the parking needs and opportunities for increasing underground public car parking.

 

 

3          Dwelling House Height Diagram

 

Diagram 5 in Part C of the DCP has recently been the source of debate in the Land and Environment Court as part of an appeal. Diagram 5 sought to illustrate several Council controls together with overall height and wall height. The diagram in the former Dwelling House Code is considered to provide less opportunity for debate and aligns more closely with the text and it is therefore proposed to replace the new diagram, which sought to add details now considered excessive.

 

Proposal: Replace Diagram 5 in Part C to electronically reflect the sketch in the former Dwelling House Code.

 

4.         Overshadowing

 

The current DCP transferred provisions from the NSW Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) and the former Residential DCP and Dwelling House Code for different types of residential uses. As a result, however, Lane Cove DCP’s Residential sections for houses and flats, including its Little Street mixed use references, are not aligned in their requirements or use of terms such as:-

·                 “sunlight” or “daylight”

·                 “habitable rooms”, “living rooms” or “principal rooms”.

 

For example, Lane Cove DCP’s residential flats objectives refer to daylight for “habitable rooms”, but its development control provisions require three hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 21st June for “living rooms”. If this were interpreted literally, it would be onerous to ensure 3 hours for the living rooms themselves as the term is generally used, whereas 3 hours in total across a range of habitable rooms is feasible.

 

For houses and flats, the number of hours is specified for adjoining sites only, whereas for townhouses this is specified for the new development itself, and a percentage of open space is specified. It is proposed that the same provisions apply for new developments as for adjoining developments.

 

The DCP’s dwelling house provisions refer to north-facing windows, but DA staff have suggested that eastern and western sunlight should be able to contribute to the calculation.

 

It is consequently proposed to:-

·     Reword the DCP’s sections to refer consistently only to habitable rooms;

·     Adopt the RFDC’s definition of “habitable room”, being: “any room or area used for normal domestic activities, including living, dining, family, lounge, bedrooms, study, kitchen, sun room and play room”, but not referring to such rooms as laundries or toilets;

·     Clarify that the requirement for up to 3 hours sunlight a day in midwinter is a total over any habitable rooms; and

·     Remove the specific northern angle of sunlight.

 

The draft amendments, proposed to apply to all DCP sections on residential development, are attached at AT 2.

 

Proposal: Provide one consistent set of solar access controls for all residential developments, including those within mixed use development, as shown at AT 2A.

 

 

5.         Outbuildings and Garages

 

The DCP’s controls for the scale of outbuildings exclude garages, which is inconsistent with the BCA. This has caused issues in a Land & Environment Court case and it is proposed to amend the DCP so that height and other controls are provided also for garages. As well, outbuildings are to be permissible once again to an area of 50m2, as under long-standing policy, rather than 20m2 to which they were reduced by the consultant.

 

Proposal: (i) Include garages within the controls for outbuildings to align with the BCA, and  (ii) permit outbuildings to a maximum area of 50m2.

 

 

6.         Isolated Residential Sites

 

The isolated residential sites provision requires developers to provide written documentation that negotiations have been attempted with any adjoining site which may be isolated as a result of a proposed development. As an example, DAs for 544-550 and 554-560 Mowbray Road have been submitted with potential to isolate No.552. This is an eight-bedroom house with dual occupancy and it is indicated that developers and the owner have not been able to reach mutually satisfactory agreement on the capital value.

 

It is proposed to strengthen this provision to avoid inappropriate outcomes for remaining house sites, taking into account that the Metropolitan Strategy is a 25 year plan and site amalgamations may occur at a later date.

 

Proposal: Amend clause B.3.1 to permit Council to refuse a residential development which would create an isolated site, according to the circumstances of a situation.

 


7.         Ceiling Height

It is proposed to clarify the ceiling heights requirements to be consistent with the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

Proposal: Amend to state that:

In residential flat buildings, including residential apartments in mixed use buildings, the floor to ceiling height shall be:

*   for non-habitable rooms, a preferred minimum of 2.4m, however a minimum of 2.25m will be permitted

*   for the upper level of a 2 storey apartment, a minimum of 2.4m provided at least 50%  of the  

    apartment has a minimum of 2.7m height and

*   for all single level apartments, a minimum of 2.7m.

