m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

7 November 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

7 November 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 7 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 OCTOBER 2011

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee 05 November 2011

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 136

SUBJECT: 9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove

3.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 285

SUBJECT: 19 Glenview Street Greenwich

4.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 278

SUBJECT: 456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

 

Orders Of The Day

 

5.       Order Of The Day No. 21

SUBJECT: Citizenship Ceremony - Wednesday 30 November 2011

 

6.       Order Of The Day No. 22

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule December 2011

 

General Managers Reports

 

7.       General Managers Report No. 22

SUBJECT: Council Snapshot  

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

8.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 40

SUBJECT: Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors

 

9.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 42

SUBJECT: 2012 Local Government Elections

 

10.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 43

SUBJECT: Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2011

 

11.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 44

SUBJECT: 1st Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

12.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 45

SUBJECT: Council's Annual Report 2010 - 2011

 

13.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 46

SUBJECT: 1st Quarter Review of the 2011 - 2012 Budget

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

14.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 25

SUBJECT: Telecommunication Facility Proposal - Trouve Street, Lane Cove

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

15.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

SUBJECT: Draft DCP Amendment 2 Finalisation

 

16.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

SUBJECT: Funding under Round 3 of Sustainability Small Grants Program  

 

 

 

 

             


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 136

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 136

Subject:          9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove

Inspection Committee at its meeting on 05 November 2011 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting to held on the 07 November 2011.   

Record No:    DA11/70-01 - 21940/11

Author(s):      Stan Raymont 

 

 

Property:                                 9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove

DA No:                                                DA70/11

Date Lodged:                          Original plans 29 April 2011

                                                Amended plans 11 July 2011

Cost of Work:                          $350,000

Owner:                                                G.E. & R.A. Walker

Applicant:                                Tullipan Homes Pty Ltd

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Construction of a part one, part two storey dwelling house.

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

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes, from 7 June 2011 to 11 July 2011

NOTIFICATION                                                                    

Notified of original and amended proposal                    

                                               

                                               

Neighbours                              5, 7, 9, 11 Gamma Road ; 6, 8, 10 Alpha Road; 5, 5A, 7, 9, 11, 13 Beta Road and 1, 2 Delta Road

Ward Councillors                    East Ward and The Mayor

Progress Association              Osborne Park Residents Association Inc.

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The application has been called to Council by Councillor Brooks–Horn due to neighbour concerns about impact of the development.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

·     The site was created by the subdivision of 9 Gamma and 10 Alpha Roads.

·     The subdivision was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 13 September 2007 subject to a number of conditions which mostly concerned the retention of two large Sydney Blue Gum trees.

·     The original proposal did not comply with:-

The Land and Environment Court’s conditions for the retention of the trees;

DCP 2009 regarding setbacks from side and rear boundaries;

Amount of cut; and

Impact on the amenity of the adjoining premises.

·     Four submissions were received objecting to the proposal.  Reasons for objection included:-

Non-compliance with Court’s conditions;

Removal of a large gum tree required by Court to be retained;

Loss of privacy and overlooking;

Loss of amenity; and

Side setbacks did not comply.

·     The applicant submitted amended plans on 17 July 2011.  The amended proposal is to construct a part one, part two storey four bedroom brick veneer dwelling house on the site.  The two large trees are shown to remain and the dwelling house has been moved down the site to be 6m from the trees.  The setbacks to the side boundaries comply.  The overall height has been reduced by 785mm to 8.8m.

·     Three submissions have been received in respect of the amended proposal.  Reasons for objection include:-

Non-compliance with Court’s conditions regarding the retention of trees;

Design and location of dwelling house and loss of amenity and privacy; and

Solar access.

·     Subject to a draft condition requiring highlights in the first floor level of the western elevation and a reduction in the deck length the amended proposal is recommended for approval.

SITE

The subject site is a battleaxe allotment located on the northern side of Gamma Road at the rear of 9 Gamma Road.  The land rises from the street and has a retaining wall across and 9m from the rear boundary.  There is a right-of-carriageway over the battleaxe handle in favour of 9 Gamma Road.  The land is vacant and has two large trees towards the rear on the eastern side.  Copies of the Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached as AT-1 and AT-2.

PROPOSAL

The amended proposal is to construct a part one, part two storey, four bedroom brick veneer dwelling house.  There is a double garage proposed at the front and a 3m wide deck at first floor level with a 1.8m high proposed privacy screen at the southern end.  The roof is of a skillion design with a maximum 15o pitch and the roof is pitched with selected colourbond decking.

The two large trees at the rear of the site are shown to remain and the dwelling house has been moved down the site to be 6m from the trees with the exception of a small set of stairs which has a point intrusion into the 6m area.  The dwelling house is shown to be set back 1.5m from the southern and western boundaries, a minimum of 2.6m from the eastern boundary and a minimum of 6m from the rear boundary.

The overall height has been reduced by 785mm to 8.8m, which is less than the 9.5 maximum.


PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

Council at its meeting of the 4 September 2006 refused consent to subdivide two lots into three lots at 9 Gamma Road and 10 Alpha Road.

A Section 82A review was submitted and Council at its meeting of the 6 August 2007 resolved to reaffirm the original refusal.

The applicants appealed to the Land and Environment Court and the Appeal was upheld, subject to conditions (copy attached).

Development Application 70/11 was submitted on the 29 April 2011 to construct a part one, part two storey four bedroom house.  There was an attached double garage at the front on the eastern side with a 2.9m wide verandah over.  One of the two large trees was shown to be removed and a future pool to separate DA was shown in the location of the other large tree.

The applicant was advised on the 7 June 2011 that the plans were unsatisfactory and amended plans were submitted on the 11 July 2011.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

LEP 2009

Zoning:           R2                   Site area:        550m2 (excluding access)

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

0.5:1

yes

Height of Buildings

8.8m

9.5m

yes

Comprehensive DCP

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Front setback (min)

> 30m (battleaxe lot)

Consistent with area or 7.5m

yes

Side setback (min)

1500mm

1200mm/1500mm

yes

Rear setback (min)

6m

<1000m2: 8m

no

Wall Height (max)

6.7m

7.0m

yes

Subfloor height (max)

2.35m

1.5m

no

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

yes

Landscaped area (min)

38%

35%

yes

Solar Access

3 hrs to north facing windows

3 hrs to north facing windows

yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

2.95m

3m

yes

Private open space

> 24m2

> 4m minimum depth

24m2 (min)

4m minimum depth

yes

Cut and fill

1.76m

1m (max)

no

Car Parking

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Off-street spaces (min)

2

1

yes

 


REFERRALS

Development Engineer

The comments of the Development Engineer were requested on the amended proposal and draft conditions of consent were provided and have been included in the recommendation in this report (see draft conditions 30-48).

Tree Assessment Officer

The comments of the Tree Assessment Officer were requested on the amended proposal and he has advised that the two Sydney Blue Gum trees must be retained.

            To ensure the protection of the two Sydney Blue gums, the trees must be encompassed by a tree protection zone of not less than 6m radial distance from the trunk of each of the two trees.

The Plans show a minor incursion into the 6m tree protection zone. The result of this minor incursion into the western quadrant of the tree protection zone would have a negligible impact on the two trees.”

Draft conditions of consent have been provided and are included in the recommendation in this report (see draft conditions 25-29).

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

The proposal is permissible within the R2 (low density residential) zoning under the Lane Cove LEP 2009 with Council’s consent.

Other Planning Instruments

SEPP No.55 – Contaminated Land – Clause 7 of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated.  Notwithstanding the fact that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and adjoining sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibilities of contamination.  Accordingly, there is considered to be no contamination issue given the circumstances of the case.

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

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

1.    Rear Setback – Council’s DCP 2009 specifies a minimum rear setback for dwelling houses of 8m or 25% of the site depth (whichever is greater) is to be provided for sites up to 1000m2.  The existing predominant rear setback and site constraints, especially for irregular sites, may be taken into account.

The walls of the rear single storey section of the dwelling house on the western side are shown to be set back 6m from the rear boundary.

In support of the rear setback, the applicant suggests:-

 “Setback of 8.0m is required by DCP.  The proposal provides for a setback of 6.0m.  This elevation is single storey only and provides for only a bedroom and ensuite and as such does not result in a loss of privacy to the adjoining properties.

Further the setback provided is sufficient to enable landscaping, an appropriate area of private open space and the setback ensures appropriate visual separation.

The setback also ensures the retention of Trees 6 and 7 as per conditions imposed on the previous consent.”

The objective of rear setbacks is to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation for the dwelling house and its neighbours.

The setback of the single storey section of the dwelling house 6m from the rear boundary in lieu of 8m is brought about by the need to retain the two large trees and to keep at least 6m from their trunks thus allowing a large landscaped area in the northeast corner of the site.  The 6m wide area at the rear of the proposed dwelling house would also be landscaped except for a small concrete path.

The neighbour to the rear does not object to the proposed rear setback.  However, there is an objection to the proposed setback from the owners of 9 Beta Road located on the western side of the site.

The setback of the single storey section from the rear boundary is considered satisfactory having regard to the constraints on this site.

2.    Subfloor Height – Council’s DCP 2009 indicates that the maximum height to the underside of a basement floor or undercroft areas or subfloor above ground level (existing) is to be no greater than 1.5m. 

This site has a retaining wall and a raised section of land at the rear.  The proposed dwelling house is single storey at the rear on the western side and where the dwelling house changes from two storeys to single storey there is an undercroft area which varies from a minimum of 300mm to a maximum of 2.35m.  This is due to the change in the levels and the proposed dwelling is only a maximum of two storeys at any point.  The undercroft area as proposed is considered to be satisfactory.

3.    Cut – Council’s DCP 2009 specifies that:-

·   Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site.

A maximum cut of 1.76m is shown on the eastern side of the dwelling house where part of the rear of the ground floor level is being set into the site.

The maximum cut as proposed allows the rear of the ground floor level of the dwelling house to be set into the site and reduces its impact on the adjoining sites.  The cut as proposed is considered satisfactory.

Court Conditions

This subdivision was approved by the Land and Environment Court on the 13 September 2007 subject to a number of conditions.

The conditions included:-

9.       No excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within six (6) metres of any tree trunk for any future developments.


Comment

The amended plans show the proposed dwelling house to be set back at least 6m from the two trees which are shown to be retained with the exception of a small point intrusion of part of a small stair into the 6m zone.   The Tree Assessment has considered this matter and advised that the intrusion would have a negligible impact on the two trees.

10.         To ensure that there are minimal impacts on the two existing Sydney Blue Gum trees located on the upper level of proposed Lot 2, the following measures are required to be fulfilled prior to any development occurring on Lot 2, namely:

       i)     That the existing retaining wall which bisects the proposed Lot 2 is to be retained and no excavation or disturbance of soil levels are to occur on the upper level other than opening in the retaining wall to enable steps to the upper level; and the demolition of the swimming pool.  (The swimming pool has been filled in).

       ii)    That the existing soil levels in the northwest corner of the lower level adjacent to the retaining wall not be changed or disturbed through excavation for a radius of six (6) metres measured from the outside of the trunk of the Sydney Blue Gum tree identified as tree 6 on the Plan of survey prepared by Robert Moore & Associates Pty Limited dated 31 August 2005.

Comment

In support of the dwelling location as now proposed it is stated by Nolan Planning Consultants on behalf of the applicant as follows:

        “Consent (DA322/05) which was issued by the Land & Environment Court required the retention of Tree 6 and 7 and that there was to be no excavation to the upper level of the retaining wall that dissects the site.

        In this regard, whilst it was considered that Tree 6 (identified as Tree 2 in the Arborist Report submitted with the current application) was identified as being hazardous and should be removed regardless of any application, the proposal has been amended to ensure the health and retention of both Trees 6 and 7.

        Whilst the Consent at Condition 10(i) provided that no excavation was to occur to the north of the existing retaining wall subsequent evidence from the Arborist has indicated that the proposed excavation beyond the retaining wall will not have any detrimental impact on the health of Trees 6 and 7.  The Tree Assessment & Management Report has been submitted under separate cover.

        It is noted that Council has the authority to vary conditions of consent imposed by the Land & Environment Court and that subsequent Development Applications can amend such conditions.

        Given that the proposed development can be constructed without detrimental impact on the Trees 6 and 7 it is considered that the proposal has achieved the intent of the Conditions previously imposed by the Court.”

A single storey section of the proposed dwelling house on the western side is shown to be constructed 3.5m to the north of the retaining wall, as is a small timber deck and stairs.  The only protrusion into the 6m zone from the two trees is a point intrusion of part of the stairs from the deck.  The Tree Assessment Officer is satisfied with this.

The existing retaining wall should be retained where within the 6m radius of the two trees to be retained.

11.     Existing soil levels are to be maintained on lot 2 after subdivision to protect tree roots.

Comment

This is considered should only be applied within the 6m radius zone of the trees to be retained.

12.     This approval does not extend to any tree removal, nor pruning lopping or damaging of any trees on the site or in adjoining lands.

Comment

The two large trees are to be retained and no excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within 6 metres of the trunks of the two large trees.

19.     It should be noted that any future dwelling house should be sited such that it is away from the mature trees in the northern east corner of Lot 2 and the south-eastern corner of Lot 1.

Comment

The amended plans are considered to comply with the abovementioned condition.

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

Three submissions were received in response to the notification of the amended development application plans.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows:

·     Two submissions object as the proposal does not comply with the Court conditions regarding the retention of trees.

They say that the applicant through his “GROWING MY WAY” report seeks to go against the Land and Environment Court ruling and attempts to justify that excavation within the protection radius is allowable.

Comment

The comments of Council’s Tree Assessment Officer were requested on the tree issues raised by the commenters and also on the amended Tree Assessment & Management Report dated July/April 2011 by “Growing My Way” Tree Services.  The Tree Assessment Officer has advised that subject to the draft conditions specified that the subject trees would be adequately protected.  (See earlier comments under Tree Assessment Officer).

·     Design and location of proposed dwelling house and loss of amenity and privacy.

(i)         The owner of 7 Beta Road is concerned that they would see a continuous wall 18 metres long and 9 metres high across their rear garden area with 5 windows looking into their garden, bathroom and bedroom reducing their amenity solar access and privacy.

Comment

The proposed dwelling house is two storeys at the front and single storey at the rear.  The proposed dwelling is considered to be approximately 1m below where shown on the drawing submitted with the submission showing impact of 9A Gamma Road on 7 Beta Road.  It is considered to prevent loss of privacy that the windows at first floor level of the western elevation should be highlights with their sills at least 1.7m above the first floor level.  Subject to this draft condition the amended plans are considered a reasonable development of this site having regard to the constraints on the site particularly having to retain two large trees.  (See draft condition 2)

(ii)        The owners of 9 Beta Road are concerned at the 6m rear boundary setback as they will look at a brick wall only 1.5m away from their side boundary.  They want an 8m setback as the DCP requires.

