Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

10 April 2017

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.

 

LC_WebBanner


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Monday 10 April 2017 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Craig - GMYours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Deborah Hutchens. 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 on 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 on 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 Executive Manager – Corporate Services on 99113511.

 

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 10 April 2017

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

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 20 MARCH 2017

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

2.       Housekeeping LEP Amendments Planning Proposal 24 - Post Consultation Report

 

3.       Commuter Delays - Lane Cove Bus Interchange

 

4.       Proposed Road Closure, Northern End Lithgow Street, St Leonards

 

5.       March 2017 Traffic Committee Meeting

 

6.       Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Program

 

7.       Councillor Representation on Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Board

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

8.       Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 - Review

 

9.       Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) - Review

 

10.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

                      


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Housekeeping LEP Amendments Planning Proposal 24 - Post Consultation Report

 

 

Subject:          Housekeeping LEP Amendments Planning Proposal 24 - Post Consultation Report    

Record No:    SU5918 - 17965/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting in December 2015, Council resolved to proceed with a number of ‘housekeeping style’ amendments to its Local Environmental Plan.

 

A Gateway Determination was issued, by NSW Planning & Environment, on 6 July 2016 with requests for further information and amendments prior to public exhibition. These were provided and confirmed, by the Department, as suitable for public exhibition.

 

Delegation for this proposal was issued to Council for these amendments.

 

Public exhibition of the draft amendments has now concluded, the public submissions have been collated and a summary of the issues have been provided in this report.

 

The draft LEP amendments included:

 

·    Environmental Protection for 14 Gay Street

·    Land reserved for Acquisition in Longueville

·    Excluding access handle of battle axe lot from FSR calculations

·    Prohibit strata subdivision of dual occupancies

·    Amend the LEP Height of buildings objectives regarding solar access, privacy and visual impacts

·    Remove nominated items from the Environmental Heritage Schedule

·    Allow development near zone boundaries in certain circumstances

·    Amend the Acid Sulfate Soils clause

·    Correct various mapping anomalies at 40A Cope Street, and 3 Dunois Street

·    Update Land Use Tables of zones IN2 and R4 to include other identified uses.

 

 

It is recommended, having regard to the issues addressed in this report, that Council:

 

·         Accept the changes to the proposal, requested by NSW Planning & Environment;

·         Approve the amended Planning Proposal 24: Housekeeping Amendment for finalisation; and

·         Request, the NSW Planning & Environment, to permit Council to exercise its delegated authority to finalise and give effect to these amendments.

 

Background

 

This post-consultation report was presented at the March 2017 Council Meeting. Council resolved to defer the matter pending a Councillor Workshop in April 2017. As a result of this workshop, this post-consultation report is now submitted back to Council for its final consideration.  

 

The original report was presented to Council in July 2015 proposing to make amendments to LEP 2009 on such matters as zone boundaries, dual occupancies, road reservations, heritage listings, editing of text and mapping historical anomalies, mis-alignment of floor space and height controls and other matters.

 

Council resolved to defer the matter pending further consideration at a Councillor Workshop in September 2015. 

 

Following the Councillor Workshop, a final report was presented to Council at the December 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting (AT-1 & AT-2) where Council resolved to adopt a range of proposed amendments for the purpose of public exhibition subject to approval from NSW Planning and Environment. 

 

A Gateway Determination from NSW Planning & Environment was issued on 6 July 2015 supporting the overall intent of the LEP amendments.

 

However, in its assessment (AT-3), the Department requested some additional clarification and amendments prior to public exhibition. Council’s response (AT-4) was submitted and confirmed as satisfactory in advice to Council on 24 August 2016. These changes are summarised below.

 

Changes to proposal

 

The amendments requested by the Gateway are summarised under four categories:

 

a)   Supported with variation

b)   Supported with further justification/consultation

c)   Deferred

d)   No alteration

 

a)   Supported with variation

 

1.   Prohibition of strata subdivision of dual occupancies

 

Council’s previous clause requested that its proposed prohibition be excluded from the use of LEP clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards. The Department advised that given that the above is a prohibition clause – no further LEP clauses are required.

 

2.   Amend the LEP Height of buildings objectives

 

The Department opposed Council’s original wording on the basis that it believed the wording strongly favoured new development at the expense of its impact on existing properties. Council was then required to strengthen the proposed amendment in relation to amenity and overshadowing impacts of new development on existing properties. The revised objectives stated:

 

(a) to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas, and

(b) to ensure development allows for reasonable privacy and visual impacts of development on neighboring properties, particularly where zones meet, and

(c) seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain, where possible, and

(d) to relate development to topography.

 

It was agreed that based on the Department’s comments, this new proposed clause achieves a careful balance between new and proposed development while retaining the intent of the original LEP Height objectives. The use of the word ‘reasonable’ is consistent with the existing amenity & solar access provisions in Council’s Development Control Plan.

 

3.   Amend the "Floor Space Ratio" clause to exclude the access handle area of a battle-axe lot from FSR calculations

 

The Department requested that this clause was required to specify which zones would be affected. Based on the Department’s comments, Council has now specified that this draft clause will only apply to residential zones.

 

4.   Adopt a new LEP Clause 5.3 to allow development near zone boundaries in certain circumstances

 

Council’s original amendment did not specify which zones and proposed distances would be affected by this draft clause. Council was also required to adopt the proposed clause in its entirety as specified in the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan.

 

As a result, the draft clause was included in its entirety with the affected zones and proposed distances. That is, 15 metres between lots zoned B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use.

 

5.   Amend the "Acid Sulfate Soils" clause to ensure consistency with the Standard Instrument provisions

 

Although Council’s proposed amendment was very minor, the Department advised that further changes to the clause were required – as it did not comply with Standard Instrument provisions. The amendment was changed to reflect this.

 

b)   Supported with further justification/consultation with landowner

 

1.   Adding permissible uses in the IN2 Light Industrial zone

 

The Department required further information from Council, justifying the proposed additional land uses. While Council’s response to each individual land use is provided in AT-4, it was considered that the proposed land uses were consistent with the definition and objectives of the Light Industrial zone.

 

2.   Reserve existing portions of Environmental Conservation land in Longueville for acquisition

 

The Gateway Determination required that individual property owners of Dettmann Avenue (3A, 5A, & 7) and 41 Stuart Street, Longueville be directly consulted on the proposed amendment. Council consulted each property owner on an individual basis via letter. The issues that were raised are provided in the Discussion section of this report.

 

3.   Inclusion of a portion of land at 14 Gay Street on the Environmental Protection land map

 

In addition to consultation with the landowners, Council was required to further justify this amendment. This amendment was to be applied to the rear portion of 14 Gay Street, as seen below.

 

 

The request for the ‘Environmental Protection Land’ area, was the result of the study: Native Vegetation of the Lane Cove Council Local Government Area (AT-5), prepared for Council in 2010. It identified that the areas surrounding 14 Gay Street (see map below) contained: Coastal Escarpment Littoral Rainforest; Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest; and Blue Gum High Forest.

 

 

All three species are listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. While both Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, and Blue Gum High Forest are listed as Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

 

As a result, the study recommended the following conservation priority and possible management measures:-

 

 

Priority

Vegetation Community

Rationale and comments

High

Blue Gum High Forest

Upper Stringybark Creek, Bluegum Reserve and other areas containing stands of Blue Gum are of conservation significance.

