m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

4 April 2011

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

4 April 2011 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 4 April 2011

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 - 21 MARCH 2011

 

 

REFERRED REPORTS FROM INSPECTION COMMITTEE

 

Reports Of Committees

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 25

SUBJECT: 1A Francis Street, Longueville

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

3.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 10

SUBJECT: Telecommunications Facility Proposal - Trouve Street, Lane Cove

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

4.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 9

SUBJECT: Electronic Lodgement of Development Applications

 

5.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: DCP Amendment 1 for Finalisation

 

6.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

SUBJECT: Land and Environment Court Decisions

 

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

7.       Human Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: Kindy Cove Budget 2011/12 and Fees and Charges for 2011/12  

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 25

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 25

Subject:          1A Francis Street, Longueville

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 04 April 2011.   

Record No:    DA10/287-01 - 6304/11

Author(s):       Andrew Thomas 

 

 

Property:                     1A Francis Street, Longueville

 

DA No:                         287/10

 

Date Lodged:              7.12.10

 

Cost of Work:              $7,000

 

Owner:                                    K T H Dang

 

Applicant:                    Kieu Dang

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

First floor balcony

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

Class1A

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes: 3.2.11 – 23.2.11

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                  1 and 2 Francis Street; 52, 54, 56 and 58 Kenneth Street; 3 and 5 Ann Street; and 53, 55 and 57 Arabella Street.

Ward Councillors        Central

Progress Association Longueville Residents

Other Interest Groups N/A

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This application has been called to the Planning and Building Committee by Councillors Forrest and Smith in relation to impacts on the building line and an adjoining owner’s concerns regarding potential loss of iconic views.

 

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     The subject site is located on the west side of Francis Street, approximately midway between this street’s intersections with Kenneth Street to the north and Arabella Street to the south.

·     Development on the subject site consists of a 2 storey dwelling house that is setback between 8.31m and 9.02m from Francis Street. In front of the dwelling house is a detached garage located at the front boundary.

·     At the front corner of the first floor level of the dwelling house is an attached balcony with extensive views of Woodford Bay, the Harbour Bridge and the CBD.

·     The development application proposes a separate first floor balcony 3.56m wide and 3.52m deep setback 5.5m from and facing Francis Street that would supplement the same iconic views.

·     Adjoining the subject site is 56 Kenneth Street, the owners of which have expressed concerns in relation to the proposed balcony’s impact on their general and iconic views from a first floor bedroom window and the flat trafficable roof of a double garage.

·     Although the applicant and owners of 56 Kenneth Street have since met to discuss the proposal no compromise has been reached.

·     A second objection letter has been received expressing concerns about streetscape and streetscape setback.

·     The proposal does not comply with two provisions under the Residential Development Control Plan 2009: it would be in front of the building line, and its depth would exceed the maximum allowable of 3m.

·     The application is recommended for approval subject to the balcony being reduced in depth so that it would not extend forward of the building line.

·     As a consequence it is considered that the impact of the proposed balcony on the neighbour’s views from 56 Kenneth Street would be negligible.

 

SITE

 

The subject site has a frontage of 16m to Francis Street and an area of 488m2. The site is located on the west side of Francis Street, approximately midway between this street’s intersections with Kenneth Street to the north and Arabella Street to the south. The site is generally level with a slight fall to its front boundary. There are mature street trees in front of the site.

 

A 2 storey dwelling house with a tiled roof is erected on the site that is setback 9.02m from its front  boundary (to Francis Street) and with a bay window setback 8.31m from that same frontage. A detached garage and garden store is located in front of the dwelling house on the front boundary.

 

There is a 2 storey dwelling house adjoining the subject site to the east, at 1 Francis Street, and also to the west, at 56 Kenneth Street. The latter property has an attached double garage with a flat roof that is partly located within this site’s side setback to Francis Street. The trafficable garage roof and main bedroom window of 56 Kenneth Street provide views of the Harbour Bridge, CBD, Woodford Bay and sections of the Lane Cove River across the front yard of the subject site.

 

The locality is residential and neighbouring development comprises 2 storey dwelling houses.  Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan (attached AT-1 and AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes a timber balcony attached to the front first floor family room and extending out over the front yard. The balcony would be 3.56m wide and 3.52m deep, and it would be supported by timber posts at both front corners. It would be setback 5.5m from the site’s front boundary and 4m from its east side boundary. An existing window to the family room would be replaced with a sliding glass door that would allow access onto the proposed balcony.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

The two applications recorded on Council’s computer system are:

 

·     a combined Development and Building Application BA102/91 for an attached rear pergola was approved in 1991; and

·     a combined Development and Building Application BD461/93 for front and rear bay windows and internal alterations was approved in1993.

 

The Cape Cod – style first floor level is likely to have been approved before either of these two applications.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE: LEP 2009 and DCP 2009

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min.)

5.5m

Consistent with area or 7.5m

No

Side setback (min.)

4m

1.5

Yes

Wall height (max.)

6m (to top of balustrade)

7m

Yes

Landscaped area (min.)

Unchanged

35%

-

Solar access

Not an issue

3 hrs to north-facing windows

-

Deck/balcony depth (max.)

3.52m

3m

No

Private open space(min.)

Unchanged

24 m²

4m depth

-

-

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended draft conditions that would address drainage and sediment and erosion control, amongst other matters (see draft conditions 36 - 48).

 

Tree Preservation Officer

 

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has recommended draft conditions that would include the protection of two Brushbox trees on Council’s verge in front of the site (see draft conditions 29 - 35).

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009

 

The proposed balcony is permissible in the residential R2 zone with the consent of Council.

 

The proposal does not raise any issue in relation to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.  

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55: Remediation of Land

 

The subject site and adjoining sites are zoned for residential purposes. Given the type of uses permissible within residential zones, it is unlikely that the subject site would be contaminated.

 

 

 

Applicable Regulation

 

The proposal involves the removal of the existing family room window. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prescribes safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 – 2001. Draft condition 26 (79) is recommended to address this requirement.

 

Variations to Council’s dcp/PolicIes

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those provisions that the proposal would not comply with. Each departure is discussed below.

 

(i)         Front Setback

 

Although the dwelling house on the subject site, and on the adjoining site at 1 Francis Street, are both setback 9m from the front boundary, the proposal would extend forward of a building line of 7.5m that would apply in this street. With a proposed front setback of 5.5m the proposed balcony would extend 2m forward of the building line.

 

The DCP may allow minor architectural design features such as awnings, sunshades, and balconies within the front setback up to a maximum of 500mm depth, but these elements must not occupy the entire façade of the dwelling house.

 

Although examples of minor features includes balconies the other two examples, and the maximum depth of any such structure being restricted to 500mm, suggests that a minor feature could include something on a smaller scale than the proposed balcony e.g. perhaps a retractable canvass awning or sunshade, or a Juliette – style balcony. Features such as these would also suggest that such structures would be relatively lightweight.

