m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

16 July 2012

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

16 July 2012 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor 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 16 July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Waste Disposal Contract Extension

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and rates provided by the contractor are confidential in nature and not for public information as they relate to a review and extension of a current contract.

2.       Waste Collection & Recycling Contract Extension

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and rates provided by the contractor are confidential in nature and not for public information as they relate to a review and extension of the current contract. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

3.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 18 JUNE 2012

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

4.       National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA)  

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee 14 July 2012

 

5.       Reclassification of Reserves

 

Orders Of The Day

 

6.       Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - August 2012

 


Notices of Motion

 

7.       Marshall Avenue, St Leonards

 

8.       Mowbray Precinct - Sewer / Stormwater Infrastructure

 

9.       Development Control Plan for Battleaxe Blocks

 

10.     Development of a Local Government Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)

 

11.     Request to Change LGSA Constitution to Address Concerns of Quorum at Local Government Conferences

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

12.     Planning Proposal 11/2011 for 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards

 

13.     3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

 

14.     Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips

 

15.     LEP Amendment: 1-5 Birdwood Avenue (Lane Cove Club)

 

16.     LEP Amendment - Subdivision of Roads

 

17.     Howell Place - Address Proposal

 

18.     DCP Amendment 3 - Supermarket Parking

 

19.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meetings held Tuesday 15 May 2012 and Tuesday 19 June 2012

 

20.     Motions for Local Government Association Conference 2012

 

21.     Policy Manual Review - Phase 3

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

22.     Shell Gore Bay - State Significant Development - Terminal Conversion

 

23.     Council Snapshot   

 

 

 

 

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA)

 

 

Subject:          National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA)     

Record No:    SU204 - 33543/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Win Gaffney 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Titled National Voice, Local Choice this conference was attended by about 850 council representatives in Canberra on 17-20 June 2012.

 

Apart from all motions being debated there were speakers from both the Government and Opposition in favour of ALGA’s motion requesting that the Australian Government confirm its commitment to holding a referendum on the financial recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution.  The Conference passed Council’s motion on funding for local government to make buildings and public spaces more accessible for people with a disability.

 

The Hon Simon Crean MP in his opening address and Senator Barnaby Joyce both spoke urging Council’s to work together to have their communities understanding the importance of a referendum and the benefits resulting from the Federal Government financing directly to Councils.

 

Importantly, in addition to attending the Conference, the NSROC Mayors took the opportunity to meet with various Federal Parliamentarians to highlight key regional issues. On Monday, the Mayor of Hornsby, Clr Nick Berman, Mayor of Ryde, Clr Artin Etmekdjian, NSROC Executive Director, Carolynne James and I met with John Alexander MP. We discussed the NSROC papers on the F3 – M2 Link and Sportsground Management. Mr Alexander was supportive of both issues and has requested to participate further in the regional sportsground proposals on synthetic fields being rolled out by the NSROC Director in the coming months.

 

On Tuesday, I also met with the Hon Philip Ruddock and presented the NSROC F3 – M2 proposal. Mr Ruddock has been a long term supporter of this issue and we discussed key issues about Federal Government support options for this project and also local issue management within his electorate. Mayor Berman also met with Senator Arthur Sinodinos and Paul Fletcher on the same issue during the Conference.

 

Councillors, should you wish to read any or all of the main speeches they are available on www.alga.asn.au I recommend them to you.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Win Gaffney

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

      


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Reclassification of Reserves

 

 

Subject:          Reclassification of Reserves

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 16 July 2012.   

Record No:    SU4468 - 33795/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Council Meeting on 18 June 2012, Council considered a report on the Public Hearing into a Draft Planning Proposal to reclassify a number of drainage reserves. At this meeting Council resolved in part to defer consideration of three reserves for a site inspection on 16 July 2012. A copy of the Public Hearing Report is shown attached as AT-1.

 

Background

 

A report was considered by Council on 18 June 2012 relating to the planning proposal to reclassify twelve drainage reserves and one public reserve from community to operational land under the Local Government Act.  This followed public exhibition and a public hearing conducted by Dr Ian Ellis-Jones on 31 May 2012.

 

The conclusions of the Public Hearing Report were that:-

·     Three reserves could be reclassified, being two drainage reserves at 89A Centennial Avenue and 26A Garling Street, and one public reserve in Fleming Street: -

On 18 June, Council deferred determination of these three sites pending an Inspection Committee on 14 July. This included deferring the proposal to remove the restriction as to user and standard caveat relating to fencing for the Fleming Street reserve, and removal of public reserve status.

·     The remaining ten reserves should remain classified as community land.

Council adopted this recommendation and resolved not to proceed to reclassify these reserves.

 

Discussion

 

Determination of the Three reserves

 

The three reserves referred to the Inspection Committee will be subject of a separate report to Council. This report will be prepared after the Inspection Committee and distributed at the Council Meeting on 18 July.

 

Public Hearing Report Recommendations

 

Dr Ian Ellis-Jones has pointed out in respect of the three reserves inspected that his report stated:-

 

“I am of the view that the following parcels of land could be reclassified as operational land with little or no detriment to the local community and the wider public…I fall short of making a “positive” recommendation to Council that the land be actually reclassified as operational land---I will leave that to Council”  (page 11).

 

While the Council report’s Discussion section correctly stated that the recommendations were that those lands “could be reclassified to operational”, and the Public Hearing Report was published in full as an attachment to the report, Councillors are requested to note a correction to the Executive Summary and Conclusions of staff report of 18 June in relation to the above three sites which should have clarified that the Public Hearing Report recommended that these three reserves could (not should) proceed to operational classification. An apology has been made to Dr Ian Ellis-Jones for this error.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is requested to determine the classification of the three reserves at 89A Centennial Avenue, 26A Garling Street and Fleming Street, having regard to the foregoing reports, including that of Dr Ian Ellis-Jones, and the observations of the Inspection Committee held on 14 July.

 

If Council resolves to reclassify the reserves to operational including the Fleming Street reserve, Council is requested to resolve also, as recommended on 18 June, to remove the restriction as to user and standard caveat relating to fencing for the Fleming Street Reserve, and to request the Department to remove the public reserve status, to facilitate the administration of the reclassification.

 

Council is asked additionally to note that the Public Hearing Report recommendation was that those three reserves could be reclassified to operational, but did not state that they should be reclassified.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.         Amend the planning proposal to remove the restrictions as to user and standard caveat i.e. Standard Caveat K200000P and Q23852 applying to the public reserve in Fleming Street (Lot 9 DP 253441).

2.         Request the Department of Planning & Infrastructure to reclassify the following three reserves to operational from community land:-

a.  89A Centennial Avenue and Hallam Avenue (Lot 114, DP 9653);

b.  26A Garling Street (Lot 13, DP 19114); and

c.  Fleming Street (west of 29A) (Lot 9 DP 253441)

            and to remove public reserve status including obtaining any appropriate approval of the Governor under section 30(2) of the  Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Report of Public Hearing

14 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - August 2012

 

 

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - August 2012    

Record No:    SU1915 - 34029/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

The Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for August 2012 is proposed as follows:-

August             18        Inspection Committee (if required)

August             20        Ordinary Council

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for August 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Marshall Avenue, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Marshall Avenue, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU4559 - 33579/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Ian Longbottom; Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Background

Commencing in 2004, Council undertook extensive consultation with the community and the St Leonards / North Wollstonecraft Community Association regarding the Australand development on Duntroon Avenue opposite Newlands Park.  This consultation produced a favourable development that was ultimately accepted by the majority of residents in the area. The ultimate building design and concept has, we believe, blended well with the surrounding properties and Newlands Park.

With a similar process, incorporating the use of Simmersion (Simurban) and a community information program as undertaken with the Duntroon Avenue proposal.  It is believed that an outcome favourable to the neighbouring residents and the developer, Loftex, could be achieved. It will also set the parameters in which other developers will be able to operate.  This area could be a blueprint for Lane Cove and other areas of Sydney with the incorporation and blending of high-rise (residential and commercial), medium density, townhouses and single residential dwellings. It could also incorporate the St Leonards Railway Plaza as envisaged by Lane Cove Council staff and which has received support from within the NSW Government.

This is a major undertaking and it will require all parties to show flexibility and compromise as was recognised during the Duntroon Consultation 2004/2005 and the ultimate lodgment of a Development Application with Lane Cove Council in February 2006.  For more information on the consultation process, please go to: www.duntroonave.com.au

To quote from the St Leonards North Wollstonecraft Community Association:

“There is an opportunity for a visionary development across The Full Area that creates a sustainable and exciting transition from the high rise and high density residential development to the north east on the north side of the Pacific Highway and others planned for east of the railway.”

RECOMMENDATION

That Council undertake a master planning process for the area bounded by the Pacific Highway, River Road, Greenwich Road and the Sydney northern rail line to consider future planning parameters for the area in conjunction with the community, with regard to the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy, the St Leonards Strategy (commissioned by Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and the NSW Department of Planning), the proximity of a major transport hub and commercial district, on-street parking, social, environmental and other issues of the area, including the specific needs as a consequence of a major regional teaching hospital (RNSH) and the high proportion of medical facilities in the area.

 

 

 

Councillor Ian Longbottom

Councillor

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Councillor

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Mowbray Precinct - Sewer / Stormwater Infrastructure

 

 

Subject:          Mowbray Precinct - Sewer / Stormwater Infrastructure    

Record No:    SU1524 - 34301/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

Background

 

Sydney Water has stated that both the water supply and wastewater systems in the Mowbray precinct will need to be upgraded to cater for the expected increase in dwellings in this area (refer to AT-1).

 

The main sewer line runs through the adjoining Batten Reserve, as shown in AT-2, and any upgrade to enlarge the pipe would obviously have an impact on this environmentally sensitive area.

 

As Sydney Water itself acknowledges, a cautious approach is required and it is suggested that Council liaise with Sydney Water to ensure the best possible (least impact) solution is found.  At the same time, Council may recall a report tabled in November 2010 on the Sewerfix project for the Lane Cove catchment, attached as AT-3.  This reported on Sydney Water’s strategic planning project to manage wet weather sewerage overflows in the catchment.

 

During wet weather, huge volumes of stormwater enter the sewerage system.  While the sewerage system has plenty of capacity at other times, the extra volume cannot currently be contained and overflows into our waterways and the Harbour. 

 

The infrastructure project for containing these extra volumes “at source” is already planned but not funded.  Fast tracking this project should mean that an upgrade to the pipeline downstream at Batten Reserve is not necessary.  This would save money, prevent the ongoing pollution to waterways and the Harbour and leave our local bushland undisturbed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Liaise with Sydney Water:-

a)    to communicate its concern about minimising the environmental impacts on Batten Reserve from any upgrade to the sewer line in that area;

b)    to investigate options which have the least impact on the Batten Reserve; and

c)    report back on any developments in regard to the proposed sewer upgrade; and

2.    Lobby the State and Federal Government to fast track the required infrastructure upgrade to the Lane Cove catchment which will better manage wet weather sewerage overflows; such as a stormwater containment project which could provide a solution “at source” and may obviate the need to upgrade the sewer line in the Batten Reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Sydney Water regard impact of development in the Mowbray Precinct, Lane Cove

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Map of Sewer / Stormwater Infrastructure - Mowbray Precinct

1 Page

AT‑3 View

REPORT Sydney Water - Lane Cove Wet Weather Overflow Abatement Project

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Development Control Plan for Battleaxe Blocks

 

 

Subject:          Development Control Plan for Battleaxe Blocks    

Record No:    SU4824 - 34332/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

Background

 

Development on a battleaxe block typically has different impacts on neighbours to that of a regular street-frontage block.

 

There are many reasons for this, such as:-

·     street frontage setbacks do not apply;

·     a street-fronting block usually has 3 immediate neighbours while a battleaxe would have a minimum of 4 immediate neighbours;

·     battleaxe blocks are typically smaller than average; and

·     the fixed location of the driveway handle limits the flexibility for positioning of the house on the site.

 

As a result, new development on such blocks often presents special difficulties and often requires extra consideration during assessment.

 

To give guidance to owners of battleaxe blocks and to better indicate to neighbours the kind of development expected on the site, it is suggested that a set of DCP controls be developed that apply specifically to battleaxe blocks.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a report come back to Council about the DCP controls that could be used to improve the planning process for battleaxe blocks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Development of a Local Government Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)

 

 

Subject:          Development of a Local Government Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)    

Record No:    SU4005 - 34517/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Background

Reconciliation Australia  have been partnering with business, Federal, State & Local Governments, Schools and other community groups in developing Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP’s). 

The overall objectives of RAP’s are to reduce the life expectancy gap between Aboriginals and Non-Aboriginals in Australia. We know that the current life expectancy gap is about 17 years and simply having Aboriginals complete their HSC increases their life expectancy by 11 years.