 

The Blue Gum/Blackbutt stand directly upstream of the bushland reserve on Upper Stringybark Creek represents a potential area to increase the extent of BGHF in the LGA.

 

It is recommended to explore areas of privately owned land for possible EEC enhancement (e.g. upstream of Bluegum Reserve).

High

Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest

As above, it is recommended that Council explore opportunities to expand the extent of the EEC on parkland and private land by enhancing remnants in these areas.

 

Based on this study, it is clear that development could result in irreparable damage to the viability of the reserve’s flora and fauna and destruction of the wildlife corridor currently running through the southern half of the property. In addition, given its proximity to these existing vegetation communities, it is highly likely that both Sydney Turpentine’s and Blue Gum are located within 14 Gay Street.

 

The owner’s submission is addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

 

c)   Deferred

 

1.   Correct mapping anomalies – ‘Small lots’ Floor Space Ratio changes for R2 Low Density Residential Zones

 

At the time of the draft comprehensive LEP, Council sought to maintain its relatively consistent residential subdivision pattern across Lane Cove’s proposed R2 Low Density Residential zones.

 

To achieve this, these areas were to be mapped with a standard FSR of 0.5:1 and applied to low density sites with a minimum lot size of 550 sqm. That is, low density residential lots that were 550 sqm (or greater) were given an FSR of 0.5:1. Lots that were smaller than this lot size were designated with a standard FSR of 0.6:1 – the purpose of this was to allow relatively consistent level of development potential. 

 

Through Council’s LEP review process, it identified various properties in Zone R2 Low Density Residential that were mapped at FSR 0.6:1 while neighbouring properties (of the same size) were mapped at FSR 0.5:1. Therefore, the draft Planning Proposal sought to correct this mapping anomaly to ensure compatible building bulk and streetscape.

 

At the time, following Council’s December 2015 resolution, it was believed that this anomaly was only contained to a certain number of properties. Further examination has revealed that this is not the case and requires further review at a later stage. For this reason, Council staff requested that this particular amendment be deferred to a later ‘Housekeeping’ Planning Proposal.

 

d)   No alterations

 

1.   Removing nominated items from the Environmental Heritage Schedule; and

2.   Correcting various mapping anomalies on nominated sites.

Public Exhibition

 

The Planning Proposal was amended to include supporting studies, maps and further justifications from Council.

 

Council undertook extensive consultation with the community using a variety of consultation methods, during an eight-week period of Council’s Consultation Policy:-

 

·         Advertisement in the North Shore Times;

·         An e-newsletter distributed to registered residents;

·         A notice of the proposal (via letters) was distributed to

·         Affected property owners (affected by smaller scale individual items),

·         Registered Community groups/associations,

·         Government Agencies,

·         Adjoining Local Government Areas,

·         An additional notice to owners in Longueville affected by Land Acquisition;

·         On-line exhibition on Council’s website; and

·         Hard copy documents for viewing at Council’s Civic Centre, Lane Cove & Greenwich Libraries.

 

It was publicly exhibited from 17 November 2016 to 12 January 2017. The Department’s required exhibition period is 28 days.

 

Notification was sent to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, as required by the Gateway. Further notification of residents occurred in accordance with the NSW Planning & Environment’s A guide to preparing local environmental plans, Gateway Determination and Council’s endorsed consultation plan.

 

A total of 22 submissions were received, including those from North Sydney Council (who raised no objection), and NSW Heritage Council (discussed below). One petition with 24 signatories was also received on an item that was not included in the original planning proposal – this will be discussed later.

 

Copies of the submissions have been circulated to Councillors electronically, and the issues are summarised below.

 

Discussion

 

Key issues raised in public submissions related in particular to the following items:-

 

·         Applying an Environmental Protection layer to 14 Gay Street;

·         Reserving land in Longueville for acquisition; and

·         Amending the "Floor Space Ratio" clause to exclude the access handle area of a battle-axe lot from FSR calculations; and

·         Consultation period.

 

Additional comments were received on the following matters:

 

·         Removing nominated items from the Environmental Heritage Schedule;

·         Correcting various mapping anomalies on nominated sites; and

·         Further proposals for rezonings.

 

Issues raised

 

Submissions – Environmental Protection for 14 Gay Street

 

Several submissions were received on this matter, of which supported the Environmental Protection layer.

 

However, the owners of the property are concerned that the potential effect of the amendment could result in:

 

·         Losing access to (about half) of the property,

·         Further loss of development potential – as the ‘developable area’ is only a suggestion and does not reflect the true development potential or complexities of the site.

 

It is suggested by the owners’ executor that rather than apply an Environmental Protection layer to the rear of the property, that Council purchase the land.

 

Comment

 

As explained in the ‘Changes to the Proposal’ section, the proposed Environmental Protection layer was to be applied to the rear portion of 14 Gay Street. This was due to the likely presence of Sydney Turpentine’s or Blue Gum High forests within the property.

 

To achieve this, Council resolved (in December 2015) to amend its ‘Environmental Protection Land’ map to reflect this proposed boundary – shown below.

 

 

Proposed Environmental Protection area (seen in green hatching)

 

The reasons for applying an Environmental Protection layer to the rear, was to achieve a fair and balanced outcome between the development potential and environmental protection of the site.

 


 

It is important to note that this proposal:

 

·         does not change the property’s existing residential zoning, permissible floor space ratio or maximum building height;

·         The site has an area of 2,790m2 in total. Excluding the Environmental Protection Land which would leave a developable area of around 1,500m2;

·         restricts the protection layer to the rear of the site where the steepest part of the property is located;

·         seeks to protect the wildlife corridor immediately adjoining Stringybark Creek;

·         is consistent with Council’s Bushland policies; and

·         seeks to protect an endangered ecological community.

 

Therefore, the proposed Environmental Protection Land would not unnecessarily or unreasonably impact upon the development potential of the site.

 

This proposal would potentially allow future acquisition of this portion of land at some point; however any acquisition would need to be discussed with the owners and pursued in accordance with the NSW Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

Recommendation

 

The amendment as proposed is recommended to proceed, given that it doesn’t unnecessarily or unreasonably restrict the development potential of the site.

 

Submissions – Land reserved for Acquisition in Longueville

 

Council received three submissions from individual owners affected by this proposed amendment. Both questioned the nature, need for and validity of this amendment. It is claimed that this amendment would significantly devalue properties and make sale severely difficult.

 

Comment

 

The portions of land proposed for acquisition are shown below. The acquisition only relates to the existing E2 Environmental Conservation zone at the rear of each property.

 

Properties proposed for Acquisition

 

These properties have been planned and zoned for open space and environmental conservation, since, at least, the County of Cumberland plan in 1956.

 

Since then, extracts from maps dating from between 1956 to 2010 (AT-6) show a strong continual effort by Council and State Government agencies to preserve these areas for environmental purposes and foreshore public access.

 

The western end of these sites has been identified in plans since the 1950s for environmental protection within a line of vegetation extending between Cowper St and Stuart St and adjoining Council’s reserve, including mangroves near the high water line.

 

From 1987 until 2010, the land was zoned as Regional Open Space Reservation "C". The zoning meant that this area was previously identified for acquisition by the Department of Planning. However, the Department of Planning advised during the drafting of the Draft LEP in 2008 that it no longer intended to acquire the lands to the west of Dettmann Avenue or Stuart Street.

