Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki (Chairperson) (Comenarra Ward)

Councillor J Pettett (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillors C Berlioz & D Ossip (St Ives Ward)

Councillors J Anderson & D Armstrong (Roseville Ward)

Councillors C Fornari-Orsmond & D McDonald (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (Rocky Naickar)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (Greg Piconi)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan)

Governance Officer (Christie Spry)

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Mayor adverted to the necessity for Councillors and staff to declare a Pecuniary Interest/Conflict of Interest in any item on the Business Paper.

Councillor David Citer declared a pecuniary interest in Item GB.1 - 2012 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants (advised that he is the Manager of Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service [KYDS]) and that he will leave the Chamber during the debate and voting of the item.

Councillor David Citer also declared a conflict of interest in part of Item GB.3 - Representation on Community Committees/Organisations (advised that he is the Manager of Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service [KYDS]) and that he will leave the Chamber for voting of Council's representative and/or alternate for the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service Inc Management Committee.

Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond declared a non-significant pecuniary interest in Item GB.1 - 2012 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants (advised that she was a Rotary member and associate of a person on the Committee and also was part of the election campaign) but there is no need for her to leave during debate and voting on the item.

297

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/McDonald)

That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:

GB.9 Tender T62/2012 - Two Turners Reserve Playground Construction and associated Landscape Works

Attachment 1: List of Tenderers

Attachment 2: Evaluation Sheet

Attachment 3: Financial and Performance Assessment

GB.10 Tender T60/2012 - Acron Oval Car Park and Ancillary Works

Attachment 1: List of Tenderers

Attachment 2: Evaluation Sheet

Attachment 3: Financial & Performance Assessment - Civil Constructions Pty Ltd

Attachment 4: Financial & Performance Assessment - Cockerill Contracting Pty Ltd

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

The Mayor adverted to the documents circulated in the Councillors’ papers and advised that the following matters would be dealt with at the appropriate time during the meeting:

Late Items:

PT.2 - Objection to Reclassification and Rezoning of 90 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase - (One Hundred and Four [104] Signatures)

PT.3 - 4 Binalong Street, West Pymble - Objection to Reclassification and Rezoning of Property - (Three Hundred and Sixty-Four [364] Signatures)

Memorandums:

Refer GB.10 - Tender T60/2012 - Acron Oval Car Park and Ancillary Works - Memorandum from Director Operations dated 17 October 2012 advising Councillors that in reference to the financial considerations in the report relating to the tender for the Acron Oval works indicates that funds are available under PJ101372. However, the balance of funds in this account is $62,677.00. There is also funding from PJ101839 for Acron Oval works in an amount of $90,886.00 and it is proposed to fund the balance of the funds required to complete the works from Section 94 reserves, 2004/09 - Local Parks and Sporting Facilities Reserve. Also advised that the recommendation in the report is not effected by the changes to the funding source.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

298

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 9 October 2012

Minutes numbered 274 to 296

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Szatow)

That Minutes numbered 274 to 296 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

299

Objection to Reclassification and Rezoning of 21 Calga Street, Roseville Chase - (Three Hundred and Three [303] Signatures)

File: S09190

Vide: PT.1

"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose Ku-ring-gal Council's proposal to reclassify and rezone 21 Calga Street from Community Land to Operational Land, 2(a) Residential, for the following reasons:

1. Loss of open space.

2. Increasing demand for open space due to increasing number of households with young children in Roseville Chase.

3. Roseville-Roseville Chase has the highest population density of Ku-ring-gai municipality.

4. No equivalent space in the local community.

5. No offsetting benefit to local community.

6. Community land is a limited resource."

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Armstrong)

That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Officer of Council for attention.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

300

Objection to Reclassification and Rezoning of 90 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase - (One Hundred and Four [104] Signatures)

File: S09190

Vide: PT.2

"We, the undersigned, object to the Council's proposal to reclassify and rezone
90 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase from Community Land to Operational Land 2(a) Residential."

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Armstrong)

That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Officer of Council for attention.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

301

4 Binalong Street, West Pymble - Objection to Reclassification and Rezoning of Property - (Three Hundred and Sixty-Four [364] Signatures)

File: S09190

Vide: PT.3

"We, the undersigned, being either residents of West Pymble or elsewhere in the
Ku-ring-gai area, and/or owners of commercial property in West Pymble and/or business operators in West Pymble and elsewhere in the Ku-ring-gai area hereby petition the Council to leave the current zoning of the land - 4 Binalong Street, West Pymble, subject of a recent Council notice, untouched for at least three years in order for West Pymble Chamber of Commerce Incorporated, and others who may care, to explore, and submit to Council community uses to which the land can potentially be put, including retaining its present use, with a view to permanently retaining the present zoning."