Comment

The proposed dwelling house is mostly single storey at the rear where it adjoins 9 Beta Road.  Subject to the windows in the west elevation of the upper floor level of the proposed dwelling house being highlights with a minimum sill height of 1.7m above the upper floor level and having regard to the constraints on this site particularly having to retain two large trees, the amended proposal is considered satisfactory.

(iii)       The owners of 9 Beta Road are also concerned that the double doors off the main bedroom are indicating further plans to add a possible deck and hence cause further disturbing of the soil in this upper area. 

Comment

The bedroom doors are 250mm above ground level and no deck is shown.

(iv)       The owners of 7 Gamma Road have privacy concerns about the balcony area on the eastern side of the proposed dwelling house.  This balcony would look directly over the backyard of 7 Gamma Road and into the main living area which has walls made entirely of glass.  They want a privacy screen added to the balcony on the eastern side of the dwelling house to avoid overlooking into the yard and living area of 7 Gamma Road.

Comment

Council’s DCP 2009 specifies:-

·     Dwellings or additions shall be designed and orientated so that windows, balconies and decks are not situated directly opposite windows of the habitable rooms of any adjoining dwellings, unless privacy can be addressed; and

·     Elevated decks, terraces or balconies greater than 1m above ground level (existing) to living areas are not to exceed a maximum depth of 3.0m of useable area.  Deeper decks may be considered if privacy to adjoining properties is addressed.

The proposed elevated deck is 3m wide and is located 8m from the eastern boundary with the rear yard of 7 Gamma Road.  To help provide privacy for 7 Gamma Road, a draft condition is recommended that the southern end of the proposed deck at first floor level at the south-eastern corner of the proposed dwelling house be set back in line with the southern wall of the family/living room and the balustrade to the proposed deck being of translucent glass or solid material. (See draft condition 3)

·     Solar access and overshadowing – Council’s DCP 2009 specifies:

            a)         Dwellings or additions shall be so designed and orientated so as to give reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational areas of the subject site and adjoining premises between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21st June.  In particular, dwellings are to be so located and designed that a portion of windows of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sun between 9am and 3pm on 21st June.

            b)         Council may accept reduction in solar access for the subject site and adjacent development if the topography and lot orientation is such that the 3 hour standard is considered unachievable.

            c)         Where adjacent dwellings and their open space already receive less than 2 hours of sun then new development should seek to maintain this solar access where practicable.

(i)         7 Beta Road has overshadowing concerns.

Comment

Whilst part of the yard of 7 Beta Road would be overshadowed at 9am, the north facing windows of 7 Beta Road would receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice.

(ii)        9 Beta Road is concerned at significant overshadowing particularly of the dwelling house at 9 Gamma Road.

Comment

9 Gamma Road is a single storey dwelling house.  Due to the constraints on this site, the amended plans show the proposed dwelling house moved down the site to be 1500mm from the rear boundary of 9 Gamma Road. 

It is considered that the solar access complies with the requirements of the DCP.  Note:  The owners of 9 Gamma Road have not commented on the amended plans.

·     Floor space ratio – One commenter objects to the floor space ratio as proposed.

Comment

The floor space ratio as proposed complies with Council’s LEP 2009 requirement of 0.5:1.

·     Cut and fill – One commenter objects to the cut and fill as it does not comply with Council’s DCP 2009.

Comment

The maximum cut of 1.76m as proposed allows the rear of the ground floor level to be set into the site and reduces its impact on the adjoining sites.  The proposed cut is not within the 6m zone from the two large trees and is considered satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The matters in the DOPI Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied.

The subject site has a number of constraints for the erection of a dwelling house, particularly the retention of the two large trees.  Subject to the conditions in the recommendation, the amended proposal is considered a reasonable development of this site and not to adversely impact on the amenity of the area or the streetscape.

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 D70/11 for the construction of a dwelling house on Lot 2, DP 1155797 and known as 9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove subject to the following conditions:

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers BT-31-13-B-1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 dated 20.6.11 by Tullipan Homes Pty. Ltd. and 10421-D1B, D2B, D3B dated 7.7.11 by EZE Hydraulic Engineers except as amended by the following conditions.

2.         To prevent loss of privacy all the windows at first floor level of the western elevation of the proposed dwelling house being highlights with their sills at least 1.7m above the first floor level.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

3.         To help provide privacy for 7 Gamma Road, the southern end of the proposed deck at first floor level at the south-eastern corner of the proposed dwelling house being set back in line with the southern wall of the family/living room and the balustrade to the proposed deck being of translucent glass or solid material.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

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.         (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.

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 & 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.

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

10.       No excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within six (6) metres of the trunks of the two existing Blue Gum trees which are to be retained.

11.       To ensure that there are minimal impacts on the two existing Sydney Blue Gum trees located on the upper level of Lot 2, the existing retaining wall which bisects Lot 2 is to be retained where within 6m of the trunks of the two existing Blue Gum trees.

 12.      (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.

13.       The site is to be property fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

14.       The proposed 1.8m high privacy screen on the south side of the balcony being replaced with a 1.8m high solid permanent privacy screen.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

15.       (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.

16.       (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.

17.       (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.

18.       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

i)          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

k)         Completion.

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

b)         Retaining walls;

c)         Footings;

d)         Reinforced concrete work;

e)         Structural steelwork;

f)          Upper level floor framing.

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:-

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

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

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

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

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

21.       (68) An automatic fire detection and alarm system, designed to ensure the occupants are given adequate warning so they can evacuate the building in an emergency, must be installed in the dwelling.

This requirement is satisfied by:-

(a)        Smoke alarms installed in -

            (i)         Class 1a buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia; and

(b)        Smoke alarms complying with AS 3786.

(c)        Smoke alarms connected to the consumer mains power where consumer power is supplied to the building.

 

Location – Class 1a buildings (dwellings)

Smoke alarms must be installed in a Class 1a building on or near the ceiling in -

(a)        any storey containing bedrooms -

            (i)         between each part of the dwelling containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling; and

            (ii)        where bedrooms are served by a hallway, in that hallway; and

(b)        any other storey not containing bedrooms.

22.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan approved under this application.

23.       (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.

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

25.       (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.

26.       (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3 m 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

27.       (317) A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 6m from the trunk of the two Sydney Blue gums located at the rear of the allotment. 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 except for construction of the set of steps.

28.       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.

29.       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

30.       (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.

 

31.       (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. 

32.       (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.

33.       (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.

34.       (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.

35.       (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.

36.       (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’.

37.       (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.

38.       (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.

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

            The following plans shall be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer demonstrating:-

·   Longitudinal section along the extreme wheel paths of the driveway/right of way at a scale of 1:20 demonstrating compliance with the scaping provisions of AS2890.1. It shall include all levels and grades, including those levels stipulated at boundary levels, both existing and proposed. It shall extend from the centre line of the roadway through to the parking area.

40.       (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.

 

 

41.       (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 & 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

42.       (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed generally in accordance with plan numbered 10421 sheets D1-D3 issue B prepared by EZE Hydraulic Engineers dated 07-07-11.

            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.

43.       (V2) Replacement of Vehicular Crossing: The vehicular crossing servicing the property shall be reconstructed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate as it does not meet Council’s current standards. The 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.

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

(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.

45.       (T1) Design of Retaining Structures: All retaining structures greater than 1m in height are to be designed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer. The structural design is to comply with, all relevant design codes and Australian Standards. The design and certification shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

46.       (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.

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 plans prepared by EZE Hydraulic Engineers numbered E1-E3 issue A and dated 30-03-11. 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

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 285

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 285

Subject:          19 Glenview Street Greenwich

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 November 2011.   

Record No:    DA11/130-01 - 43658/11

Author(s):      Norm Fletcher 

 

 

Property:                     19 Glenview Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                                    D 278/08 Section 96 Modification

 

Date Lodged:              1/5/2011

 

Cost of Work:              $40,000

 

Owner:                                    H & W Pty Ltd

 

Applicant:                    Valero Holdings Pty Ltd

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Modification of Development Consent 278/08 to existing residential building that includes the provision of a lift, increased site excavation, new retaining wall, new stairway, internal alterations to the layout for dwelling 1,2 and 3.

ZONE

Residential 2(a1) as per Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.

R2 Low Density Residential as per  Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Residential flat buildings are not permitted within this zone. The applicant claims “existing use rights” on the basis that the building is an existing residential flat building.

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 1987 – B95

Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009 – I52

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2 (Residential Flats) 7a (Car parking) and 10b Swimming Pool existing

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                     56-58, 60-64, 66 Greenwich Rd, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 23A, 25 Glenview St

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

Progress Association      Greenwich Community Association

Other Interest Groups     Lane Cove Historical Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This application is referred to Council at the request of Councillor P Palmer because of the concerns raised by the neighbours and also the original application was determined (consent granted) by the Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 10707 of 2010.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposed modification of the development consent involves:-

 

·    The inclusion of an external lift on the northern (side) façade of the existing residential building providing lift access from the basement car parking level to the ground and first floor levels.

·    Increase in the extent of excavation in the basement car parking area to provide an access tunnel to the proposed lift, redesign the stairs from the basement car park to ground level and increase area for retention of rain water tanks (20,000 litres).

·    Retention and refurbishment of existing utility area on the northern boundary to provide laundry facilities for dwellings 1 and 2.

·    Deletion of existing laundry on southern boundary and inclusion of the floor area into the floor area of apartment 2 as an enlarged media/utility room.

·    Internal alterations to layout apartments 1, 2 and 3.

·    New retaining wall along the rear boundary with replacement privacy screen on top of the wall.

·    New pool pump room in the south western corner of the site to service the new approved swimming pool.

·    Reinstatement of the existing external stairs on the southern boundary to provide alternative fire egress path for apartment 3 and provision of fire exits access gate (open out ward) to match approved privacy screen adjacent.

·    Provision of storage areas within the roof space above flat 3.

·    Provision of skylights to the roof area at the rear of the dwelling above the entry at the rear to unit 3.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the proposed modifications will result in a minor increase in the gross floor area of the approved development.

 

The modification application is recommended for approval with additional draft conditions.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the western side of Glenview Street. The site is rectangular in shape with front and rear boundaries of 18.29m, side boundaries of 45.72 and an area of 836.22m2. The site falls towards the street.

 

The existing building on the property is a federation style brick and tiled residential building that accommodates three existing residential dwellings.  The building is listed as a heritage item in the Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009 – I52.

 

The adjoining properties are residential dwellings.  Site Location Plan attached (AT-1) and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the modification of the recently approved development that includes both internal and external works.  The modifications as proposed are listed in the preceding executive summary section of this report and also identified in the amended architectural plans prepared by Zeman Architects.  The amendments include both internal including additional site excavation and external works that include a new retaining wall at the rear that would replace an existing privacy screen.

 


PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

The original application was refused by Council however the applicant lodged a Class 1 appeal to the Land and Environment Court. The appeal was case number 10707 of 2010 and the Court granted consent to the proposal subject to conditions.

 

Council received a Construction Certificate (CC 2011/040 dated 28/7/11) issued by Paul Fitzgerald from Fitzgerald Building Certifiers Pty Ltd. The works in regard to the Construction Certificate have commenced on the property. The site is currently a construction zone.

 

Development Consent 134/11 was granted on the 20/9/2011 for a swimming pool enclosure in the rear yard.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009 and the Comprehensive DCP

 

The Councils Data and Policy Compliance requirements in respect of the LEP 2009 and the Comprehensive DCP would apply to the proposal however as the existing building envelope has been established and accepted with the Land and Environment Court decision, the ability to apply the prescriptive controls as indicated in the DCP is limited.

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential

 

Site Area:       836.22 m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

144.61 sq m

142.7 sq m (approved)

Minor variation

GFA

 

 

FSR

322,51 sq m

 

 

0.385:1

320.60 sq m

(approved)

 

0.383: (approved)

 

 

Minor variation

 

 

Minor Variation

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

No change

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Existing

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

NA

2m

NA

Side setback (min)

Western side: Nil to staircase.

 

 

Eastern side:

- 547mm to lift.

 

- Nil to laundry

Original approval indicated 1100 mm to the west and 1400 mm to the east

No (Existing structure reinstated)

 

No- Minor variation

 

No (Existing structure reinstated)

Rear setback (min)

No change

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

NA

Wall Height (max) (maximum parapet of 600mm)

NA

7.0m

NA

Maximum Ridge height

No change

9.5m

NA

Subfloor height (max)

No change

1.5m

NA

Number of Storeys (max)

No change

2

NA

Landscaped area (min)(Minimum width of 1m required to be included in area)

46.8%

35%

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

NA

 

NA

Solar Access

No change

3 hrs to north-facing windows

NA

Provide for view sharing

No change

 

NA

Heritage Conservation

Heritage property

 

Satisfactory see report from advisor

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

No change

3m

NA

Private open space

No change

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

NA

Basix

Submitted

 

Yes

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front and side return fence (solid and open design) height (max)

NA

Solid:   900mm

(solid and open design):             1.2m

NA

Piers width (max)

NA

350mm

NA

Setback from front boundary if fence is from 1.2m to 1.8m.

NA

Entire fence- 1.0m setback from front boundary

NA

Side fence

 

 

Rear fence

Side fences unchanged

 

Rear fence i.e.: existing privacy screen to be replace

1.8m

 

 

Approved height as shown on Landscape Plans at RL 55.33

NA

 

 

Condition to be applied requiring height at RL 55.33

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

No objections subject to original conditions remaining on any modified consent.

 

Rural Fire Service

 

The Rural Fire Service has recommended two additional conditions which have been included in the report.

 

Heritage

 

Council’s heritage advisor has no objection to the proposed section 96 modification application.

 


SECTION 96 AA MODIFICATION BY CONSENT AUTHORITIES OF CONSENTS GRANTED BY THE COURT

 

The original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court therefore the provisions of Section 96AA apply that indicates the following matters for consideration:

 

·    Sec 96AA(1)(a) The Development to Which the Consent Relates to is Substantially the Same Development.

 

The modifications do propose additional site excavation works for the proposed lift and associated access passage and also the rain water storage facility adjoining the car parking basement areas.

 

The excavation works are largely below ground level and would not add to the external bulk of the development on the site.

 

The other works including the stairway on the western side of the building, lift access points at the ground and first floor levels and the retaining wall with replacement screening at the rear do marginally increase the external bulk of the building and development on the site.

 

However, as the approved use is retained as the three dwellings and the majority of works are either below ground level or within the approved building envelope, it is considered that the proposal is substantially the same development as that which was approved by the Land & Environment Court.

 

·    Sec 96AA (1) (b) The Application is Notified in Accordance with the Regulations and Councils Notification Policy.