 

Over these decades, Council and State Government agencies have gradually purchased individual sites to provide public with access to the foreshore and preserve and enhance the sensitive environment in this area.

 

It is worth noting that Council either owns or has care, control and management of all the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned sites in this area. The E2 portions of the sites known as 3A, 5A, 7 Dettmann Ave & 41 Stuart St are the last remaining lands that have not yet been acquired.

 

An additional purpose of the acquisition is also to protect the environmental land shown in the map below.

 

Vegetation Community Descriptions (mapped by Storm Consulting)

 

As shown, the sites are adjoining areas of Estuarine Mangrove Forest, Coastal Enriched Sandstone Sheltered Forest and the presence of Salt-marsh. Three out of the four sites also contain Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest – an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

Although the sites are currently degraded, due to its location adjacent to Warraroon Reserve there is potential for the re-establishment of native vegetation. There is an opportunity for re-seeding from adjacent bushland, with improvement to animal habitat close to Warraroon Reserve.

 

Therefore, this proposed amendment would allow regeneration of this foreshore environment and enhance the area, as well as providing opportunity for future public access.

 

Recommendation

 

In accordance with the Gateway condition, Council has notified the individual owners of its intention to acquire these lands in the future. However during the public exhibition period, some of the individual owners have suggested alternatives to what is proposed.

 

On this basis, it is recommended that Council defer this item and consult directly with affected owners on an individual basis before this matter is finalised.  

 

Regardless, the current zoning is intended to remain E2 Environmental Conservation as it is supported by independent Council studies.

 

Submissions – Excluding access handle of battle axe lot from FSR calculations

 

It is claimed that existing battle axe properties (with an access handle) would be affected as it would reduce the development potential that was previously permitted, affecting its resale. Conversely, it is argued that such a reduction would affect the calculation of rates and taxes on that property.

 

Two submissions were received in relation to this amendment.

 

Comment

 

As stated in the Planning Proposal, this LEP amendment is re-instating and restoring the former policy that was in Council’s DCP prior to 2010. Entitled ‘Residential Zones Development Control Plan’, the policy was in place from at least 1993 until the adoption of its Comprehensive DCP in 2010.

 

Under Part VII Residential subdivision of that DCP, the ‘minimum allotment size’ (page 25) stated:

 

“The minimum area of an allotment created under this Part is 550m². The “access handle” of battleaxe allotments is not counted in the calculation of allotment size”.

 

The original intention was ‘to ensure a house is built in better proportion to a lot and neighbouring lots’. It is also worth noting that the adjoining Willoughby Council have the same clause in their LEP for Zone R2 Low Density Residential and Zone E4 Environmental Living.

 

Therefore the proposed amendments would not directly alter the actual size of the lot, they would just encourage a more consistent, better proportioned built form.

 

Recommendation

 

As it is re-instating a previous Development Control Plan policy and is consistent with adjoining Local Government Areas, this amendment is recommended to proceed.

 

If approved, it is also recommended that Council’s existing Development Control Plan ‘Part C – Residential Development’ be amended to incorporate these changes.

 

Unsolicited Submissions – Consultation period

 

Some submissions questioned the timing of the public exhibition period, particularly over the Christmas holiday period.

 

Comment

 

Council’s public exhibition period occurred when the amended materials, requested by NSW Planning & Environment were ready and declared suitable for public exhibition.

 

Following this, notification material (described above) was prepared and distributed in November 2016. If the proposal was exhibited for six weeks (Council policy) the submission period would have finished in the middle of Council’s Christmas Closure period. As a result, the exhibition period was extended to eight weeks. 

 

The timing of the public exhibition period was co-incidental, and the length of it was in accordance with Council’s consultation plan – endorsed at its 7 December 2015 meeting.

 

Other issues

 

Submission – Removing items from Environmental Heritage Schedule

 

NSW Heritage Council responded to this item by recommending that Council’s decision whether to list or delist items should be based on information about the item in a heritage study or review.

 

Comment

 

All heritage items mentioned in the proposal have had a development application for demolition approved by Council with the exception of the street trees in front of 87-93 Longueville Rd. They were incorrectly mapped as being at the back in Birdwood Lane, they have since died.

 

After the Gateway Determination was issued, an additional heritage item, at 19 King William St, is also required for removal from Schedule 5 and maps. It also had a previous development application for demolition approved by Council and should have been included in this amendment.

 

As stated in their letter, all these items were of local heritage significance, meaning Council is the consent authority. During the DA stage, heritage reports and studies were submitted and they were then assessed by Council, via its independent Heritage Architect, and were found suitable to have their heritage significance removed.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council support the proposed amendment to the Heritage Register and advise the Heritage Council accordingly.

 

Submission – Correcting various mapping anomalies

 

One submission related the correction of FSR & Height of Buildings maps for 40A Cope Street. While it supported the mapping change, it claimed that the same change should be extended up to Caroline Chisholm Lane.

 

Comment

 

The Planning Proposal is only seeking to align the FSR & Height boundaries with the correct property boundaries for this site. 

 

As AT-7 shows, the existing anomaly only applies to a small amount of land towards the rear of the lot. This is the property boundary between the Caroline Chisholm Manor (east side) and the Caroline Chisholm Lodge (west side), which does not correspond with the FSR and Height (HOB) boundaries.

 

It is claimed that these properties should be considered as one site (due to an existing right-of-way) and that the FSR & Height changes proposed should be applied across both the Manor (east side) & Lodge (west side).

 


 

Recommendation

 

In addition to it being beyond the scope of the LEP Planning Proposal, this proposed extension is not considered to be appropriate. The property boundaries of the Caroline Chisholm Retirement Village site are clearly, and separately, defined through its subdivision pattern. As a result, these properties cannot be considered as one site, they must be considered as separate properties. Each property with its own relative FSR and height restriction in place according to the desired built form.

 

Council’s amendment is correcting a cartographic error and forms a minor re-aligning of FSR and Height boundaries with the correct relevant property boundaries. As the request would be extending the changes over separate properties without broader policy considerations such as traffic, amenity, built form etc, it cannot be supported.

 

Submissions – Proposals for rezoning (not part of the exhibited Planning Proposal)

 

During the exhibition period, two requests for rezoning were received. One was site-specific while the other was a large precinct.

 

Comment

 

Firstly, owners near Charlish Park have requested a change of zoning to permit greater density on the site, comparable to the nearby R4 High Density Residential zone. No reasons or justifications have been provided. As these requests do not form part of the proposed amendment it can not be included or considered by Council.

 

Overall Conclusion

 

Following requests from NSW Planning & Environment, the Planning Proposal was amended to incorporate their comments and provide additional justifications for some of the items. These were confirmed as suitable for public exhibition.

 

During the public exhibition period objections were received from individual property owners affected by individual items in the proposal, while others either supported or raised no objections to the amendments.

 

Responses to the submissions have been provided above, however the unsolicited proposed rezoning requests at Charlish Park and Mowbray Road suggested by some of the submissions cannot be supported or included in these amendments for finalisation as:-

 

They fall outside the scope of this particular amendment and would require an entirely separate Planning Proposal.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that Council not proceed with the submissions relating to 40A Cope Street, owners near Charlish Park; and Mowbray Road owners.