 

8.         Common Open Space

The DCP’s Little Lane section includes certain provisions for the residents’ common open space which do not relate well to this site, and may have disadvantages for a mixed use development in this location. Mixed use development differs from typical residential flats in that there are not the same garden areas due to the provision instead of community facilities, parking and shops. The rooftop area with lift access has proven difficult to achieve while remaining within the height limit. There would be likely to be noise and loss of privacy issues if the space is located at a level with any of the units.

Clause 4.8 provides that common open space be provided. However it recognises that provision should take into account site constraints and “the site’s accessibility to the Village Centre and the recreational and other opportunities provided.” It is proposed that, in view of the site’s proximity to the village’s facilities, including Pottery Green, the Aquatic Centre, cafes etc, areas of common open space would be unused for much of the time.

It is proposed that clause 4.8 requiring common open space should be deleted having regard to the site’s urban context and its and social and recreational facilities which offer ample opportunities for social meeting places.

 

Proposal: Omit clause 4.8 requiring common open space.

 

 

9.         Community Facilities – Little Lane

The Little Lane section stipulates that an area is to be provided for community facilities. It is proposed, in response to recent discussions with Human Services Division, to clarify that this area excludes the public foyer but may include facilities, such as toilets, intended principally for users of that community area.

 

Proposal: Clarify that the Little Lane community facilities area calculation excludes the public foyer but may include facilities, such as toilets, intended principally for users of that community area.

 

 


10.       Little Street Streetscape

The DCP requires street activation along the interface with Little Lane, for example: “The building facades at ground level adjoining Little Street and Little Lane should support animation and activity within the public domain”. Street activiation is commonly understood by planners to encourage retail development, cafes etc.

It is proposed to delete this form of reference to Little Street, (but retaining it for Little Lane), for various reasons: (i) that it is inappropriate in view of potential vehicle/ pedestrian conflict around the site’s car park entries, (ii) the economically viability of shops on Little Street would be low for the foreseeable future and (iii) the community facility and public parking are the priority for the Little Street frontage.

 

Proposal: Clarify that references to street activation are not to apply to Little Street, while still aiming to minimise visual impacts there through such means as public art and landscaping.

 

11.       Stormwater Controls – Little Lane

 

It is proposed that the standard for freeboard construction applying to residential developments, which is higher than that generally applied to other developments, should apply equally to this site’s non-residential areas in view of the levels of public usage of retail, commercial and community facilities there.

 

Controls for the LGA generally, such as industrial uses, will be considered in the following stage of the DCP review early next year.

 

Proposal: Amend Part O – Stormwater Management so that the requirements for the Little Lane site’s residential components relating to freeboard construction are to apply also to its non-residential areas.

 

12.       Podium – Little Lane

 

It is proposed to clarify the permissible location of the podium.

 

Proposal: Amend the DCP to clarify that carpark and podium are permissible above ground between the boundary and the setback applying to the remainder of the building, but that the design should have regard to amenity issues particularly visual viewed from the adjoining property to the south and from the public domain.

 

 

13.       Stormwater - General

 

Amendments are proposed to Section 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 are being needed to clarify the on-site detention requirements for residential flat buildings and commercial developments. Previously it was not clear that on-site detention systems are required for residential flat buildings and commercial developments irrespective of their location within the municipality.

 

Proposal: Amend Part O - Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, as shown in AT 2B.

 


Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to (i) conform with legislative requirements and (ii) seek the views of the community, and specifically individual owners, on a range of potential DCP amendments. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed, with or without variation, with those amendments.

Method

It is proposed to exhibit for eight weeks, having regard to the intervening Christmas holiday period.

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community, community groups, Precinct Committees, Lane Cove Alive and adjacent Councils

Relevant property owners

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisements,

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

 

Letters

 

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

Early 2011

Early 2011

Early 2011

 

Conclusion

 

The DCP is currently undergoing a review and a future report to Council will discuss a broad range of resulting issues. The purpose of this report is to expedite a number of issues ahead of those others to respond to development assessment monitoring during the past year. 