 

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy for Community Consultation.

 

·    Sec 96AA (1) (c) Any Submissions Made.

 

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy for Community Consultation.

There are twelve (12) submission submitted to Council raising concerns and issues regarding the modification application.

 

·    Sec 96AA (1) (d) Consideration of Submissions.

 

The submissions received are reviewed and addressed in the section of this report regarding response to notification.

 

The site has an existing approval for alterations and additions to the existing building and for new building works. The modifications as proposed would not impact on the suitability of the site for the original approved development.

 

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

 

The preceding policy assessment table identified that the proposal generally is consistent with the approved building envelope and overall development on the subject site.

 

There are two sections, however, that do vary from the approved side boundary set backs and that is with the stairway on the western side and the lift enclosure and landing platforms on the eastern side. Both these sections encroach on the approved side boundary set back.

 

However it is considered that as the modifications proposed improved the accessibility around the property and also the connectivity between the car parking area and units the variations are acceptable.

 

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

 

Twelve (12) submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

Submission from 5/60-64 Greenwich Rd

 

Concern regarding the alteration at the rear of the building that now has a wall between 4m and 5m in height.

 

Comment

 

The modification proposes a replacement masonry retaining wall with screen above the wall structure. The landscape plan approved by the Court has the height of the screen wall set at RL 55.33.

 

A draft condition is recommended to be applied to any modified consent to require the top of the screen to also be set at RL 55.33.

 

Submission from 1/60 Greenwich Rd

 

Concern regarding erection of privacy screen and whether such were approved and also impact on sunlight.

 

Comment

 

The approved landscape plan indicates privacy screening at the rear to RL 55.33 height. Providing the screen height does not exceed the approved height the impact should not be any greater. A draft condition is recommended to ensure height does not exceed approved RL.

 

Submission from 17 Glenview Street

 

The submission included the following concerns:

 

External lift, reinstated deck and loss of amenity

Access tunnel substantial cut and fill

Side boundary set back east side

Loss of private open space to flat 1

Loss of private open space to flat 2 with reinstatement of steps

Loss of heritage value

Internal alterations at odds with condition 69 of Annexure A of court Order

Rear retaining wall completely spurious

Privacy screen replacement

Retaining wall does not comply with rear set backs and risk of diversion of overground waters to numbers 17 and 21

 

Comment

 

The Utility area is generally within the original approved space and extended deck as proposed would enable suitable access to the lift exit point.

 

The lift is adequately separated from the adjoining dwelling.

The loss of private space to flats 1 and 2 is minimal and as the site has extensive landscape area the loss is acceptable.

 

Councils Heritage advisor has no objections to the modifications.

 

The rear retaining wall is considered to be acceptable and the screen is to be set at RL 55.33 as per court approved plans.

 

The re instatement of the stairs on the western side would improve access around the site and is considered to be acceptable.

 

The internal layout changes as proposed are not in consistent with the L&E Court approval and plans. A draft condition is recommended to be applied requiring all over land stormwater surface flows are not to be directed onto adjoining properties and to be contained within the site then directed to the street drainage system.

 

Submission from 12/60-64 Greenwich Road

 

The submission raises concern about the retaining wall and screen replacement. The concerns indicate that the height has changed and would affect the out look from the units on the above site.

The question has been raised as to why the privacy screen is required.

 

Comment

 

It is recommended that a draft condition be applied that restricts the height of the privacy screen to RL 55.33 as indicated on the approved plans.

 

Submission from 7 Glenview Street

 

The submission raises similar concerns as submitted by 17 Glenview Street including a comment that the application is scope for creep precedent.

 

Comment

 

The Environmental Planning and assessment Act does allow for applications to be modified and such the proposal is considered as such.

 

Submission by Craddock Murray Neumann Lawyers of behalf of 17 Glenview Street

 

Issues raised include creeping, incremental, piecemeal approach with the final form of structure and well outside the scope of the development approval by the court.

 

It is not in harmony with the adjoining properties compromise the heritage value of the property, bulk and scale of the development and inappropriateness of an external lift structure to a heritage item.

 

Comment

 

Council’s heritage advisor has no objections to the proposal. The additional works as indicated on the application would not unreasonably add to the bulk and scale of the overall approved development.

 

Submission from 9/60 Greenwich Road

 

The submission raises concern about the height of the poles in the rear to support privacy screen.

 

The submission requests that the Council require the height to be reduced as there is no valid reason for its erection.

 

Comment

 

The development consent for the original approval indicated a privacy screen along the rear boundary to a set RL of 55.33.

 

A draft condition is recommended to be applied to a modified consent to ensure height of screen does not exceed RL of 55.33.

 

Submission from 7/60 Greenwich Road

 

The submission also raises concerns about the height of the replacement privacy screen and will restrict city viewing and shadowing.

 

Comment

 

Condition is recommended to be applied to a modified consent to ensure height of screen does not exceed RL of 55.33.

 

Submission from 27 Glenview Street

 

The submission raises concern that the modified proposal will adversely affect the amenity of the area and also undermine the balance achieved by the Court approved plans.

 

Comment

 

The applicant submitted an amended proposal that is permitted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the proposal would not unreasonably alter the amenity of the locality in any greater extent than the original approval.

 

Submission from 15/60-64 Greenwich Road

 

The submission lodges an objection to the height of the fence being 5 metres.

 

Comment

 

Condition is recommended to be applied to a modified consent to ensure height of screen does not exceed RL of 55.33.

 

Submission (no address provided)

 

The submission raises 8 issues and generally objects to the modifications as proposed to the external areas of the site and building. It also raises a concern that due process is not being observed by Council due to the separate Pool House application and to reverse the previous Land & Environment Court judgements.

 

Comment

 

The application is being assessed in accordance with Councils Policies and the Environmental Planning & Assessment 1979 requirements.

 

The swimming pool enclosure was a separate application and has been approved by Council.

 

The modification application as submitted does not aim to reverse the original court approval but to modify some parts of the proposal that is permitted under the Act.

 

Submission from 2 Glenview Street

 

The submission indicates that the modified application proposes to undermine the Land & Environment Court decision and reinstate aspects of the original consent.

 

It also indicates that Council should inform itself of the cumulative impact of the pool enclosure and the modification application.

 

Comment

 

The modification application is related to the original consent not the pool enclosure. The pool enclosure application has been approved and is not part of the modification application.

 

The modification application does not propose to undermine the original consent but seeks to modify certain aspects and such is permitted procedure under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

SECTION 79 (C) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

·    Sec 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 the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. Residential flats are not permitted within the zone however Land and Environmental Court has granted a consent for the residential building with 3 dwellings.

 

·    Sec 79 (C) (a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

 

There are no Draft Planning Instruments that need to be considered.

 

·    Section 79 (C) (a) (iii) The Provisions of any Development Control Plan

 

The original application was approved by the Land & Environment Council and the provisions of the Development Control Plan were not a matter of consideration in the Court determination that appeared to be a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

The proposed modifications do not significantly alter the approved development therefore it is considered that the requirements of the Development Control Plan are largely not relevant to the application.

 

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

 

The proposed modifications to the approval should not result in any increased significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining and adjacent developments.

 

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

 

The site has an existing approval for alterations and additions for new building works on the property. The modifications as proposed will not impact on the suitability of the site for the original approved development.


 

·    Sec 79 (C) (d) Any Submissions Made

 

Council received twelve (12) submissions following the notification of the application. The submissions have been addressed in the section of this report relating to response to notification.

 

·    Sec 79 (C) (e) The Public Interest

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development do not create any unreasonable environmental impacts or adversely affect the adjoining properties. As such it is considered that the development is in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Sections 96 and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the original Land and Environment Court approval and subsequent consent have been assessed as well as the public good and suitability of the site.

 

The proposed modifications would improve onsite pedestrian access and circulation opportunities for the occupants of the three (3) dwellings on the site. 

 

The external works would not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality and the internal changes will improve the internal amenity for the occupants.

 

The concerns raised by adjoining property owners regarding drainage impacts (overland flow) with the new retaining wall and the height of the replaced screen at the rear can be addressed by the application of addition conditions on any consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D278/08 granted on the 15th April 2011 for additions and alterations and the construction of underground car parking at 19 Glenview Street Greenwich is amended with the additional conditions and in the following manner:-

 

70        The modified development works to be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers S96-01, 02, 03, 04, 05,06, and 07 Issue Rev A date 18/7/2011.

 

71        The maximum height of the replacement screen fence structure is not to exceed RL 55.33 and registered surveyors certificate to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming the RL prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

72        The over land stormwater and sub surface drainage at the rear of the retaining wall is not to be directed onto adjoining properties and is to be collected on the site and directed to the Glenview Street drainage system at the front of the site.

 

73        New construction on the northern, eastern and western elevations shall comply with section 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS3959−2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire−prone areas and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

 

74        New construction on the southern elevation shall comply with section 6 (BAL 19) Australian Standard AS3959−2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire− prone areas and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 278

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 278

Subject:          456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 November 2011.   

Record No:    DA11/130-01 - 42941/11

Author(s):      Kristy  Wellfare 

 

 

Property:                     456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

 

DA No:                                    DA11/130

 

Date Lodged:              7 July 2011

 

Cost of Work:              $15000

 

Owner:                                    CSF Property Developments Pty Limited

 

Applicant:                    Insight signs

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Installation of one (1) 12.5m x 3.6m advertising sign on the  southeastern elevation of the existing commercial building

ZONE

B3 – Commercial Core

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

The proposal is permissible within the zone

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

The property does not contain a listed heritage item

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

The property is not located within a conservation area

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

The property is not located adjacent to bushland

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 5

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                   40 Oxley Street, 452, 460 Pacific Highway, 420, 521, 545, 551 Pacific Highway (North Sydney Council)

Ward Councillors          East Ward

Progress Association    St Leonards-Wollstonecraft Progress Association

Other Interest Groups  North Sydney Council

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This development application is being referred to Council for determination.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     The applicant seeks consent to install a “supersite” advertising sign, 12.5m x 3.6m (45m²) on the southeastern elevation of the existing commercial building.

·     The sign is considered as a third party sign as the content pertains to a product that is not sold within the premise. In accordance with Part N 2.4(h) of the DCP, “third party advertising is not allowed within the Lane Cove LGA except with special permission from Council”.

·     The proposal was notified to neighbouring properties in both Lane Cove and North Sydney Council areas. One submission was received from North Sydney Council. Concerns raised include the inappropriateness of the sign for this location as this section of Pacific Highway is the gateway into the St Leonards CBD precinct, concern that an Advertising Sign of this type and size would set an unwanted precedence for other signs on multi level buildings in the area and have an adverse impact on the streetscape and character.

·     The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 64. Whilst it complies with the numerical requirements of the Plan, it does not accord with the objectives of the Plan as it is not considered to be compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located.

·     The proposal is contrary the provisions of Part N of the DCP, would set an undesirable precedent for future signage in the area, and its proposed location would restrict future development on the neighbouring property at 448 Pacific Highway. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the western side of the Pacific Highway, between Oxley Street and Freidlander Place. The site is 581.7m² in area (by DP) with a frontage of 15.551m to the Pacific Highway and depth of 36.373m. Existing development on the site consists of a multi-storey commercial building which houses Casella Wines, the makers of Yellowtail. Existing development on the neighbouring site consists of a multi-storey commercial building to the northwest of the site and a single storey car wash to the southeast of the site.  Site Location Plan attached (AT-1).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks consent to construct a “supersite” advertising sign, 12.5m x 3.6m (45m²), on the top right portion of the southeastern elevation of the building. Supersite signs are defined in the guidelines to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 as “Large displays around 42 square metres (often 12.66 metres x 3.35 metres) in size. Generally illuminated and located on major arterial roads and national highways.”

 

The sign content includes advertising for Yellowtail wines which made by Casella Wines who are associated with CSF Properties, the owners of the building. No information has been provided regarding illumination.  Depiction of sign attached (AT-2).

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS

 

There are 12 previous applications on Council’s computer records. The five (5) most recent applications are as follows:-

·         DA04/241:    Refurbish façade and rooftop terrace with fixed umbrellas. Approved 21 December 2004

·         DA03/337:    Office Fitout. Withdrawn 17 October 2003

·         CDC02/48:   Installation of alarm signalling equipment. Approved 30 April 2002

·         DA99/580:    Erect internal Gyprock wall. Approved 24 January 2000

·         DA99/487:    Advertising Sign. 7 December 1999

 

It is noted that the advertising sign approved under DA99/487 is an awning fascia sign on the Pacific Highway (front) elevation.

 

APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The proposal was notified to North Sydney Council as part of the notification process. Concerns were raised regarding the size and appropriateness of the proposed sign for the locality, particularly given the orientation of the site and its location at the gateway to the St Leonards CBD. The matter of the appropriateness of the size and location sign was raised with the applicant in Council’s correspondence of 10 August 2011 where the applicant reiterated the proposals compliance with the numerical provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

 

Concerns were raised during preliminary assessment of the application regarding owners consent as the sign is located on the side wall of the building and may overhang the neighbouring property. Further concerns were raised regarding the placement of the sign and the potential restriction of future development on the neighbouring site at 448 Pacific Highway. The applicant responded to the concerns raised, altering the depth of the sign proposed to 12mm to keep the sign within the defined boundary. Furthermore, the applicant stated that “approval to place the signage on the side elevation of the building provides no additional rights to the building owner for protection from future development of the neighbouring property” and that they “understand there will be no restriction on the adjoining property of 448 Pacific Highway developing that property and potentially restricting the view of all or part of the proposed signage”. 

 

REFERRALS

 

Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The proposal was referred to the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for concurrence in accordance with Clause 18 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage. Advice received from the RTA raised no objection to the proposed signage.

 

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

 

The proposal has been assessed under the relevant provisions of LEP2009. The proposal is considered contrary to the aim of the Plan to “preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies”, however it is not specifically contrary to the aims, objectives and controls relating to the B3 Commercial Core zone. Signage is listed as being development permissible with development consent in the B3 zone in accordance with the land use table within LEP2009.

 

LANE COVE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

Part N - Advertising and Signage

 

Part N 1.2 defines Second Party Advertising as “Products/goods sold within a premise” and Third Party Advertising as “General advertising – billboards etc”. The content of the proposed signage refers to products by one of the tenants in the building that is produced off-site and not sold at the premise. It therefore does not strictly adhere to the definition of second party advertising in Part N1.2 of the DCP. However, it is also not “general advertising” as the product being promoted is associated with the building’s occupant. It is considered that the signage proposed more closely resembles second party advertising and is considered as such for the purposes of this assessment.

 

The proposed signage does not fall into any of the specific signage categories outlined in Part N of the DCP. As such, the application has been considered on its merits and in accordance with the provisions of Part N2.9 of the DCP. This part requires that signage be “consistent with the appearance, location and scale of signage in the area. Additionally, signage should be consistent with the desired character of the precinct” and should “be consistent with the location of preferred signage shown at figure 2.12”.