 

It is recommended that Council only proceed with the amendments to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan as described in AT-8. They include:-

 

1.   Update Land Use Tables of:-

o IN2 Light Industrial Zone to include ‘animal boarding or training establishment’, ‘medical centre’, ‘vehicle repair station’ and ‘vehicle body repair workshop’ as ‘Permissible with Consent’.

o R4 High Density Residential Zone to include ‘Restaurants & cafes’ as ‘Permissible with Consent’.

 

2.   Update LEP:- 

i.   Clause 4.1 (Minimum Subdivision Lot Size) to include (4B);

ii.  Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) to include new objectives;

iii.  Clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) to include (2B); and

iv. Clause 6.1 (Acid Sulfate Soils) to amend (6)(a).

 

3.   Insert new LEP Clause 5.3 (Development near zone boundaries).

 

4.   Delete the following heritage items from ‘Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage’:-

 

Suburb

Item name

Address

Property description

Significance

Item No.

Greenwich

House

13 Kingslangley Road

Lot 8, Section 6, DP 656213

Local

I89

Greenwich

House

15 Kingslangley Road

Lot 1, Section 6, DP 957741

Local

I90

Greenwich

House

16 Kingslangley Road

Lot 2, DP 310610

Local

I91

Lane Cove

Street Tree Planting

Adjacent to 87–93 Longueville Road

Road reserve

Local

I168

Longueville

House

73 Arabella Street

Lot 6, DP 5005

Local

I228

Northwood

House and garden

62 Northwood Road

Lot 1, DP 826939

Local

I293

Riverview

House

44 College Road South

Lot 7, DP 739156

Local

I317

Greenwich

House

19 King William Street

Lot 2, Section 5, DP 3101

Local

I93

 

5.   Amend Council’s ‘Environmental Protection Land Map’ to include an 'Environmental Protection' layer over the southern portion of 14 Gay Street, Lane Cove North.

 

6.   Amend Council’s Floor Space Ratio and Height of Buildings maps to correct anomalies at:-

 

i.    40A Cope Street, Lane Cove; and

ii.    3 Dunois Street, Longueville.

 

Council is requested to defer the item below from the current Planning Proposal to undertake one on one consultation:

 

1.   Amend Council’s ‘Land Reservation Acquisition Map’, to include the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned portions of land at:-

 

a.   3A Dettmann Avenue, Longueville; 

b.   5A Dettmann Avenue, Longueville;

c.   7 Dettmann Avenue, Longueville; and

d.   41 Stuart Street, Longueville.

 

Given that Council is still committed to acquiring the E2 Environmental Conservation portion of land at the rear of these properties, it is recommended that this item be deferred and the result of the consultation be reported to Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report.

 

2.   Amend the current Planning Proposal to defer the item ‘Amend Council’s Land Reservation Acquisition Map to include the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned portions of land at Longueville’ from this amendment, to allow additional public consultation as part of a separate Planning Proposal.

 

3.   Adopt the amendments to the LEP Planning Proposal 24 as described in AT-8 for finalisation.

 

4.   Authorise Council’s General Manager to:

 

a.   Submit the amended Planning Proposal to the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and NSW Planning and Environment,

 

b.   Request to exercise its delegation under Section 59 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 to give effect to these amendments.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council REPORT 7 December 2015

11 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Council MINUTES 7 December 2015

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Departments Assessment of Proposed Amendments

7 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Council's response to Department's comments

12 Pages

 

AT‑5View

Report - Native Vegetation of the Lane Cove Council LGA Report Sept 2010

68 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑6View

Land Acquisition - Extract Maps

3 Pages

 

AT‑7View

Caroline Chisholm FSR and Height boundary anomaly

2 Pages

 

AT‑8View

Proposed changes to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

26 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Commuter Delays - Lane Cove Bus Interchange

 

 

Subject:          Commuter Delays - Lane Cove Bus Interchange     

Record No:    SU5851 - 19089/17

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Peter Patterson 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received representations from the community in regards to the excessive waiting times at the Lane Cove Bus Interchange (Stand A – Direct Service to City via Freeway) during the morning peak.

 

This report recommends that Council immediately lobby for additional bus services during the morning peak to the City which commence at the Interchange.

 

From a long term strategic perspective, this report further recommends that Council investigate options for the inclusion of a Lane Cove underground station in any future expansion of the new Sydney Metro Rail network.

 

Background

 

There are currently seven (7) different City Bound bus routes stopping at the Stand A - Lane Cove Bus Interchange, with a total number of 59 scheduled buses between 7:00 am and 9:00 am during weekdays (Mon-Fri). Despite the high frequency of services, there are capacity issues, as many of the buses arriving, are at, or near capacity, resulting in queues of commuters often stretching some 50 metres into Parklands Avenue, as seen in the following photo.

 

 

 

To determine the extent of the delays being experienced by commuters, Council engaged Matrix Traffic and Transport Data to undertake a comprehensive on-site weekday patronage survey over a two week morning peak period from 13 March 2017 to 24 March 2017.

 


 

Discussion

 

The patronage survey identified that buses which arrive at Lane Cove Interchange have insufficient capacity to accommodate all the commuters waiting at the interchange.  The data shows that while the average daily morning peak has a waiting time of five minutes, the maximum waiting time is up to 20 minutes.

 

 

It was observed that a queue of over 100 commuters was on occasions left behind waiting for the next bus due to the buses already being full on arrival at the stop. It was also noted that the queue of waiting commuters stretched up Parklands Avenue near the Kara Street intersection, making it difficult for pedestrian traffic to pass the interchange.

 

The data demonstrates that although there is a total of 59 scheduled bus services to the Sydney CBD passing through the Lane Cove Interchange in the morning peak, the number of commuters at the Lane Cove Interchange exceeds the available capacity of the passing buses. The data also shows that some of the scheduled buses which pass through the interchange do not stop due to being full. A suggestion of how to address this issue would be to schedule a small number of services to commence from the Interchange, to provide capacity to clear the queues, particularly around 8am.

 

With the forecast population and employment growth expected within the Lane Cove area in future years, a bus only public transport system will struggle to cope with demand due to the increase in patronage. It is therefore recommended that alternative modes of public transport e.g. the inclusion of a Lane Cove underground station in any future expansion of the new Sydney Metro Rail network, to complement the current bus option be explored.

 

Conclusion

 

A reliable and efficient public transport system that services the needs of the Lane Cove community now and into the future is of paramount importance to avoid further road congestion. The survey data suggests that the existing configuration of services results in unacceptable queue lengths and waiting times.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Write to the State Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, The Hon. Andrew Constance MP and the Local Member, Hon. Anthony Roberts MP, requesting additional 2-3 direct bus services during the morning peak to the City to commence at the Longueville Interchange to reduce current bus waiting times.

 

2.         Investigate options for the inclusion of a Lane Cove underground station in any future expansion of the new Sydney Metro Rail network.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Lane Cove Bus Interchange patronage survey

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Proposed Road Closure, Northern End Lithgow Street, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Road Closure, Northern End Lithgow Street, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU6544 - 18230/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the public notification of the proposal to partially close the northern end of Lithgow Street, St Leonards as illustrated at AT-1.

 

Under the proposal, the northern end of Lithgow Street will be closed to facilitate the proposed St Leonards Plaza to be constructed over the rail corridor and Lithgow Street. Upon closure of the road, Council intends to retain land which will form part of the proposed Plaza, which was first proposed in 2006 with the St Leonards Strategy. A new road will be constructed which will see the continuation of the existing Nicholson Street alignment through to Lithgow Street.