 

As the proposed balcony would have an area of 12.5m2 and would need to be supported with timber posts 5m high, it would not fit into the category of a minor feature. Therefore draft condition 2 is recommended that would require the depth of the balcony to be reduced by 2m to 1.52m so that it would comply with the building line of 7.5m.

 

(ii)        Balcony Depth

 

Under the provisions of the DCP a balcony more than 1m above ground level is not to exceed a depth of 3m, although a deeper balcony may exceed this figure if privacy to adjoining properties is addressed.

 

Although the proposed balcony would allow overlooking of the rear yard of the adjoining property at 56 Kenneth Street, its depth is recommended to be reduced so that the structure would not be forward of the building line. Draft condition 2 would reduce the depth of the proposed balcony to 1.52m.

 

IMPACTS

 

The proposal would have a negligible impact on the site’s existing landscaped area. Subject to draft condition 33 that has been recommended by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer, both mature street trees in front of the site would be protected.

 

Subject to the inclusion of draft condition 2 the impact of the proposed balcony on adjoining neighbours and the streetscape would be reduced to an acceptable level.

 

 

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

 

Two submissions have been received in response to the notification of the Development Application.  One submission, on behalf of the owners of 56 Kenneth Street, has been submitted by their architect. The other submission has been made by the owner of 58 Kenneth Street.  The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and discussed below.

 

1.         View Sharing

 

Would be contrary to the following comments relating to view sharing under Part B.4 of the DCP:

 

The sharing of all views is part of the character of the Lane Cove area and should be maintained where possible subject to how the view is obtained and whether the maintenance of such a view creates an unreasonable impost on adjoining land owners.”

 

Would be contrary to the following objectives for view sharing:-

 

·     To minimise the impact of new development on existing public and private views and vistas”  and

·     “To preserve or fairly share water views for foreshore residents.”

 

As there is an existing balcony off the same (family) room that provides views, including iconic views, the proposed balcony would be an additional or, supplementary, balcony that would augment the applicant’s existing views at the expense of our clients.

 

Council’s approval of the proposed balcony would be contrary to recent Land and Environment Court decisions regarding the protection of iconic views.

 

Its excessive size and location would result in the total obstruction of our client’s important views, including iconic views. Views are only available from a main bedroom and a terrace (above a garage) with a flat roof - the latter was erected to reinstate views lost due to the neighbour’s garage that is in front of the building line and that obstructed views from the ground floor level of our client’s dwelling house.

 

Comment

 

The last objective stated above applies to foreshore residents. Neither the subject site, nor the site at 56 Kenneth Street, are foreshore properties.

 

Subject to the inclusion of draft condition 2 the depth of the balcony would be reduced by 2m so that it  

would not be in front of the building line. This draft condition would minimise the impact on existing views from the adjoining property at 56 Kenneth Street as required by the first stated objective.

 

In Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) the Land and Environment Court (NSW) set out a planning principle for view sharing. One of the questions (tests) in this principle was to determine the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact. Under the test the Court’s probable view would be that the impact from a complying development would be acceptable and view sharing reasonable. Subject to the inclusion of draft condition 2 the proposal would comply with the DCP and the neighbour’s important and iconic views would be retained.

 


2.         Streetscape

 

Would be contrary to the following streetscape objective under Part C.1 of the DCP:-

 

Achieve development of a scale and appearance which is in keeping with the predominant   street and neighbourhood character” ……..because:-

 

·     of its lightweight construction;

·     it suggests an adjunct or an afterthought to the original dwelling house design;

·     it would be supported by flimsy long timber posts;

·     it would be unsympathetically perched over a bay window; and

·     it would not address the street.

Would not comply with the spirit of the DCP in relation to streetscape.

 

Comment

 

1 and 1A Francis Street are the only two dwelling houses that face the street. The other dwelling houses have their frontage to either Kenneth Street or Arabella Street. Consequently the streetscape is dominated by the sides of those dwelling houses on the corners of these streets which are closer to Francis Street than either of these two dwelling houses. Structures close to Francis Street include garages.

 

Although neither the design nor the construction of the proposed balcony lend themselves to achieving the stated streetscape objective, the combination of the reduction in the scale of the proposed balcony required by draft condition 2 and the screening provided by the street trees in front of the site and the detached garage in the site’s front yard, would ensure that the proposal’s overall impact on Francis Street is reasonable.

 

3.         Front Setbacks

 

Would be contrary to the following setback objective under Part C.1 of the DCP:-

 

            “ Maintain the predominant street setback” …..because:-

 

·     the existing front setback of both adjacent properties at 1A and 1 Francis Street is about 9m; the two properties at 56 Kenneth Street and 55 Arabella Street are corner sites that respect their respective street setbacks;

·     the proposed setback of 5.5m would be totally non – compliant and would not even comply with the minimum setback provision of 7.5m;  and

·     by allowing the proposed balcony in addition to the existing garage, Council would be reinforcing and adding to the building’s non –compliances.

 

Would not maintain a reasonable street setback.

 

Comment

 

Subject to the inclusion of draft condition 2 the proposed balcony would be made to comply with the minimum front setback of 7.5m.

 


4.         Building Design

 

Would contravene the following building design objectives under Part C.1 of the DCP:-

 

Ensure that alterations and additions to existing dwellings maintain the integrity of the design and style of the existing building”; 

                       

“ Ensure elevations to the street and public domain are well proportioned and designed” ; and

                       

Minimise impact in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, light spillage to adjoining properties, loss of views and amenity” …..because:

 

·     its lightweight construction would make it appear as an adjunct or an after thought to the original design of the dwelling house;

·     it would not be well integrated and would be supported by flimsy timber posts and perched over a bay window;

·     it would not address the street well;

·     it would overlook our client’s main bedroom windows;

·     the size of the proposed balcony would encourage outdoor entertainment causing substantial loss of both visual and acoustic privacy, and also a loss to the adjacent neighbour at 1 Francis Street; and

·     it would result in substantial loss of views and an overall loss of amenity.

 

Request Council refuse the application.

 

Comment

 

The proposal would have a relatively minor impact on the design and style of the existing dwelling house because it does not have any distinct design or style. Subject to draft condition 2 the overall scale of the proposed balcony would be reasonable.

 

In relation to visual and acoustic privacy concerns the Australian Model Code for Residential Development, 1995  indicates that this would usually be an issue if the dwelling house and/or area overlooked was within 9m of the source (e.g. a proposed balcony). Although the proposed balcony would be within 9m of the common side boundary to 56 Kenneth Street, the height of the balcony would allow overlooking of this site’s rear yard and, to a lesser extent, its trafficable garage roof. By contrast, the distance to the neighbour’s bedroom window would be about 24m.