 

Character Statement

 

Part N2.1.3 requires Council to consider the location of the proposed signage, particularly whether it is “appropriate in relation to the desired future character of the precinct in which it is proposed to be located”. The Character Statement for the St Leonards Area in Part N2.2 acknowledges the collaboration of the neighbouring council’s in commissioning the St Leonards Strategy. St Leonards is also nominated as a “specialised centre” under the NSW Governments “City of Cities”, Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. The Lane Cove Council area of the St Leonards Strategy states:

“Western Gateway: South side of Pacific Highway, west of railway line. A primary business precinct with shop and the possibility of hotels. Mixed use is also a possibility. In particular, this precinct will provide for health- related organisations capitalising on proximity to hospitals and general offices capitalising on the high profile locations. p. 30”

Part N2.2 states that “St Leonard’s is an area containing a major hospital, research and business activities that perform vital economic and employment roles across the metropolitan area. The way they interact with the rest of the city is complex. Therefore growth and changes in and around them requires signage and advertising in the St Leonards centre that reflects the changing character of the centre, with high quality and consistent signage for new buildings.

New signage for the existing low-rise buildings is to reduce the visual clutter and create visually consistent signage in relation to size, type and location.”

 

Comment       

 

Notwithstanding the fact that Part N2.7 of the DCP notes that “third Party advertising structures will only be considered in the commercial core of St Leonards”, the proposed signage is not considered to be consistent with the character of the centre in terms of its size, location and content. The location of the proposed signage on the side elevation is inconsistent with the location of preferred signage shown at figure 2.12 in the DCP. As the site is not a corner site, it is not entitled to signage on the side elevation as it is not a street frontage. Concern is also raised that, notwithstanding the undertaking of the applicant received in response to council’s correspondence, the proposal would unreasonably restrict future development on the neighbouring site.

 

Other Planning Instruments 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The proposal has been considered having regard to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64). Clause 3 (1) of SEPP 64 notes that the policy aims:-

“(a)  to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii)  provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii)  is of high quality design and finish, and

(b)  to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

(c)  to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d)  to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e)  to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.”

 

The proposal has been considered having regard to the matters for consideration within Clause 13 of the Plan. Clause 13 requires Council to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the aim of the SEPP, the provisions of Schedule 1 and the Guidelines. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3(1)(a)(i) of SEPP 64 in that it is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area. The proposal has also been considered having regard to the specific assessment criteria as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Policy as follows:

1.    Character of the area: the proposal is not considered to be compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located

2.    Special areas:  the proposal is not located within any of the special areas listed in the Policy. However, it is located opposite the residential component of a mixed use building which would detract from the amenity of these residences in terms of outlook from their balconies and living areas

3.    Views and vistas: the proposal does not obscure or compromise important views, and would not dominate the skyline. As noted above, the proposed signage would be visible from residential properties located close by and would reduce the quality of the outlook from these residences. The proposal does not impinge on the viewing rights of other advertisers.

4.    Streetscape, setting or landscape: As noted above, the proposal is not considered to be appropriate for the streetscape and setting. It is located on a blank wall and may contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, however it does not reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising nor does it screen unsightliness. The proposed sign is wholly located on the elevation and does not protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality, nor does it  require ongoing vegetation management.

5.    Site and building: The proposal is not incompatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which it is to be located and, being located on a side wall, does not interfere with any important features of the site or building. However, the proposal does not show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building.

6.    Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures: no safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos have been designed as an integral part of the signage

7.    Illumination: Council requested information regarding the proposed illumination of the sign, if any. This information has not been provided to Council.

8.    Safety: the RTA has not raised any concerns regarding the impact of the proposed signage on the safety for any public road, for pedestrians or bicyclists, and due to its proposed location the signage would not reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas

 

Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines - Assessing Development Applications Under SEPP 64 (July 2007)

 

Clause 13(3) requires that the provision of public benefits in connection with the display of the advertisement in accordance with the Guidelines. Part 4.2 of the Guidelines states that “The level of public benefit for a given SEPP 64 advertisement is to be negotiated and agreed upon between the consent authority and the applicant.

The public benefit can be provided as a monetary contribution or as an ‘in-kind’ contribution. Both monetary and in-kind contributions must be linked to improvements in local community services and facilities including benefits such as:-

·         Improved traffic safety (road, rail, bicycle and pedestrian);

·         Improved public transport services;

·         Improved public amenity within or adjacent to the transport corridor;

·         Support school safety infrastructure and programs; or

·         Other appropriate community benefits.

 

The applicant has not provided any information with the development application regarding the provision of public benefits described above. Were the proposed signage to be acceptable, the provision of public benefits would be imposed as a condition of consent.

 

The proposal was referred to the RTA for concurrence in accordance with Clause 18 of the SEPP. The RTA raised no concerns regarding the signage proposed and provided no recommended conditions of consent.

 

Clause 22 - Wall Advertisements

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies?

Number of signs

One per elevation

1 per elevation

Yes

Sign area

For elevation >200 m², <= 10% of the above ground elevation

Elevation = 611.1 m²

Sign area = 45 m² (7.4%)

Yes

Protrusion from wall

Max 300mm

12mm

Yes

Location of sign

Must not protrude above the parapet or eaves

Must not extend over a window or other opening

Must not obscure significant architectural elements of the building

not located above the parapet or eaves

does not extend over a window or other opening

located on a blank elevation with no architectural elements

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

Other signage

a building identification sign or business identification sign is not displayed on the building elevation

no other signage present on the building elevation

Yes

 

Notwithstanding the numerical compliance of the development with the provisions of SEPP 64 shown in the above compliance table, the proposal is not considered to accord with the aims of the Policy in that it is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area. As such, the proposal fails to satisfy the Assessment Criteria listed in Schedule 1 of the Policy and is not supported.

 

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

 

One submission was received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

North Sydney Council objects to the subject proposal on the grounds that the sign is considered inappropriate for this location. It is noted that this section of Pacific Highway, on the boundary between North Sydney Council and Lane Cove Council, is the gateway into the St Leonards CBD precinct. Council believes that an Advertising Sign of this type and size would set an unwanted precedence for other signs on multi level buildings in the area and have an adverse impact on the streetscape.

 


North Sydney Council’s DCP 2002 policy (sect 16) for the St Leonards area seeks that:-

Outdoor signage in this area should be limited to small scale business identification advertisements at ground level (under awning, fascia, and top hamper) and no new larger illuminated wall and roof signs at upper levels.  A sign of this type would have a considerable impact on the street character & NSC would ask that LCC consider this position in their assessment of the subject DA.

 

Comment

           

The concerns raised above have been considered in the assessment of this application. It is agreed that the proposal is inappropriate for the location and would set an undesirable precedent for signage in the St Leonards CBD precinct. As such, the proposal is not supported.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with matters for consideration outlined in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to all of the relevant instruments and policies. While signage is a permissible use within the B3 Commercial Core zone in accordance with the Lane Use Table within Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, the signage proposed is contrary to the provisions of Part N – Signage and Advertising of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan in terms of its size, content and the undesirable precedence such a sign would set for the St Leonards commercial area. Concern is also raised that, notwithstanding the undertaking of the applicant received, the proposal would restrict future development on the neighbouring site.

 

Notwithstanding the numerical compliance of the development with the provisions of SEPP 64 shown in the above compliance table, the proposal is not considered to accord with the aims of the Policy in that it is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for signage in the locality. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal, for the reasons listed below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A       That Pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA11/130 for the installation of one (1) 12.5m x 3.6m advertising sign on the  southern elevation of the existing commercial building on lot C in DP 414984 and known as 456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, for the following reasons:-

1.    The proposed sign is third party advertising and is prohibited in accordance with Part N2.4(h) of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan without special permission from Council. Special permission is not recommended in this instance.

2.    The proposal is contrary to the desired future character of the St Leonards area and as such is contrary to the aims and assessment criteria of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

3.    The proposed signage would set an undesirable precedent for future signage in the St Leonards commercial precinct as a whole.

4.    The proposal is contrary to the aim of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan “to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies” in accordance with Clause 1.2(b) of the Plan.

5.    The location of the sign on the side elevation would unduly restrict development potential on the neighbouring site.

6.    The proposal is not in the public interest.

B      That Part N - Signage and Advertising of Council’s signage DCP be reviewed, particularly regarding third party signage in the St Leonards precinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Depiction of Sign

1 Page

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Order Of The Day No. 21

 

 

Reference:     Order Of The Day No. 21

Subject:          Citizenship Ceremony - Wednesday 30 November 2011    

Record No:    SU28 - 45538/11

Author(s):      Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A citizenship ceremony will be held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday 30 November 2011, commencing at 7.00pm. A Councillor is required to attend the ceremony and speak to new citizens about local government.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Councillor nominate to attend the citizenship ceremony on Wednesday 30 November 2011 and speak to new citizens about local government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Order Of The Day No. 22

 

 

Reference:     Order Of The Day No. 22

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule December 2011    

Record No:    SU1915 - 45751/11

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

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

December       3          Inspection Committee (if required)

December       5          Ordinary Council

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

General Managers Report No. 22

 

 

Reference:     General Managers Report No. 22

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 45756/11

Author(s):      Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Councils recent activities, entitled Council Snapshot. This report provides a summary of the operations of each division.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

55 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 40

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 40

Subject:          Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors    

Record No:    SU245 - 34761/11

Author(s):      Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to adopt Council’s Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors, as required by the Local Government Act 1993. 

 

Discussion

 

Section 252-253 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires a Council to annually review its policy concerning the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to Councillors, give public notice of the intention to adopt the policy and submit the adopted policy to the Division of Local Government by 30 November each year. 

 

Since the adoption of the policy last year, minor amendments have been made to reflect the findings of a review of a sample of council policies by the Division of Local Government. The changes predominantly relate to the inclusion of annual amounts for each expense paid to councillors.

 

Council gave public notice of its intention to adopt the policy in accordance with s253(1) of the Act and no submissions were received.

 

The amended policy dated 31 October 2011, is shown attached as AT-1.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that this policy be adopted and sent to the Division of Local Government in accordance with legislative requirements.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   The amended Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors dated 31 October 2011 be adopted; and 

2.   A copy of the Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors be sent to the Division of Local Government in accordance with legislative requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Policy on Payment of Expenses and Facilities to Councillors

5 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 42

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 42

Subject:          2012 Local Government Elections    

Record No:    SU4523 - 43665/11

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following the significant increase in the cost of conducting Council elections, the State Government has now provided the option for the General Manager to conduct elections. This report recommends the General Manager conduct the 2012 elections, delivering a saving of approximately 25%. 

 

Background

 

The following is an extract from the Division of Local Government’s, Guidelines under section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993, conduct of elections.

 

“The Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2011 was passed by the NSW Parliament and commenced on 27 June 2011. The amendments remove the mandate of the NSWEC to run local government elections, and instead return the responsibility to councils (section 296). Councils can now choose how their elections will be administered as they have 12 months after an ordinary election in which to resolve whether to engage the services of the NSWEC for the following ordinary election.

 

Transitional provisions in the Act enable councils to retain the services of the NSWEC to administer their elections, referendums and polls until the conclusion of the September 2012 ordinary elections, if they wish (Schedule 8, clause 102).

 

As the engagement of the NSWEC will be on a contractual basis from this time onwards, councils will be able to negotiate on commercial terms how their elections will be administered.

 

In relation to the ordinary elections in 2012, where a council chooses to use the NSWEC, the council must pass a resolution to this effect before 30 November 2011. This date was prescribed by the Local Government (General) Amendment (Electoral Commissioner) Regulation 2011.

 

To give the NSWEC certainty, councils must provide a definite commitment by this date. This means that councils need to make an unconditional resolution and cannot place caveats such as ‘subject to cost’ on their resolution.

 

Once this resolution has been made the council must, as soon as possible, notify the NSWEC and the Chief Executive of the Division.

 

It is important to note that this is a non-negotiable deadline. Once 30 November 2011 has passed, any council that has not resolved to engage the NSWEC will by default be responsible for the conduct of its own elections. There are no provisions in the legislation enabling an extension to be granted or to approach the NSWEC at a later date.

 

While it is understood that cost is likely to be a significant factor that influences a council as to whether it runs its own elections or engages the NSWEC, the NSWEC has advised that until it knows the actual number of councils that will be its clients, it is difficult to provide accurate cost estimates. As a guide, councils should look to the amount paid in 2008, and adjust for increases in public sector wage costs and the Consumer Price Index.”

 


Discussion

 

The changes made by the current State Government to allow councils to conduct their own elections arose due to complaints from local government that costs charged by the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) in 2008 had risen by between 200% and 300%, since the 2004 election. Neither the full Electoral Commission nor full General Manager conducted elections are considered optimum by staff. Council Staff upon being advised of the changes wrote to the Premier on 25 July 2011, requesting a return to the hybrid model, which was supported by councils and the previous Electoral Commissioner. Under a hybrid model, the NSW Electoral Commission would manage the process, source all materials and appoint a Returning Officer for the conduct of the election and councils were liable for these costs. All other costs such as computers, telephones, brochures, training and staff costs were borne by the council. This is the most cost effective arrangement for councils and maintains independence for the conduct of the election.

 

The current NSW Electoral Commissioner does not support the hybrid model and has indicated to councils that he will not provide any advice, assistance or support of any kind to councils that choose to run their own elections.  This is not in the best interests of the State and Council’s efforts to minimise the cost of the election to the ratepayers.

 

The LGSA’s Presidents subsequently met with NSW Premier, the Hon. Barry O’Farrell MP, and the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Don Page MP on 19 September to discuss various aspects of the elections. Of particular importance, “the LGSA questioned how the NSWEC as a regulator was affected by the changes to the Act. As was correctly pointed out by NSROC, “The Commissioner is an independent statutory appointment whose responsibilities for general oversight and the good governance of the electoral process remains, irrespective of his capacity as a contracted provider of the electoral services.”

 

It was argued that “the Commissioner remains obligated to provide procedural and technical advice to Councils to ensure the integrity of the election system is not compromised.”

 

It was put to the Premier and the Minister that the NSWEC should actually engage, for the purposes of the elections, in a functional split having the advisory and oversight role on the one side (available to all councils regardless of who they choose to run their elections) and having a service delivery arm on the other (to which councils could engage if they so chose).”

 

Council received a response to its letter dated 12 October, restating the proposed arrangements and no support for the hybrid model. No response from the government has been forth coming at this stage to the LGSA’s point on the Commissioner’s statutory responsibility to at least provide advice. The Local Government Minister, The Don Page at the Local Government Association Conference expressed his disappointment at the attitude of the Electoral Commissioner, but did not indicate a change was likely. This leaves Council in a position of having to decide who should conduct the 2012 elections without this important question answered. At this stage there are three providers for consideration:-

 

·    NSW Electoral Commission;

·    Australian Election Company; and

·    Council.