 

The proposed Plaza would provide a number of community benefits including Public Open Space, improved safety and access to the rail and bus interchange.

 

This report considers the submissions received from the community and public utilities and will recommend on balance that in view of the public benefits of the proposal, application be made to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands, to formally close the subject section of Public Road.

 

 

Background

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 15 August 2016, Council considered a report in respect of the partial closure of the northern end of Lithgow Street, St Leonards and resolved that:

 

1.   Council commence the process to close part of Lithgow Street as indicated in AT-1 in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Lands dated 28 April 2006.

2.   Council undertake community consultation for a  period of 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report concurrently with the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and Voluntary Planning Agreement in respect of 75-79 Lithgow St & 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards; and

3.   A further report be received outlining the submissions received.

 

It is noted that the Department of Primary Industries – Lands is responsible for approving such applications and has standardised procedures for Public Road Closure applications by a Council including the need to consult the community and public utilities and to address any reasonable concerns and objections from respondents.

 

Council has previously considered a Planning Proposal to rezone 75-79 Lithgow St & 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards to Mixed Use. The Proposal has received Gateway approval and has been on public exhibition, with a post consultation report being prepared for a future Council meeting. As part of the proposal a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) has been proposed which will see Stage 1 of the proposed Plaza over the rail corridor constructed over part of Lithgow Street. Specifically the VPA includes the following:-

 

(ii)        Construction and embellishment of the section of the proposed St Leonards Plaza deck over Lithgow Street (Approx 1708m2), with capacity in the associated supports for the portion of St Leonards Plaza spanning the rail corridor in return for access easements for Site A and Site B under the Plaza;

 

Due to the topography, Lithgow Street will be physically blocked where it intersects the Pacific Highway should the Plaza proceed. A new road will be constructed which will see the continuation of the existing Nicholson Street alignment through to Lithgow Street. As a result, this will necessitate the partial closure of Lithgow Street at the northern end (Refer AT-1).

 

Discussion

 

Public Notification

 

The proposed road closure was advertised in the North Shore Times on 10 November 2016 allowing for a period of 28 days for submissions from the community and public utilities.

 

Additionally, letters were sent to relevant public utilities surrounding residents likely to have an interest in the proposal. The proposal was also advertised via eNewsletter and an online exhibition.

 

Responses

As a result of the public consultation, the following submissions were received:

A.   Public Authorities

1.   National Parks and Wildlife Services

Response

 

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) has no objection to these proposed road closures.

 

 

2.   North Sydney Council

Response

 

North Sydney Council made a submission more specifically in relation to the potential closure/partial closure of Oxley Street between the Pacific Highway and Clarke Street. They consider closure of Lithgow Street will result in additional vehicles using the Oxley Street and Pacific Highway intersection.

 

Comment

 

It is considered the additional vehicles at that intersection generated by the road closure will be turning left on to the Pacific Highway only, as at present they can only turn left from Lithgow Street. Therefore, the potential future closure of Oxley Street between the Pacific Highway and Clarke Street will not be affected by the closure of Lithgow Street, as the vehicles using the Oxley Street and Pacific Highway intersection by the closure of Lithgow Street will continue to be able to turn left.  Council has undertaken Paramics Traffic Modelling, approved by the RMS, which demonstrates the traffic volumes in the precinct, inclusive of the new developments, can be accommodated subject to infrastructure upgrades. In this regard, Council has conditioned the developments at 496-520 Pacific Highway and 472 to 494 Pacific Highway to contribute to the upgrade of the Oxley/Pacific Highway signals to a ‘Critical Site’ in the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) to improve intersection performance. Also parking on Oxley on the approach to Pacific highway will be removed to facilitate full three (3) lane capacity at the intersection.

 

3.   Transport for NSW

Response

 

TfNSW made a submission specifically in relation to the Planning Proposal for 75-79 Lithgow Street and 84-90 Christie Street, St Leonards which will facilitate the future development over the closed part of Lithgow Street. Its submission requested that Council defer any further consideration of the planning proposal until investigations into the St Leonards and Crows Nest Station Precinct were completed.

 

Comment

 

Whilst Council acknowledges the work being undertaken by Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) and TfNSW in the precinct, the subject road closure to create the St Leonards Plaza was first proposed in 2006 as part of the St Leonards Strategy, and has been a key part of Council’s plans for St Leonards for over a decade. The Planning Proposal, the subject of TfNSW’s submission was proposed in 2014 and had a Gateway determination issued by DP&E in 2015 and has been placed on public exhibition. The RMS was then provided with Council’s holistic traffic modelling for the St Leonards Precinct which included the closure of Lithgow Street. Accordingly, it would be more appropriate that TfNSW continue to incorporate the closure of Lithgow Street into its assumptions as part of its work with DP&E, rather than delay the advancement of a key long-term project for the St Leonards Centre.

 

Whilst North Sydney Council and Transport for NSW made submissions to the proposed road closure, the matters raised pertain to the proposed development and traffic management of neighboring streets and not specifically the closure of the north end of Lithgow Street. The modeling undertaken to date indicates traffic volumes can be accommodated post the closure of Lithgow Street. As the proposed development will be addressed separately, matters pertaining to the development approval process will be reviewed independently with consideration to increases in traffic movements and access.  As part of the DA process, a traffic management plan will be prepared in consultation with the community.

 

B.  Private Submissions

A summary of the 21 private submissions is included as AT-2. Many of the submissions sought clarifying information on the Plaza proposal and adjoining development. Issues addressed include public access links, a tunnel, proposed bus/rail interchange, new road link, cleanliness of the area, timing of delivery and disabled access. There were eight objections on largely development matters, including traffic impacts on neighbouring streets, which would be addressed in the development application process.

 

Therefore, responses relate more to the overall development and egress from neighbouring streets and not specifically the proposed road closure. It is noted that the new road to be constructed will link the existing Nicholson Street alignment through to Lithgow Street, to facilitate access and egress into the precinct as part of the Voluntary Planning Agreement negotiated with the adjacent development.

 

Likewise, the submissions by two public authorities also addressed the overall precinct planning and not directly the proposed road closure. 

Conclusion

 

Having considered all submissions received, on balance, it will be recommended that Council support the proposal and make application to Department of Primary Industries – Lands to close the subject public road.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Note that following public notification in the North Shore Times, on Council’s website, via eNewsletter and by letters to relevant stakeholders, on balance there are significant community benefits to the proposed closure of the northern end of Lithgow Street and proposed Plaza to be constructed over the rail corridor and the subject section of Lithgow street; and

 

2.   Make application to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands to formally close as public road the northern end of Lithgow Street, St Leonards as illustrated at AT 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Plan of proposed Road closure - northern end of Lithgow Street

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Submissions Summary - Part Road Closure of Lithgow Street, St Leonards

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

March 2017 Traffic Committee Meeting

 

 

Subject:          March 2017 Traffic Committee Meeting    

Record No:    SU1326 - 18480/17

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Santosh Rai 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 28 March 2017.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 28 March 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - March 2017

10 Pages

 

AT‑2View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - March 2017

11 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Program

 

 

Subject:          Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Program    

Record No:    SU4985 - 18599/17

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Corinne Dickinson 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report updates Council on the Love Where You Live Sponsorship Program.