 

The overall impact of the proposed balcony can be reduced with a 2m reduction in its depth required by draft condition 2. Subject to the inclusion of this draft condition, the potential visual and acoustic impact of the proposed balcony on the adjoining neighbour would be reduced to an acceptable level. 

    

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed front first floor level balcony would not comply with the DCP 2009 because it would be forward of the building line to Francis Street and its depth would exceed 3m.

 

Two objections have been submitted.  One objection has been submitted on behalf of the owners of an adjoining property at 56 Kenneth Street and the other from the owner of 58 Kenneth Street.  The former property has views over the front yard of the subject site. The former objection raises concerns that the proposed balcony would affect views, including iconic views, and it would be forward of the building line. Draft condition 2 is recommended that requires the depth of the proposed balcony to be reduced so that it would not be forward of the building line. As a consequence the overall impact on the neighbour’s views would be negligible.  Draft Condition 2 would also address the street setback concerns of the latter objector.

 

Matters in relation to s.79C considerations have been satisfied.

 

Subject to the inclusion of draft condition 2 the proposed first floor balcony would be reasonable and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

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 287/10 for a front first floor balcony on Lot 1 DP 231064 and known as 1A Francis Street, Longueville subject to the following conditions:-

 

Plans

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers 01, 04, 05 and 06, Issue A, dated 30.5.10 and as amended up to 10.6.10, by A Plus Designs except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Specific

 

2.       In order to ensure that the building line for Francis Street of 7.5m is not exceeded and so reduce its visual impact on both the streetscape and viewed from the adjoining property at 56 Kenneth Street, the depth of the balcony is to be reduced so that it does not exceed 1.52m. PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

General

 

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

 

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

 

5.         (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 & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

            The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must:-

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

 

6.         (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.

 

7.         (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the family room and the balcony.

 

8.         (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.

 

9.         (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.

 

10.       (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.

 

11.       (48) Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

12.       (49) Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:

a)         the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority;

b)         the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)         a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

13.       (50) The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

14.       (60) A temporary connection to be made to the sewers of Sydney Water (where available) with an approved toilet structure and toilet fixtures being provided on the site BEFORE WORK IS COMMENCED.  Where the Sydney Water sewer is not available a "Chemical Closet" type toilet shall be permitted.

15.       (61)  All timbers complying with Timber Framing Code AS 1684-79.

16.       (62) All glazing is to comply with the requirements of AS 1288.

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

 

18.       (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.

 

19.       (70) Protection of the balcony support posts against subterranean termites must be carried out in accordance with AS.3660.

 

20.       (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

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

 

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

 

23.       (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 7m from the specified item.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

27.       (87) Pedestrians' portion of footpath to be kept clear and trafficable at all times.

 

28.       (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.

 

 

 

Landscape

 

29.     (300)  Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane    Cove local government area. Clause 5.9(3) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 [the "LEP"], states that a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by development consent or a permit granted by the Council. Removal of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000 or a penalty infringement notice can be issued in respect of the offence, the prescribed penalty being $1,500.00 for an individual and $3,000.00 for a corporation.  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of trees in the urban environment and protection of the bushland character of the municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

 

30.     (302)  The applicant must obtain written authority prior to pruning or removal of any trees greater than 4m in height located on the property or in neighbouring properties, including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40mm in diameter.

 

31.     (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.

 

32.     (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.

 

33.     (317) A 1.8m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 2.4m from the trunk of both Brushbox street trees in front of the site. The tree protection area shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and soil levels within the tree protection area shall remain undisturbed.

 

34.     A waterproof sign must be placed on the tree protection zone 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.

 

35.     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.

 

General Engineering Conditions

36.     (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.

 

37.     (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.

 

 

38.     (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.

 

39.     (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.

 

40.     (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.

 

41.     (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.

 

42.     (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’.

 

43.     (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.

 

Engineering Conditions to be Complied with Prior to Construction Certificate

 

44.       (S2) Stormwater Requirement: The stormwater runoff from the new and altered   impervious areas within the development shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

The existing stormwater system is to be certified that it is in good working order and meets the requirements set out in Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. The certification is to be carried out by a fully licensed and insured plumber or a suitably qualified engineer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Where an existing element does not comply with current standards the subject element is to be replaced.

 

Where the existing system does not comply with Councils DCP-Stormwater Management a drainage design is required. The stormwater drainage plan is to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

45.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000.00 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.

 

46.       (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

 

47.       (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

48.     (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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

           


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 10

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 10

Subject:          Telecommunications Facility Proposal - Trouve Street, Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU643 - 10417/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is asked to determine whether or not it should enter into a commercial agreement with Optus Mobile Pty Limited for the lease of Council land for the purpose of a telecommunications facility to be situated on Council-owned land in Trouve Street.

 

 

Background

 

The consultancy company TCI, on behalf of Optus, has written to Council requesting a lease of Council land for the installation and operation of a telecommunications facility as part of its telecommunications network. The proposal is for a facility that would comprise of a three (3) sector mounted turret style antenna to be attached to Energy Australia pole GL 97262 and an outdoor shelter to provide power to the facility. TCI’s proposal, including draft site work plans are provided as AT-1.

 

The proposed installation would be a “low-impact facility”, incorporating a turret style antenna mounted on an existing light pole. The power cabinet would be located at ground level, nearby on Council property, as detailed in the Draft Site Layout provided in AT-1.

 

 

Discussion

 

The proposal is permissible in the requested location, on the following grounds:-

1.  The facility is permissible on a roadway. Under the Lane Cove LEP 2010, the area is zoned as Low Density Residential, R2.

2.  SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007; Regulation 114 – Development permitted without consent. This regulation is provided as AT-2.

 

A low-impact facility is permissible in a low density residential zone:-

 

The proposed facility is termed a “low impact facility” within the Schedule for Facilities and Areas to the “Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997”, under the Telecommunications Act 1997, as follows:-

1.  Part 1 - Radio facilities:

2.  Panel… or other like antenna:            

a)   flush mounted to an existing structure, and

b)   either:

(i)   colour-matched to its background; or

(ii)  in a colour agreed in writing between the carrier and the relevant local government authority

3.  Panel… or other like antenna:

a)    not more than 2.8 metres long; and

b)    if the antenna is attached to a structure – protruding from the structure by not more than 3 metres; and

c)    either:

(i)    colour-matched to its background; or

(ii)   in a colour agreed in writing between the carrier and the relevant local government authority”

 

If these are located in a Residential, Commercial or Industrial or Rural area. (The exemption made for areas of environmental significance, including heritage sites, does not apply to this site.). These definitions are shown in the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997, attached at AT-3. This document also describes the ground level outdoor units in Part 3 of the Schedule’s definition for “above-ground housing”.

 

A low-impact facility, being permissible under federal legislation in the adjacent Residential area, is therefore permissible on this site.