Blacktown City Council finalised their RAP in 2010 and there have been other NSW Councils that have also developed RAP’s.

A better approach may be that a global view be taken rather than a piecemeal approach.  Notwithstanding the great work done by Blacktown and other NSW Councils in developing their own RAP’s a global approach would provide unity in vision and efficiencies with respect to education and health.

To this end I put forward that that the LGA build on the great work of Blacktown and other NSW Councils and develop a Local Government RAP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a motion be submitted to the 2012 Local Government Association Conference that the Local Government Association in conjunction with Reconciliation Australia, Aboriginal Elders, ALC and other stake holders seek to develop a Local Government RAP.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Request to Change LGSA Constitution to Address Concerns of Quorum at Local Government Conferences

 

 

Subject:          Request to Change LGSA Constitution to Address Concerns of Quorum at Local Government Conferences    

Record No:    SU203 - 34527/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Background

I refer to my Matter of Urgency of 6 February 2012 and request that following motion be put to voting delegates of the 2012 Local Government Conference for consideration.  Council resolved to:-

“…ask NSROC, at its meeting on Thursday 9 February, if they would consider requesting the LGSA to:-

1.  Provide a copy of the request for advice to Fair Work Australia; and     

2.  Obtain legal advice to determine if and to what extent the Constitution could be changed to redress the quorum concerns experienced at the last conference.”

Councillors may recall my concerns over what questions were asked of Fair Work Australia.  In particular we were provided with a letter dated 14 December 2011 from the Local Government Association (LGA) but not knowing what was asked of Fair Work Australia.  I now attached a copy of the email sent to Australian Industrial Relations Commission, now Fair Work Australia, confirming that the question in relation to changing the constitution to allow for change in quorum was not asked.

Furthermore, I contacted Fair Work Australia on 24 February 2012 and was able to establish the following:-

·     Their role is to deal with general industrial matters for their members and they do not provide legal advice;

·     Membership of Fair Work Australia was not compulsory and that the LGA volunteered to become a member; and

·     The constitution can be changed on approval from Fair Work Australia.

At present the Clause 21 of the LGA constitution states:-

“The quorum for a Conference shall be fifty (50) percent of delegates and members of the Executive Committee to the Conference plus one (1). The business of a Conference shall not be conducted unless a quorum is present.”

I believe that the clause could be changed to something like:-

“The quorum for a Conference shall be fifty (50) percent of delegates and members of the Executive Committee to the Conference plus one (1). The business of a Conference shall not be conducted unless a quorum is present. Quorum shall be determined each morning from the delegates in attendance.”


I also believe that the LGA has the power to change the constitution under Clause 66(a).

“Subject to sub-rule (b) of this Rule, no alteration, amendment or rescission shall be made to this Constitution unless by resolution of a Conference adopted by a majority of the voting delegates and members of the Executive Committee in attendance at any such Conference”.

Therefore I propose that we request the LGA seek written approval from Fair Work Australia to change its constitution to allow quorum to be determined each morning of the conference.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That a motion be submitted to the 2012 Local Government Association that the Local Government Association in accordance with Clause 66(a) write to Fair Work Australia and seek written approval to change Clause 21 to read:

“The quorum for a Conference shall be fifty (50) percent of delegates and members of the Executive Committee to the Conference plus one (1). The business of a Conference shall not be conducted unless a quorum is present. Quorum shall be determined each morning from the delegates in attendance.”

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Planning Proposal 11/2011 for 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal 11/2011 for 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU4630 - 32380/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This planning proposal seeks to amend the LEP height and floor space controls to enable a tower structure to be considered at the eastern end of the 1-25 Marshall Ave block in order to facilitate a reduced height and floor space controls over the remainder of the block.

 

The planning proposal was placed on public exhibition from 2 May to 26 June 2012 (extended from 12 June 2012). During this exhibition period and in response to a Council resolution of 21 May 2012, a public information evening was also held on 20 June 2012, and attended by approximately 60-70 people.

 

A total of 172 submissions, including a petition of approximately 534 signatures, were received. Key issues related to visual impact and overshadowing and other matters.

 

After reviewing public submissions, it is considered that the exhibited LEP Amendments remain, overall, a preferable position to the existing LEP controls for the subject site and would allow the currently permitted increased density at a transport hub while reducing impacts on surrounding properties.

 

There was a view put by a number of submissions that Council should return to DLEP 2007 controls for height and FSR which is not supported, is outside the scope of this proposal and no longer appears a viable form of development.

 

Having regard to issues raised in this report, a variation to the planning proposal is recommended in relation to the height limit for the eastern most part of the site. This variation seeks to reduce the height for a portion of the site in response to the potential built form.

 

The Planning Proposal publicly exhibited along with the height amendment detailed in this report is supported to proceed back to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting finalisation.

 

Background

 

In October 2011, a planning proposal was submitted to Council for an amendment to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2009 for 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards. The proposal sought to amend the LEP Height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Maps. The site’s current Mixed Use (B4) zoning is not proposed to be changed.

 

At the meeting of 5 December 2011, Council resolved to submit the Planning Proposal 11/2011 for 1-25 Marshall Ave, St Leonards, to the Department of Planning LEP Gateway requesting approval to proceed to exhibition. Accordingly, documentation was submitted to the Department and approval to exhibit the planning proposal was received on 17 April 2012.

 

 

Map 1 - The Site

 

Brief History of the Site and the LEP Process to Date

 

In relation to the subject site, the LEP process to date has included the following:-

·     Draft LEP 2007 exhibited the site with an FSR of 3:1 and heights of 18m and 9.5m. The graduation of heights was to step the development down to Marshall Avenue to improve the interface with low scale dwelling houses to the south.

·     Following submissions by property owners concerned with the financial viability for revitalisation of the locality, DLEP 2008 was exhibited including an FSR of 5:1 and a height of 36m.

·     After exhibition of DLEP 2009, Council resolved to step the height uphill towards the Highway’s commercial zone.

·     LEP 2009 was finalised by the Department with an FSR of 5.1:1 and a height of 36m across the entire block (except a narrow strip of 9.5m flanking Marshall Avenue for height graduation). Following this, the development control plan (DCP) was edited as an interim measure to state that a flexible approach would be taken to proposed developments for the area and parts of the DCP were also deferred.

·     On 6 December 2010, Council resolved to seek a mechanism with the Department to minimise the impact of the Marshall Avenue mixed use area on the low scale dwelling houses to the south.

·     In early 2011, Loftex discussed with Council a proposal to vary the LEP (and the DCP accordingly). Council was of the view that the proposal potentially provided a suitable mechanism to manage development on the site while minimising overshadowing and bulk impacts to other sites in the vicinity and broadly considered it suitable to propose to the Department.

·     The planning proposal was formally lodged with Council by Loftex in October 2011.

 

Planning Proposal – LEP Amendments

 

Height

 

Currently the LEP height limit for the site is 36m (appears as “V” on Map 2 - LEP 2009 Height Map excerpt below) with the exception of a narrow strip along Marshall Avenue, which is 9.5m (“J”).  The proposed amendment to LEP 2009 map involves reducing the height from 36m to 25m (“T”) for approximately two thirds of the site and then increasing the height from 36m to 78m (“AA3”) for the eastern third of the site. See Planning Proposal - Map 3 below.  The narrow 9.5m height band is not proposed to be retained as this strip was designed to minimise height impacts to Marshall Avenue. The current proposal addresses height impacts by reducing the allowable height for most of the site.

 

 

Map 2 – Current LEP 2009 Height Map (excerpt)

 

 

Map 3 – Planning Proposal LEP Height Map Amendment

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

Currently the LEP FSR limit for the site is 5.1:1 (shown as “Z”, see Map 4 - LEP 2009 FSR Map excerpt below). The proposed amendment reduces the FSR for two thirds of the site from 5.1:1 to 2.5:1 (“T3”) and increases the FSR for the eastern most end of the site from 5.1:1 to 10:1 (“AE1”), (see below Map 5 – Planning Proposal LEP FSR Map Amendments).

 

 

It should be noted that the overall FSR for the site (1-25 Marshall Avenue) is not proposed to be increased and is in fact marginally decreased. The current allowable floor space on the site is 32,110 m2 and the allowable floor space under the proposal would be 31,480 m2.

 

 The proposal involves distributing the FSR differently within the block.

 

Map 4 – Current LEP 2009 FSR Map (excerpt)

 

Map 5 – Planning Proposal LEP FSR Map Amendments

 

At its meeting on 5 December 2011, Council resolved to adopt the proposal seeking Gateway approval to exhibit.

 

Permission from the Department to exhibit the Planning Proposal was received on 17 April 2012, shown attached as AT-1.

 

Public Exhibition of the Planning Proposal and Public Information Evening

 

The Planning Proposal was initially to be publicly exhibited from 2 May to 12 June 2012. However, within that time staff decided to extend the exhibition period by 2 weeks to the 26 June 2012 due to extent of community interest in the proposal. Letters were sent to the residential precinct south of the Pacific Highway and to Willoughby and North Sydney Council properties to the north.

 

During this exhibition period and in response to a motion put at the Council meeting of 21 May 2012, a public information evening was held on 20 June 2012. Approximately 60-70 people attended the information evening.

 

The information evening provided the proponent with an opportunity to present the proposal to the public in a detailed format and answer questions. Community groups were also welcome to address the meeting and the St Leonards – North Wollstonecraft Community Association addressed the meeting. Council staff provided technical support.

 

A total of 172 submissions, including a petition of approximately 534 signatures, were received during the exhibition period. A summary of submissions is shown attached as AT-2. Issues included in submissions have been grouped under relevant headings and are addressed below.

 

Discussion

 

A summary of the main issues raised in submissions is included below along with comment in response to each issue.

 

Issue 1

 

Tower (25 storeys – 78m) would massively overshadow single dwellings immediately across the road and south of Marshall Ave in a predominantly single dwelling precinct.

 

Comment

 

The Urban Design Study includes shadow diagrams for the winter solstice for a scheme using the current LEP controls and a scheme using the planning proposal controls.

 

Shadows from an existing compliant scheme would be generally solid and reach the low scale dwellings on the opposite side of Marshall Avenue at 10am with the shadowing increasing throughout the day. Shadows extend down both Holdsworth and Canberra Avenues from 2pm in the afternoon.

 

Shadows generated from the lower height western portion under the planning proposal do not affect the low scale dwellings on the southern side of Marshall Avenue until 2pm as shown attached in AT-3. The shadow cast by a tower element would be long and narrow and move over the residential area to the south relatively quickly with the bulk of the shadow falling on the road and railway line after 2pm.

 

The shadows diagrams provided with the planning proposal show an improvement in terms of overshadowing from the proposed heights compared to shadows cast by a building form allowable under the current LEP. It is recognised that there are numerous built form alternatives, but this was an example of what could be permissible if the LEP remains unchanged.

 


Issue 2

 

The tower is inappropriate in the low density residential side of St Leonards.

 

Comment

 

St Leonards is currently and will be for some time an area in transition. The Lane Cove LEP 2009 includes heights and floor space ratios that have regard to this Council’s Metropolitan Strategy commitments and are designed to encourage the redevelopment of under-developed land near public transport, such as St Leonards station. The block bounded by the Pacific Highway, Berry Road, Marshall Ave and the railway line has been identified for change since the Metropolitan Strategy in 2005 where densities and heights have been proposed to be increased. Although the tower would be across the road from low density residential development, it would be adjacent to 7 storey residential/mixed use development, adjacent to a rail line, and across a laneway from commercial development.

 

Further to the east, north and west of the site are commercial and residential towers varying in height. The St Leonards commercial centre is characterised by tall buildings approximately 10-35 storeys (eg, The Forum, The Abode, IBM Building), many of which are in either Willoughby or North Sydney LGAs. The recent uplift in height and FSR for that part of St Leonards in the Lane Cove LGA reflects a strategic decision required by the Metropolitan Strategy and endorsed by the Department of Planning to facilitate the upgrading of the Lane Cove Council portion of the St Leonards commercial centre.

 

When the subject site is viewed from the south, it predominantly has a backdrop of commercial and residential towers.  If a tower is to be built on the eastern part of the site as envisaged with the planning proposal, visually it would sit within a visual catchment of buildings of a similar scale. From many other areas the view lines to the site would be heavily filtered by the existing tree canopy.

 

The proposed height control is considered however, excessive having regard to the Part 3A proposal in Christie St and previous height considerations for St Leonards.

 

During the Draft LEP process, appropriate heights for St Leonards were considered. A maximum height of 65m was considered to be appropriate for the centre close to the railway line. The planning proposal includes a height of 78m for the eastern end of the site to allow a tower style of development; this is 13m (approximately 4 storeys) more than the recommended LEP building height limit for St Leonards.