Council is now ready to receive applications from the community for funding or in-kind support to assist with new events in Lane Cove.

The funding is to be sourced from the Sustainability Levy as part of the Love Where You Live program (Social Pillar of Sustainability) and, if the trial is successful, could be run annually in the same timeframe as the existing Sustainability Small Grants program.

 

Background

In 2015 Council agreed to trail a sponsorship program which would help to build the capacity of the Lane Cove community to develop their own neighbourhood activities. The funding would be available through the Love Where You Live campaign and would support activities that involve connecting neighbours, enjoying outdoor events, celebrating local history, encouraging respect of public spaces and supporting our community on the basis that they will contribute to Lane Cove being a great place to live, work and play.

 

The volume of Council-run events and activities in 2016 prevented the opportunity to successfully promote this funding and therefore it is proposed that the trial commence in April 2017.

 

Discussion

 

Council has developed an application process which reflects the aims of the proposed Love Where You Live Sponsorship Program.

 

It is suggested that submissions can be made from April 2017 to December 2017 inclusive. Applications will be reviewed as per the guidelines developed and allocated to a Council meeting as soon as practicable. Council will then determine its support and take the necessary steps to advertise the support if granted.

 

If successful the trial would move towards a more structured application date such as a quarterly or six-monthly cycle.

 

Conclusion

 

The availability of the Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Program should be promoted and

the trial extended until the end of December 2017.

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council implements the revised program and timeframe for the Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Program.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Information and Eligibility for Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Package 2017 Trial

6 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Application Form Love Where You Live Events Sponsorship 2017

4 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Councillor Representation on Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Board

 

 

Subject:          Councillor Representation on Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Board    

Record No:    SU868 - 17840/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In view of the merger proposal, Council at its meeting of 19 September 2016 resolved that existing Councillor representation on Advisory Committees and External Committees be retained until either a merger is proclaimed or a review is undertaken after the Council elections scheduled for September 2017. Additionally, Council resolved that existing terms of reference for Advisory Committees be retained.

 

Councillor Karpin has tendered his resignation as one of the two Councillor representatives on the Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd Board (Pottery Gardens). This report will recommend Council determine a replacement for Clr Karpin on this Board.

 

Discussion

 

Council currently operates various advisory Committees, and participates in other external Committees to provide a forum for discussion of broad, local and regional issues among council representatives, local agencies and community members. One of external committees is the Board for the management of Pottery Gardens, with background information as follows.

 

Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd Board

 

Council purchased land in Central Avenue in 1966 for the development of units and transferred the land to the Association in 1994. The Association, a company limited by Guarantee, seeks to provide suitable accommodation for aged persons capable of independent living, and manages the land and buildings at Pottery Gardens to this end. The Board meets six times a year on a Tuesday at 6.45pm. As this is an external Committee the role of the Committee is governed by the Lane Cove Retirement Units Association, whose constitution provides for two (2) Councillor representatives. Council’s other current representative on the Board is the Mayor Councillor Hutchens.

 

Conclusion

 

As a result of the resignation from the Board by Clr Karpin, it is recommended that Council determine a replacement Councillor representative.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council determine one (1) additional Councillor representative for Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd Board; and

 

2.   Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd be informed of Council’s new representative on their Board.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 - Review

 

 

Subject:          Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 - Review    

Record No:    SU6679 - 18536/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In February 2017, NSW Planning & Environment released a Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 for public exhibition.

 

The exhibition period was originally proposed to conclude on 31 March 2017. However, this clashed with other proposed amendments i.e. Changes to the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Draft North District Plan.

 

NSW Planning and Environment then extended the public exhibition period until 7 April 2017. As a result, Council officers have already submitted the concerns highlighted in this report to NSW Planning and Environment.

 

It is recommended that Council receive and note this report.

 

Background

 

The purpose of the draft SEPP is to bring together and align various controls at national, state and local government levels. Some changes have also occurred. These controls apply to child care facilities, schools, TAFEs and universities.

 

Early childhood education and care facilities are currently regulated by national regulations, state requirements and Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. Schools and tertiary institutions are currently covered by the Infrastructure SEPP.

 

Draft SEPP Overview

 

The draft SEPP proposes a new exempt and complying development regime for education and child care facilities. It provides detailed design guidelines for centre-based child care facilities and guidelines for schools. It permits educational and child care development on bush fire prone land. Issues of concern are addressed in detail below.

 

Overall, the draft SEPP has the following intentions:

 

Child care

 

·    Consolidates national standards that control safety, staffing, and the built environment. These standards are detailed in the “Child Care Planning Guideline”, which will take precedence over Council’s DCP.

·    The CCPG covers siting, building, spaces, amenity, access, environment, development assessment and complying development. It also details requirements and procedures for DAs.

·    It details matters of consideration for a Service Approval (license to practice child care).

 


 

Schools

 

·    Provides design principles for safe schools.

·    Design standards are applied via a complying development process.

·    The height of complying school buildings is increased from 12m to 22m (4 storeys).

·    The expansion of existing schools is regulated by conditions of consent.

·    With any 50+ student increase, traffic impacts are required to be concurrently assessed by the RMS.

 

Tertiary institutions

 

·    Would be permitted to occupy commercial premises.

·    Would be permitted in Business zones.

 

A table summarising all the proposed provisions is attached at AT-1.

 

Issues

 

Staff raise the following issues with the draft SEPP.

 

1.   Child Care Centres

 

-     Cap on Number of Places

 

Council’s Development Control Plan Part I applies to centre-based child care facilities. The draft Education & Child Care SEPP, especially matters for consideration under the Child Care Planning Guideline Parts 2 & 3, overrule (by effectively disapplying) all provisions of Lane Cove DCP Part I. These are detailed in AT-2.

 

Comment

 

This removes from Council the current ability to limit the maximum number of places at any one child care centre in a residential zone to 60 places. The draft SEPP also disallows Council’s ability to refuse centres on the basis of proximity of existing facilities, further compounding the potential for excessive traffic and noise impacts on local streets. As a result, potentially large centre-based facilities could be permitted in local streets of low density residential zones. The basis for removing Council’s controls is to align with the National Quality Framework for Child Care Centre’s, however these standards only consider the issue of scale in relation to the centre’s operational requirements, not the impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood, it is therefore not supported.

 

 

-     Hours of Operation

 

The same draft SEPP provisions, under clause 24, disapply Council’s power to limit the maximum hours of operation to ”between 7.00am and 6pm, Monday till Friday, in a residential zone” (DCP, Part I.12).

 

Comment

 

Section 3I of the Child Care Planning Guideline sets out measures to protect the acoustic privacy of neighbours. These measures do not address the potential cumulative effect of several, large centre-based child care facilities. Moreover, traffic and transport assessment is only required for over 90-place facilities in residential zones. The combined noise and traffic effects, especially on weekends and evenings, are considered potentially to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents in the vicinity of such proposals.

 

-     Bush Fire Prone Land

 

The current restriction on child care facilities in bushfire prone land is removed, but subject to strict fire safety development standards inserted into the Codes SEPP.

 

Comment

 

Although a home-based child care facility is now exempt from requiring approval, the requirement for a Service Approval from the Department of Education is expected to be the point at which the development conforms with the Codes SEPP. There is no detail of how rigorously this Service Approval will ensure bush fire protection measures are enforced for exempt development.