 

Owner’s Consent Not Necessary

 

If Council does not agree to the use of its land, the carrier may legally serve notice that it intends to use the site for that purpose. It would then advise the public of the proposal, though it is not required to act on the views expressed. Nevertheless, the carrier’s approach of seeking Council’s agreement indicates its concern to locate the facility in an area which the public approves.  This approach appears to be an extension of the attitude expressed by the Mobile Carrier's Forum (a Mobile Carrier industry body) as advised in a recent press release:

 

"We have agreed, following consultation with the Minister and community groups, not to place base stations on a single residential dwelling that is a stand-alone building, a semi-detached house or a townhouse or terrace house unless we have the consent of the land owner.  Furthermore we have agreed to always attempt to find an alternative site which provides substantially the same or better network coverage before asking for consent, both of which are in line with the carriers' current practices."

 

Community Considerations

 

Telecommunications carriers indicate that, as a result of the placement of numerous facilities for 3G (digital with camera) phones throughout urban areas, the energy emissions from each one is lower than for former forms of the technology (for 1G: analog phones and 2G: digital phones) and must be within acceptable levels in accordance with Australian and international standards.  The safety zones, as advised in previous discussions between Council and other parties for this sort of facility; which emits signals but does not receive them are:-

·     within 1 metre from the antennas – hazardous exclusion zone;

·     within 10 metres from the antennas – staff only, permitted to work within set Standards (with a maximum number of hours a day exposure); and

·     beyond 10 metres – safe for the public.

 

It is the understanding of staff that each 3G cell or reception area has a radius of about five hundred metres. The sites available to carriers are limited by topographic factors affecting signal reception. The use of mobile phones by the public is now widely accepted, and the provision of such facilities is a necessary pre-requisite for this usage.  Nevertheless the location of these facilities is an issue of concern to the community, and there has been wide-ranging debate regarding the scientific evidence for and against supporting these concerns. There is a public perception that their location near to residential areas, schools etc pose an unacceptable health risk about which there has been insufficient research to date.

 

The installation would be situated in proximity to houses on either side of the road. The closest homes are:-

·     76,78,80 and 80A River Road West;

·     14,16,18 and 20 Trouve Street (18 Trouve St is an Energy Australia substation); and

·     9 Trouve Street.

 

All of these properties have their front building line within 25 metres of the proposed facility.

 

If Council as land-owner decides to consult the community about the proposed use of public land, it is requested to indicate the area to be notified in writing; additionally an advertisement should be placed in a local newspaper.  CPS Global has advised that it will itself be notifying the surrounding residential area of the proposal (as they would regardless of the owner’s consent issue) early in the new year.

 

Financial Considerations

 

TCI has made an offer of $8,650 per annum as a rental fee to lease the land from Council, with this rental increasing by 3% per annum. The term of the lease would be twenty years, in four consecutive five-year leases. If Council agrees to the lease, it is recommended that legal advice be obtained regarding the terms of the lease documentation and an independent valuation of the appropriate rental be sought. The terms of the offer is detailed in AT-1.

 

A Lease Agreement pro-forma has been provided by TCI. It is included as AT-4.

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to seek the local community’s view on the lease of Council land for the purpose of a telecommunications facility.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the installation and operation of a telecommunications facility in Trouve Street.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Residents within 50 metres of the proposed installation and local community groups

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Letterbox drop, Advertisement

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition.

 

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition.

 

Indicative Timing

4 weeks from letterbox drop

4 weeks from letterbox drop

 


 

Conclusion

 

The possible options for Council, in response to the proposed lease of land for a telecommunications facility at Trouve Street, Lane Cove include:-

1.         Refusing to enter into the lease;

2.         Placing the proposal on public exhibition to ascertain community views;

3.         Agreeing to the lease without public consultation; or

4.         Seeking legal advice to confirm the documentation, in conjunction with (ii) or (iii).

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the course of action in relation to the proposed lease of land for a telecommunication facility at Trouve Street, Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Documentation from TCI

8 Pages

AT‑2 View

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007; Regulation 114

1 Page

AT‑3 View

Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997

19 Pages

AT‑4 View

Standard Lease Agreement Provided by Optus

13 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 9

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 9

Subject:          Electronic Lodgement of Development Applications    

Record No:    SU4183 - 12242/11

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting of 7 March 2011 resolved:-

            “That a report come back to Council on the costs  and benefits of requesting Development Applications in a digital format (while acknowledging applicants must provide any paperwork required by Council and / or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act).”

 

Discussion

 

The issues relating to the electronic submission of development applications is one which has been on the government agenda for some time.

 

Electronic Development Application Process

 

The Australian Government is funding a national project, via the Development Assessment Forum (DAF), to develop an “electronic development application interoperability specification” (eDAIS) to process development applications (DA).  This will enable all levels of government and other identified stakeholders involved in the DA process to move information and data electronically between agencies and applicants.

 

The national eDA (electronic development assessment) Steering Committee, of which both the Department and LGSA are participants, oversees the Electronic Development Assessment Interoperability Specification (eDAIS) Project.”   (Improving the NSW Planning System, NSW Department of Planning).

 

Councils are currently awaiting the outcome of the various forums to provide direction and procedures for electronic development applications.  There have been a number of issues raised, including processing payments of correct fees, owners consent (original required) and plans to scale.

 

Council currently receives development application information in a number of formats.  This includes hard copy and digital via emails and CDs.

 

For major developments, applicants are required to submit all documentation in both a digital and hard copy format.

 

The digital format is used for referral to the Joint Regional Planning Panel and other external government departments such as the Roads and Traffic Authority.  This has obvious paper saving and efficiencies in the ability to transfer information electronically. 

 

For lesser scale developments, such as new houses and alterations and additions, applications are usually submitted only in a hard copy format.

 

There are a number of advantages to receiving documentation in digital form such as transferring the information to Council’s document management system and referrals where close examination of plans is not required.  The digital format also lends itself readily to external referrals to government departments. 

 

Conclusion

 

Due to these advantages and the minimal additional cost to the applicant, it is recommended that Council request all applicants to submit their plans in both hard copy and digital format.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council request all applicants to submit their plans in both hard copy and digital format.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

Subject:          DCP Amendment 1 for Finalisation    

Record No:    SU4291 - 6787/11

Author(s):       Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 6 December 2010, Council resolved to amend the Development Control Plan (DCP) on a range of issues, exhibited as Draft Amendment 1. Subsequently, the DCP Draft Amendment 1 was exhibited from 17 December 2010 to 11 February 2011. Seven submissions were received during this exhibition period.

 

The purpose of this report is to:-

·    Inform Council of the issues raised in the submissions made during the exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment 1 and subsequent discussions with Council officers; and

·    Recommend DCP Draft Amendment 1 for adoption, as amended in response to those submissions and discussions. 

 

The role of the DCP Draft Amendment 1 is to expedite certain issues due to their priority in relation to development assessment. (As Councillors are aware, the DCP is currently undergoing a 12-month review and a future report to Council will discuss a range of further draft amendments). The on-going DCP review aims to refine the Lane Cove DCP to improve controls which guide development in Lane Cove.