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Pettett/McDonald)

That the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Officer of Council for attention.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

302

Environmental Levy Small Grants Scheme - Round Fourteen

File: S04553

Vide: GB.6

To seek Council’s endorsement to fund Round Fourteen of the Community Small Grants Scheme funded by the Environmental Levy.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Ossip)

That Council supports the recommendation of the small grants assessment panel to fund
fifteen (15) projects under Round Fourteen of the Environmental Levy Community Small Grants Scheme, totalling $43,357.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

303

Tender T62/2012 - Two Turners Reserve Playground Construction and Associated Landscape Works

File: S09364

Vide: GB.9

To consider the tenders received for the Two Turners Reserve playground construction and associated landscape works at Gladstone Parade, Lindfield and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Anderson)

A. That Council accept the tender from Urban Landscape Projects Pty Ltd to carry out the work of playground construction and associated landscape works at Two Turners Reserve, Lindfield.

B. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.

C. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

D. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

304

Tender T60/2012 - Acron Oval Car Park and Ancillary Works

File: S09431/3

Vide: GB.10

To consider the tenders received for the upgrade of the car park and ancillary works at Acron Oval, St Ives and appoint the preferred tenderer.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Berlioz)

A. That Council accepts the tender from Civil Constructions Pty Ltd to carry out the construction of Acron Oval Car Park and Ancillary Works.

B. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.

C. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.

D. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Citer declared a pecuniary Interest

in respect of the following item -

2012 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants

and withdrew from the Chamber taking no part

in discussion and voting on the item

305

2012 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants

File: FY00430/4

Vide: GB.1

The following member of the public addressed Council:

G Simmons

To advise Council of applications received from community groups for financial assistance in 2012 and to recommend subsequent funding allocations.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Szatow)

A. That the community and cultural groups, as listed under each category, receive the recommended amount of financial assistance from Council in 2012.

1. Category: Small Equipment

Name of Organisation	Amount Recommended $
East Lindfield Community Preschool	1,465
1st East Roseville Group Scouts	2,000
English At Gordon (Gordon Baptist Church Cross Cultural Friendship Centre)	1,200
Girl Guides Assoc (NSW) South Turramurra District	1,860
Killara Public School P & C Association	1,535
KU South Turramurra Preschool	977
KU The Chase Preschool	2,000
KU Wahroonga Preschool	2,000
Ku-ring-gai Community Workshop "The Shed" Inc	2,000
Ku-ring-gai Meals on Wheels	800
Ku-ring-gai Neighbourhood Centre Inc	2,000
Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury	1,539
2nd 3rd Lindfield Scout Group	2,000
North Turramurra Netball Club	2,000
Probus Club of Barra Brui Inc	1,814
Probus Club of East Lindfield Inc	1,299
St Edmund's School - Edmund Rice Special Educations Services NSW	1,881
St Ives Girl Guides - Brui District	1,800
St Ives Toastmasters Club	2,000
West Pymble Scouts	2,000

2. Category: Community Development

Name of Organisation	Amount Recommended $
Active Opportunities Inc. (Conditional on quote for t-shirt printing & purchase).	5,000
Constant Companion Service	1,350
Easy Care Gardening Inc	1,000
English At Gordon (Gordon Baptist Church Cross Cultural Friendship Centre)	1,200
Hills Schools Industry Partnership	3,323
Hornsby Ku-ring-gai & Hills Multiple Births Association	620
Killara Public School P & C Association (Release of funds conditional on the availability of funds from the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation and /or the project progressing through funds raised by the Killara Public School P & C Association).	5,000
Ku-ring-gai Community Workshop "The Shed" Inc	4,606
Ku-ring-gai Historical Society Inc	4,700
Ku-ring-gai Neighbourhood Centre Inc	2,240
Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS)	5,000
Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury	5,000
1st Lindfield Scouts: The Scout Association of Australia NSW	4,800
Parkinson's NSW Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Support Group	2,150
Rotary Club of Turramurra	3,000

3. Category: Arts/Cultural

Name of Organisation	Amount Recommended $
Boonah Creative Arts Centre, Centacare Broken Bay	3,000
Chabad House of the North Shore	5,000
The Eryldene Trust	5,000
Jewish Arts Incorporated	1,980
Ku-ring-gai Historical Society Inc	4,715
Ku-ring-gai Youth Orchestra	3,500
The Mirrabooka Singers	1,475
Zonta Club of Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Inc	2,063

B. That $15,000 be allocated under the Major Sponsorship category, to the Ku-ring-gai Chase Fun Run to be held on 13 March 2013.