 

NSW Electoral Commission

 

This option provides the lowest risk to Council. Council is also exempted under the Act from having to call tenders even if the cost exceeds $150,000, if the Commission is chosen. In terms of cost the Commission has stated:-


“Councils wishing to estimate the 2012 invoice (assuming the same number of polling places and services) should consider four mark ups to the 2008 charge:-

 

1.   Wage costs increasing in the Public sector of 4 years x 4% cumulative (i.e.17.0%);

2.   Other operational costs increasing by 4 years CPI (estimated at 12.8% cumulative);

3.   Number of electors being serviced, e.g. a 2% increase in roll numbers will deliver a similar cost increase; and

4.   Some 'economy of scale' loss may be inevitable with a reduced number of councils electing to use NSWEC services for the 2012 Local Government Elections.  At this stage it is not possible to quantify any impact.”

 

The cost is estimated to be $197,000 + GST.

 

Australian Election Company

 

This is a private company, headed up by Richard Kidd who has had more than 26 years experience working with the Australian Electoral Commission. They are based in Queensland, and while they have conducted Queensland council elections, they have not conducted one in NSW as yet. The risk in terms of their capability is considered minimal, and a number of other Council’s are seriously considering them as an option. If Council chooses this option, Council is not exempted under the Act from having to call tenders, however, s55(3)(i) allows Council to resolve to not call tenders where, because of … the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers. In this situation there are no other firms who can conduct the election and the NSWEC has indicated it will not respond to tenders. If this option is chosen the contract must specify a ‘natural person’ as the Returning Officer, not simply name the particular company.

 

An indicative quotation has been obtained which is commercial in confidence, and has been circulated separately to Councillors on a confidential basis. They are not the cheapest option.

 

Council

 

The General Manager can conduct the election by appointing a suitably qualified Returning Officer. At this stage the previous Returning Officer, Mr Ray Pazzato has indicated his availability for the role. Under this model there is more work than the hybrid model, as all forms, materials, staff and co-ordination will need to be sourced by the Returning Officer. Specifically the DLG Guidelines state the Returning Officer is responsible for:-

·    “managing the Returning Officer’s office;

·    appointing and training staff including Polling Place Managers on how to conduct a count and how to determine formality of ballot papers;

·    developing procedures to be followed by electoral officials issuing pre-poll, declared institution, postal and election day votes;

·    preparing all necessary printed election materials such as forms, declaration envelopes, signs etc;

·    obtaining all necessary election material for use in pre-poll and election day venues such as voting screens, ballot boxes, pencils etc;

·    determining the quantity of ballot papers required and arranging for their printing, delivery and secure storage;

·    making Braille ballot papers available, if requested;

·    dealing with political parties, candidates and the public;

·    processing candidates’ nominations including acceptance of the deposit and conducting the draw for position of candidates on the ballot paper;

·    registering how to vote material;

·    putting in place all necessary arrangements to enable pre-poll, declared institution, postal and election day voting;

·    ensuring delivery and collection of election materials to and from pre-poll and election day polling venues;

·    conducting the ‘check count’ of the votes and the distribution of preferences;

·    declaring the election; and

·    arranging storage (and ultimate destruction) of ballot papers and voting-related materials for the statutory period of 6 months.”

 

Whilst this poses the highest risk to Council, particularly due to the unavailability of specific electoral advice, the task is achievable. Mr Pazzato is experienced and much of the above work can be completed by Council staff, effectively internalising the associated costs. On the issue of costs, the DLG Guidelines outline the requirement for each Council to “prepare a report for the Minister for Local Government on the conduct of each election that must disclose, among other things, full and transparent castings for that election….

 

It needs to be acknowledged that although council staff may be used to undertake administrative tasks related to the conduct of elections, this comes at a cost. Notably any time spent on election-related work is time not spent on other council duties. Similarly use of council office space or office equipment or resources for election-related work is at the expense of other day to day council activities.

 

The following list is not exhaustive but contains a number of items that should be reported on:-

·    Proportion of General Manager’s time spent on election-related activities (such as training of Returning Officer, ensuring all aspects of the election have been identified, scoped and are on track, preparing and managing the budget) as proportion of salary.

·    Proportion of other council staff time spent on election-related activities (such as processing payroll and payables, sourcing suppliers of election material, providing IT support, and legal advice) as proportion of salary.

·    Wages of council staff hired specifically to assist with election-related activities.

·    Wages of the Returning Officer, substitute Returning Officer, and all electoral officials (polling place managers, officers issuing votes, others who may be required in larger polling places, such as queue controller and ballot box guard, as well as office assistants in the Returning Officer’s office).

·    Cost of recruiting all electoral officials.

·    Cost of training all electoral officials including the production of any Manuals or Guides.

·    Cost of conducting Candidate Information Seminars.

·    Cost of office for Returning Officer.

·    Cost of hiring venues or using council venues for any additional pre-poll locations and election day voting.

·    Cost of hiring furniture or equipment or using council furniture and equipment.

·    Cost of electoral material including forms, envelopes, production of Candidate Information Sheets, stationery and cardboard material required for polling places.

·    Cost of obtaining (i.e. putting together a Request for Tender), delivering and collecting election-related material and furniture.

·    Cost of courier services and postage, particularly in relation to dispatch of postal votes.

·    Cost of advertising and any elector information produced including cost of translations.

·    Cost of printing ballot papers including any Braille ballot papers.

·    IT - related costs particularly the development of counting software.

·    Cost involved in producing report to Minister on conduct of elections.

Such identification of activity based costs and expenses will also enable a comparison with the fees charged by the NSWEC, to see whether one option is better value than the other for ratepayers.”

 

The internalisation of costs is exactly that, i.e. it does not have a direct impact on Council’s budget. The size of the tasks undertaken by staff are not that significant that it warrants concern on the impact of Council operations as suggested by the Department. At the last election Council IT staff proved more capable other than the Commission’s staff and effectively supported the Returning Officer in any event. The cost of using existing recently retired computer equipment has no direct cost. Similarly doing a pay run to pay the casual staff will require additional effort, and may even incur overtime, but will be minimal compared to the $3500 charged for the service by the Commission at the last election.

 

Two of the biggest issues associated with the election will be support for the Returning Officer in terms of advice and the conduct of the count. The Australian Electoral Company has also provided a quotation to provide Returning Officer Training and ongoing support, all forms, ballot boxes etc and conduct the count. This effectively achieves the hybrid model sought. Further discussions will take place with the Returning Officer about the conduct of the count and the General Manager would ultimately need to determine the matter, but the Australian Electoral Company will be the fall back position, and the cost of them conducting the election is included in the estimates below.

 

The cost for Council to conduct the election with support from the Australian Electoral Company is estimated to be $150,000.

 

Conclusion

 

It is disappointing that Council has been put in a position of not having access to the Electoral Commissioner for advice to conduct the next 2012 Local Government Elections, unless the Commission is contracted to conduct the whole election. The last local Government elections represented a 196% increase in costs to Council from the 2004 elections, and this is anticipated to increase by at least 12% for the next election. There is the opportunity to reduce the direct costs for this election by almost $50,000 (25%) by Council conducting the election with support from the Australian Electoral Company. This is considered to be a conservative number, and savings are likely to be higher. It is recommended Council proceed with this model and demonstrate to the Electoral Commissioner how exorbitant his cost structure is despite Council having effectively contracted out the conduct of the election.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager conduct the 2012 Local Government Elections for the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 43

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 43

Subject:          Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2011    

Record No:    SU772 - 45152/11

Author(s):      Bernie Mayhew 

 

 

Executive Summary

Presentation of Council’s Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 are presented to Council.  It is recommended that the report be received.

Discussion

Section 418 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires that as soon as practicable after a council receives a copy of the auditor's reports: (a) it must fix a date for the meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor's reports, to the public, and (b) it must give public notice of the date so fixed.  The audit of the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 has been completed by Council's Auditors – PricewaterhouseCoopers, and a copy of their Audit Reports is included with the Financial Statements.  Council’s Internal Audit Committee have reviewed the statements and resolved:-

 “That the 2010/11 Annual Financial Statements be recommended to Council subject to the following amendments:-

1.  Note 1(j) Community Land, being amended to internal valuation; and

2.  Note 20(d)(2) being amended to Council had previously valued Community land in 1995 using an average municipal site rate. This valuation was incorrect due to the areas applied to the rate being significantly overstated. Council identified this error in undertaking the 2011 revaluation and has treated it as a correction of error in the current period. Prior period comparatives have not been adjusted because (a) it was not practicable to do so and, (b) because Council believes users will better understand the issue as it is presently disclosed.

The amended notes have been included in the statements.

Notice was given in the North Shore Times on 26 October 2011 of the intention to present the Annual Financial Statements at this meeting.  The Statements have been available for inspection at the Administration Centre since 21 October 2011.  Written submissions were invited and at the time of writing this report no submissions had been received.  The audited financial statements, together with the auditor's reports, are now formally presented to Council.  Council's Auditor will be in attendance at the meeting to present the Auditor's Report and to answer any questions. A copy of the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 are attached as AT-1.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Annual Financial Reports together with the Auditors Report for the Year ended 30 June 2011.

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2011

74 Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 44

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 44

Subject:          1st Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 45447/11

Author(s):      Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Summary

The report outlines Council’s progress on the activities and projects listed in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

Discussion

This report discusses the highlights of the first quarter in 2011-2012 and provides a detailed analysis of the first quarter progress against the performance measurements adopted by Council in the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan, shown attached as AT-1.  A continuing feature of the review is, where applicable, a cumulative year-to-date figure is provided for performance measures. 

Some of the highlights for the quarter include:-

·     Council’s Tender for Legal Services was completed (July).

·     Solar Panels were successfully installed at the Civic Centre, Community Centre and Library (July).

·     Bandstand upgrade works were completed and concept plans for outdoor seating areas in the plaza have been prepared (July).

·     A Presentation Ceremony was held for recipients of the 2011/2012 Lane Cove Financial Assistance Grants (August).

·     A Facebook page for the Synergy Youth Centre has been launched (August).

·     Two (2) projects for the Stormwater Pipes Upgrade have been completed in line with the Asset Management Plan with the third to commence in 2nd quarter (August – September).

·     Staged amendments for the Local Environmental Plan were sent to NSW Gateway and the DCP Amendment 2 exhibition was completed (August – September).

·     Preliminary works, demolition and site clearing works were completed for the Meeting House Development (September).

·     An additional green waste collection has been implemented (September).

·     Council called for tenders for the adaptation of the top floor of the Community Centre into an Art Gallery space. which will provide for a purpose-fitted art gallery / display space and meetings have been held with Centrehouse regarding the design of the art space (September).

·     An ArtStart grant was received in September and project planning is underway for two youth art workshops (September).

·     Levelling of Blackman Park Fields was completed (September).

·     Negotiations have commenced for the development and implementation of the St Leonards Public Domain Master Plan (September).

·     Lighting improvements have been implemented at the pedestrian crossing at Burns Bay Road opposite Coles (September).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 1st quarter review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

1st Quarter Review of 2011 - 2013 Operational Plan

42 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 45

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 45

Subject:          Council's Annual Report 2010 - 2011    

Record No:    SU245 - 45654/11

Author(s):      Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Local Government Act requires each council to prepare an annual report on its activities for the previous financial year i.e. 2010/2011 within 5 months on the end of the financial year.  It has been produced and is submitted for adoption by Council.

 

Discussion

 

Council’s Draft Annual Report for 2010/2011 is shown attached as AT-1 and covers all of the matters listed in the Local Government Act to be addressed, in particular the financial details covered by the audited financial report. Council’s Audited Financial Statements and NSROC’s State of the Environment report will be attached as Appendices 4 and 5 once they are adopted. The Audited Financial Statements are subject of a separate report to this Council Meeting, Corporate Services Division Report No. 43.  The Draft NSROC State of the Environment report is shown attached as AT-2 and is subject to approval by NSROC at its meeting on 11 November.

 

The Draft Annual Report has been redesigned to align the information in the report with Council’s Six Strategic Planning Themes. This will make the Annual Report more user-friendly to the Lane Cove Community and group information under each planning theme rather than by Council’s internal organisation structure.

 

The Mayor and General Managers Message in the Report describes the highlights for 2010/11 and is reprinted below:-

 

One of our most significant projects during the year was the introduction of improved Infrastructure Planning, which is a key issue for all levels of government.  In early 2010 staff finalised an Asset Management Strategy for Roads, Footpaths, Drainage and Facilities, as well as a 10 Year Financial Plan, as required for the new Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework introduced by the State Government. In doing so, a $22.9M gap in funding for infrastructure renewal was identified.  Council proposed an Infrastructure Levy to cover $10M of the shortfall, with the remaining $12.9M coming from Council re-organising its spending priorities.

 

As many residents would be aware, Council’s ability to carry out maintenance and renewal of infrastructure has been limited by financial constraints brought about by factors such as rate pegging, rising costs and cost shifting from other levels of government. As such, these works were restricted to what Council could afford rather than what was optimal. Without additional funding, it was clear that Council would not be able to maintain a standard of infrastructure that our community would reasonably deem acceptable.

 

Before introducing the Levy, Council undertook an extensive community consultation program, including a deliberative poll, surveys, fact sheets, public exhibitions and briefing sessions. Community feedback indicated 67% support of the Proposed Levy. Council then applied to IPART for approval to implement the Levy, which was subsequently granted. With the introduction of the Levy on 1 July 2011, major upgrades of roads, facilities and footpath maintenance has commenced. With additional funding for footpath maintenance, Council will introduce shared user paths which will accommodate bicycles allowing for 30% of the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan to be implemented.  More details about these projects can be found on Council’s website. The Infrastructure Levy was a complex project and we would like to thank the community for their support  and staff directly involved for their dedication and professionalism.

 

Another significant project, the redevelopment of Meeting House commenced in June 2011. Working with Council on the project is MCA architects and builders Platinum Projects. Meeting House in Stokes Street Lane Cove North has been offering child care and neighbourhood services since 1980.  Redevelopment was highlighted in Council’s Major Projects Plan (2007 – 2016) and Council’s Social Plan (2005-2009) which also identified the need for Meeting House to continue to provide neighbourhood and childcare services. The development will comprise: community meeting rooms and community kitchen facility; 40 place Childcare Centre for 0-5 year olds, and six residential units.  The new childcare facility effectively doubles the Centre’s previous capacity by offering 40 places across three development groups. For the first time the Centre will offer 0-2 year old placements, which was identified as a critical need in the Social Plan. Construction works commenced in early August 2011 and are scheduled for completion in late August 2012.  We would like to thank the representatives from Meeting House for assisting Council in all the planning stages of the project. The new Meeting House will be a wonderful facility and no doubt a greatly valued asset in the community.