 

The 13 issues covered by Amendment 1 broadly fall into one of the following three categories:-

·     Legalities;

·     Modifications identified after 12 months of monitoring the effectiveness of the new DCP provisions in development assessment; and

·     Errors, omissions and fine tuning.

 

The proposed amendments are generally minor in nature seeking to, where appropriate, clarify and strengthen the original DCP. It is recommended that Council consider the Lane Cove DCP Draft Amendment 1, as amended after exhibition, as attached at AT-1 to this report and resolve accordingly.

 

Background

 

The DCP came into effect on 22 February 2010, supporting the LEP gazetted on 19 February 2010. While the LEP is the statutory planning document, the DCP is the detailed non-statutory policy containing development standards grouped into seventeen chapters reflecting development types and issues.

 

Over the past 12 months, development applications have been monitored by development assessment and strategic planning staff with a view to identifying errors/omissions and unintended consequences resulting from the DCP provisions.

 

Draft Amendment 1 to the DCP includes items which would benefit from being expedited before the comprehensive 12 month DCP review (which will form Draft Amendment 2 to be submitted to Council in mid 2011).

 

 

Consultation

The Draft DCP Amendment has been exhibited in accordance with Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Council’s consultation policy. The consultation was designed to (i) conform to legislative requirements and (ii) seek and have regard to the views of the community.

While draft amendments to development control plans need not undergo the same consultation process as changes to a local environmental plan, under the EPA Regulations 2000 (Clause 18), any draft DCP amendment must be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days. Council’s policy is to exhibit such amendments for a period of 6 weeks. However, the DCP Draft Amendment 1 was exhibited for eight weeks due to the intervening Christmas holiday period.

Accordingly, at its meeting of 6 December 2010, Council resolved to amend the DCP on a range of issues, exhibited as Draft Amendment 1 (as shown at AT-2). The exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment 1 was held from 17 December 2010 to 11 February 2011.

Consultation undertaken included:-

1.       Website exhibition – DCP Draft Amendment 1 was posted on Council’s website on 19 December 2010 (and is still available under “Current Issues” on the website);

2.       E-newsletter sent to people who registered as being interested in receiving emails on matters that Council consults on (registered parties include residents, professionals, community groups etc) to advise of the exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment;

3.       Advertisements were placed in the North Shore Time and the Northside Courier to alert people to details of the exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment; and

4.       Exhibition of DCP Draft Amendment 1 in hard copy at the Civic Centre and Lane Cove Library.

 

Submissions

 

Six submissions were received regarding the Draft DCP’s content; 4 from development companies and 2 from resident associations. A seventh submission requested information on processes.

 

The submissions are summarised and responses to them set out at AT-3.

 

Input from Council’s Development Assessment Team

 

Council’s development assessment team implement the DCP on a daily basis in their assessment of development applications. Accordingly, comments in response to Amendment 1 were endorsed by the development assessment team. Relevant input is included in the Discussion section below.

 

Modifications to DCP Draft Amendment 1

 

Proposed modifications from Council officer or public submissions are proposed in the following ways:-

·   Inclusion in DCP Draft Amendment 1 (as shown in AT1); and

·   If issues raised are actually outside the scope of Amendment 1, but are of merit, they have been included on the comprehensive list for DCP Amendment 2.

 

Discussion

 

As indicated above, at its meeting of 6 December 2010, Council resolved to amend the DCP on a range of issues exhibited as Draft Amendment 1.

 

The draft amendment proposed 13 issues which broadly fall into one of the following three categories:-

1.       Legalities e.g. amending the DCP wording in relation to tree preservation (DCP Part J Landscaping – 2.2 Regulation of Tree Preservation) to support wording introduced by the comprehensive LEP;

2.       Modifications identified after 12 months of monitoring the effectiveness of the new DCP e.g. solar access terminology needs to be standardised between sections and a definition of ‘habitable room’ to clarify and improve the DCP’s usability by applicants and staff alike; or

3.       Errors, omissions and fine tuning of the DCP e.g. the dwelling house height diagram (Part C Residential – Diagram 5) did not indicate the correct finishing point for measuring maximum external wall height.

 

The content of Draft Amendment 1, and proposed modifications resulting from public consultation and Council officers, are summarised below.

 

 

1.   Tree Preservation (DCP Part J Landscaping – 2.2 Regulation of Tree Preservation)

 

Lane Cove LEP 2009 refers to the preservation of trees and the DCP is required to support this LEP clause. Council’s legal consultant has advised that the DCP needs to be amended to ensure compliance with the LEP, in particular:-

·     The DCP must specifically refer to supporting the LEP;

·     Relevant tree species and permissible works must be specified in the DCP; and

·     The DCP’s reference to the Tree Preservation Order is to be deleted (now defunct).

 

No issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited provisions for tree preservation.

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt tree preservation amendments as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 

 

2.   Car Parking

 

2.1       Visitor parking (DCP Part C Residential C.2, C.3 & Part D Commercial D.1)

 

The current DCP does not stipulate visitor parking rates for high density residential and mixed use developments. Policy practice has been that Council assessed the development applications on merit.

 

DCP Draft Amendment 1 seeks to formalise visitor parking for multi-dwelling housing, mixed use development and residential flat buildings at 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

No issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited provisions for visitor parking.

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt visitor parking rates as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 


2.2       Visitor parking and Little Lane (DCP Part D Commercial Locality 3)

 

The visitor parking requirement for Little Lane is to be removed by Amendment 1 due to the substantial amount of public parking required in the redevelopment of the site.

No issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited provision for visitor parking and Little Lane.

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to delete the visitor parking requirement for the Little Lane Locality as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 

 

2.3       Commercial Parking in St Leonards (DCP Part D Commercial D.1)

 

DCP Draft Amendment 1 seeks to strike a balance between the St Leonards commercial parking rates of the adjacent North Sydney Council (1 space per 400 m2  of floor area) and Willoughby Council (1 space per 110 m2 of floor area).

 

At its meeting of 6 December 2010, Council resolved to exhibit the commercial parking rate in St Leonards at 1 space per 200sqm of floor space (pending traffic study investigations).  From Council’s discussion, staff understood this to mean a maximum of 1 space per 200 m2 and exhibited the clause with this wording. This is consistent with the existing words in clause 1.3.1: “A rate of maximum of 1 car space per 110 m2”.

 

Two submissions were received to the modification of the parking rate. The first submission expressed concern that any redevelopment/ refurbishment of existing buildings with parking in excess of the new parking standards could be required to reduce car spaces to meet the new reduced standard.