 

A number of issues are presented to Council in this report for which further supporting background material would be provided at the exhibition stage. Any other editing amendments, errors or omissions that become apparent will be included at the exhibition also.

 

Council is requested to adopt the amendments listed in the Recommendations section at the end

of this report for exhibition purposes.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.       The DCP be amended in relation to the following:-

1.1     Tree preservation: in accordance with legal advice, as shown at AT 1.

1.2     Car parking:-

(i)    Residential parking for residential flat buildings, and the residential component of mixed use developments, within 400 metres of the Lane Cove Village and St Leonards Station to be reduced to:-

·      1 space per studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units

·      1.5 spaces per 3+ -bedroom units

(ii)   Visitor parking:-

·      General areas: 1 visitor car space per 4 dwellings

·      1-5 Little Lane: Confirm the current : none

(iii)  Accessible spaces provision to require “1 accessible parking space (of dimensions in accordance with relevant Australian Standards) is required for each adaptable housing unit within the total calculation of spaces required for that dwelling”.

(iv)  Amend the commercial car parking rate in St Leonards to 1 space per 400m2 floor space, for the purpose of exhibition, pending traffic study investigation of the parking needs and opportunities for increasing underground public car parking.

1.3     Replace Diagram 5 in Part C to electronically reflect the sketch in the former Dwelling House Code.

1.4     Provide one consistent set of solar access controls for all residential developments, including those within mixed use development, as shown at AT 2.

1.5     In relation to outbuildings and garages, (i) include garages within the controls for outbuildings to align with the BCA, and  (ii) permit outbuildings to a maximum area of 50m2.

1.6     Amend clause B.3.1 to permit Council to refuse a residential development which would create an isolated site, according to the circumstances of a situation.

1.7     Amend DCP to state that:

In residential flat buildings, including residential apartments in mixed use buildings, the floor to ceiling height shall be:-

·      For non-habitable rooms, a preferred minimum of 2.4m, however a minimum of 2.25m will be permitted;

·      For the upper level of a 2 storey apartment, a minimum of 2.4m provided at least 50% of the apartment has a minimum of 2.7m height; and

·      For all single level apartments, a minimum of 2.7m.

1.8     In relation to 1-5 Little Street, omit clause 4.8 requiring common open space.

1.9     In relation to 1-5 Little Street’s community facilities, clarify that the floor area calculation excludes the public foyer but may include facilities, such as toilets, intended principally for users of that community area.

 

1.10   In relation to 1-5 Little Street, references to street activation are not to apply to Little Street (but are to remain for Little Lane), while still aiming to minimise visual impacts there through such means as public art and landscaping.

1.11   In relation to 1-5 Little Street, amend Part O - Stormwater Management so that the requirements for this site’s residential components relating to freeboard construction are to apply also to its non-residential areas.

1.12   In relation to 1-5 Little Street, clarify that the carpark and podium are permissible above ground between the boundary and the setback applying to the remainder of the building, but that the design should have regard to amenity issues particularly visual viewed from the adjoining property to the south and from the public domain.

1.13   Amend Part O – Stormwater, Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, as shown in AT 2B.

2.       Place the draft DCP amendments on public exhibition for a period of 8 weeks in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report.

3.       Upon conclusion of the exhibition period, a report be prepared detailing issues, comments and appropriate recommendations.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Tree preservation amendments

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Solar access & Stormwater provisions

3 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2010

 

Human Services Division Report No. 35

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 35

Subject:          Using Technology to Reach Library Borrowers    

Record No:    SU1705 - 51068/10

Author(s):       Jennifer Bice 

 

 

Executive Summary

The “new” Lane Cove Library opened in July 2010. It offers a wonderful collection, public PCs and wireless access, great meeting rooms with AV provision, study areas and comfortable seating nooks, a spacious Local Studies Room, a fun Youth Room and an exciting Junior Library. Library membership is currently 26,822 (82.5% of Lane Cove’s population), though this will vary during the year as the Library regularly culls inactive borrowers from the database.

Traditionally the Library has communicated with the borrowers via the webcat (Library online catalogue), the Library webpage www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au/library, and distribution of Lane Cove Library News (quarterly publication), eNewsletters, posters and flyers. As technology improves other means of communicating with borrowers have begun to emerge. It is important that the Library keeps abreast of new possibilities to improve the borrower Library experience.