 

Having regard to previous considerations for the St Leonards centre, community concern in relation to height, and good planning practice of stepping down from the highest point of a centre (in this case, the proposal at 88 Christie St), a revised height of 65m is considered appropriate for the planning proposal as this site’s ground level is below that of 88 Christie Street. A 65m height maximum would reduce the tower to twenty storeys (with lift overruns etc).

 

The reduced height tower would sit comfortably within a mixed use zone (when fully developed), adjacent to the railway and across the laneway from commercial development and within the broader context of a centre with existing tall buildings and others proposed.

 

Issue 3

 

The tower development is excessive in terms of scale

 


Comment

 

As discussed in the above issue, a revised height for the eastern part of the block is supported by staff. The height limit of 78m indicated in the planning proposal is considered to be excessive in the context of the St Leonards centre and consequently a limit of 65m is now recommended.

 

It is considered that the proposed reduction in height for the planning proposal would reduce the tower to a scale in keeping with the St Leonards centre.

 

Issue 4

 

The Duntroon Ave development is an appropriate scale for the area

 

Comment

 

It is agreed that the Duntroon Avenue development sits well within the local topography and within the current built form of the locality. The Duntroon Avenue development is 5 – 7 storeys in height and the scale, mitigated to some extent by setbacks, varying building materials and stepping of height, is appropriate in the locality.

 

The proposed 25m height for approximately two thirds of the subject site is commensurate with the overall height of the Duntroon Avenue development and is considered a compromise and an improvement on the current LEP height limit of 36m.This Duntroon Avenue scale of up to 7 storeys was strongly supported in a large number of submissions.

 

Issue 5

 

There is no precedent for a 25 storey tower opposite single dwellings anywhere in LGA

 

Comment

 

It is proposed (as above) that this be reduced to 20 storeys, although it may be true that there is no precedent for a tower opposite single dwellings in the LGA, it is also be noted that St Leonards is an area in transition. The LEP 2009 purposefully provided augmented heights and FSRs for many sites in St Leonards to stimulate redevelopment of under-developed land near a public transport hub.

 

The proposed tower would be at the eastern end of the subject site in proximity to the railway line and opposite 3 dwellings on the southern side of Marshall Ave. However, under the proposal, the majority of the dwellings on the southern side of Marshall Ave would be opposite buildings with a maximum height of 7 storeys. Under the current LEP these single dwellings would be opposite 12 storey buildings for the entire length of the block and an amended proposal in the terms recommended is considered a better planning outcome for both the existing and future community of St Leonards.

 

Issue 6

 

The suburban block that comprises Marshall Avenue north with currently 4 single dwellings and 15 semi-detached dwellings is entirely unsuited to a massive development of the type proposed.

 

Comment

 

As noted above, the block has been ear-marked for changed since 2005. The current LEP building height and FSR controls have been in place since February 2010. The site will provide substantially more housing (and possibly commercial development) than currently available in the block in a location close to transport and services and in so doing would support the required State Government policies for increasing residential densities near transport and services.

 

Moreover, many submissions supported the scale of the Duntroon Ave development. Approximately two thirds of the block would be developed at this scale.

 

Issue 7

 

1-25 Marshall Ave is not part of the St Leonards CBD directly facing the Pacific Highway, nor is it part of the high rise area in the Willoughby LGA to the north, or medium rise area to east in Lane Cove LGA

 

Comment

 

As noted above, the block has been identified for changed since 2005 and is part of an area in transition. The alternative of providing 350 dwellings proposed elsewhere in the LGA would result in impacts on local streets further from public transport. This location is highly appropriate for satisfying Lane Cove’s residential target based on sound planning principles.

 

Issue 8

 

Proposed LEP amendment would allow development that will create unacceptable visual impact.

 

Comment

 

At some point in the future, the Marshall Avenue north block will undergo substantial and extensive change whether developed under the current LEP or the current Planning Proposal.

 

As previously discussed, as viewed from the south the tower is almost always in a visual catchment with other towers which provide a context for the development, or is filtered by substantial street tree canopy (see Photos 1 and 2).

 

Photo 1: Looking north towards St Leonards Centre from mid- Marshall Ave

 

 

Photo 2: Looking up Canberra Ave to Pacific Highway from the intersection with Duntroon Ave

 

The section of the site proposed to have a 25m height limit, a height similar to that of Duntroon Avenue, is capable of sitting well within the context. DCP controls such as setbacks and landscaped area assist buildings to fit into the context. Draft DCP controls have been submitted with the planning proposal, however, Council would consider these controls after resolution of the LEP controls.

 

Issue 9

 

Proposed LEP amendment would allow development that will create unacceptable noise.

 

Comment

 

Noise during construction is controlled by Council conditions of consent. Noise after construction, during the life of the development, is unlikely to be intrusive and in keeping with noise from any mixed use development. Moreover, the background noise in an urban area such as St Leonards is likely to be higher than in a suburban area without noise sources such as the Pacific Highway or railway line and thus any impact is likely to be relatively lower.

 

Issue 10

 

Proposed LEP amendment would allow development that will create unacceptable parking & traffic impacts in an area where it is extremely difficult to park or enter & exit in peak times

 

Comment

 

The planning proposal does not seek to alter the overall allowable floor space for the subject site. Accordingly, traffic and parking generated by a development under the current LEP or subject planning proposal is likely to remain the same.

 

Traffic access points are limited to the residential area to the south of Marshall Avenue. This is an existing situation. Any development application would need to carefully assess traffic and parking impacts and mitigating measures.

 


Issue 11

 

Proposed LEP would allow development that would be likely to badly impact or kill the avenue of historic trees on Marshall Avenue because it would deprive the trees of water and for all of the day shadow the trees from sunlight.

 

Comment

 

Any impacts on trees in Marshall Avenue would be assessed at the development application stage. Significant areas of hardstand area already exist to the north of the trees along with dwellings at a higher level than the trees. Any development application for a proposed residential flat building would be required to sympathetically retain existing trees and provide technical reports, such as an arborist’s assessment, and meet requirements such as deep soil controls which assist in protecting existing vegetation.

 

It is noted that the mature trees along Marshall Ave add to the streetscape appeal and landscaped appearance of the locality and should be protected. Council’s Trees Officer undertook a preliminary site inspection and is of the opinion that an entry point from Marshall Ave to any development of the subject block could be provided without significant impact on the existing mature trees.

 

Issue 12

 

The proposed LEP amendment would allow development that would be entirely inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 65 – Design of Quality Residential Flat Development, regarding urban design and environmental amenity.

 

Comment

 

It is premature to consider any development’s consistency or otherwise with SEPP 65. SEPP 65 is a tool used in the design and assessment of residential flat buildings at the development application stage.  Council has taken a firm stance when considering the internal amenity of residential unit developments.  SEPP 65 is a well regarded tool that seeks to promote the highest standards of internal amenity for multi unit housing and is fully supported by Council.

 

Issue 13

 

Impact of the tower on views from The Forum

 

Comment

 

Over time, views from The Forum will reflect the changing skyline of St Leonards. It is unlikely that a tower on the eastern end of the subject site would have unreasonable impacts on open views from The Forum.

 

Issue 14

 

Impact on Newlands Park from shadows from the tower and traffic generated by the development. Views of the tower from the park.

 

Comment

 

Any shadow impacts on Newlands Park are likely to be negligible (see AT3). Similarly, the impact on views from the park northward is likely to be reasonable given the existing tree canopy, distance from the subject site and backdrop of other tall buildings.

 

As previously discussed, traffic generated by the planning proposal would be the same as traffic generated by development under the current LEP given that the gross floor area of the subject site remains the same.

 

Issue 15

 

Public hearing demanded.

 

Comment

 

Public hearings are usually undertaken to discuss technical local government issues, such as the reclassification of Council land from community to operational. A public hearing is unlikely to provide additional information to assist in the consideration of planning issues for the subject planning proposal.

 

Summary

 

After reviewing and analysing the submissions, and assessing the planning proposal in light of these submissions, it is considered that the planning proposal should be recommended for gazettal, subject to the height variation outlined below.

 

Improved Built Outcome

 

The proposal’s built form outcome is likely to be an improvement upon the outcome under the current LEP in relation to shadows and visual impact. Moreover, a tower is a supportable solution to a transition zone block, given other towers form part of a visual “back drop” when the site is viewed from the south and south-west.

 

Matching the Duntroon Ave Scale

 

The majority of the site, as proposed, would comprise a scale commensurate with the Duntroon Ave development which is compatible with the locality. At this western end, the proposed height of 7 storeys would be in keeping with the existing medical centre which is also 7 storeys.

 

Tower Height to Fit in with St Leonards Centre

 

It is considered that the proposed height for the eastern end of the site should be reduced. There are no supportive/compelling reasons to match the height of the Christie St proposal and exceed that 65m height limit which was considered to be acceptable for the area during the formulation of the LEP 2009.

 

This scale of building is considered to be appropriate clustered around an existing commercial hub where other buildings in the vicinity are 18-35 storeys. These buildings form the visual catchment for the eastern end of the site. At the western end, 7 storeys are considered more compatible than 12 storeys with the 7 storey medical centre at 66 Pacific Highway and the adjoining residential scale to the south.

 

It is also important to note that open views to the tower from the south are not readily available from the public domain, given the topography, street pattern and mature trees. Views of the tower from the north are less important given that the tower would sit clearly within the St Leonard’s Centre context as viewed from the north.

 

Plaza Over Railway

 

Council have formulated a design for a plaza over the railway at St Leonards. Meetings have been held with several NSW Government Departments, the NSW Government Minister for Transport, NSROC and surrounding Councils in relation to the concept design. All of the above would not compromise or interfere with Council’s support for the Plaza concept design.

 

Planning Principles

 

The proposal supports the planning principle of increasing residential densities near transport hubs. Lane Cove LGA has a target of 3900 additional dwellings to be built within the lifespan of the LEP. The LEP supports the principle of integrated landuse and transport planning.  If dwellings are not to be provided at this location another location would need to be found for the provision of additional dwellings, undoubtedly in more distant parts of the LGA impacting further on local streets where public transport availability would be lower.

 

The increase of residential density in and around the St Leonards CBD and rail station is not only a requirement of the current State Government but is also good planning.

 

Conclusion

 

The planning proposal, subject to reduction of the height of the eastern portion of the site, is supported as:-

·     It is considered the visual impact would be a better outcome for existing and future residents. Any tower development at the eastern end of the site would sit within a visual catchment containing other towers of a similar or greater height.  The majority of the site would be developed to a scale commensurate with Duntroon Ave which is recognised in submissions to be a suitable scale for the locality;

·     The shadow impact of the development under the amended LEP is likely to be an improvement to the current LEP. Shadows cast to low density residential properties to the south by a combination of 7-8 storeys buildings at the western end, and a 20 storey building at the eastern end, are an improvement over the shadows cast by 12 storey buildings along the entire site; and

·     The traffic impact is neutral under the planning proposal. As the total floor space allowable for the site remains the same under the current LEP or the planning proposal, traffic generated by either scenario would be the same.

 

It is not considered realistic to revisit the DLEP 2007 given that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure did not accept that stepped form and scale when finalising LEP 2009. 

 

Council is requested to adopt the exhibited Planning Proposal for finalisation by the Department.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council adopt the exhibited amendments to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 relating to 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards, subject to the following change:-

a.    The proposed building height map show the height of the eastern portion reduced from 78m to 65m.

2.   The Department of Planning & Infrastructure be requested to finalise the Planning Proposal LEP Amendments.

3.   Development Control Plan amendments be prepared in an appropriate timeframe supporting the finalisation of the LEP amendments for the subject site.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Department of Planning & Infrastructure - Gateway Approval to Exhibit April 2012

3 Pages

AT‑2 View

Submissions Summary

7 Pages

AT‑3 View

Shadow Analysis of Planning Proposal - from GMU Urban Design Report October 2011

1 Page

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA10/281-01 - 32489/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                     3 Second Ave, Lane Cove.    

DA No:                         D281/2010 (Section 82A Review of determination).

Amended plans           Drawing numbers A-01G, A-02H and A-05H Revision H dated 23/06/12     

Date Lodged:              30 January 2012

Cost of Work:              $8,000

Owner:                                    E Zadeh

Applicant:                    E Zadeh          

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 82A review of determination for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

ZONE

R2 - Low Density Residential under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

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, 10a & 10b.

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                 1, 2, 5, 7& 9 Second Ave, 14, 16 & 19 Panorama Road & 46, 48 & 50 Osborne Road.

Ward Councillors       Clr Tudge, Clr Palmer, Clr Brooks-Horn & Clr Gaffney      

Progress Association Osborne Park Residents Assoc.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This Section 82A review of determination of the development application has been called to Council by Councillor Brooks-Horn.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     The application was deferred twice due to a call for further information and to undertake a site inspection.