 

The second submission raised several issues including:-

1.   Marketability and comparable parking rates between Lane Cove, Willoughby and North Sydney parts of St Leonards;

2.   Modal split targets from the State Plan 2010; and

3.   Nature of car use in St Leonards.

 

Comment

 

In relation to the two submissions above:-

·     The Manager – Development Assessment has advised that it would not be Council’s policy to enforce compliance with new provisions regarding parking rates when an existing building is undergoing refurbishment.

·     It is considered that the concerns raised in the second submission, discussed above, justify deferring the decision to reduce commercial parking rates in St Leonards. This deferral will allow further study to be undertaken by Council staff, provide time for the result of other studies such as the North Sydney Traffic Study for St Leonards (pending) and allow consultation with other relevant stakeholders such as North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and with the Department of Planning.

·     It is noted that the Part 3A application for 88 Christie Street may proceed under the current controls of 110 m2.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to retain the current commercial parking provision in St Leonards at a maximum of 1 space per 110 m2 gross floor area, as per the current DCP, pending further studies.


 

2.4       Accessible Parking (DCP Part F, 3.5)

 

DCP Draft Amendment 1 includes clarification of the accessible parking requirements including reference to Australian Standards.

 

No issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited provision for accessible parking.

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to amend the accessible parking provision as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 

 

3.   Dwelling House Height Diagram (DCP Part C Residential - Diagram 5)

 

Diagram 5 in Part C of the DCP has been the source of confusion. An improved diagram was exhibited which is considered to provide less opportunity for confusion. The diagram does not change Council controls but merely seeks to clarify how to measure these controls.

 

Diagram 5 as exhibited has been further edited, after discussions with Council officers, to clarify where to take wall height measurements on a dwelling. The clarified diagram for adoption is included in AT1. 

 

No issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited provision for Diagram 5.

A submission was received articulating an issue (where to measure external wall height) with Diagram 5.

 

Comment

 

This issue is rectified in the amended diagram now for adoption.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt Diagram 5, modified post-exhibition to improve usability.

 

 

4.   Solar access (Part C Residential – C1, C2, C3 & Part D Commercial – D1 & Dictionary)

 

A single generic clause is to apply to each residential and mixed use development type was exhibited. Lengthy discussions were undertaken with DA staff to further define solar access provisions.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Comment

 

Although the first objective for solar access will be finalised as exhibited and put into each section, the second objective regarding ambient light was considered unusable. The existing DCP provisions currently in each section are considered better for controlling overshadowing for each density type than unifying them into one generic statement (as exhibited). Notwithstanding this, the terminology between the sections has been standardised.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to amend the solar access provisions as amended and included in AT1.

 


 

5.   Outbuildings and Garages (Part C Residential – C1)

 

The DCP controls outbuildings, excluding garages, to 20 m2. However, under the BCA outbuildings (Class 10) include garages.

 

Council’s previous Dwelling House Code allowed outbuildings, including garages, to a maximum floor area of 55 m2.

 

The exhibited amendment seeks to align with the BCA definition of outbuildings, which includes garages, and return to a large maximum area 50 m2.  (This new area of 50 m2 equates with the previous 55m2 as the definition of floor area has changed).

 

No issues have been raised in relation to outbuildings.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the outbuildings provisions as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 

 

6.   Isolated Residential Sites (Part B General – B3)

 

The DCP addresses site amalgamation and seeks to avoid the isolation of sites. However, concern was raised by both strategic and DA planners in relation to the practicability of the DCP provisions.

 

Therefore Amendment 1, as exhibited, proposed an additional provision to permit Council to refuse a residential development application which in its view would create an isolated site, according to the circumstances of a situation.

 

Also, the second part of Objective (a) relates to the equitable distribution of development potential over all properties. The DA staff have requested the removal of this part of the objective as it is very difficult to assess and another objective added referring to the orderly development of land.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the isolated sites provision as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1, delete the second part of objective (a) relating to the distribution of development potential and add objective (b) relating to the orderly development of land.

 

 

7.   Ceiling Height (Part C3 Residential – C3 & Part D Commercial – Locality 3 Little Lane)

 

Amendment 1 seeks to clarify ceiling height requirements with the Residential Flat Design Code/ Building Code of Australia.

 

No submissions were received to the exhibited provisions regarding ceiling height.

No issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited provisions for ceiling height.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the ceiling height provisions as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 


 

8.   Common Open Space – Little Lane and Mixed Use zones (Part D Commercial – D5, Locality 3 Little Lane)

 

Mixed Use zones (i.e. Lane Cove Village, Lane Cove West shops and Marshall Avenue St Leonards) are located near urban centres with ample opportunities for social meeting places.

 

As exhibited, it is proposed that Part D, Locality 3 - Little Lane Mixed Use provision 4.8 requiring common open space should be deleted having regard to the site’s urban context and access to nearby social and recreational facilities.

 

It is now proposed to also remove the requirement for the provision of common open space for mixed use developments in all Mixed Use zones as it is not considered essential in the urban context. 

 

Public comment was made that a meeting room was needed.

 

Comment

 

It is considered this should be a matter for the developer’s discretion rather than a requirement. The common open space clause implied landscaped area which cannot practicably be provided within a mixed use development.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to delete the requirement for common open space as exhibited for Little Lane in DCP Draft Amendment 1 and Council remove the common open space requirement for mixed use development in any Mixed Use zones.

 

9.   Community Facilities – Little Lane (Part D Commercial – Locality 3 Little Lane)

 

The exhibited provision sought to clarify that the Little Lane community facilities area calculation excludes the public foyer area but may include facilities, such as toilets intended principally for users of that community area. It also now clarifies the use of the mezzanine level.

 

No submissions were received to the exhibited provisions regarding community facilities area calculation for Little Lane.

 

Comment

 

It is proposed that the amended clause be recommended for adoption.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the community facilities provision as amended in AT1.

 

10. Little Street Streetscape (Part D Commercial – Locality 3 Little Lane)

 

The proposed development at Little Lane also faces Little Street. The two streetscapes contain different urban elements.

 

The existing DCP wording 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 activation 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 the following reasons: (i) it is inappropriate in view of potential vehicle/ pedestrian conflict around the site’s car park entries on Little Street, (ii) the economic viability of shops on Little Street may take time to establish and given the location are not envisaged, and (iii) a community facility and public parking are the primary function for the Little Street frontage.

A submission objected to the removal of the reference to Little Street in 1.3(8) and 4.6 stating that there is a need to provide attractive and landscaped area on Little Street.

 

Comment

 

This is agreed and the modification only removes the requirement for shops to Little Street but retains the requirement for an animated, safe, accessible and attractive public domain to be provided in Little Street.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the streetscape provision/objective as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 

11. Stormwater Controls – Little Lane (Part D Commercial – Locality 3 Little Lane)

 

The exhibited provision is to amend Part D – Locality 3 – Little Lane, so that the requirements for Little Lane site’s residential components relating to freeboard construction are to apply also to its non-residential areas.