Two new features offered by the Library are the BookMyne Library App for iPhones and the Lane Cove: On the Street Where You Live! wiki. In addition, in December 2010 the Library is introducing email notifications for holds (reservations) and overdues if borrowers want to receive notices this way. This report discusses these features and how they are being used by our borrowers.

Discussion

BookMyne Library App

The BookMyne Library Application can be downloaded onto borrowers’ iPhones from the iTunes store. This free app’s availability is currently advertised on the front of Council’s webpage, the Library’s webpage and the Shorelink webcat.

The app allows borrowers to locate any SirsiDynix (Library Management System) Library in the area. In Sydney this includes the Shorelink libraries (Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, Stanton and Willoughby) and the Swift Libraries (Ashfield, Burwood, Botany Bay, Kogarah, Marrickville and Strathfield). As SirsiDynix is a popular system the app is useful for iPhone owners who are travelling throughout Australia.

Borrowers can see a map of the Library’s location and obtain information about Library hours and contacts. They can access the Library catalogue, search the catalogue and put holds on items. They can access My Account with their borrower ID and pin number. From their account they can review their loans, renew items, change their address and change their pin number.

Feedback on the app has been very positive. Few borrowers seem to experience any difficulty and are very happy to have convenient access to Library information when they are on-the-go. We have had one enquiry about whether SirsiDynix was developing a similar app for android phones. The enquiry was passed on to SirsiDynix who report that they will be looking at this option in the future.

Lane Cove: On the Street Where You Live!

The Lane Cove: On the Street Where You Live! website was launched in September 2010 with 25 people attending the launch. The website can be accessed at http://lanecovestreets.wetpaint.com/ 

For many years Lane Cove Library has been collecting information on the origin of street names and indeed, information about local identities, places and suburbs. This collation of information was made possible with the help of a dedicated volunteer, Pat Silman and equally dedicated Library staff.

This information was available in vertical files when borrowers visited the Local Studies Room but, as social networking sites became more popular, Library staff began to question whether they could make the information available to a wider audience. The solution was creating a wiki which would be a handy tool for history buffs and students and also offer residents the opportunity to contribute their own stories.

The ‘Streets’ website offers fascinating facts and anecdotes, tracing the history of streets and places throughout Lane Cove. It is an evolving website allowing staff to upload more information and residents to add threads. The threads are then researched by Library staff to investigate the accuracy and/or validity of the local information. A recent example of this was information that some Riverview street names had their origins in World War I battlefields e.g. Miramont Ave, Flaumont Ave, Romani Ave. When a direct link cannot be established the website will report possible origins, sometimes two or three.

Feedback of the initiative is generally positive and we hope it will help students in future years. The Library staff are still learning about the features and possibilities offered by this form of website and we expect that the site will be an ongoing project.

Email Notifications

This month the Library will start to offer borrowers the option of receiving notices via email. The Library staff currently phone borrowers when their hold (reservation) is available. Overdue notifications are mailed to borrowers when items are two weeks overdue and again after six months.

While not all borrowers have email accounts (and some will not choose to receive their notices this way) it is still likely to achieve savings in staff time and communication costs, e.g. telephone calls and postal charges. The advantage for borrowers is that the Library will be able to email an overdue notice the day after the item is due. This would be too expensive if the Library was sending physical mail and it would take a couple of days to reach the borrower. This speediness will mean that borrowers can minimise Library fines if they respond quickly to the notice.

We expect the email notices to be popular and Shorelink Library Managers are currently continuing to investigate SMS messaging for hold notifications.

Conclusion

During 2010 Lane Cove Council opened the “new” Lane Cove Library after many years of planning. The new space and superior facilities has increased usage and allowed staff the opportunity to increase programs and services.

Emerging technologies and developments offer the Library the opportunity to improve communication to and with Library borrowers. Recent examples of technical solutions include the BookMyne Library App, the Lane Cove: On the Street Where You Live! website and email notifications. The Library will continue to monitor available technologies to assess which are suitable for Library application. As usual our emphasis will be improving the borrower experience.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.