 

-     Permissibility in Industrial Zones

 

Centre-based child care is permitted in industrial zones (with heads of consideration in the draft SEPP to protect the health and safety of children and centre staff in IN1 & IN2 industrial areas).

 

Comment

 

The industrial zone considerations on page 36 of the Child Care Planning Guideline lack rigour, asking consent authorities to “consider” objectives. A better form of wording is exemplified in Clause 22 of the SEPP, which uses the stronger “must consider... whether...”.

 

-     Concurrence of Department of Education

 

The concurrence of Department of Education is required for DAs where standards of the Child Care Planning Guideline are not met (especially regarding play areas). The Department has 28 days to respond.

 

Comment

 

While this applies to DAs, it is unclear how this non-compliance is to be policed for home-based and most school-based (exempt or complying) child care. Presumably this is via the Service Approval.

 

-     Non-discretionary development standards

 

Similar to other existing SEPPs, grounds are given by which a development application for a centre-based child care facility cannot be refused by a consent authority. These include that the development may be located on a site of any size, cover any part of the site, and have any length of street frontage or allotment depth.

 

Comment

 

These grounds effectively prevent Council from refusing a development that has a bulk, especially a street frontage, that is inconsistent with the character of the street.

 

2.   Schools

 

-     Heights of Complying Schools

 

The current maximum height of a complying school development in the Infrastructure SEPP is 12metres. New design standards in Schedule 2 of the draft SEPP allow a 22m building. Setbacks are to increase, stepping back with height increases, in a manner approximating setbacks in the Apartment Design Guidelines (but one metre less).

 

Comment

 

This departure from the Infrastructure SEPP would have the effect of permitting, without Council consent, a 22m school building potentially adjacent to residential areas. The building would be set back 5m for the first 12m, as is now the case under the Infrastructure SEPP. From 12m to 15m height would be permitted if set back 8m, and from 15m to 22m if set back 10m. 

 

This new “Complying development” regime includes construction of buildings for educational uses such as classrooms, a library, administration, school hall, gymnasium, canteen or a child care facility, all within the grounds of an existing school. Such a 22 metre construction adjacent to low rise residential development would create an inappropriate bulk and scale impact. Furthermore, the potential for unacceptable view loss, overlooking, overshadowing and character juxtaposition is exacerbated by permitting this development to be done as complying development.

 

-     State Significant Development

 

The threshold for SSD schools is proposed to be lowered from $30m to $20m. Development can therefore contravene design standards of a Council LEP, but is to “take into consideration” the new Design Principles in Schedule 4 of the draft SEPP.

 

Comment

 

The new Design Principles in Schedule 4 of the draft SEPP are general aspirations. They lack the rigour of prescriptive standards such as those in the Design standards for Complying Development (Schedule 2 of the draft SEPP).

 

The dual impact of lowering the threshold of SSD to $20m and not providing agreed or community endorsed design standards undermines confidence in the outcome of State Significant Development proposals.

 

-     Site Compatibility Certificates

 

The proposed draft SEPP would include provisions for site compatibility certificates to permit a school site to adopt the zoning of adjoining land to enable development that is permissible on adjoining land to also be carried out on the school site despite the provisions of the applicable LEP.

 

Comment

 

Site compatibility certificates would permit schools in zones where educational establishments are not currently permitted. Lane Cove LEP only permits educational establishments in certain business zones (B2, B3 and B4 zones) and nominated infrastructure zones (SP2). This clause potentially allows schools in residential zones. In conjunction with the changes to heights of complying development and SSDs, this proposal directly threatens the existing and future amenity of residential zones.

 

-     Non-government schools

 

Under a proposed amendment to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, non-government schools would be prescribed as public authorities. Private schools would also be able to expand and upgrade school facilities using similar planning provisions as public authorities. This includes being able to build single storey classrooms, offices, libraries, kiosks, book shops, carparks, and various alterations and additions to existing buildings, as development without consent under the draft SEPP, using the same self-assessment process as government schools currently can.

 

Comment

 

To include non-government schools under the same controls as government schools has the potential to exacerbate to the problems of inappropriate height and zoning described above.  Non-government schools may not have the same motivations or see the need to vigorously have regard to the same checks and balances as government schools when using self-assessment processes.

 

3.   Tertiary Institutions

 

-     Commercial Premises

 

An amendment to the Codes SEPP would allow tertiary institutions to access the change of use provisions, to enable them to occupy commercial premises as complying development, provided that relevant development standards are met.

 

Comment

 

This amendment has the potential for TAFEs and universities to operate in, for example, Lane Cove West, Lane Cove Village, and St Leonards. The potential effect would be that TAFEs and universities compete with other commercial land uses, potentially driving up rents and land prices and pushing out more appropriate commercial land uses out of commercial areas.

 

-     Business zones

 

The draft SEPP would allow tertiary educational buildings in Business zones.

 

Comment

 

This proposal has the same effect as the above amendment.

 

Conclusion

 

The need to accommodate and ensure the adequate and timely provisions of childcare centres, schools, TAFE and University infrastructure and services is not questioned.

 

All Councils and communities benefit from quality education and must seek to accommodate and support the provision and augmentation of vital education infrastructure.

Clearly, in established areas such as Lane Cove such support may challenge our traditional concept of bulk, scale and impacts created by education infrastructure provision and/or upgrades.  The current development assessment process calls for a considered and principled analysis of need and impacts when proposing new and/or changed education generated development.  Local DCP and State Environmental Planning Policy guidelines are a tried and tested process that is consultative merit based assessment that works.

 

The SEPP as proposed, limits or removes local input, fails to provide best practice and considered models that would consider likely impacts to adjoining and nearby communities and for these reasons Council calls for a fine tuning of the assessment process rather than the whole sale changes proposed in the Draft SEPP.

 

While recognising the value of bringing child care, schools and tertiary institutions together under one SEPP, with design controls appropriate to each, there are a number of serious concerns and problems associated with the manner in which changes to existing controls are envisaged. In brief, the most problematic of these are:

 

1.   Councils would no longer be able to limit adverse impacts of child care centres and places within their LGAs, including limits to hours of operation. This has the potential to create cumulative adverse impacts within residential areas and potential land use conflicts in Industrial zones.

 

2.   Allowing a centre-based child care facility to be located on a site of any size, cover any part of the site, and have any length of street frontage or allotment depth, is a ‘poor planning outcome’. It effectively prevents Council from refusing a development that has bulk, especially a street frontage, that is inconsistent with the character of the street.

 

3.   There is no detail of how rigorously the Service Approval will ensure bush fire protection measures are enforced for exempt home-based child care development, creating a potential safety concern.

 

4.   Raising the maximum height of complying school buildings to 22 metres potentially adjacent to residential development is an inappropriate bulk and scale impact, exacerbating the likelihood of unacceptable view loss, overlooking, overshadowing and character impacts.

 

5.   The combined impact of lowering the threshold of State Significant (school) Development from $30m to $20m and not providing any accompanying design standards undermines public confidence in the outcome of State Significant Development proposals.

 

6.   Site compatibility certificates will permit schools in zones where educational establishments are not currently permitted in Lane Cove such as residential zones. In conjunction with the changes to heights of complying development and SSDs, this proposal directly threatens the amenity of residential zones.

 

7.   To prescribe non-government schools as public authorities has the potential to exacerbate the problems of inappropriate height and zoning described above.