C. That all groups recommended for financial assistance and sponsorship from Council receive cheques from the Mayor at the 2012 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Presentation Evening.

D. That the balance of funds be included in the 2013 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program to commence in March 2013.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present

Councillor Citer returned

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items where

there are speakers first which was moved by

Councillors Szatow and McDonald

and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

306	8 - 10 Bent Street Lindfield - Demolition of Two Dwellings and Construction of a Residential Flat Building comprising 12 Units with Basement Parking and Landscaping Works File: DA0303/12 Vide: GB.5 Ward: Roseville Applicant: Mainstring Owners: Mr Mao Hsiung Wang, Ms Linda Chiu Lee Wang
	The following members of the public addressed Council: Y Wang C Pillay
	To determine Development Application DA0303/12 for demolition of two dwellings and construction of a residential flat building comprising 12 units with basement parking and landscaping works.
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Szatow/Berlioz) That Council, as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse to grant consent to Development Application DA0303/12 for demolition of two dwellings and construction of a residential flat building comprising 12 units, basement parking and landscaping works on land at 8 – 10 Bent Street, Lindfield for the following reasons: 1. DEEP SOIL LANDSCAPE AREA The development does not demonstrate compliance with the development standard of Clause 25I(2) of the KPSO. An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (Development Standards) has not been submitted. Particulars: (a) The applicant nominates a deep soil landscape area of 614m² or 40%. (b) The definition of 25I(2)(a) states deep soil landscaping within a minimum width of 2 metres is to be provided on the site. (c) The following areas do not satisfy the definition for deep soil landscape area: · The existing rear boundary wall (considered a structure). · The basement fire egress stairs (considered part of structure). · Overhanging balconies for Units 8 & 10 (considered part of structure). · Front fence (considered a structure) · The basement where it projects further than the building footprint (considered part of structure). · The access ramp and pedestrian path adjacent to the western site boundary (>1.0m wide). (d) The development breaches the development standard with a deep soil landscape area of approximately 38.5%. No objection has been made pursuant to SEPP 1. The development therefore cannot be approved. 2. SITE COVERAGE The development does not comply with the development standard in Clause 25I(6) of the KPSO. No objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (Development Standards) has been submitted. Particulars: (a) The proposal is for a residential flat building where the maximum permitted site coverage is 35%. The applicant nominates a site coverage of 36.2%. (b) Building footprint is defined as the total maximum extent of the two dimensional area of the plan view of a building including all levels, but excluding any part of the building below ground and minor ancillary structures such as barbeques, letterboxes and pergolas. (c) Council has calculated the site coverage to be 40.67% in accordance with the definition above. (d) No objection has been made pursuant to SEPP 1. The development therefore cannot be approved. 3. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY BASIX (2006) The BASIX Certificate submitted with the development application and the nominated commitments are inconsistent with the submitted architectural plans. Particulars: (a) BASIX Certificate 177525M_02 dated 29/07/2012 has been submitted with the application. (b) The Certificate makes numerous landscape area commitments for both private and common landscape areas. The available deep soil landscape area for the site, which is totally within communal ownership, is identified as 614m². The Certificate nominates the communal area of garden and lawn as 390m². (c) The common area of garden at 80m² is inconsistent with the landscape plan which proposes a significantly larger area of planted gardens. (d) A planter box is proposed between the terraces of Units 1 and 2. The planter box is elevated and accessible only from the units and due to its location in front of Unit 2 it should be included as private garden area for Unit 2. (e) The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX (2006) and as a valid BASIX Certificate has not been provided the proposal cannot be approved. 4. DENSITY The proposal seeks a variation to the allowable building footprint from 35% to 40.67% and results in an unacceptable density contrary to Principle 4 Density of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design of Residential Flat Development. Particulars: (a) The maximum permitted building footprint is 35%. The applicant indicates a building footprint of 36.2% is proposed. (b) DCP 55 Control C-2 states building footprint calculations shall include all elements within the external plane of a building, including the external plane of any balcony. Control C-3 states any areas of ground floor terraces or courtyards that extend beyond the external plane of the above floors may not be included in the building footprint calculations. (c) Council calculates the building footprint to be 40.67%. The applicant has excluded all the external terraces from the calculation. (d) The building footprint is considered excessive and is non compliant with the development standard Clause 25I(6) of the KPSO. Variation to the development standard is not considered reasonable or necessary in this circumstance. (e) The permitted FSR is 0.7:1 by control 4.5.1 of DCP 55. The applicant indicates the proposal results in a FSR of 0.705:1 but according to Council’s calculations the proposal has a FSR of 0.9:1. This represents a significant breach of the control. (f) The proposed floor space is considered excessive and is facilitated by an excessive building footprint and short fall in deep soil landscape area. 5. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The proposal exhibits poor internal amenity and functionality as a result of poor planning and design. The proposal is contrary to Principle 7 Amenity of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design of Residential Flat Development. Particulars: (a) The following inconsistencies relating to residential amenity are identified: · The stair flights are shown incorrectly. The plans do not show any breaks or indication of direction of flights. Access to Unit 8 from the stair landing does not appear to work with the RLs provided. · The plans do not show the location of sliding doors. The access to balconies and terraces is possible but not demonstrated on documents. · There is an excessive number of bathrooms for the size units being proposed particularly where space is compromised in the majority of units eg Units 5,6 and 7 with contain ensuites to each bedroom. · The excessive number of service rooms results in likely unworkable rooms for either using the laundry appliances and/or using toilets and/or opening doors, and/or general circulation space eg both bathrooms Unit 5; Units 1 & 8 laundry/WC; ensuite for Units 4, 12. Generally, it is accepted practice that an area of 900x1500mm provides adequate space to use a WC and allow door clearances. Laundries need to provide sufficient space to open a front loading machine, move around to load and unload washing and reach up to an overhead dryer. The proposal does not demonstrate these areas are accessible and can be used for the intended purpose. · The size of most laundries/WCs as proposed does not appear to provide adequate clearance for door opening and using the WC eg Unit 6. · The view of WC from living room in Unit 6 is unacceptable. · There is an excessive number of sinks and tubs where laundries accommodate a second WC eg Units 8 and 9 · No linen cupboards provided to Units 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11 or 12 or 75% of the units and is unacceptable. · RLs are not provided to all balconies. · The functionality of the terrace at Level 2 to Unit 12 is unacceptable. The single access point from living area is to the small terrace which requires three steps up to access the rear terrace. The terrace is not directly accessible from any internal room and requires external access via the small terrace. (b) The lift location is internalised and accessed is via a dog-legged internal corridor at ground level. At Levels 1 and 2 it is fully internalised. This is contrary to (p79) of the RFDC which encourages corridors to be naturally lit and is non-compliant with DCP55 control 4.5.1 C-3. The internal lift lobby should have direct access to a window for natural light, ventilation and a welcoming entry. As a development of only three storeys, the inclusion of generously sized skylights at Level 2 roof over the lobby and over the stair could help address this as well as a window on the landing between Levels 1 and 2. (c) The proposal offers some units a secondary terrace or balcony area with the potential for multiple access points that is supported and encouraged in principle. However, it is noted that the primary open space terrace off the living room in the adaptable Unit 3 is smaller than the secondary balcony off the bedroom. Generally, the primary terrace should be the larger to provide maximum amenity to living rooms. This is contrary to (p71) of the RFDC which requires balconies to be used to extend the living area and to promote indoor/outdoor living. (d) Entry to Units 5 and 7 is at the end of long corridor at the rear of the building. The entrance to the Units is at a distance of 22 metres from the main entry and via a dog-legged corridor and is not supported. They are also immediately adjacent to the rear fire exit door and appear awkwardly configured. This is contrary to (p79) of the RFDC which requires appropriate levels of lighting and minimising corridor lengths to improve amenity and safety in circulation spaces. (e) Compliance with solar access controls has not been demonstrated. No solar impact report has been provided to demonstrate compliance is achieved. The proposal is only provided with roof shadow diagrams in plan. These plans are insufficient to determine whether compliance is achieved. It would appear from these plans, that only five (5) apartments are in sunlight at 9am and 12 noon, with eight (8) receiving sunlight at 3pm. A Solar Impact Report is required which provides comments on the performance of each unit. It is unclear whether the shadow diagrams have been calculated from true north. (f) Units 6, 8 and 10 are not provided with outdoor living spaces which comply with the minimum area requirements of 10m² for unit 10 and 12m² for units 6 and 8 by Control 4.5.5 C-2 of DCP 55. 