 

·     The application is now presented for determination as issue H as further amendments have been proposed by the applicant to address perceived concerns and reasons for refusal of the original application.

 

·     An application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires Council to review the original determination along with any proposed amendments that seeks to ameliorate or address stated reasons of refusal.

 

·     The current application is a Section 82A review of determination of the refusal of a development application for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

 

·     The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 13.74m to Second Avenue and has an area of 954.8m².  The property has a steep embankment at the street alignment and no onsite parking or driveway.

 

·     One submission was received raising concerns with regard to privacy, outlook, setbacks, street character, excavation, no geotechnical report, development cost and suggests that the proposal should be a new application.

 

·     A number of amendments have been submitted which address some of the reasons for refusal. However the proposal does not comply with all the requirements of the DCP with regard to excavation, building line and streetscape.

 

·     The applicant suggests that the proposal would result in a more satisfactory outcome in relation to access to the dwelling house from the new garage taking into consideration his current & future mobility needs.

 

·     Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed garage would provide a more convenient access to the dwelling house, there would still be 25 steps from the garage floor level to the dwelling house floor level. The proposed development would not provide disabled access to the existing dwelling house.  

 

·     The proposal is not supported.

 

·     Council is requested to review the following report and determine the application with the following options:-

Option 1:     Council reaffirms the decision and refuse the review of determination for reasons stated in the report.

Option 2:     Council approve the application, as amended by issue H, subject to draft conditions provided in the report.

 

SITE 

 

The site is located on the western side of Second Avenue. The site and Council’s verge share an embankment parallel to the street which causes the land to rise very steeply from the street for the first 3m and then slope moderately upwards and towards the rear of the property.  Towards the north and south there are existing brick dwelling houses.  The Notification Plan AT-1, the Arial View AT-2 and the Plans AT-3 under consideration (Revision H dated 23/06/12) are attached.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant has requested Council to review it’s determination of refusal of the development application for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

 

During the review process, the applicant made a number of amendments to the proposal. The proposed development, as per the amended drawings indicated Revision H dated 23/06/12, is as follows:-

 

·     Demolish existing steps towards the south of the site.

·     Construct a 3.0m wide driveway from the road to the proposed two car double height garage and a turning area.

·     The extent of excavation required to construct the driveway would vary from a maximum depth of 2.7m to 1.8m calculated on the basis of the survey levels.

·     Construct a two car double height garage with FFL 54.400 and a mezzanine walkway with FFL 57.000 towards the south of the garage. The garage would have a low pitched metal roof. The internal height of the double height portion of the garage would be approximately 4.7m.

·     The garage has one large east facing window. It has two full height south facing windows and a south facing door above the mezzanine walkway.

·     There are two additional south facing windows to the dwelling house verandah.

·     The extent of excavation required to construct the garage would vary from a maximum depth of approximately 2.8m to 1.5m calculated on the basis of the survey levels.

·     The width of the north facing garage door would be 5.68m.

·     The garage would have an internal stair leading up to the mezzanine walkway above.

·     The southern side boundary setback for the lower portion of the garage (below the mezzanine walkway would be 1200mm and the upper portion of the garage (above the mezzanine walkway) would be 2330mm

·     Stairs leading from the street level to the garage mezzanine walkway. Excavation would be required for the stairs.

·     The existing verandah would be enclosed with a wall towards the south and would have an inclined flat roof.

 

The proposed driveway gradient meets Australian Standards and it provides the required setback for the trees towards the north.

 

The applicant submitted additional information including plans and photographs of 17 Panorama Road as an example of a steep driveway and significant excavation.

 

The applicant also submitted a copy of his Mobility Parking Scheme Card issued by the Roads & Traffic Authority, to indicate his physical disability.  

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS / HISTORY

 

DA119/2008 -         Construction of a double garage and formation of layback, concrete stairs, path and retaining walls which was approved.  This consent is valid till 10 June 2013. The proposed works have not commenced.

 

DA281/2010 –        Construction of a driveway to the existing dwelling house. This driveway was to be located to the south of the approved garage which has not been constructed. This application was refused by Council under delegated authority for the following reasons:-

 

·     The construction of the large steep driveway across the whole of the street frontage encroaching approximately 2.4m onto Council property is considered undesirable and would adversely impact on the streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

·     The proposed excavation works for the driveway near the northern boundary would result in extensive damage to three trees in the neighbour’s property.

·     The driveway crossover is partly outside No.5 Second Avenue which is considered to be undesirable.

·     The gradient of the driveway does not comply with the Australian Standard (AS2890).

·     The proposed driveway requires removal of part or all of the crib block wall and the plans do not clearly and accurately show the extent of the wall that must be removed and how it will be replaced. 

Note:  The owner of No.5 Second Avenue advises that the crib-block walls cannot be cut off but must be reconstructed with the appropriate end or corner units which would involve excavation work well inside his property which he would not allow.

·     A topographic survey has not been submitted with the development application showing exactly the criblock wall in relation to the works and how the disturbance to the wall can be managed without affecting No.5 Second Avenue.  Further accurate cross sections are not shown through the wall.

·     As the proposed driveway requires significant excavation into the existing rock shelf, certification and design from a suitable geotechnical engineer of the proposed excavation has not been submitted to ensure the proposal is achievable and no damage to adjoining properties will occur.

·     The pedestrian entry stairs are not shown on the front elevation.

            Note:  Any further applications submitted for this property must have a realistic cost of proposal.

 

PROPOSAL DATA / POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 - Low Density Residential

Site Area:       954.8m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.17:1 (159.4 m²)

0.5

Yes

Height of Buildings

5m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part C - Residential Development

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Streetscape Objective

A double height garage in front of the existing dwelling house.

Ensure garages / carports & driveways do not dominate dwelling or streetscape.

No – The proposed double height garage and driveway would dominates the dwelling

Front setback (min)

7.7-7.8m

Consistent with the prevailing setback or 7.5m where there is no predominant setback.

No-not consistent with the established setback line.

Side setback (min)

1.2m/2.33m southern & 5.8m northern

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

N/a

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

NA

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

3.7m garage door side above NGL

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

5.8 gable apex

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1m

1.5m

Yes

Number of Storeys (max)

1 + mezzanine

2

Yes

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

610m² approx or 64%

35%

Yes

Cut and Fill      (max)

Maximum depth of 2.7m to 1.8m to construct driveway.

Maximum depth of approximately 2.8m to 1.5m to construct the garage.

1m  (more permitted for sloping sites)

No – sloping site, however considered excessive.

Solar Access

3 hrs

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Provide for view sharing

NA

NA

NA

Heritage Conservation

NA

NA

NA

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

NA

3m

NA

Private open space

>24 m²

>4m depth

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

NA

NA

NA

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2 per dwelling

Yes

Driveway width

3m

3m at the lot boundary

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Rural Fire Service    

 

The application was referred to Rural Fire Service who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to draft conditions which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Engineer who has advised that an on-site detention system would be required. The proposed excavation has been supported in a report by R & S Consulting Engineers. Draft conditions with regard to excavation and proposed driveway have been provided which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 


Manager Parks

 

The application was referred to Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to draft conditions which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

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

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with development consent from Council.

 

The objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone is as follows:-

 

To ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.”

 

The proposal involves significant scarring and excavation into the embankment of Council property and of the front garden area of 3 Second Avenue. The driveway, stairs and retaining structures would be the major elements in the appearance of the proposal and the existing landscaping would be significantly compromised.    

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated Land

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 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, it is considered that contamination of the site is unlikely. 

 

Any concern with regard to removal, handling and disposal of asbestos has been addressed by draft condition (see draft condition 22).

 

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 in addition to other non compliances with objectives and provisions.

 

Development Control Plan 2009 - Part C Residential Development

 

Streetscape

 

·      The objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.1 is as follows:-

“Ensure new dwellings and alterations & additions to existing dwellings are well designed and compatible with the surrounding context and enhance the streetscape within the area.”

Comment

It is considered that the extensive excavation and retaining walls to the front building setback area to provide a two car double height garage is not compatible with the surrounding context and would not enhance the streetscape.  

       

·            The streetscape objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.2 is as follows:-

“Achieve development of a scale and appearance which is in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character.”

Comment

The existing streetscape is of garages excavated into the front of properties within steep embankments and dwellings set well back from the street. Driveways exist where the topography allows. It is considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the streetscape for this section of Second Avenue.  Council has already approved a double garage on the subject site the consent for which remains valid.

“Ensure the existing landscape character of the area is maintained and enhanced.”

Comment

It is considered the excavation and retaining required for the proposal would not maintain or enhance the landscape character of the area. The landscape character would change to that of hard paved driveway, stairs and retaining structures.

 

“Ensure the existing topography of the site is reinforced by dwelling design.”

Comment

This section of Second Avenue is affected by steep grades up to 1:3. The subject site is more constrained than 1, 5 & 7 Second Avenue and the next adjoining property at 19 Panorama Road.  The proposal does not reinforce the existing topography of the site. The proposal would cut into and alter the topography of the site.  The two car double height garage would be excavated up to a maximum of 2.8m below ground in addition to the retaining walls and structures for the driveway. 

The applicant submitted pictures of the driveway and garage to 17 Panorama Road to support his proposal. However the difference in the two properties is that the contours at 17 Panorama Road are not as unfavourable and the garage is excavated under the house within the building footprint of the existing building unlike the proposed extension projecting towards the front of the house and within the front setback. The applicant states that this dwelling was constructed 25 years ago, it should be noted that at that time, controls were less comprehensive than as is the case today.       

 

“Ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or Streetscape.”

Comment

It is considered the appearance of the driveway, two car double height garage, and stairs would dominate the streetscape. The current proposal is out of character for this part of the street.

 

Setback

 

·     The setback objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.3 is as follows:-

“Maintain the predominant street setback.

To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors through landscaping within front and rear gardens and side boundaries.”


Comment

The proposal is for an extension to the front of the dwelling house containing a two car double height garage, mezzanine and entry. This extension does not maintain the predominant street setback or the established building line set by the adjoining dwellings.

The proposed extension towards the front of the existing dwelling house would not maintain the vegetation corridors through landscaping within the front.

·     The front setback provision indicated in subclause 1.3.1 is as follows:-

“The front setback of the building shall be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street. Where there is no predominant setback within the street, the setback should be a minimum of 7.5m. Irregular sites may be considered on their merits.”

“In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are awnings, balconies, blade walls, bay windows and other articulation elements up to a maximum of 500mm.”

Comment

This part of Second Avenue has an established predominant street setback and the proposed extension to the house to contain the two car double height garage, mezzanine & entry would encroach over 7m into the setback zone. (See Attachment 2)

 

Cut and Fill

 

·     The cut and fill objective indicated in clause 1.6 is as follows:-

“Retain the natural ground levels as much as possible of a site and its existing landforms particularly in relation to the street or adjacent private open space areas.

To achieve reasonable landscaping within development.

To minimise the extent of cut and fill and its impact along side boundaries.

To create a consistent relationship between the dwelling and the street.

To ensure that excavation and filling of a site does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings.

To minimise change to water run-off patterns.”

Comment

The proposal would not retain the natural ground levels or existing landforms within the front setback although it is noted sufficient landscaping is available over the entire site. Substantial cut adjacent to side boundaries would be required for the two car double height garage and driveway levels and the proposal would result in visual amenity impacts to the adjoining dwelling at 5 Second Ave.  

·     Cut and fill provision is as follows:-

“Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation.”


Comment

The proposal is not considered to relate to the existing topography. The areas for excavation are not contained within the building footprint. The proposed maximum depth of approximately 2.8m of excavation exceeds Council’s standard 1m requirement and due to the impacts created, it is not considered reasonable.   

 

Building Design

·   The objectives of building design are to ensure alterations and additions reinforce the typical bulk and scale of existing dwellings within the street and the area, maintain the integrity of the design and style of the existing building, ensure elevations to the street and public domain are well proportioned and designed and minimise impact in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, light spillage to adjoining properties, loss of views and amenity.

Comment

It is considered the proposal is an inappropriate design solution to the requirement to provide car parking to the site. Extensive cut is required to the site to provide a two car double height garage to the existing dwelling house.

·     Amenity

Comment

It is considered the proposed two car double height garage extension will create some amenity impacts to the adjoining owner to the south. The neighbours do utilise the front verandah of their house and front garden area for passive recreation. The extension, projecting into the front setback would impact upon visual amenity of the neighbour towards the south.  The southern elevation consists of large windows and a door, as such privacy would be impacted.       

·     Car Parking

Comment

Currently the dwelling has no on-site car parking.  However, there is a consent for a double garage on the property at the street alignment.