 

The exhibited clause will be further clarified to exclude other areas (eg, parking areas) from the residential standard. 

 

No submissions were received to the exhibited provisions regarding stormwater controls for Little Lane.

 

Comment

 

The clause has been amended having regard to areas of exclusion from the residential freeboard requirement. Modifications now included at AT-1.

 

 Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the amended stormwater control provision as included at AT1.

 

12. Podium – Little Lane (Part D Commercial – Locality 3 Little Lane)

 

The setback requirement of the podium portion of the Little Lane development is not addressed in the current controls.

 

The recommended provision, as well as confirming setbacks generally, seeks to clarify that car park and podium are permissible above ground between the boundary and the setback applying to the remainder of the building. The building design is to have regard to amenity issues, particularly visual amenity, as viewed from the adjoining property to the south and from the public domain.

 

A submission requested that the visual amenity of the podium should be assessed from Little Street as opposed to the public domain generally, as stated in the exhibited provision.

 

Comment

 

It is considered that reference to the public domain is broader and allows consideration of the visual amenity of the development from the aquatic centre/Pottery Green etc and Little St and is more beneficial than narrowing the provision.

 

Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the podium provision as included at AT1.

 

13. Stormwater – General (Part O Stormwater)

 

The exhibited provisions proposed to Part O – Stormwater Management, Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, are needed to clarify on-site detention requirements for residential flat buildings and commercial/industrial developments via changes to headings. Previously it was not clear that on-site detention systems are required for residential flat buildings and commercial/industrial developments irrespective of their location within the municipality.

 

Two submissions were received stating that OSD requirements for commercial/industrial development were too onerous where building footprint only slightly altered.

 

Comment

 

Amendment 1 does not change OSD requirements for commercial and industrial buildings but clarifies provisions.

 

 Recommendation:  That Council resolve to adopt the stormwater provision as exhibited in DCP Draft Amendment 1.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of DCP Draft Amendment 1 is to expedite development assessment matters needing refinement ahead of the comprehensive Amendment 2 which will follow over the coming months.

 

The DCP Draft Amendment 1 has been amended since exhibition, having regard to submissions made and further Council officer discussions.

 

Although generally minor in nature, the modifications strengthen and clarify the intent of the provisions and they are now recommended for adoption.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.       Council adopt DCP Amendment 1, as shown at Attachment 1, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

2.       The adoption of DCP Amendment 1 be advertised in a local newspaper and Council note that it takes effect from the date of this advertisement.

3.       All people or organisations that made a submission be thanked for their contribution and advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Proposed Changes for Finalisation of DCP Draft Amendment 1

18 Pages

AT‑2 View

Exhibited Clauses DCP Draft Amendment 1 Dec 2010

19 Pages

AT‑3 View

DCP Review Amendment 1 Submissions March 2011

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

Subject:          Land and Environment Court Decisions    

Record No:    SU1802 - 11809/11

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has been advised of two recent decisions handed down in the Land and Environment Court.

 

The decisions relate to:-

·   An action initiated by Council in relation to unauthorised building work at 3 McMahons Road, Northwood, and follows separate related appeals in relation to a refusal to grant a retrospective section 96 modification approval and refusal to issue a building certificate for unauthorised work; and

·   An appeal against Council’s refusal to grant development consent to a development application involving a heritage item at 19 Glenview Street, Greenwich.

 

Discussion

 

3 McMahons Road, Northwood (DA06/167)

 

The appeal related to action taken by Council in relation to unauthorised building work being carried out at the site contrary to the development consent.

 

The application for the erection of a dwelling house, garage and in-ground pool was approved on 8 March 2007.  The application was granted a deferred commencement consent which required the deletion of a roof top terrace. Amended plans were submitted deleting the terrace and the development consent was activated on 14 May 2007.

·     In May 2009, a section 96 modification was refused under delegated authority for the building work, which had been carried out contrary to the consent.  The applicant had carried out a variety of building work to the premises which were contrary to the consent, including a substantial basement excavation (300m2), indoor swimming pool (34m2), a roof top terrace (233m2) and other works.

 

An application was also submitted for a building certificate, which was refused by Council.

 

The applicant appealed both the refusal to grant the building certificate and the Section 96 refusal.  Both matters were heard concurrently and the appeals were dismissed.

 

As a separate action, Council prosecuted the owner for the carrying out of unauthorised work.  The applicant pleaded guilty and on 24 March 2011 the Court handed down its decision.  The Court decision was that:-

“1.        The defendant is convicted of the offence with which he was charged

2.        The defendant is fined $22,500.00

3.        The defendant is ordered to pay the reasonable costs of the prosecutor, applicable solely to this prosecution and to no other proceedings between the parties as agreed or assessed accordingly to law.”

 

A copy of the judgement is contained in AT-1.

 

In relation to this matter, Council also submitted a complaint against the private certifier to the Building Professionals Board, which to date has not resulted in the Board taking any action against the Certifier.

 

19 Glenview Street, Greenwich (DA08/278)

 

The appeal was a result of a Council refusal to grant development consent to a development application for alterations and additions to an existing residential building and the erection of an additional dwelling at the front of the site over basement parking.

 

The key issues related to whether the property had existing use rights, adequacy of parking, tree protection and the heritage impact of the proposal on the existing heritage item on the site.

 

The Matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court on 16 and 17 March 2011.

 

The appeal was upheld on the following grounds:-

 

“The appeal is upheld subject to the provision of revised plans and settled conditions reflecting the amendments made during the hearing and the determination in this decision that apartment 4 would have an unacceptable heritage impact and it to be deleted.”

 

In essence, the Commissioner rejected the additional dwelling proposed in the front of the heritage item, but subject to amended plans being submitted by 1 April 2011, allowed the construction of the basement carpark and alterations to the heritage item to reconfigure it to contain 3 dwellings.

 

In the event that amended plans are not submitted, the appeal is to be dismissed.

 

A copy of the judgement is contained in AT-2.

 

Conclusion

 

The two above matters are the most recent decisions in the Land and Environment Court in relation to a recent appeal and a prosecution.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Land and Environment Court Judgement - 3 McMahons Road

17 Pages

AT‑2 View

Land and Environment Court Judgement - 19 Glenview Street

26 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 April 2011

Human Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          Kindy Cove Budget 2011/12 and Fees and Charges for 2011/12    

Record No:    SU4183 - 12267/11

Author(s):       Jane  Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The budget for the Kindy Cove Child Care is normally prepared by the Directors of the Child Care Centre in collaboration with the Kindy Cove Management Advisory Committee.  This year the timetable for the Council budget process was brought forward which resulted in the budget for the Centre not being able to be presented to a meeting of the Kindy Cove Management Advisory Committee and then brought to Council with the rest of the Council budget.  The Management Advisory Committee have now had an opportunity to discuss the budget and it is presented to Council tonight for adoption for exhibition.