 

During the year Council undertook the conversion of 47 Burns Bay Road, the former Police Station. The conversion complies with DOCS guidelines, allowing for the facility to cater for childcare. During the year Lane Cove Occasional Child Care used the premises while their building was upgraded and Meeting House now operates from this site while construction work in Stokes Street is underway.

 

Many other smaller infrastructure projects were also completed. One project was the landscape upgrade of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand in Lane Cove Plaza which has resulted in the Bandstand space being a more accessible and performance friendly-space for the community to enjoy.  The design and consultation for Greenwich Shopping precinct has been completed and is due for completion in early August 2011. New play equipment has been installed at Tambourine Bay Park and Council has also replaced the timber deck and handrails at Tambourine Bay Sea Scouts.  Over the summer months Council re-levelled fields One and Two at Blackman Park and rebuilt the cricket wicket. Pottery Green had new drainage put in and was re-levelled and re-turfed. These facilities have subsequently received positive feedback from the numerous sporting clubs which use them.

 

On the Sustainability front we have many achievements.  We have installed 56kW capacity of solar panels at the Lane Cove Library, Civic Centre and Community Centre, and upgraded solar hot water tanks at Kindy Cove Child Care Centre.  We have also installed a rain water collection tank and automatic irrigation system at the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club. We have run a range of regular environmental workshops covering topics such as composting and worm farming, backyard poultry, bicycle maintenance and tours of a waste facility. Our Walk Shop and Wheel program was very popular with nearly 300 wheelie shopping trolley distributed to residents to encourage them to walk to the shops rather than drive.  In addition we ran a reusable coffee cup program with local cafes. We launched a Sustainability Small Grants Program with 10 organisations successful in receiving grant funding for their particular community initiatives. We also staged our popular annual environment expo ‘Sustainability Lane’ in October.  Several existing programs continue to receive positive feedback including our Backyard Habitat Program and the Sustainable Building Advisory Service.  In addition we ran a series of successful Green Home workshops in conjunction with the Australian Conservation Foundation.

 

Many successful cultural activities have been staged, including the 19th Cameraygal Festival which hosted some 75 events, the 47th Municipal Art Awards in conjunction with the Lane Cove Art Society, the Captured Photography competition, the third Autumn Harmony Festival, Lunar New Year celebrations, Children’s Voices For Reconciliation Concert and the Kaleidoscope event promoting cultural diversity in our community.

 

Council again undertook a Community Grants program where 39 organisations were recipients of over $400,000 – the most generous local government program on the North Shore. We are proud to be working with these organisations and their volunteers.  Many of these people are recognised at our annual Citizenship Awards ceremony, but there are also many who go unnoticed. A viable, caring community cannot exist without the services of volunteers and we thank you on behalf of a very grateful community.

 

We would also like to thank the 193 staff members employed by Council for their valued contribution to the Lane Cove community and all of our Councillors for their continued commitment to our residents.

 

On behalf of the community we welcome all new residents and encourage them to embrace our wonderful village lifestyle. To find out how you can become involved in community events and activities please visit Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Annual Report has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act. Upon adoption of the Report, Council’s Audited Financial Statements and NSROC’s State of the Environment report a copy including these appendices will be forwarded to the Minister as required by the Act and will be publicly accessible via Council’s website, http://www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.  Council adopt the Draft Annual Report for 2010/2011;

 

2.  The Report including Council’s Audited Financial Statements and NSROC’s State of the Environment report be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government; and

 

3.  The Report be made available on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Final Draft Annual Report 2010-2011

52 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft NSROC SOE Report 2011

92 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 46

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 46

Subject:          1st Quarter Review of the 2011 - 2012 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 45872/11

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

The first Quarter 2011 - 2012 Budget Review involves a variety of variations in both income and expenditure. It is recommended that the Budget be varied in terms of the report.

 

Background

Council is required to prepare a Budget Review Statement each quarter, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999. This report is prepared in accordance with the clause for the period ended 30 September 2011. The Division of Local Government has now issued a prescribed format for reviews which is included as an attachment to this report.  The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impact of financial variation is reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2012, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

 

Discussion

The following is a summary of Council’s adopted Budget for 2011 - 2012 and proposed following the adjustments included in this report:-

 

 

Original Budget

Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$33,885k

$376k

$35,465k

Revenue

$34,855k

$610k

$34,261k

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$970k

$234k

    $1,204k

 

Expenditure

The review includes provision for an increase of $74,000 for Property Protection Insurance. Council’s insurer United Independent Pools has resolved to make several substantial adjustments to its budget this year to ensure that the Property Pool covers its insurance costs and maintains prudent reserves in accordance with APRA standards. This year the property market has been impacted by two earthquakes in Christchurch, substantial floods in Queensland and Victoria followed by a devastating earthquake in Japan. In addition there is the normal increase in the cost of buildings and a 5% increase in the Fire Service Levy to the State Government.

The expenditure for restoration of roads has increased by $200,000 due to major works undertaken by Ausgrid. This is offset by an income adjustment. Additional capital expenditure of $155,000 is required for Council’s plant replacement program. An additional $45,000 is required for the legal costs associated with the Aquatic Centre ceiling maintenance. A number of small grants for projects and three capital projects not completed last year have been revoted for expenditure this financial year. $400,000 has been included for the conversion of the top of the community centre into an art gallery space.


Income

As mentioned above, Council will be undertaking increased Road Restorations resulting in additional income of $250,000. The new tender fro the Aquatic Centre has secured Council income of $330,000 p.a., which was previously unbudgeted.

 

Conclusion

The following statement is made in accordance with Clause 203(2) of the Local Government (general) Regulations 2005.

It is my opinion that the quarterly Budget Review Statement for Lane Cove Council for the quarter ended 30 September 2011 indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2012, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2011 – 2012 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

 

Original Budget

Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$33,885k

$376k

$35,465k

Revenue

$34,855k

$610k

$34,261k

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$970k

$234k

    $1,204k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

2011/12 Budget as at 30 September 2011 - 1st Quarter Budget Review

6 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 25

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 25

Subject:          Telecommunication Facility Proposal - Trouve Street, Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU645 - 35643/11

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The community consultation process for an Optus telecommunication facility in Trouve Street has been finalised by Total Communication Infrastructure (TCI). Objections were raised by a number of residents nearby to the proposed facility. Most concerns centred on health risks, the need for and the location of the facility (being in a residential area).

 

To address those concerns, TCI arranged a meeting for the residents on 31 August 2011 at Council. The outcome of the meeting was that TCI provided a commitment to investigate the resident concerns and respond to them in detail. A copy of the TCI response is provided with the report.

 

Also, as per the Council resolution of Council wrote to 20 June 2011, staff wrote to TCI regarding resolutions 1, 2 & 4. TCI’s response is attached to this report.

 

Council will need to consider whether it is of the view that the resident issues have been adequately addressed to support the installation of the proposed low impact telecommunication facility at Trouve Street, Lane Cove.

 

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 20 June 2011, Council reconsidered the matter of a proposed Optus Telecommunication Facility at Trouve Street, Lane Cove. On considering the matter, Council resolved:-

 

“1. Council write to Total Communication Infrastructure Pty Limited (TCI) advising of the proposed changes to the legal agreement, as suggested by Council’s in-house solicitor;

2.  Council accept the valuation of $15,000 per annum, as prepared by Chaloner Valuations for the site area required for the proposed telecommunications facility at Trouve Street, Lane Cove and notify TCI of this valuation;

3.  A further report come to Council following the community consultation process, including Optus’ intentions with the proposed telecommunications facility in Trouve Street, Lane Cove; and

4.  Council write to TCI and request they advise Council in writing answers to the following specific questions:-

a)   Will the device receive signals from 360 degrees?

b)   Will the device be attached to the existing telegraph pole? If so, then please provide Council with the answers having regard to the 10 metres safety zone that is required:-

i.    Do they intend to block off pedestrian access given that the site would need to be fenced off (east) to comply with minimum safety distance?

ii.    If answer to (4)(b)(i) is yes, then do they intend to divert pedestrian access around the perimeter of the site?

iii.   As traffic, including cyclists, travelling east along River Road sometimes come to a standstill, would these motorists be exposed and provide a safety risk?

c)   If a safety fence was erected 10 metres from the road edge adjacent to the houses in Trouve Street, the lease mentions that Optus has the right under clause 5.2 to use adjoining land during the ‘operation’ of the facility. (Also 5.7 refers to use of ‘land adjoining and adjacent’ to the site to erect guy anchors and guy wires). As this will require use of the existing road that the residents use what impact will this have on residents with regard to access to their properties?

d)   Has TCI considered OH&S issues regarding anchors on public roads and to what extent would Optus be prepared to indemnify Council for any loss or damage resulting from the use of the adjoining or adjacent land?

e)  Does TCI have a separate lease with Energy Australia for the use of their pole?”.

 

Discussion

 

Council wrote to TCI on 12 July 2011, detailing Council’s resolutions and TCI responded on 14 July as shown attached as AT-1. The response addresses Resolutions 1, 3 and 4a)-e). In the main, the responses appear to alleviate any concerns with respect to serious impacts on the community.

 

TCI also responded via an email on 11 July 2011, shown attached as AT-2 (following review of Council’s report) on the valuation provided by Chaloner Valuations. TCI has requested that Council reconsider its’ position on the rental amount for the facility. TCI are of the view that the rental should be in accordance with Optus initial offer of $8,650, as opposed to that determined by Chaloner Valuations of $15,000. It is suggested that Council retain its’ position on the lease fee and use the funds to maintain and improve the area around the proposed facility.

 

Community Consultation

 

TCI has undertaken their community consultation, with some assistance from Council sending out an e-newsletter and placing information about the proposal on our website. TCI received 4 objections to the proposal and 2 petitions with a total of 18 names. TCI responded to resident concerns, including those raised at the meeting held on 31 August 2011, by providing ACMA information packs to the residents, and via letters dated 15 and 28 September 2011, shown attached as AT-3 and AT-4, proposing to ‘shroud’ the facility to effectively hide the antenna from view and provided World Health Organisation advice on base stations and EME.

 

That aside, the residents of 12 Trouve Street have indicated that they are still concerned with the location of the facility. Five concerns have been raised as follows:-

 

(i)         the need for the installation;

(ii)        health risks, including to children in the area;

(iii)       visual impact on the streetscape;

(iv)       adverse impact on property values; and

(v)        consideration of alternative sites for the installation.

 

A copy of this correspondence from the residents of 12 Trouve Street has been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

Conclusion

 

Due to the ongoing concern raised by the residents of 12 Trouve Street, Councillors will need to determine whether they are satisfied with the responses provided by TCI with respect to the visual amenity and the health issues. If Council is satisfied with the responses then it could resolve as follows:-

 

That Council raises no objection to the installation of a low impact telecommunication facility in the nominated location of Trouve Street, Lane Cove, subject to:-

 

(i)         shrouding of the antenna to be provided as detailed in TCI’s letter of 15 September 2011;

(ii)        Optus pay an annual rental of $15,000 per annum for the facility; and

(iii)       Council being consulted further on the landscaping proposed around the Optus meter box.

 

However, if Council does not believe the concerns raised by residents have been adequately addressed, it could resolve as follows:-

 

That Council advice Total Communications Infrastructure (TCI) that it does not support the installation of a low impact telecommunication facility in the nominated location of Trouve Street, Lane Cove, due to:-

 

(i)         the unresolved health issues raised by local residents;

(ii)        the visual impact on the streetscape; and

(iii)       the need to consider other sites for the facility that have less impacts on residential amenity.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine whether or not to support the installation of the Optus low-impact telecommunications facility proposed for Trouve Street, Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Further Information re Proposed Telecommunications Facility at crn River Road West & Trouve Street Lane Cove

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

Optus Response regarding Valuation

3 Pages

AT‑3 View

Further Information - Continued Community Consultation in relation to Proposed Telecommunications Facility Installation Cnr River Road West & Trouve Street Lane Cove

32 Pages

AT‑4 View

TCI Response to Community Consultation Finalisation

1 Page

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

Subject:          Draft DCP Amendment 2 Finalisation    

Record No:    SU4291 - 38429/11

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 18 July 2011, Council resolved to amend the Development Control Plan (DCP) on a range of issues, exhibited as Draft Amendment 2. Subsequently, DCP Draft Amendment 2 was exhibited from 29 July 2011 to 9 September 2011. Eight submissions were received.

 

The purpose of this report is to:-

·    Inform Council of the issues raised in the submissions made and subsequent discussions with Council officers; and

·    Recommend DCP Draft Amendment 2 for adoption, as amended in response to those submissions and discussions. 

 

As Councillors are aware, the Development Control Plan (DCP) came into force in February 2010 and has been undergoing a review since its adoption.

 

Amendment 1 to the DCP was endorsed by Council on 18 April 2011 and included minor amendments which needed to be expedited to assist in the assessment of DAs.

 

Amendment 2, now ready for finalisation, includes broader issues such as policy changes. These issues were discussed at a Councillor workshop on 9 May 2011 and the Council meeting of 18 July 2011.

 

The proposed amendments respond to issues and concerns identified by Councillors and during staff monitoring of development applications since the introduction of the new LEP and DCP, during the exhibition, and other topics raised by stakeholders and the community generally.

 

As the DCP comprises seventeen parts, not all of which are affected by the proposed changes, only those parts proposed to be changed by Amendment 2 have been exhibited. Recommendations are that:-

 

1.   Council adopt as final Draft Development Control Plan Amendment 2, dated 4 November 2011, as amended post exhibition, and shown at AT-2.

 

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

 

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

 

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, staff have been compiling and researching issues for review either raised by residents, staff, property owners, the community or Councillors.

 

Amendment 1 to the DCP, supported by Council at its meetings on 4 and 18 April 2011, came into effect on 18 May 2011 and included items which benefitted from being expedited before the Comprehensive DCP review.

 

A Councillor workshop held on 9 May 2011 allowed explanation and consideration of policy changes to be included in DCP Amendment 2.

 

Amendment 2 to the DCP comprises the comprehensive review and includes both draft minor modifications and policy changes.

Consultation

Draft DCP Amendment 2 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. Even though the exhibition period remained at six weeks, a two week extension was provided to any party who requested an extension of the period to provide Council with a submission.

Accordingly, at its meeting of 18 July 2011, Council resolved to exhibit a range of amendments, exhibited as Draft Amendment 2. The exhibition of Draft DCP Amendment 2 was held from 29 July 2011 to 9 September 2011.