The current proposal before Council is for a two car double height garage. There is no need or requirement for the garage to be double height.

 

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

 

One submission was received in response to the notification of the development application. The amended plans altered the proposal to an extent and as the modifications addressed Council requirements the amendments were not renotified.  The last set of amended plans, Revision H were forwarded to the resident of the adjoining dwelling house towards the south. The issues raised in the submissions from the adjoining owner to the south (5 Second Avenue) are as follows:-

 

·     Proposed garage & structures differ greatly from previous applications and should not be considered a review of determination rather a new development application.


Comment

Whilst it is agreed that numerous changes have been made to the original proposal, it is possible to submit amended plans in a Section 82A review as long as the development is substantially the same development. The current proposal is still a driveway and an attached garage and so the proposal is still considered substantially the same development.  

 

·     Proposed upper foyer/entry structure extends 3.2-4.3m above ground level, will cause overshadowing and outlook from front porch in conflict with Section 1.3.1 of DCP, regarding setbacks and character of street.

Comment

The impact of overshadowing is considered reasonable. The southern side setback has been increased in the revision H plans. It is agreed that the proposal would impact upon the visual amenity of the adjoining property and the streetscape.  These issues have already been addressed within this report.

 

·     Entry structure glazing/windows is unattractive and would create privacy impacts.

Comment

It is agreed that the proposal contains significant glazed areas on the southern elevation with associated privacy impacts which has been addressed by a draft condition (See draft condition 2).

 

·     No geotechnical report submitted.

Comment

A report from a Structural Engineer has been submitted by the applicant. Council’s Development Engineer has considered this report adequate to determine the application.

 

·     Excavation 3m in depth 2m from (No.5) house in excess of Development Control Plan 2010 guidelines and possibly unstable.  

Comment

It is agreed that the proposal does not comply with Council’s Development Control Plan in relation to excavation. With regard to stability, the structural Engineers report has required a further Geotechnical report to be submitted so as not to impede on the neighbouring property (See draft condition 3).    

 

·     Plans make no reference to other retaining walls or batter slopes next to driveway and pedestrian steps. Plans are diagrammatic and downplay the bulk & scale of earthworks.

Comment

It is considered that the plans do not fully indicate earthworks and comprehensive details of retaining walls. Batter slopes have not been provided at this stage. In the event the proposal went ahead details of all retaining walls would be required (See draft condition 4).  

·     Crib retaining wall

Comment

While the applicant has verbally indicated in a site inspection that crib wall would be “retained and landscaped” portion of this structure would have to be removed to provide access to the proposed driveway and stairs.  In the event the proposal went ahead details would be required (See draft condition 4).    

 

·     Cost of the  proposed development is unrealistic and  incorrect

Comment

It is agreed that the applicant has underestimated the cost of the proposed development. In the event that the Council was to approve the application, the applicant would be required to provide a registered Quantity Surveyor’s estimate and pay Council the balance of the DA fee as a condition of consent (See draft condition 5).  

 

·     The amended plans do not demonstrate the relative position of the proposed construction to the adjoining properties.

 

Comment

 

The setback to the side boundaries have been indicated in the plans.

 

·     The height poles demonstrate the impact on streetscape and the adjoining building.

 

Comment

 

The objective of the height poles is to understand the size and extent of the proposed development.

 

·     Shoring system would be required for the extent of excavation.

 

Comment

 

Shoring details would be required prior to issue of construction certificate (see draft condition 18)

 

Conclusion

 

The amended proposal has been considered in relation to section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Development Control Plan 2009 and the proposal cannot be supported for a number of reasons including non compliance with Council’s LEP 2009 and Development Control Plan 2009.

 

In relation to access, whilst the garage as proposed would improve convenience to the dwelling, the proposal would still involve 25 steps and is not considered accessible for people with mobility needs.  Further, it is considered that the construction works above ground (as proposed) on Council’s property, sets an undesirable precedent and should not be supported.

 

If Council determines that it wishes to approve the application, the following draft conditions would be appropriate:-

1.       (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number A-01G, A-02H and A-05H Revision H dated 23/06/12  by Ezzat Zadeh except as amended by the following conditions.

2.       All south facing windows to the proposed addition shall be obscure up to the height of 1700mm above the finished floor level prior to issue of construction certificate.

3.       Provision of a geotechnical report in accordance with the recommendation of the submitted structural engineer’s report prior to issue of construction certificate.

4.       Plans to fully indicate earthworks, all retaining walls details including batter slopes and crib wall  prior to issue of construction certificate.

5.       Provide a registered Quantity Surveyor’s estimate for the cost of works and pay Council the balance of the DA fee prior to issue of construction certificate.  

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

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

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

9.       (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.

10.     (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 $20,000.

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

Monday to Friday (inclusive)                7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                              7.00am to 4.00pm

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

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

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

14.     (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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a)      The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete;

b)      All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete;

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

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

e)      Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering;

f)       Waterproofing of wet areas;

g)      Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling; and

h)      Completion.

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

a)      underpinning;

b)      retaining walls;

c)      footings;

d)      reinforced concrete work;

e)      structural steelwork;

f)       floor and roof framing; and

g)      shoring details

19.     (58) Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted certifying that existing building is capable of carrying the additional loads.  Such Certificate being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

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

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

a)      Dampcourse level;

b)      The establishment of the floor level;

c)      The roof framing; and

d)      The completion of works.

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

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

23.     (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.

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

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

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


Rural Fire Service Conditions

27.     Asset Protection Zones

          The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following condition shall apply:

(a)     At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of “Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006” and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document “Standards for asset protection zones”.

28.     Design and Construction

The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

(a)   New construction on the eastern elevation(s) shall comply with section 6 (BAL 19) Australian Standard AS3959−2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire−prone areas' and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

(b)   New construction on the northern and southern elevations shall comply with section 5 (BAL 12.5)Australian Standard AS3959−2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire−prone areas' and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

(c)   The existing building is required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non−corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. Where applicable, this includes any sub floor areas, openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.

Tree Conditions

29.     (300)  Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area. Clause 5.9(3) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 [the "LEP"], states that a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by development consent or a permit granted by the Council. Removal of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,00 or a penalty infringement notice can be issued in respect of the offence, the prescribed penalty being $1,500.00 for an individual and $3,000.00 for a corporation.  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of trees in the urban environment and protection of the bushland character of the Municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

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

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

32.     (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 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

General Engineering Conditions

33.     (A1) Design and Construction Standards:  All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant development control plans except as amended by other conditions.

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

35.     (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property.  This shall include vehicular crossings, footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the start of any works on Council property.

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

37.     (A5) Restoration: Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed Council land is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

38.     (A6) Public Utility Relocation: If any public services are to be adjusted, as a result of the development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected services. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

39.     (A7) Pedestrian Access Maintained: Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS-1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

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

41.     (A9) Services: Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the applicant.

Engineering Conditions to be Complied with Prior to Construction Certificate

42.     (S2) Stormwater Requirement: The stormwater runoff from the new and altered impervious areas within the development shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. The existing stormwater system is to be certified that it is in good working order and meets the requirements set out in Council’s DCP-Stormwater management. The certification is to be carried out by a fully licensed and insured plumber or a suitably qualified engineer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

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

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

43.     (D1) Excavation Greater Than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within 5 meters of the proposed excavation.

The applicant shall:-

(a)     seek independent advice from a suitably qualified engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties

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

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

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

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

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

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

44.     (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

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

46.     (A10) Boundary Levels: The levels of the street alignment shall be obtained from Council. These levels are to be incorporated into the design of the internal pavements, car parking, landscaping and stormwater drainage plans and shall be obtained prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

47.     (V4) Car Parking Certification: The plans and supporting calculations of the internal driveway, turning areas, ramps, garage opening widths, parking space dimensions and any associated vehicular manoeuvring facilities shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. 

The plans shall be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with AS 2890 Series and Council's standards and specifications. The design and certification shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.  

48.     (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $2000.00 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.

49.     (C1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Fourth Edition 2004 Volume 1’’ prepared by LANDCOM. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority to prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Engineering Condition to be Complied with Prior to Commencement of Construction

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

Engineering Condition to be Complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate

51.     (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. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D281/2010, refused on 4 April 2011 for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage on lot 22 DP19003 and known as 3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove, Council reaffirm its decision and refuse the review of determination application for the following reasons:-

1.       The proposal does not meet Lane Cove LEP 2009 objective which requires that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

2.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan, which requires that alterations & additions to existing dwellings are well designed and compatible with the surrounding context and enhance the streetscape within the area.

3.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan, which requires that the scale and appearance should be in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character; ensure the existing landscape character of the area is maintained and enhanced; ensure the existing topography of the site is reinforced by dwelling design; ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or streetscape.

4.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal does not maintain the predominant street setback line and encroaches into that predominant setback by up to 7m.

5.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan with regard to cut and fill as the proposal will not retain natural ground levels or existing landforms and substantial cut over 1m adjacent to side boundaries will be required for the garage and driveway levels.

6.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal is an inappropriate design solution to meet the onsite car parking requirement.

7.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal would impact upon the visual amenity of the adjoining dwelling to the south.  

8.       The proposed development would not provide disabled access to the existing dwelling house as there would still be 25 steps from the garage floor level to the dwelling house floor level.  

9.       The proposed development is not in public interest and would set an undesirable precedent.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Notification Plan

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

Aerial View of Property

1 Page

AT‑3 View

Current Plans Revision H

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips

 

 

Subject:          Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips    

Record No:    SU4070 - 34251/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

There is a need for a policy to set out the standards for planting or landscaping of nature strips in order to maintain an overall consistency and appearance of the nature strips so that they are kept in a safe, clean, healthy and attractive condition.

On this basis, the Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips has been developed for Council consideration and to be placed on public exhibition.

Background

Council resolved at its meeting of 16 April 2012 that a policy on the planting/landscaping of nature strips be developed. This was in response to the planting of trees and hedge plants outside a property in Greenwich Rd.

Council wishes to maintain an overall consistency and appearance of nature strips. Council is concerned about alienation of public land, where public land including nature strips is being made to look like private land and/or used for private purpose. Other matters for consideration regarding planting on nature strips include the effect on access to kerbside parking, the effect on access to adjacent properties, the effect on access along the street to the general public and public liability issues.

Discussion

In response to the above, the Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips has been prepared, attached as AT-1. The draft policy sets out those nature strip areas that Council will maintain and those areas expected to be maintained by owners / residents of adjacent properties.

The policy endorses the current typical style of nature strip in Lane Cove, predominantly grass verges next to the kerbside with street trees to Council’s specifications and the option of low soft planting in front of the fences, keeping the footpath and kerbside free from obstruction. It also provides criteria for the maintenance of other existing nature strip vegetation and for any proposed replanting of nature strips with garden plants to replace grass verges.

Community Consultation

Prior to adopting this policy it is appropriate Council undertake community consultation in relation to the Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips.

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to determine if there are any comments on the draft policy. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether to proceed with the policy and make any changes to the draft policy.


Method

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and Community Groups

Progress Associations, Sustainability Advisory Committee, and Bushland Management Committee

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, eNewsletter and Press Release

Fact Sheet

 

Public and

Website Exhibition and Survey

Indicative Timing

August – September 2012

August – September 2012

August – September 2012

Conclusion

The Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips will be exhibited for a period of 6 weeks and following this time a report will be submitted to Council on the results of the community consultation, prior to adoption of the Policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.         Endorse the Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips dated 18 July 2012 for the purpose of public exhibition.

2.         Place the Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report.

3.         Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Policy for the Planting / Landscaping of Nature Strips

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

LEP Amendment: 1-5 Birdwood Avenue (Lane Cove Club)

 

 

Subject:          LEP Amendment: 1-5 Birdwood Avenue (Lane Cove Club)    

Record No:    SU4470 - 33746/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report relates to a planning proposal to apply the floor space ratio of FSR 2.5:1 to the Lane Cove Club site at 1-5 Birdwood Avenue under the Local Environmental Plan 2009.  This is Planning Proposal 2/2011 under the LEP Review.  In March 2012, The Department of Planning requested Council to re-exhibited the planning proposal as the resolution had made an amendment from the exhibited proposal. No government departments were required to be notified. A copy of the Gateway letter is attached at AT-2.

Exhibition of the proposal was held from 2 May to 26 June 2012, with two submissions received. The submissions have been circulated to Councillors electronically.  The re-exhibition is understood to be a technical requirement only, to confirm Council’s resolution from October 2011 for FSR 2.5:1, as the resolution made an amendment from the FSR 3:1 exhibited in mid-2011.

Council is requested to adopt once again the FSR of 2.5:1, as providing a mid-range scale between the former FSR 3:1, applied in the 1990s, and the FSR 2.1:1 gazetted by the Department in February 2010.