 

Discussion

 

The budget for Kindy Cove has historically been formulated as a consultation between the Directors of the Child Care Centre and the members of the Kindy Cove Management Advisory Committee, in particular the Treasurer.  After discussion at the Committee meeting of the 16 March 2011, the following fees and charges are proposed.

 

Proposed Fees and Charges for 2011/2012 as listed below:-

 

KINDY COVE CHILD CARE CENTRE

 

Title of Fee/ Charge

GST Applies

Total fee or charge 2010/2011

(incl GST)

$

Total fee or charge 2011/2012

(incl GST)

$

Attendance Fees: Nursery

 

-           1 day per week

-           2 days per week

-           3 days per week

-           4 days per week

-           5 days per week

 

 

N

N

N

N

N

 

 

81.00

162.00

243.00

324.00

405.00

 

 

85.00

170.00

255.00

340.00

425.00

Attendance Fees:

Blue & Green Rooms

-           1 day per week

-           2 days per week

-           3 days per week

-           4 days per week

-           5 days per week

-           Late fee

 

 

 

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

 

75.00

150.00

225.00

300.00

375.00

25.00 per 15 minutes or part thereof

 

 

79.00

158.00  

237.00

316.00

395.00

25.00 per 15 minutes or part thereof

Sick  Fee

 

-           Booking Fee / Waiting List             Reservation

-           “Working Bee” Levy

            (non-attendees)

N

 

N

 

Y

Up to 30.00 / hour

 

30.00

 

150.00

Up to 30.00 / hour

 

30.00

 

200.00

 

 

The reasons for the fee increases have been discussed with the Management Advisory Committee and are outlined as follows.

 

1.         Ratio Changes

 

Child Care Centres in NSW have been covered by the NSW Children’s Services Regulation 2004. In December 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a National Quality Framework for early Childhood education. The effect of the COAG agreement is that there are changes being introduced into Centres to improve quality care.

 

Two significant changes are to:-

 

1.    Ratios for children to staff; and

2.    Qualifications required for staff in early childhood Centres.

 

Ratios

 

The ratios are as follows:-

 

Long Day

Age Group

Staff to Child Ratio

Timeframe to Comply

 

Birth to 24 months

1 staff member to 4 children  (previously 1:5)

1 January 2012*

 

25 to 35 months

1 staff member to 5 children

(previously 1:8)

1 January 2016

 

36 months to school age

1 staff member to 11 children (1:10 in NSW)

1 January 2016

 

* The NSW Children’s Services Regulation 2004 had already been amended to introduce the 1:4 ratio by January 2011.

 

The previous ratio for children 0-2 was 1 staff member to every 5 children. Kindy Cove has always worked on a ratio of 1 staff member to every 4 children which is now the requirement.  While Kindy previously voluntarily worked to that 1:4 ratio, there was leeway within the Centre to be at 1:5 in case of lunchtimes or other events. The compulsory nature of the 1:4 ratio means that this ratio applies in all circumstances. Kindy Cove has 16 children in the nursery.  On a day that only 13 children are at the Centre 4 staff are still required to meet ratio.

 

The other factor affecting Kindy Cove (and other child care centres such as Possums Corner) is that parents are dropping children off earlier and collecting them later.  The Directors of the Centre think that there is a link between people working longer days as part-time workers, rather than working full-time. The change in the drop off and pick up times affects the number of staff required to be on duty across the beginning and end of the day.

 

Kindy has requested approval for an additional 12.5 hours for a staff member to ensure that the ratios are met across the early and late hours. This new staff member would work from 7.30am until 10.00am Monday to Friday.

 

In addition, Kindy is also looking to adjust the 7.45am – 3.45 pm shift in Nursery to be 8.15am – 4.15pm.  This move would also cover the afternoon pressure being experienced in the nursery until 4.15 pm.

 

The annual cost of this additional 12.5 hours is $14,158 which works out at $1.00/day (55 children day/ 5 days week/ 51 weeks).

 

Qualification

 

The other change that will affect Kindy Cove is the introduction of changes to the qualifications of child care staff.

 

Service Type

New Qualification Requirements

Timeframe to Comply

Long Day Care

and Preschool

50 per cent of staff in long day care and preschool services will be required to have (or be actively engaged in working towards) a diploma-level early childhood education and care qualification or above.

By 1 January 2014

 

Other staff will have (or be actively engaged in working towards) a Certificate III level early childhood education and care qualification or equivalent.

By 1 January 2014

 

All services larger than 26 places will be required to have one or two early childhood teachers in attendance, with smaller centres (under 26 places) required to have a teacher in attendance some of the time.

By 1 January 2020

 

Kindy Cove is currently looking at ways of ensuring both continuity of staff and ways of encouraging staff to upgrade their qualifications in readiness for 2014. Retaining staff in particular is critical to Kindy Cove  as the cost of relief staff during vacancies has the potential to cause significant cost over runs.

 

Budget

 

A copy of the draft Kindy Cove Budget for 2011/12 is attached (AT-1).  The draft budget indicates a small deficit budget of -$548. The budget has been formulated on the premise of 1 full-time child vacancy per room (3 full-time vacancies across the Centre) the Centre currently has only two vacant days available which is in line with the last two years vacancy rates. The budget has also not factored in the two additional ad hoc days available to parents. In the last three years an average of 25 days per months are taken up by parents. This provides some additional leeway for the Child Care Centre. Obviously close monitoring regarding the budget will be undertaken throughout the year. It is anticipated that a surplus will be the result at the end of the financial year. Surplus for the Child Care Centre is placed in the Kindy Cove Reserves and is used for funding capital upgrades.

 

Consultation

 

It is intended that the draft Kindy Cove Fees and Charges and draft Kindy Cove Budget 2011/12 be added to the current draft Council Fees and Charges and draft Budgets documents currently on display. A separate advertisement will be placed advising that the Draft Kindy Cove Fees and Charges and Budget are on exhibition.

 

Conclusion

 

The fees and charges proposed for the Kindy Cove Child Care Centre have been based on ongoing costs prepared by Council and have taken into account the current and historical vacancy rates for the Centre. In addition staffing implications resulting from the changing way that families are utilising child care have also been factored into the budget.

 

It is intended that the draft Kindy Cove Fees and Charges and the draft Kindy Cove Budget 2011- 12 be brought back to Council as part of the overall Council budget to the Council meeting of 7 May 2011.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.    Council adopt for the purpose of public exhibition the Draft Kindy Cove Fees and Charges 2011 – 2012 and Draft Kindy Cove Budget for 2011 – 2012; and

2.    Following public exhibition, the Draft Kindy Cove Budget 2011 -2012 and the Draft Kindy Fees and Charges 2011 – 2012 together with any submissions received, be considered as part of the overall Council budget at the Council meeting to be held on 2 May 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Kindy Cove Budget 2011-12

5 Pages