Consultation undertaken included:-

1.       Website exhibition – DCP Draft Amendment 2 was posted on Council’s website on 29 July 2011;

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.       An advertisement was placed in the North Shore Time to alert people to details of the exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment; and

4.       Exhibition of DCP Draft Amendment 2 in hard copy at the Civic Centre and Lane Cove Library.

 

Submissions

 

Eight submissions were received regarding the Draft DCP’s content; 4 from development/architectural companies, 3 from resident associations and one from a resident.

 

The submissions are summarised and responses to them set out at AT-1.

 

 

 

 

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 2 were endorsed by the development assessment team. Relevant input is included in the Discussion section below.

 

Modifications to Draft DCP Amendment 2

 

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

·   Inclusion in Draft DCP Amendment 2 (as shown in AT-2); and

·   If issues raised are actually outside the scope of Amendment 2 (because they would require a new exhibition), but are of merit, they have been included on the list for DCP Amendment 3.

 

Draft DCP Amendment 2, included at AT-2, includes highlighting to help navigation of the document. The green highlighting within each of the relevant DCP Parts indicates changes made post exhibition as a result of exhibition/internal Council comments. The blue and yellow highlighting remains as per the exhibition document indicating blue for key policy changes and yellow for other amendments. Highlighting of changes is to assist in identifying significant adjustments to the DCP. Accordingly, some minor edits have not been highlighted.

 

Discussion

 

At its meeting on 18 July 2011, Council resolved to amend the DCP on a range of issues exhibited as Draft DCP Amendment 2.

 

The draft amendment identified 25 key policy changes, many of which were also discussed at the Councillor workshop of 9 May 2011. Minor changes are outlined after key policy changes.

 

Key Policy Changes

 

The proposed key policy changes and recommendation for each item, subsequent to exhibition comments and internal Council discussions, are detailed below.

 

Item 1: Foreshore Setback Line - Part B: 5.1.4 Building Design and Style within the Foreshore Setback Line, Provision b)

 

Currently the DCP states that dwellings, alterations or any other structures are not allowed between the Foreshore Setback Line and the River. Reconsideration of this provision is necessary as structures may sometimes be appropriate in this setback area.

 

The recommended provisions proposed outline the types of development, materials, heights and colours that would be permitted between the Foreshore Setback Line and the River.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for the Foreshore Setback Line.

 

One submission disagreed with the inclusion of swimming pools and boathouses below the Foreshore Setback Line, while accepting that steps and landscaping may be acceptable but no other structures and refers to the Foreshore Building Line in the LEP.

 

 

 

 

Comment

 

The Foreshore Setback Line is generally in the rear garden of the affected properties. If the provision is not amended pools would, in some circumstances, neither be permitted in the front or rear of the properties. Where Council have not embarked on a foreshore buyback policy, not being able to use the rear area for a pool may seem onerous. Moreover, the proposed and existing provisions in the DCP guide development in this highly visible area.

 

The submission also refers to Clause 6.2 of the LEP which pertains to the Foreshore Building Line (FBL). It should be noted that the FBL is not the same as the DCP’s Foreshore Setback Line and the FBL is a gazetted line which affects very few properties in Lane Cove LGA, generally with exceptional bushland, and would provide additional controls over those foreshore properties in very sensitive positions. The DCP’s line affects all foreshore residential properties, so that the proposed controls to allow greater flexibility for minor structures is appropriate to modern lifestyles.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt foreshore setback line provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2.

 

Item 2: Residential Development - Predominant and Emerging Character - Part C: 1.2 Streetscape, Objective 1 and 2.3 Streetscape, Objective 2

 

Currently the DCP does not contain specific objectives in relation to the maintenance of character or establishment of character in a locality. This is of concern as there have been a number of applications where consideration of neighbourhood character has not been evident in proposed designs.

 

It is proposed to amend objectives to require development in keeping with predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character. This objective is not to dictate style but to ensure that visual analysis of the neighbourhood has been considered for proposed designs.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to new objectives for predominant and emerging character.

 

One submission was concerned as to who would determine the emerging street character, believing that it may lead to major confrontations, and the submission also stated that landscaping should be included in assessment of character.

 

Comment

 

Council planners already consider character to some extent in the determination of DAs and the proposed objectives would assist in underlining the importance of character to an application’s visual assessment. In addition, landscaping would, in most circumstances form part of any streetscape analysis.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt predominant and emerging character objectives as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2.

 

Item 3: Residential Development - Front Fences - Part C: 1.4 Fences

 

Front fences are an important element in relation to streetscape character, safety and surveillance. Front fences are also very important in establishing the suburban character of the local streets.

 

The exhibited amendments were proposed to:-

 

·    delete the 1m setback from the front boundary (even for fences over 1.2m);

·    delete the maximum pier width provision; and

·    include the term “open style” from the Codes SEPP.

 

Discussions with DA staff have indicated that the proposed provisions need further amending to:-

 

·    retain the 1m setback (as per the existing DCP) for fences over 1.2m due to potential streetscape impacts of taller fences on the front boundary;

·    remove provision i) which relates to “special circumstances” as it is considered unnecessary, as Council can vary a DCP for special circumstances in any case; and

·    further fine-tune wording for fences partially open in style.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Comment

 

The streetscape character in Lane Cove with low front fences has been established over many years and provides an open and inviting suburban environment with ample casual surveillance and a feeling of connectivity between private and public spaces. Allowing fences up to 1.8m on the front boundary (even if partially open style) may erode positive streetscape qualities such as a feeling of openness, connectivity, and would minimise the positive contribution that the front façade of many dwellings makes to the quality of the streetscape.

 

The continuation of Council’s current policy which requires a 1m setback for fences over 1.2m still permits fencing choice, however, is likely to discourage some applicants from proposing fences over 1.2m in height.

 

It is considered prudent to retain the existing fencing policies, subject to improving the wording and removing the special circumstances and pier width provisions. The existing policy includes:-

 

·    900mm solid fences on the front boundary;

·    1.2m part solid and part open style fences on the front boundary; and

·    1.8m part solid and part open style fences setback 1m from the front boundary.

 

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt front fence provisions, amended post exhibition, as included in AT-2.

 

Item 4: Dwelling Houses – Number of Storeys - Part C: 1.6 Cut & Fill, Provision e), 1.7.1 Height, Provisions c), e) &  Diagram 5.

 

The current DCP contains height limits for the number of storeys for a dwelling but not the elevational height of a dwelling. In addition, as basements are defined as storeys by the LEP, dwellings would exceed the current DCP 2 storey height limit in many situations due to slope.

 

Discussions with Council officers indicated that height provisions and Diagram 5 need to be amended to align better with the LEP definitions of storey and basement. Draft DCP Cut & Fill provisions were also amended to fit in with the LEP height provisions.

 

One submission was received regarding the wording of the basement and number of storeys provision.

 

 

 

 

Comment

 

Provisions have been further fine-tuned post exhibition to align with LEP definitions and adjust wording. It is not proposed to change the number of storeys permissible.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the height and cut & fill provisions, amended post exhibition, as included in AT-2.

 

Item 5: Dwelling houses - FSR and Parking – Part C: 1.9 Car Parking, Provision a)

 

Currently, the DCP requires 1 car parking space per dwelling house or dual occupancy. The floor area of this required parking space (relevant only to garages) can be excluded from the floor space calculation for the dwelling according to the LEP definition. The previous Dwelling House Code excluded garages up to 40sqm from the FSR calculations. The DCP requirement only allows one space to be excluded (or 18sqm) and has reduced the amount of floor area excluded from FSR calculations. The current provision is leading to reduced overall FSRs and more applications for carports in the front setback area.

 

It is proposed to amend the parking requirement for dwellings to 2 spaces per site (from the current requirement for 1 space). This would reduce carports in front setback areas, which detract from the streetscape, and increase allowable exclusion from FSR from approximately18sqm to 40sqm for dwelling houses. The exclusion of 40sqm from the floor space due to car parking reintroduces a long-standing Council policy which allowed garages up to 40sqm to be excluded from FSR.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for FSR and car parking.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt car parking provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 6: Dwelling houses - Garages on Sloping Sites – Part C: 1.9 Car Parking d)

 

The current DCP provisions for garages on sloping sites have been confusing and tested in the Land & Environment Court. The recent court decision deferred to the previous controls from the former Dwelling House Code.

 

The draft amendments (taken the former Dwelling House Code) seek to permit garages within the front setback provided merit issues are met.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for garages on sloping sites.

 

One submission questioned the removal of several provisions for garages on sloping sites.

 

Comment

 

The proposed controls, based on the former Dwelling House Code, more clearly articulate Council’s and the community’s views than the controls currently in force which need to be amended.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt garages on sloping sites provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

 

Item 7: Attached Dwellings – Part C, C2 Attached Dwellings and Multi-Dwelling Housing

 

Attached dwellings are not specifically referred to in the DCP. Attached dwellings were introduced by the gazettal of the recent LEP into the Lane Cove LGA. These are a dwelling form which was not previously allowed (under the LEP 1987) in Lane Cove. Attached dwellings are similar to terrace style dwellings in that they can be subdivided into Torrens titled allotments.

 

It is proposed to amend multi-dwelling provisions to include attached dwellings ie, all medium density development would have comparable controls.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for attached dwellings.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt attached dwelling provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 8: Attached Dwellings & Multi Dwelling Housing - Site Area – Part C: 2.2 Site Area and Frontage

 

The DCP currently requires 1000sqm site area for a multi-dwelling housing development, unless the site has a curvilinear frontage. Reference to a curvilinear frontage has been contentious and is considered by staff to be confusing for applicants.

 

It is proposed to amend the provision to require a minimum site area of 1000sqm except in the Stringybark Creek Precinct where the minimum site area allowed would be 750sqm. This exception is considered reasonable given the high ownership rate of Housing NSW in the Precinct and inherent difficulty in achieving joint development with Housing NSW in a timely manner. Reference to curvilinear or cul-de-sac would be removed from the provision.

 

In addition, a minimum of 250sqm site area per attached dwelling or multi-dwelling housing unit is proposed to avoid overdevelopment of sites.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for site area (attached dwellings & multi-dwelling housing).

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt site area provisions for attached dwellings & multi-dwelling housing as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 9: Front Setback for Multi Dwelling Housing – Part C: 2.4.1 Street Setback, Provision a)

 

Multi-dwelling housing is permissible in the R2, R3 and R4 zones (only single storey in the R2 zone ie, villas). Currently in the R2 (Low Density) Zone, the front setback of a multi-dwelling housing development is a minimum of 6m. This would be at odds with dwelling house development in the vicinity which would be predominantly setback a distance of 7.5m from the front boundary.

 

It is considered that the front setback of the multi-dwelling housing developments in the R2 zone should match the dwelling house setbacks. Therefore, it is proposed to amend the front setback provision so that the multi-dwelling housing front setback is 6m except in the R2 zone where it is 7.5m. This will give continuity to the streetscape.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited front setback provisions for multi-dwelling housing.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt front setback provisions for attached dwellings & multi-dwelling housing as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 10: Parking Rates for Attached Dwelling & Multi Dwelling Housing in Comparison with RFBs – Part C: 2.10 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces, Provision a)

 

In the current DCP, the parking provisions for multi-dwelling housing and for flats are inconsistent with each other. Parking rates for 3 bedroom multi-dwelling housing units (ie, villas and townhouses) is lower than for units. Also no parking rates are provided for studio or 1 bedroom multi-dwelling housing units.

 

It is proposed to standardise parking rates and amend the attached dwelling and multi-dwelling housing provisions. Parking rates for RFBs are now to be replicated in the attached dwelling & multi-dwelling housing section. Three bedroom dwellings in both development forms require 2 car parking spaces; studios and 1b/r dwellings in both development forms require 0.5 and 1 space respectively.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for parking rates for multi- dwelling housing.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the parking provisions for attached dwellings & multi-dwelling housing as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 11: Bedroom Mix for Residential Flat Buildings – Part C: 3.10 Size and Mix of Dwellings, Provision b)

 

The current DCP does not include any bedroom mix provisions. Bedroom mix provisions would assist in encouraging dwelling diversity and choice for the LGA by increasing housing choice over the life of the plan.

 

Five recent RFB DAs were reviewed within Council for bedroom mix. Three of the five developments included a mix of 1, 2 and 3 b/r dwellings. In the other 2 DAs, 3 b/r dwellings were not provided. Feedback from other northern Councils indicated a variety of bedroom mix provisions in place for their LGAs.

 

Lane Cove is currently experiencing growth in young families and the elderly.

 

It is proposed to include a provision requiring a minimum of 10% of each dwelling type (eg, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom). This requirement is not considered onerous for developers but would ensure a dwelling mix for Lane Cove LGA supporting housing affordability objectives and housing diversity to cater for residents through different stages of life. The DCP already requires adaptable housing to be spread across all dwelling types.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for residential flat building bedroom mix.

 

No submissions were received to the exhibited amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the bedroom mix provisions for residential flat buildings as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 Item 12: TUTA Site & Carisbrook House – Part C: Locality 1 – Block 2

 

The development of Locality 1 – Block 2 (known as the TUTA site) will have an important relationship with Carisbrook House. It is proposed to strengthen the objectives and provisions regarding Carisbrook House included in precinct controls for the development site to the north of Carisbrook.

 

Council has expressed concern that perhaps objectives and provisions for Carisbrook may need to be strengthened even more. Accordingly, objectives have been clarified and a provision added requiring any development application for the site to be accompanied by a heritage impact statement relating to Carisbrook House. (This used to be a requirement for all sites adjacent to heritage properties prior to the Standard LEP).

 

Further internal discussions and discussions with the Carisbrook Advisory Committee focussed on issues such as to car parking for Carisbrook, overshadowing of Carisbrook’s northern courtyard and signage & landscaping.

 

One submission requested reduced setbacks for the site to the north of Carisbrook with an outcome being improved vistas to Carisbrook.

 

Comment

 

Minor amendments are proposed to Locality 1 – Block 2 to:-

 

·    encourage more than 10 car parking spaces;

·    consider the impact of any overshadowing of Carisbrook’s northern courtyard; and

·    require signage and landscaping be provided from car & bus parking areas to Carisbrook entrance.

 

In relation to the submission requesting reduced setbacks, it is considered that there is no basis to vary DCP setbacks to improve vistas to Carisbrook. The DCP objective to improve vistas to Carisbrook is to be met by any future development to the north in any case not and not done as a trade off.

 

It is noted that requirements contained in the DCP which specifically affect the TUTA site, for example car parking provision for Carisbrook House, would be referred to in Part (5) of the Section 149 certificate for the TUTA site.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the amendments to Locality 1, Block 2, as amended, in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 13: TUTA Site & Slip Lane – Part C: Locality 1 – Block 2

 

The current Block Plan diagram for Locality 1 - Block 2 includes a slip lane along the western boundary of the site, providing access from Burns Bay Road. Following discussions with Council staff and the RTA, it has been recommended that the slip lane be removed from the Block 2 Plan Diagram for traffic reasons and to preserve the trees in the vicinity.