Background

Nos. 1-5 Birdwood Avenue has an area of approximately 2,023m2 and is occupied by the Lane Cove Club and its carpark over two lots. The site is zoned Local Centre B2 under the Local Environmental Plan 2009. The Local Centre B2 Zone permits for the Village as a whole, except for this site, FSR 2:1 for commercial/ retail, and 2.5:1 if a shoptop housing component is included.

The background to this planning proposal is as follows:-

·      From 1994 to 2010 - FSR 3:1 applied to the site under the Business Zones DCP.

·      February 2010 - A reduced FSR 2.1:1 was gazetted by the Department under the new LEP 2009. This is the only property within the business zone to which this FSR applies, and was possibly a mapping error during notification (gazettal) stage.

·      July-August 2011 - The first exhibition was held, proposing to reinstate the former FSR 3:1, to return to the scale under the previous long-standing policy.

·      4 October 2011 - Council considered submissions received both in favour of the higher and of the lower FSR’s, and resolved to adopt a mid-range scale of FSR 2.5:1. The revised planning proposal and maps were submitted to the Department on 23 December 2011. A copy of the planning proposal is attached at AT-1.

·      March 2012 - The Department’s Gateway endorsed FSR 2.5:1, requiring the proposal to be re-exhibited as the resolution had made an amendment from the exhibited proposal. No government departments were required to be notified. A copy of the Gateway letter is attached at AT-2.

·      2 May to 26 June 2012 - The second exhibition was held. The adjoining properties and all those who had made submissions on the first exhibition were advised in writing of the second exhibition, in addition to the website and newspaper advertisement. Two submissions were received during the second exhibition.


Discussion

The re-exhibition is understood to be a technical requirement only, as indicated by the Department’s requirement to exhibit for only fourteen days, although the full exhibition period was held under Council’s consultation policy.

Of the two submissions received, one supported a greater FSR, on the grounds of the site’s location close to shops and transport and to provide increased customers for the centre’s shops. The second submission referred to detailed design requirements under the DCP, which are not relevant to this FSR proposal.

Conclusion

Council’s proposed FSR 2.5:1 provides a middle-level scale between the FSR 2.1:1 gazetted in 2010 and the former FSR 3:1, and aims to be consistent within the Town Centre and to encourage viable redevelopment of the site.  The re-exhibition is understood to be a technical requirement only. Consultation was conducted in accordance with the Department’s requirement and Council’s Consultation Policy.  The planning proposal for FSR 2.5:1 to apply to 1-5 Birdwood Avenue is supported, as confirming Council’s resolution of 4 October 2011.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Revised Planning Proposal 2/2011 for 1-5 Birdwood Avenue, permitting a floor space ratio of a maximum of FSR 2.5:1, be submitted to the Department as exhibited, seeking notification as an  LEP amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Revised Planning Proposal for Second Exhibition

7 Pages

AT‑2 View

Gateway Approval Letter for Second Exhibition

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

LEP Amendment - Subdivision of Roads

 

 

Subject:          LEP Amendment - Subdivision of Roads    

Record No:    SU4467 - 33999/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

This purpose of this planning proposal is to permit subdivisions for road closures to become exempt development under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2009). A copy of the planning proposal is attached at AT-1.

The proposal would remove the requirement for Council to prepare a development application when subdividing a portion of road.  The aim is to avoid duplication of Council resources, as road closures require both (a) public consultation under the Roads Act 1993, and (b) planning assessment under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act prior to a subdivision certificate being issued.  The proposal was exhibited in accordance with Council’s Policy with no submissions being made.

Council is requested to approve the LEP planning proposal as exhibited for submission to the Department for finalisation.

Background

The planning proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure on 24 August 2011. On 25 October the Department requested additional information on its purpose and process, and a copy of Council’s response of 9 November is attached at AT-2.

The Gateway approval to exhibit the draft proposal was received on 5 March 2012. A copy of the Gateway letter is attached at AT-3. It included a requirement to consult with the NSW Roads & Maritime Services providing twenty-one days consultation period. The RMS did not make any comment on the proposal.

The planning proposal was then exhibited from 9 May to 19 June 2012. No public submissions were received on the proposal.

Discussion

Gateway Requirements

The requirements of the Department’s LEP Gateway were as follows:-

(i)      Prior to public exhibition, Council was “to confirm that Exempt Development to permit subdivision of a ‘closed road’ will not apply to land classified as ‘community land’ “: This information was included in the exhibition material as requested with the amendment of the planning proposal to include the statement:-

“2.        An explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed local environmental plan.  [Act s. 55(2)(b)]

*  Road closures (other than road closures on community land)”.

(ii)     Prior to exhibition, clarification was to be made regarding the impact of the proposal on S.117 Direction 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes, as a planning proposal must not create, alter, or reduce existing reservation of land for public purposes without the Director-General’s approval:-

The planning proposal’s Appendix “B” as exhibited referred to this issue. This Direction is not affected by the proposal, because “reserve” status would not be altered by subdivision; in fact, many reserves comprise several lots. The planning proposal does not remove the requirement for Council to consult with the Department before undertaking a road closure.

(iii)    Consultation was required with the NSW Roads & Maritime Services: This was undertaken, as above.

(iv)    The Department classified the proposal as “low impact”, requiring exhibition for only fourteen days. Exhibition was, however, held for the standard six weeks under Council’s Consultation Policy.

Consideration of Road Closures

The proposal will achieve the objective of reducing duplication of Council resources in terms of staff time, advertising costs etc. and of community time, in not having to prepare and respond to duplicated public exhibitions for both a development application and a road closure.

The NSW Department of Lands requires a subdivision certificate to be lodged in relation to a road closure. The DA Section would be able to produce such a subdivision certificate without the need for a DA assessment under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

Council’s DA Section would, however, still undertake an assessment under Part 5 of the Act for the subdivision certificate application.

Subdivision, to create an identifiable parcel of land, is a pre-requisite for a road closure. The Roads Act 1993 Part 4 has requirements for 28-day public notification of road closures, which would continue to ensure public scrutiny of a road closure proposal.

The process is that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure would finalise with Parliamentary Counsel the amendment wording to the LEP and, if appropriate, State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt & Complying Development Codes) 2008.

Conclusion

This purpose of this planning proposal is to permit subdivisions for road closures to become exempt development under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2009). The purpose is to avoid duplication of Council resources, so that two separate advertisement period are not required for both a development application as well as a roads closure.

A roads subdivision proposal would continue to be publicly notified under the Roads Act, and a subdivision certificate would continue to be assessed under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. 

Council is requested to approve the LEP planning proposal for submission to the Department for finalisation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve LEP Planning Proposal 5/2011 – Subdivision of Roads as exhibited for submission to the Department requesting finalisation by amendment of LEP 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Planning Proposal 5/2011 - Subdivision of Roads

4 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Council's Additional Information of 9 November 2011

3 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Gateway Approval Letter

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Howell Place - Address Proposal

 

 

Subject:          Howell Place - Address Proposal    

Record No:    SU1849 - 34466/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report relates to the request from a resident of Howell Place that the cul de sac be renamed or renumbered, on the grounds of confusion and difficulties caused by the street’s configuration and the similarity of its name with that of Howell Avenue. Letters received from the resident expressing those concerns have been forwarded to Councillors electronically.

 

Since the request in 2009, Council has consulted with residents in Howell Place and nearby in Howell Avenue on two occasions: the first, regarding renaming or renumbering Howell Place, and the second, regarding a possible traffic island to mark the cul de sac’s entry more clearly.

 

Residents’ submissions were almost entirely opposed to both proposals for change.

 

Council is now requested to determine whether it wishes to undertake any further action regarding Howell Place.

 

Background

 

Howell Place is a cul de sac located at the eastern end of Howell Avenue. It comprises eight detached house lots in a continuation of the eastern end of a local road, Howell Avenue, which extends east and west of Ross Smith Parade.

 

 

On 1 June 2009, Council considered a report on the resident’s renaming request. The request was made on the grounds of confusion between the two street locations caused for public authorities, such as emergency services, gas and water personnel, postal deliveries, tradesmen, taxis and others visitors. 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

Street Renaming or Renumbering Proposal

 

On 1 June 2009, Council resolved to write to residents in the area seeking their views on the proposed renaming or renumbering. Although similar issues were reported by some of them, the proposed change of address was not supported by any other residents. A report to Council of 7 September 2009 described the process and the submissions received, and a copy is shown attached as AT-1.

 

On 7 September 2009, Council resolved to:-

 

“1.         Not proceed with the renaming of Howell Place

 

2.         Install two sets of two-directional street signs at the boundary of Howell Avenue and Howell Place, including house numbers below the place names

 

3.         Install an advisory sign (yellow background with black writing) on the eastern side of Ross Smith Parade, at the intersection with Howell Avenue, informing visitors that Howell Avenue becomes Howell Place at the cul-de-sac.”

 

The signage was subsequently installed by Council’s Traffic Section in accordance with Council’s resolution.

 

Road Works/ Landscaping Proposal

 

In response to further letters of concern from the resident, draft designs were prepared by Open Space & Urban Services staff for possible traffic islands with a landscape feature intended to delineate the entry to the cul de sac more clearly. Letters were sent to residents of Howell Place and Howell Avenue seeking their views on the proposed works. A sketch of the proposed traffic island is shown attached as AT-2.

 

In response to Council’s draft design, 8 submissions were received in total, of which 7 were opposed and 1 in favour. Issues raised included:-

 

·     the loss of 2-4 parking spaces and manoeuvering space for trucks;

·     road hazard, especially at night;

·     the adequate level of existing signage;

·     the inconvenience of changing long-standing addresses;

·     residents could provide clearer street numbering outside their properties; and

·     unnecessary use of Council funds to make further changes.

 

(It should be noted that the resident who had requested the changes was not the owner of 2 Howell Place as stated in some submissions.) A copy of the submissions on the traffic islands proposal have been forwarded to Councillors electronically.

 

On the basis of the submissions, Council advised residents in October 2011 that it would not be proceeding with the traffic islands proposal.

 

The principal difficulty appears to arise from the physical design of the two streets. The cul de sac is not visibly different from Howell Avenue, despite signage having been placed at the cul de sac entry and at the Ross Smith Parade intersection.

 

As a result, it is expected that renaming or renumbering may not resolve the issue unless a physical feature were provided to separate the two streets more clearly. A proposal to provide this was not acceptable to the majority of residents however.

 

Conclusion

 

A request from a resident of Howell Place has been considered for the cul de sac to be renamed or renumbered, on the grounds of confusion and difficulties caused by the street’s configuration and the similarity of its name with that of Howell Avenue.

 

Two reports have been considered by Council. Subsequently the views of residents in Howell Place and Howell Avenue were sought regarding proposals either (i) to change the addresses or (ii) to provide traffic islands and landscaping to mark the street boundaries more clearly.

 

Residents’ submissions were almost entirely opposed to both proposals for change.

 

Council is now requested to determine whether it wishes to undertake any further action regarding Howell Place.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.         Council determine whether it wishes to undertake any further action regarding Howell Place; and

2.         Residents be advised in writing of the decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Report of 7 September 2009 Regarding Change of Address Proposal

3 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft Design Sketch for Traffic Works, September 2011

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

DCP Amendment 3 - Supermarket Parking

 

 

Subject:          DCP Amendment 3 - Supermarket Parking    

Record No:    SU4830 - 34403/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report proposes to amend the Development Control Plan (DCP) to include a rate for car parking for supermarkets to be consistent with the NSW “RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002”.

 

The RTA (now Roads and Maritime Services) Guidelines provide for 1 car space per 23.8m2 of supermarket floor area.  Council is requested to adopt the proposed amendment to accord with the RTA standard.

Background

 

When the DCP came into effect in February 2010, it transferred existing controls for car parking and other matters from the former range of separate DCPs. Under these controls, a development application for a supermarket would currently be assessed at the generic retail rate of 1 space per 40m2. The RTA (now Roads and Maritime Services) Guidelines provide for 1 car space per 23.8m2 of supermarket floor area. It is appropriate that Council consider including this standard in the DCP.

Discussion

 

Parking Rate

 

The RTA Guidelines provide for 1 car space per 23.8m2 of supermarket floor area were developed for application across the State in recognition that the traffic generation of supermarkets creates significantly more demand for parking than other retail uses. It is recognised that supermarket shoppers also visit other retailers, however, this would have been factored into the RTA Guidelines.

 

The Land & Environment Court have accepted the RTA Guideline figure which is reflected in their decisions on appeals in relation to parking requirements for supermarket developments, for example, Renaldo Plus 3 Pty Limited v Hurstville City Council 2005.

 

It is noted that for the Market Square/ Library project, the Hill PDA economic analysis provided to Council utilised the RTA rate for the Woolworths supermarket component of the complex in its calculations.