 

8.   To allow TAFEs and universities to occupy commercial premises as complying development, and to develop in business zones, has the potential effect that TAFEs and universities could compete with commercial land uses, driving up rents and land prices and pushing commercial land uses out of commercial areas.

 

As the closing date for submissions was 7 April, 2017 Council officers have already submitted the above concerns to the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Table of Key Changes - draft Education & Child Care SEPP

8 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Child Care Issues SEPP vs DCP

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) - Review

 

 

Subject:          Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) - Review    

Record No:    SU6680 - 18610/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In February 2017, the Department of Planning & Environment released a Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) Amendment (Review) 2016 for public exhibition. Exhibition closed on 7 April, 2017.

 

The Infrastructure SEPP is the most frequently used planning instrument when undertaking public infrastructure projects in NSW. It is a statutory requirement that it is to be reviewed at least every five years.

 

Most of the proposed revisions to the Infrastructure SEPP are considered to be of practical benefit to the timely provision of infrastructure in NSW. Two matters, however, are of concern to Lane Cove Council. These relate to the potential for unintended negative impacts resulting from permitting hospitals in B1 Neighbourhood Centres and 12metre high commercial premises on health services facility sites in R2 Low Density Residential zones.

 

Background

 

The current SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 provides assessment pathways for different types of infrastructure. The proposed changes will either amend existing provisions or insert new provisions in the Infrastructure SEPP. In some cases, the amendments transfer an entire part out of the SEPP to create a new one. This has resulted in minor ‘housekeeping’ amendments to existing provisions, including renumbering and re-structuring.

 

Overall, the draft Infrastructure SEPP is the result of the NSW Government’s SEPP review program which has been undertaken in stages since June 2015. Issues of concern are addressed in detail below. More broadly, the draft SEPP proposes “key amendments” including new or expanded provisions for the following:

 

Discussion.

 

Health services facilities

A health services facility means “a building or place used to provide medical or other services relating to the maintenance or improvement of the health, or the restoration to health, of persons or the prevention of disease in or treatment of injury to persons, and includes any of the following:

 

a)   a medical centre [commercial premises for out-patients],

b)   community health service facilities,

c)   health consulting rooms [dwelling with 1-3 professionals],

d)   patient transport facilities, including helipads and ambulance facilities,

e)   hospital.”

 

·    Complying development is to permit health services facilities buildings within the existing site (max. 12m height);

·    Alterations or additions to health service facilities carried out without development consent;

·    An expanded number of developments carried out with consent to service patients or staff or visitors (including residential, child care, commercial, community, etc);

·    development carried out with consent must notify the Council and adjoining occupier and consider any response received;

·    Permit health services facilities in additional R2 residential and B1 business zones.

·    Introduce a new exempt development regime within the boundaries of public and private health services facilities.

 

Education provisions (establishments

·    Transfer the provisions for educational establishments into a new stand-alone Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities SEPP.

 

Council operational lands

·    Extend exempt development and development permitted without consent which Councils can currently undertake on their public [community] reserves to include Council operational Lands;

·    Exempt development provisions for operational lands include walking tracks, bicycle-related storage facilities, barriers, ticketing machines, viewing platforms, some sporting facilities etc;

·    Development permitted without consent provisions range from roads, cycleways, single storey car parks, recreation areas and recreation facilities (outdoor), information boards, lighting, landscaping, amenities, food preparation facilities, maintenance depots, etc.

 

Police services facilities & police stations

·    Allow police services facilities in certain land use zones without consent (e.g. rural, industrial, special purpose and business zones);

·    Require development consent for police services facilities in residential zones, RE1 Public Recreation, and others;

·    Allow demolition, restoration, and alterations and additions to existing police and emergency services facilities without consent on any land. Will be limited to development for no more than a 10% increase in staff numbers per year.

 

Commuter hubs

·    Permit certain types of development with consent by any person: such as visitor accommodation above rail stations, retail or business premises on the ground floor or street frontage of multi-level commuter car parks, commuter carparks associated with certain busy bus stops, etc;

·    Proposed to allow new exempt development regime to permit minor items, such as ATMs, ticketing machines, etc;

·    A new complying development regime for works at existing bus depots.

 

Sewerage and water lead-in infrastructure

This refers to minor pipeline works used for the collection and transfer of sewage or water from a new development to an existing sewage or water reticulation system.

·    New provisions to simplify the assessment and approval process for these;

·    Connecting into the existing Sydney water supply and sewerage network to be undertaken as complying development;

·    New complying development provisions will assist both private developers and private infrastructure providers.

 

Other amendments are described as other operational matters or housekeeping amendments. These relate to issues such as protection of Aboriginal sites, heritage items, removal of asbestos, specified noise standards along roads, and similar.

 

Note: A table summarising all the proposed provisions is attached at AT-1 (Infrastructure SEPP – Changes).

 

Issues of Concern   

 

Council only raises issue with two items, both of which are related to proposed changes to Health Services Facilities.

 

Complying commercial buildings

 

Complying development is proposed to permit health services facilities buildings within the existing site (max. 12m height), including commercial premises, administration buildings and child cares centres.

 

Comment:

Where hospitals are permitted in R2 zones (currently permitted in Lane Cove LGA, and as proposed in this Draft), 12metre commercial premises associated with health care would be permitted. This could have the unintended negative impact of permitting larger medical centres in low density residential areas, which would be more appropriate in commercial zones.

 

Added to R2 and B1 Zones

 

All uses defined as Health Services Facilities are to be permitted in R2 Low Density Residential and B1 Neighbourhood Centres.

 

Comment:

Again, the inclusion of commercial buildings up to 12m in height in R2 Low Density Residential zones may have the unintended negative impacts of excessive view loss, overshadowing, overlooking, bulk and scale, and traffic impacts.

 

Likewise, permitting hospitals for example in B1 Neighbourhood Centres has the potential to allow excessive bulk and scale in what are generally small, local 2-storey centres for local shops. In addition, hospitals have the potential under this Draft SEPP amendment to provide 12m commercial buildings with possible impacts on the viability of small shops to compete for land value.

 

Conclusion

 

Most of the proposed revisions to the Infrastructure SEPP are considered to be of practical benefit to the timely provision of infrastructure in NSW.

 

Council welcomes provisions in relation to Council operational lands to extend exempt development and development permitted without consent which Councils can currently undertake on their public reserves to include Council operational Lands.

 


 

Two matters, however, are of concern:-

 

1.   To permit as complying development the construction of 12metre commercial premises on sites of health care facilities would have unintended negative impacts in R2 Low Density residential areas. There may be excessive view loss, overshadowing, overlooking, bulk and scale, and traffic impacts. These premises should more appropriately be limited to commercial zones; and

 

2.   Related to this, permitting hospitals for example in B1 Neighbourhood Centres will have the potential to allow excessive bulk and scale in what are generally small, local 2-storey centres for local shops.

 

The closing date for submissions is 7 April, 2017, which is earlier than Council’s 10 April meeting. Council officers have therefore submitted the above concerns to the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received, endorsed and a formal submission advise of Council’s broad support for the draft Infrastructure SEPP, highlighting Council’s concerns with health care facilities and the permitting of hospitals in B1 Neighbourhood Zones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Infrastructure SEPP - Changes

28 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 10 April 2017

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 17864/17

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

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 the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council Snapshot - March 2017

40 Pages