 

Following exhibition, another minor amendment in accordance with the removal of the slip lane is the removal of the arrow shown on the diagram allowing left turning into the TUTA site.

 

A submission was received that did not support removal of the slip lane as it was considered to provide a more appropriate entrance to a significant development, be a safer option and allow the development to have an “address”.

 

Comment

 

The slip lane and site entry/egress is currently under review with the RTA and Council staff. Council consider entry and egress to the TUTA site in the broader locality’s traffic requirements.

 

Until further definitive information is received from the RTA, it is proposed to remove the slip lane and arrow showing left entry into the site from Burns Bay Road on the Locality 1 – Block 2 plan. It is noted that regardless of any slip lane, the RTA stated that the TUTA site requires access through the park to the G-intersection traffic lights for northbound vehicles.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the amendments to Locality 1 – Block 2 plan, including removal of the slip lane and left arrow into the site, in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 14: New Locality 6 - Stringybark Creek Precinct – Part C: Locality 6 – Stringybark Creek Precinct (Mowbray Road Precinct)

 

The Draft DCP Amendment 2 exhibition proposed to include the Stringybark Creek Precinct as a new locality in the DCP (Locality 6) and to include objectives for the Locality, with controls to be developed at a future date.

 

The future of this precinct has been contentious within the community and the subject of numerous appeals in the Land and Environment Court.

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DOPI) is currently undertaking a Strategic Planning Review and Traffic Study for this precinct, the findings of which are likely to be considered in the writing of objectives and controls for the precinct. This review commenced after the proposed locality objectives were proposed.

 

One submission was made in relation to the Stringybark Creek Precinct, raising concern that although the proposed objectives were a worthwhile addition to the DCP, controls are needed like any other locality in the DCP.

 

Comment

 

Current provisions for residential development are contained in Part C of the DCP and apply to the Mowbray Road Precinct. However, as the future of this precinct is currently in a state of flux, and under review with the DOPI, it is not considered timely to include the precinct as a new locality in the DCP.

 

The inclusion of this precinct as a new locality under the DCP will be considered at a future date, with any proposed objectives or controls put on exhibition for public comment.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve not to adopt the new Locality 6 – Stringybark Creek Precinct, in accordance with AT-2, at this time.

 

Item 15: Parking Commercial – Part D: 1.4 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces, Note

 

The DCP does not currently specify parking rates for specialised uses such as dance studios. It is proposed to add a provision to default to RTA parking rates if no specific rate is included in the DCP.

 

No issues have been raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for commercial parking.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the commercial parking provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 16: Ancillary Offices Industrial – Part E: E.4 Site Layout, Provision b)

 

Currently there is no control over the amount of office space proposed in association with an industrial development. This leaves the industrial area open to becoming a de facto office area with land costs too high for actual industrial development.

 

It is proposed to reintroduce a long standing Council policy where ancillary office uses can only comprise a maximum of 49% of the gross floor area. This ensures that the dominant use would remain industrial in nature.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to the exhibited provisions for ancillary offices in industrial areas.

 

Two submissions discussing this amendment were received. Both submissions requested clarification that the proposed limit to ancillary offices at 49% of GFA would not preclude a higher proportion of office standard accommodation provided the primary use of space is high technology industry. Another comment referred to the wording of the provision and wanted to know if the percentage would be calculated per site or per development.

 

Comment

 

The LEP defines “high technology industry” and it would therefore be a matter for the DA to demonstrate this use, as per the LEP definition, for exclusion from the ancillary office calculation. Furthermore, the ancillary office calculation would be interpreted as 49% of each development's site area.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the ancillary offices provisions for industrial development as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 17: Parking Rates for Industrial Development – Part E: E.8, Parking and Vehicular Access, Provision a)

 

The current DCP includes a warehousing parking rate in excess of the RTA warehousing parking rate and requires updating. It is proposed to modify the DCP warehouse parking rate to match the RTA warehouse parking rate at 1 space per 300sqm of GFA.

 

Industrial parking rates are noted as a minimum in the draft DCP.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to industrial parking rates.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendment.

 

 Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the warehousing parking provision for industrial development as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 18: Bushland Protection & Riparian Land – Part H: H.4 Application of Controls, Provisions a) & c)

 

Currently, there are no DCP provisions guiding development on Riparian land (as gazetted under the LEP 2009). Guidance has been sought on several occasions by Applicants with land included in the Riparian area.

 It is proposed to include provisions in section H4 as a preliminary approach to guiding development in Riparian land. These provisions necessitate the consideration of the impact of development on the Riparian land and any opportunities for rehabilitation of aquatic and riparian vegetation and habitat on that land.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to the proposed riparian land provisions.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

 Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the riparian lands provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 19: Childcare - Outdoor Play Areas – Part I: 3.3 Outdoor Play Areas, Provision J

 

The current DCP sets as a guide for outdoor play areas: 30% natural planting area (excluding turf), 30% turfed outdoor play area and 40% surfaces eg softfall. Concern has been raised that the turfed component may be too limited and a more flexible approach is preferred.

 

The provision is to be amended to permit a variety of surfaces including at least 30% natural planting with no numerical requirements for turfed areas and surfaces such as softfall.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to the proposed amendment to the outdoor play provisions for child care centres.

 

No submissions were received to the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the outdoor play area provisions for child care centres as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 20: Indigenous Landscaping – Part J: 1.4 Objectives for landscaping of new development, Objective 1 & 12.

 

Currently in the objectives for landscaping of new development in Part J of the DCP, it is stated that new plantings must comprise indigenous species in all areas visible to the public. This is not correct as a blanket statement for the LGA.

 

The exhibited objectives and provisions need further refinement to indicate where this policy may appropriately apply, for example, medium and high density residential, commercial and industrial developments.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to the indigenous landscaping provisions.

 

Two submissions commented upon proposed Draft DCP Amendment 2:-

 

·    Amendment not supported as it would totally change the requirement of use of indigenous plants impacting on habitat corridors for native animals to reserves. This change no longer supports objectives of DCP. Request original wording to be retained.

·    Request that native planting requirement in all areas visible to the public be retained.

·    Request for any indigenous trees removed be replaced by other indigenous trees that have the potential to reach a similar size.

 


Comment

 

It is considered that the relevant provisions and objectives exhibited be further amended to reflect Council’s long-standing policy that requires native vegetation to be proposed in certain circumstances. 

 

The Draft DCP Amendment 2 includes a new objective requiring tree replacement with a tree that is able to reach the same mature height. The mandatory replacement of an indigenous tree with another indigenous tree is not supported as this may not be appropriate in all circumstances. 

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the indigenous landscaping provisions as amended in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 21: Landscaping - Tree Replacement Provision Part J: 1.4 Objectives for landscaping of new development, Objective 12.

 

The existing DCP only covers replacement trees for trees removed for safety grounds or structural impacts. There are no requirements in the DCP for tree replacement on development sites.

 

It is proposed to include a tree replacement provision in Part J: Landscaping relevant to approved developments. The provision would enable the replacement of trees proposed to be removed in large numbers by RFB DAs and to retain & enhance the landscaped character of the LGA.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to the proposed tree replacement provisions.

 

One submission raised concern with tree species and this has been dealt with in the above Item 20.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the tree replacement provision as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 22: Rainwater Tanks – Part O: O.6 Rainwater Tanks

 

Rainwater tanks are not covered in the current DCP as the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 provides guidelines for water tanks (eg, location, screening, height and setback). However, there are circumstances where water tanks are appropriate but exceed SEPP requirements.

 

It is proposed to include in the DCP, provisions for rainwater tanks which are not covered by the SEPP.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to proposed rainwater tank provisions.

 

One submission commented that provisions needed to be adjusted as some people drink water from hot water systems that have rainwater as a source.

 

Comment

 

Even though this may be the case, Lane Cove Council, in line with the NSW Health Department, does not recommend the use of rainwater tanks for drinking purposes where there is access to a reticulated potable supply. No change to the provisions are exhibited are proposed.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the rainwater tank provisions as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 23: Residential Flat Buildings & Waste Management – Part Q: 4.3 Residential Flat Buildings

 

As residential flat development has not been common in recent times in Lane Cove LGA, waste management provisions are recommended for review for this type of development.

 

The proposed DCP amendments are to take large scale waste collection off public roadways and to ensure well designed garbage rooms to ensure the smooth on-going operation of systems.

 

At the previous Council workshop, positive feedback was received about formalization of improved waste management for RFBs. It was noted that a Body Corporate may need to give ongoing permission for garbage trucks to come on site but this was not thought to be an issue. There was discussion as to whether bulky goods storage should be private or communal. The Manager of Environmental Services considers there is an established need for a communal storage space for bulky goods awaiting collection.

 

Since the exhibition of the amended provisions, discussions amongst staff focused on the need to fine-tune the wording of several of the waste management provisions for RFBs.

 

No submissions were received in relation to the waste management provisions proposed for RFBs.

 

Comment

 

The proposed provisions have been fine-tuned as a result of discussions amongst staff.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt waste management provisions for residential flat buildings as amended in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 24: Various Sections - Improvement in the Integration of Cycling into DCP

 

Staff have liaised with the Cycle Working Group on the issue that cycling can be better integrated into the DCP to promote sustainable transport and improve cyclist safety.

 

In response, it is proposed to modify the fencing provisions to include splays, limit landscaping on cycle routes, amend bike storage rates for townhouses and take bike parking provisions for retail/restaurants from the DCP and put it into the Section 94 Plan to achieve coherent consideration of the public domain.

 

At workshops, concern was raised over possible tree loss and the impact landscaping limitations would have on residents that had cycle routes imposed on them. It should be noted that new provisions would only relate to new developments.

 

No issues were raised by staff in relation to improvements in various sections in the integration of cycling into the DCP.

 

One submission sought clarification on the improved landscaping provisions for cycling safety, however, no changes to the proposed provisions were necessary.  .

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the improvement in the integration of cycling into the DCP as exhibited in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Item 25: Satellite Dishes - Part C: 1.2 Streetscape, Objective 6.

 

The DCP currently does not include any objectives or provisions specifically for satellite dishes. The SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 provides provisions for satellite dishes within size limitations (not in heritage areas).

These provisions override any local provisions and therefore Council will deal with any proposals not compliant with the SEPP on a merits basis.

 

Internal discussions with staff indicated a need for an objective to be added to the DCP to assist in the assessment of any DAs received for satellite dishes.

 

No submissions were received in relation to satellite dishes.

 

Comment

 

As a result of internal discussions, an objective pertaining to the streetscape impact of satellite dishes has been included to assist in guiding the assessment of satellite dishes which cannot be carried out under the SEPP.

 

Recommendation: That Council resolve to adopt the proposed objective relating to satellite dishes and streetscape as amended in Draft DCP Amendment 2 in accordance with AT-2.

 

Minor Changes

 

Since exhibition, in addition to the key policy amendments above, several minor matters are being fine-tuned in DCP Amendment 2 and include:-

 

·    Using consistent terminology throughout the DCP (eg, changing the term “Chapter” to “Part”, using “Localities” instead of “Special Areas”).

·    Editing the title of Part D: D.3 Development within Lane Cove Village Centre (B2) Local Centre, adding in “and surrounds”, as the Lane Cove Village takes in several zones.

·    Rectifying inconsistencies in localities eg, awning heights were different in the general commercial controls (3.3m) to Locality 3 - Little Lane (3.6m).

·    Adding another lot to complete the existing property description of the Locality 3 – Little Lane.

·    Clarifying that the parking rates are a minimum requirement, except in areas such as the St Leonards commercial area where rates are a maximum.

 

Highlighted Changes to the Document

 

Draft DCP Amendment 2, included at AT-2, incorporates highlighting to help navigation of the document. The green highlighting within each of the relevant DCP Parts indicates changes made to the document post exhibition as a result of the exhibition or internal Council comments. The blue and yellow highlighting remains as per the exhibition document indicating blue for key policy changes and yellow for other amendments. Highlighting of changes is to assist in identifying significant adjustments to the DCP. Accordingly, some minor edits have not been highlighted.

 

Conclusion

 

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 2 and subsequent discussions with Council officers; and

·    Recommend DCP Draft Amendment 2 for adoption, as amended in response to those submissions and discussions. 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council adopt as final Draft Development Control Plan Amendment 2, dated 4 November 2011, as amended post exhibition, and shown at AT-2.

 

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

Dract DCP Amendment 2 - Submissions Summary

11 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft DCP Amendment 2 as Amended Post-Exhibition
CIRCULATED SEPERATELY
AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY ONLY

***Please note:  Given the large file size of this document it may take some time to download.

384 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

Subject:          Funding under Round 3 of Sustainability Small Grants Program    

Record No:    SU4510 - 41374/11

Author(s):      Claire Brittain 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report presents the organisations seeking funds under Round 3 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program. Council received seven (7) applications seeking a total of $10,245 applied for in funding. The report recommends providing grants to all 7 community organisations which applied for funding.

 

Background

 

Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, may grant financial assistance to organisations. This report discusses the application process for Round 3 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program and recommends Council provide the grants nominated. 

 

Under the program Council calls for applications for financial assistance from organisations either based in Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA), or if not based in the LGA, whose assistance addresses identified needs of people within the LGA. 

 

Groups on Council’s financial assistance register were notified of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, and the program was promoted on Council’s website and through the Sustainability

E-Newsletter.  Applications closed on Monday 5 September 2011.

 

Discussion

 

All applications were assessed against the criteria provided in AT-1 by a panel comprising of the Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee and staff.  Applicants were required to show how their application could meet the needs of Lane Cove by referring to Council’s Sustainability Action Plan. Included in AT-2 is a summary of all the applications, panel consideration and recommended funding.

 

The budget for the Sustainability Small Grants Program includes a provision of $20,000 in funding for this financial year (Round 3 and Round 4).

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Sustainability Small Grants Program assists the development of a range of initiatives that are of direct and practical benefit to a sustainable Lane Cove community. Council’s Sustainability Action Plan provides guidance to assist in identifying priority projects for funding.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Endorse funds under Round 3 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program for the following projects:-

·    $1500 – Chatswood South PermaPatch Inc;

·    $1950 – Greenwich Community Association;

·    $1990 – Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society Inc;

·    $775 – Lane Cove Out of School Inc;

·    $1980 – Lane Cove Sustainability Action Group;

·    $1400 – Lane Cove West Public School; and

·    $650 – St Ignatius’ College Riverview.

2.    Give Public Notice of the proposed funding under Round 3 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, and subject to no of any objections being received, grant the funds as outlined in Resolution 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Selection criteria for Round 3 of Sustainability Small Grants Program

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Summary of grant applications received under Round 3 and panel recommendations

2 Pages