 

Further supermarket developments may be undertaken in the LGA to meet the demand from residential and other growth under the Metropolitan Strategy targets for Lane Cove. Therefore it is appropriate to align Council’s DCP with the more widely-used standard.

Land Use

 

The Standard LEP, on which LEP 2009 is based, does not provide a specific definition for “supermarket”.  A supermarket is a “shop” within LEP 2009’s retail category of definitions.

 “shop means premises that sell merchandise such as groceries, personal care products, clothing, music, homewares, stationery, electrical goods or the like or that hire any such merchandise, and includes a neighbourhood shop, but does not include food and drink premises or restricted premises”.

The DCP should therefore specify that the rate of 1/23.8m2 applies to supermarkets only, as distinct from other forms of “shop” for which the general retail rate of 1/40m2 is intended to apply.

 

As no LEP definition is provided, appropriate practice would be to adopt a definition of “supermarket” in the DCP such as:  “a large, usually self-service, shop or market selling food and possibly other domestic products” (based on a range of dictionary definitions). “Large” in the context of a supermarket is deemed to be where the Gross Floor Area is greater than 750 m2.

Consultation

Statement of Intent

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

Method

It is proposed to exhibit DCP Draft Amendment 3 for six weeks.

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community, community groups, Lane Cove Alive

Relevant property owners

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisements,

Press Release, and

E-newsletter

Notification Letters

 

Public Exhibition,

and Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

August – September 2012

August – September 2012

August – September 2012

Conclusion

 

The proposal to amend the Development Control Plan (DCP) to include a rate for car parking for supermarkets at the rate of 1 space per 23.8m2 of Gross Floor Area, is supported. This is proposed on the grounds that it would align the Lane Cove Development Control Plan’s rates with those recommended under the NSW RTA Guidelines standard.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Endorse, for the purposes of public exhibition, DCP Amendment 3 being the proposed inclusion of a car parking rate of 1 space per 23.8m2 of gross floor area and the definition for a supermarket development being a large (gross floor area of greater than 750sqm), usually self-service, shop or market selling food and possibly other domestic products”.

2.   Place DCP Amendment 3 on Public exhibition for 6 weeks in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report

3.   Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meetings held Tuesday 15 May 2012 and Tuesday 19 June 2012

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meetings held Tuesday 15 May 2012 and Tuesday 19 June 2012    

Record No:    SU1326 - 34205/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee met on Tuesday 15 May 2012 and Tuesday 19 June 2012.  The Agendas are included as AT-1 and AT-2.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of each Meeting, included at AT-3 and AT-4.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meetings held Tuesday 15 May 2012 and Tuesday 19 June 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 15 May 2012

9 Pages

AT‑2 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 19 June 2012

17 Pages

AT‑3 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 15 May 2012

3 Pages

AT‑4 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 19 June 2012

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Motions for Local Government Association Conference 2012

 

 

Subject:          Motions for Local Government Association Conference 2012    

Record No:    SU203 - 31321/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council has received correspondence from the Local Government Association calling for motions for the 2012 Local Government Association Conference. This report recommends that Council give consideration to submitting motions to the Conference.

Discussion

Council has received correspondence form the Local Government Association advising that the 2012 Local Government Association Conference will be held from 28-30 October 2012 in Dubbo and calling for councils to submit motions. The Local Government Association Executive has advised that motions must focus on strategic issues and matters of significant policy that have regional, state or national significance rather than specific single local issues. The Executive will review all motions submitted and only put to the Conference motions that meet these requirements. Late motions will not be accepted unless the matter is both urgent and emergent. Motions for the Conference are required to be submitted by 15 August 2012

Motions for the Conference are required to fall under one of the following subject headings:-

1.    Services (human services, environmental services, library services, cultural programs, recreation programs, health protection and promotion, development approvals, environmental regulatory activity etc);

2.    Infrastructure (issues relating to transport, roads, bridges, footpaths, open space, water & sewerage facilities, waste facilities & services, recreation facilities, arts facilities, civic buildings etc);

3.    Finance (revenue raising, government funding, cost shifting, emergency services levy, waste levy, carbon tax, economic development etc); or

4     General (land use planning, development approvals, environmental regulatory activity, workforce planning & development, industrial issues, etc).

Motions will be determined to be either Category 1 or Category 2. Category 1 motions must seek to establish a new policy or position or amend existing policy and it must be of regional, state or national significance. Category 2 motions are motions which are already covered by existing policy or subject to ongoing lobbying and/or representation. Category 2 motions will be dealt with by the Executive and not by the Conference.

It is recommended that Council give consideration to submitting the following motion:-

Subject

Option of Advertising by Electronic Means

Motion

That the Local Government Association make representations to the State Government to amend the advertising requirements to allow Councils the option of using either electronic means or newspapers where an advertisement is required in any Act or Regulation.


Note from the Council

Councils are required under various Acts and Regulations to advertise in local and metropolitan newspapers of policies, tenders, granting of leases and licenses, job advertisements, fees and charges, financial statements and development application consents to name a few.

The cost of regularly placing advertisements in newspapers is considerable and a large financial burden for councils. In an age where, increasingly, people are turning more and more to the internet for information and news, it is not conducive to achieving the aims and objectives of public notification, to continue to insist on advertising only in newspapers. In addition, the use of electronic consultation methods by councils in the last 5 years has increased the number of submissions received and increased community participation in decision making. The proposed amendment would give Councils the option of using either electronic means or a newspaper to place advertisements.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Give consideration to submitting a motion on “Option of Advertising by Electronic Means” and any other motions to the 2012 Local Government Association Conference.

2.    Write to other NSW councils seeking their support in making representations to the Premier to change the advertising requirements for councils to allow electronic means as well as newspapers for advertising.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Policy Manual Review - Phase 3

 

 

Subject:          Policy Manual Review - Phase 3    

Record No:    SU241 - 28154/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Policy Manual (“Policy Manual”) provides a list of all policies adopted by Council.  To ensure that the Policy Manual continues to be a useful and current document, Council has undertaken a review of the policies contained within.  This report forms the third and final in series of reports to Council on the findings of the review and recommendations to Council for amendment to the Policy Manual.  It includes all policies falling under the headings M01000 to Y01000 (inclusive) as well as F04002 Rock Faces and Flora and F04003 Boat Sheds which were deferred by Council at its meeting of 21 May 2012 to the final stage of the policy manual review. 

Background

All of Council’s policies are contained in the Policy Manual. The policies relate to various subjects across all Council divisions, on matters ranging from the keeping of animals, community consultation, fences, and personnel to local libraries.  The ‘Review of Council Policies’ policy at D01004 of the Policy Manual states that a review of Council's policies be carried out every 4 years.

On 21 May 2012, Council considered the second stage of recommendations for amendments to policies E-L and resolved to make amendments to the Policy Manual as listed “with the exception of policies F04002 Rock Faces and Flora and F04003 Boat Sheds, which are to be deferred to the final stage of the Policy Manual review”.

This report follows the above mentioned Council reports in making recommended amendments to the Policy Manual on the basis of review. 

Discussion

Previously Deferred Matters

F04002 – Rock Faces and Flora

This policy relates to conserving rock faces and vegetation when foreshore development occurs. Following Council’s resolution on 21 May 2012 to defer this policy to the final stage of the Policy Manual review the policy was further reviewed by Council’s Manager – Open Space, Manager – Strategic Planning and Manager – Development Assessment.  A minor amendment is proposed to align the policy with the Sydney REP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 and Sydney Harbour and Foreshore Areas DCP 2005. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

F04003 Boat Sheds

This policy outlines the procedures for privately owned boatsheds on or adjacent to public land.  Following Council’s resolution on 21 May 2012 to defer this policy to the final stage of the policy manual review the policy was further reviewed by Council’s Manager – Open Space, Manager – Development Assessment and Executive Manager – Environmental Services.  It is proposed to make minor amendments to reflect that the policy is subject to the EP&A Act and therefore an expression of principle.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

Recommended Amendments

Attached electronically as AT-1 (and circulated separately) is the Policy Manual from headings M to Y as well as the policies F04002 Rock Faces and Flora and F04003 Boat Sheds with the recommended amendments shown throughout.  The following provides commentary on the policies to be amended.  Only policies recommended for amendment are listed. 

Please note Policy No. U01012 ‘Tables and Chairs in the Plaza (& Lane Cove Shopping Centre) for Commercial Restaurant Use’ has not been reviewed at the same time as the current series, as a Draft Footpath Dining Policy was developed and placed on exhibition last year to replace this policy.  The results of the exhibition and a new policy will be the subject of a separate report to Council at a later date.

M01001 Use of Mechanical Rock Pick Machines

This policy relates to the use of mechanical rock pick machines.  An amendment has been made which removes the condition that requires the applicant to indemnify Council against any claim relative to the work carried out, as according to legal advice, no indemnity can be sought or demanded at law in development conditions.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

O01001 Open Space – Dual Occupancies

This policy governs the requirements for open space in dual occupancy developments.  It is recommended that this policy is revoked as matter is covered in Council’s DCP (Landscaped Area & Private Open Space).  As such, a formal policy is not considered necessary. 

P02003 Use of Herbicides

This policy relates to the use of herbicides by Council staff.  A minor amendment has been made to correctly reference the appropriate legislation (i.e. Pesticide Regulations 2009).  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P02004 Horses in Parks & Reserves

This policy stipulates that’s no horses be permitted in Council’s reserves.  Minor amendments have been made to ensure the policy applies to both reserves and parks. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03002 Designated Employees – Disclosure of Interest

This policy defines those persons required to complete Primary and Annual Returns in accordance with Section 441 of the Local Government Act 1993.  A minor amendment has been made to include regulatory officersIt is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03004 Private Works By Members of Council’s Staff

This policy relates to secondary employment of Council staff.  It is proposed that the policy be renamed ‘Secondary Employment’.  Amendments have been made to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Code of Conduct and Council’s Guide to Ethical Behaviour.  It is recommended that that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03005 Use of Council Resources

This policy governs the use of Council Resources by Councillors and staff.  A minor amendment has been made to include all computer equipment not only computers and printers. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03006 Council Vehicles – Contract Staff

This policy relates to the provision of council vehicles to contract staff.  A minor amendment has been made which removes the requirement for the user to take out NRMA membership. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03011 Work Experience – Senior High School Students

This policy allows for the provision of work experience opportunities to senior high school students and students of accredited institutions.  A minor amendment has been made which allows the General Manager’s delegate to also approve the provision of work experience opportunities. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03012 Trainee Schemes

This policy relates to provision of trainee schemes for young people entering the workforce. It is recommend that this is policy be revoked as this matter is covered by P03017- Industry Training Policy.

P03016 Equal Employment Opportunity Policy

This policy outlines Councils equal employment opportunity program.  Amendments have been made to replace outdated terminology as per information ascertained from the Anti-Discrimination Board’s website.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03019 Depot Staff Uniforms

This policy stipulates the provision of safe and appropriate clothing to staff.  Minor amendments have been made to correctly reference current practice. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03021 Rehabilitation Programme

This policy relates to the provision of rehabilitation programs for injured staff returning to work. Amendments have been made to ensure consistency with the requirements of the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03024 Workplace Harassment Policy

This policy outlines the procedures in place at Council to ensure the workplace is free from harassment. A minor amendment has been made, which adds the Manager – Human Resources as a contact person for those experiencing workplace harassment, as per current practice. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03025 Training and Education Policy

This policy outlines the framework for training and education of employees. Minor amendments have been made to include references to both HECS and HELP programs throughout the policy. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03026 Smoke Free Workplace

This policy prohibits smoking in all workplaces provided by Council.  Minor amendments have been made to correctly reference the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03027 Health and Safety Policy Statement

This policy relates to the provision of a safe and healthy working environment for employees.  Amendments have been made to ensure consistency with the requirements of the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011.  It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.


P03028 Grievance Handling Procedure

This policy governs the process undertaken in providing an assessable and fair means for staff to air their legitimate grievances.  Amendments have been made to correctly reference current practice. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly

P03029 References Under Seal

This policy govens the use of Council’s seal.  It is recommended that this policy be revoked as the requirements for the seal is covered by section 400 of the Local Government General Regulation 2005 as such, a formal policy is not considered necessary.

P03030 Substance Abuse Policy

This policy outlines the procedure for dealing with employees with a substance abuse. Amendments have been made to correctly reference current practice. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

P03501 Disability Access Policy

This policy relates to providing safe access to Council’s building, facilities and services. The policy has been amended to reflect the new / updated standards applying to buildings, including the introduction of the access to premises standard and to changes in the Local Government Act with the introduction of the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act.2009. Minor amendments have also been made to improve readability. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

R02001 Council Archives Policy

This policy has been superseded by Council’s ‘Records and Archives policy. It outlines the procedures, practices, roles and responsibilities for records and archives management.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

R02010 Access to Council Information

It is recommended that this policy be revoked as the requirements for Accessing Council Information is covered by the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, as such, a formal policy is not considered necessary.

R03001 Proposed Rezonings

This policy outlines how rezoning requests are to be reported to Council. A minor amendment has been made to acknowledge Council’s existing Local Environmental Plan which came into Effect from February 2010. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

R03003 Notification Policy – Amending LEP’s & DCP’s

This policy outlines the procedures for notifying surrounding residents of a rezoning request. A minor amendment has been made to acknowledge Council’s existing Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan which came into effect from February 2010.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

R04002 Public Liability Insurance Civic Centre

This policy outlines Council’s requirements for public liability insurance for commercial and incorporated associations using Council facilities. An amendment has been made which increases the amount of Public Liability coverage required and removes the requirement to use Council’s insurance broker.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

R04003 Liability for Negligent Misstatement

This policy relates to the accuracy of information providing to the public. Minor amendments have been made to improve readability and ensure relevance.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

S01001 Corporate Style

The policy outlines Council’s Corporate Style in relation to Bus Shelters, Street Signs and Parks and Reserves signs. Amendments have been made which provide greater detail in relation to bus shelters, signposts in streets, and signs for parks and reserves.  All amendments ensure consistency with current practice and previous Council resolutions as indicated.  It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.

T01002 Through Traffic

It is recommended that this policy be revoked as the matter is covered in the RMS (RTA) guidelines and procedures hence a formal policy is not considered necessary. 

T01003 Lower Speed Limits

It is recommended that this policy be revoked as the matter is covered in the RMS (RTA) guidelines and procedures hence a formal policy is not considered necessary. 

T02001 Tree Preservation and Landscape Policy

This policy outlines the procedures relating to landscaping, tree preservation and bushland areas in order to maintain and enhance Lane Cove’s natural environment. Minor amendments have been made to terminology and to ensure consistency with Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Australian Standard AS 4373-2009 Pruning of Amenity Trees.  It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.

T02002 Policy for the Preservation of Significant Trees

This policy relates to identifying and preservation of significant trees. Minor amendments have been made to terminology and to ensure consistency with Lane Cove LEP 2009. It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.

T02004 Street Tree Planting

This policy outlines procedures for Street Tree Planting and is an extension of the Tree Preservation and Landscape Policy. Amendments have been made to ensure consistency with current practice.  It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.

U01002 Umbrellas in the Plaza

This policy outlines restrictions on advertising displayed on Umbrellas in the Plaza. Amendments have been made to remove references to tobacco advertising as this is now restricted by federal legislation. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

U01003 Use of Plaza – Charity Street Stalls

This policy outlines the procedures for street stalls in the Plaza. Minor amendments have been made to balance the needs of all Plaza users.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

W01005 Vehicular Access to Properties

This policy relates to the number and position of vehicular access to properties. Minor amendments have been made to specify that access ramps are vehicular access ramps.  It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.

Note:  the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) referred to in the policy is currently being amended and will be superseded by the end of 2012.

W01007 Drainage Easements

This policy relates to the creating of formal easements where Council’s stormwater pipes run through private property. Minor amendments have been made to ensure consistency with current practice.  It is recommended the policy be amended accordingly.

Y01001 Youth Week

This policy relates to Council’s involvement in Youth Week. A minor amendment has been made to wording to allow the inclusion of all ‘Youth week’ activities operating under this policy including those which take place outside of the Lane Cove LGA.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

Y01002 Youth Policy Statement

This policies outlines how Council will address the needs of youth in our area. Amendments have been made to replace references to the Youth Advisory Committee with Councils alternative methods of consultation such as workshops and targeted consultations, and to update the age for the youth centre, as per current practice.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

Conclusion

The above policy amendments ensure the policy manual is up to date with current practice and legislation. None of the amendments or deletions are such that it is considered necessary to undertake community consultation. A further report will be submitted in relation to Policy No. U01012 ‘Tables and Chairs in the Plaza (& Lane Cove Shopping Centre) for Commercial Restaurant Use’.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council amend the policies in the Policy Manual as listed in AT-1 – Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (from M-Y) and policies F04002 Rock Faces and Flora and F04003 Boat Sheds, dated 9 July 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (From M01000 - Y01000)

136 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Shell Gore Bay - State Significant Development - Terminal Conversion

 

 

Subject:          Shell Gore Bay - State Significant Development - Terminal Conversion    

Record No:    SU2155 - 32906/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of the 18 June 2012, Council raised a Matter of Urgency in relation to the proposed use of the Gore Bay Terminal.

 

On 16 March 2012 the Director General of the Department of Planning & Infrastructure issued to Shell Australia a detailed list of items to be submitted by Shell Refining Australia Pty Ltd (Shell) in relation to their Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report for the Gore Bay Terminal Modification, shown attached as AT-1.

 

The proposed development is classed as State Significant Development for which the Minister for the Department of Planning & Infrastructure is the consent authority. The public consultation period is not less than 30 days, and during this period any person may make written submissions to the Minister with respect to the Development Application. There are also appeal rights only for an objector in relation to State Significant Development

 

As a result of recent community representations concerning potential impacts of the imminent closure of Shell’s Clyde Refinery, Council has written to the NSW Premier Hon. Barry O’Farrell requesting a review of Shell’s current operations and license in respect of their proposal to modify their operations.

 

Discussion.

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of the 18 June 2012, Council raised a Matter of Urgency in relation to the proposed change of use of the Gore Bay Terminal by Shell Australia Pty Ltd, the following specific items raised in the motion are listed with the response to each matter raised:-

“An independent Council report addressing the following points be presented to Council at  its next meeting (16 July 2012):-

a)    any information or documentation received by Council that specifies the changes that will be made to the Gore Bay Terminal;

b)    any review of the impact of these changes undertaken by Council; 

c)    comments by Council on any proposal for change of use and associated development of the Shell Gore Bay Terminal; and

d)    any consultation with Shell or its consultants on proposed changes and the extent of these changes, in particular whether petrol and aviation fuels will be stored on the site.”

Response 

The proposal by Shell Australia is classed as State Significant Development with the Consent Authority being the Minister for the Department of Planning & Infrastructure . Shell has made a submission to the Department for modifications to the Gore Bay Terminal, although at this stage the Environmental Impact Statement has not been placed on public exhibition.

To date Council has received Shell’s Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report for the Gore Bay Terminal Modification from the Department of Planning & Infrastructure (circulated separately) and has provided comments on the heads of consideration and provided comments on the key issues that should be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. 

As the documentation for the proposal is still being finalised, Council is not in a position to make any definitive comments other than to highlight the concerns of the community and the need to comply with all necessary State requirements, as the detail is currently being finalised before submission to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure. 

In Council’s preliminary response to the EIS Scoping Report, Council was satisfied with the list of reports that would be submitted as part of the EIS, and requested the following additional issues be specifically addressed in the EIS (Council’s Letter to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure is shown attached as AT-2);

·      The risk to the nearby residents with regard to storage of highly inflammable fuel.

·      Impact upon the air quality given the change of materials to be stored.

·      The number and type of boats approaching the bay in the short term and long term and its impact upon the residents, foreshore and marine environment.

·     Increase of terrorist related risks and security generally.

In regard to the process for the assessment of State Significant development ,on 1 October 2011, a new assessment system for projects of genuine State significance commenced in New South Wales.

The State significant assessment system establishes two separate assessment pathways known as State significant development (SSD) and State significant infrastructure (SSI). Projects that fall into these categories are assessed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as the defined consent authority, pursuant to Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Act 2011.

As with other development that requires consent under Part 4 of the Act, SSD requires lodgement of a development application and the granting of consent before it may be carried out.

 

The Minister is the consent authority for SSD, however delegations have been established to allow the Planning Assessment Commission or senior officers of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to determine SSD applications on the Minister’s behalf. Planning Circulars attached as AT-3 and AT-4 provide a detailed overview of the SSD process that highlight the role of the Minister and the role of Council in the assessment of the proposal.

 

Council does have an opportunity to provide input into the proposal and to raise objections and these would be considered on their merits by the consent authority – the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

“This report be placed on Council’s website in the Current Issues section under the title of ‘Shell Australia Gore Bay Terminal Facility’.”

Response

Council has placed the following link on Council’s “Current Issues “Section http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=5148, which is a direct link to the  Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report for the Gore Bay Terminal Modification and the  Department of Planning & Infrastructure Director General’s Requirements for the proposal. As the application progresses through the public exhibition and the evaluation and assessment process, visitors to the link will be able to keep track of the status of the proposal. The status of the proposal will be updated by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure.

In addition Council will host information as it becomes available to ensure that the community have access to this information and are in a position where they are aware of the opportunity to submit comments/objections etc to the proposal.

 

“Sources of information are made clear on the website and in the report; and Council outline (by report and website) the formal consultation process which Council will undertake with the community in relation to any proposal for a change in the use of the terminal and the developments that will be necessary to support the conversion at the Shell Gore Bay Terminal?”

 

Response

 

All minutes from the Shell Gore Bay – Community Reference Group are posted on Council’s website with the following disclaimer;

 

“The information presented are minutes and information provided by Shell Australia Pty Ltd as part of their community responsibility for informing the public about the Gore Bay Terminal. Lane Cove Council takes no responsibility for the accuracy of this information and is provided in good faith on behalf of the community.”

Following a request from community members on the Shell Gore Bay Community Reference Group, Council has hosted on its web site since January 2012, the minutes of the meetings and any other relevant information to assist in raising public awareness about the proposal, in the Current Issues Section.

In recent weeks, Council has used its e-news service for current issues to send out information to over 3000+ email news subscribers. This was recently used to raise awareness about the Shell public forum to allow a greater number of residents to have the opportunity to attend the meeting held on Wednesday June 27 at the Greenwich Senior Citizens Centre.

 

“Council outline (by report and website) the formal consultation process which Council will undertake with the community in relation to any proposal for a change in the use of the terminal and the developments that will be necessary to support the conversion at the Shell Gore Bay Terminal?”

Response

 

The proposed development is classed as State Significant Development for which the Minister is the consent authority. The public consultation period is not less than 30 days, and during this period any person may make written submissions to the Minister with respect to the Development Application. There are also appeal rights only for an objector in relation to State Significant Development.

 

Conclusion

 

As the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Modification of the Gore Bay Terminal is yet to be released, Council is not in a position to undertake a review of the Shell proposal as the applicant has not completed the documentation that will be exhibited for public comment and review by the Department and by Council Officers. The Minister is the consent authority for State Significant Development and as such Council is able to participate by making a submission on the proposal once it is exhibited.

 

Once the EIS is released, Council may wish to consider engaging a specialist environmental consultant to assist in reviewing the potential risks to the community from the proposal, but until a formal proposal (EIS) is placed on public exhibition the detail and complexity of the proposal are yet to be ascertained.

 

Having regard to community concern with Shell’s fast tracking of the closure of the Clyde refinery,

(scheduled for 30 September 2012) and possible implications for the Gore Bay Terminal, Council has written to the NSW Premier Hon. Barry O’Farrell, shown attached as AT-5, requesting a review of Shell’s current operations and license in respect of their current proposal to modify their operations at the Gore Bay Terminal.

 

Council’s correspondence to the Premier, requests that a safety audit of Shell’s current license be undertaken and for the relevant statutory authorities to provide an undertaking that Shell’s operations at the Gore Bay Terminal will be limited to the current license and that no modification be allowed, as a result of the Clyde Refinery close down in September 2012, and before the determination of the Gore Bay Terminal Modification is made.

With regard to information that relates to this proposal, Council has hosted on its website, since January 2012, the minutes of the meetings of the Shell Gore Bay Community Reference Group and has links to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure website, where the EIS Scoping Report and related documentation can be accessed. In addition any other relevant information including details of public meetings which have been held to  assist in raising public awareness about the proposal have been posted in the Current Issues Section of the website.

 

Upon receipt of the Environmental Impact Statement from the Department, Council will place all relevant documents on public exhibition in the Library and Council Chambers.

 

In addition, Council are to be made aware that Shell have also offered to brief Councillors on the detail of the proposal if desired.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Director General's Requirements - Shell Gore Bay

7 Pages

AT‑2 View

Council's Letter to Chris Ritchie, Manager Industry Mining & Industry Projects of DoP

1 Page

AT‑3 View

Planning Circular State Significant Development

2 Pages

AT‑4 View

Planning Circular State Significant Development - Determination

5 Pages

AT‑5 View

Letter to Hon Barry O'Farrell Premier NSW - Concerns Regarding Gore Bay Proposal

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2012

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 34289/12

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       Millie Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

59 Pages