6. VISUAL PRIVACY The development provides inadequate spatial separation which results in visual privacy impacts on occupants of the development and of surrounding properties. This is contrary to the building separation requirements of the RFDC (page 29) and 4.5.2 Visual Privacy of DCP 55 which requires a separation between 6 – 12 metres. Particulars: (a) The following separation distances between buildings are required under the RFDC for buildings up to four storeys: · 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies · 9 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms · 6 metres are provided between non-habitable rooms. (b) The objectives of the minimum separation distance controls are to provide visual and acoustic privacy for existing and new residents, control overshadowing and ensure that new development is scaled to support the desired area character with appropriate massing and spaces between buildings, to allow for the provision of open space and to provide deep soil zones. · the proposal provides the following separation distances which are non compliant with the control requirement: · the northern terrace associated with Unit 3 is located 5.5 metres from the openings of 6 Bent Street · the eastern terrace associated with Unit 3 is located 7.2 metres from the openings of 6 Bent Street · the northern terrace associated with Unit 1 is located 4.1 metres from the openings of 12 Bent Street · the western elevation openings of Unit 1 is located 4.1 metres from the opening of 12 Bent Street · the northern balcony associated with Unit 10 is located 4.4 metres from the openings of 6 Bent Street · the study opening associated with Unit 10 is located 7.2 metres from the openings of 6 Bent Street · the balcony of Unit 8 is located 3.1 metres from the opening of 12 Bent Street · the terrace associated with Unit 12 is located 4.9 metres from the rear building of 12 Bent Street · the terrace associated with Unit 11 is located 5.4 metres from the openings of 6 Bent Street (c) The Control 4.3 control C-1(b) of DCP 55 requires a side setback of 3 metres. The proposal provides a setback of 2.007 metres from the eastern boundary. The balcony associated with Unit 10 is considered to adversely affect the amenity of 6 Bent Street. (d) The proposal results in a significant shortfall from the required separation distances for privacy between properties. The proposal is considered to have an unacceptable impact upon 6 and 12 Bent Street as a result of the reduced separation distances and location of balconies and terraces. (e) The development is contrary to the aim of Part IIIA set out in Clause 25C(2)(g) of the KPSO which requires development to achieve a high level of residential amenity in building design for the occupants of the building through solar access, acoustic control, privacy protection, natural ventilation, passive security design, outdoor living, landscape design, indoor amenity and storage provision. 7. DRAFT KU-RING-GAI LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (LOCAL CENTRES) 2012 The proposal development is contrary to the provisions and zoning of the site under the Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012. Particulars (a) Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) the provisions of the Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 are a relevant consideration for assessment of this development application. (b) The Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 was exhibited from 21 May 2012 to 18 June 2012. The Draft LEP has adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has been requested to make the plan. (c) The Draft LEP is considered to be certain and imminent. The site’s zoning has not been altered post exhibition and therefore it is unlikely the final form of the Draft LEP will change in relation to the subject site from that exhibited and endorsed by Council. (d) The site is proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation pursuant to Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012. A residential flat building is not a permissible form of development within this zone. (e) The proposed development is contrary to the Aims of the LEP 2012 and objectives for the RE1 Public Recreation zone. 8. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The proposal is non-compliant with Ku-ring-gai Council Water Management Development Control Plan No.47. Particulars (a) Insufficient information was submitted of the entire stormwater drainage system including fully detailed design drawings, cross sections and calculations of the on-site stormwater detention and retention systems. (b) No information was submitted to show how ground floor units will not be subject to inundation if the pits in the car park are blocked. (c) The 300mm pipe that traverses the north eastern side boundary of No.6 Bent Street appears from inspection to cut across to a lintel located in front of No.8 Bent Street. No information has been submitted from a registered surveyor to provide an accurate assessment showing exact location of Council’s pipeline. (d) All pipelines are to have a minimum longitudinal grade of 1% where pipe diameters are up to and including 150mm. The 0.5% grade as shown will require possibly a 225mm pipe diameter. (e) The access opening has not been installed directly over the overflow outlet and is not readily accessible from a point external to the site building. (f) Water quality measures have not been addressed using MUSIC Modelling as required in Chapter 8 of Council’s Water Management DCP No.47. All stormwater flows are to be treated prior to discharge to the stormwater drainage system. The pollutant load standards set out in Section 8.3.1 of the DCP have not been satisfied. 9. CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT The proposal is non-compliant with Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) “Off-Street car parking”, and Ku-ring-gai Council ‘Car Parking’ Development Control Plan No.43. Particulars (a) A computer modelling software Auto-Track or equivalent has not been submitted to clarify that the manoeuvring areas for parking space 1 and visitor space 1 can safely manoeuvre out in a forward direction with a maximum 3-point turn. An electronic version of the model should have been submitted. (b) The car parking layout does not indicate a carwash / service bay space. Temporary space for service loading bay and removalist vehicles can be provided as a visitor space provided it has a minimum dimension of 3.5m x 6m and a minimum manoeuvring area of 7m wide. Furthermore, no swept paths have been submitted to show that a removalist vehicle can depart in a forward direction using the AS2890.1:2004 B99 design template. (c) The longitudinal section through the driveway and into the basement carpark does not clearly demonstrates that there will be 2.6 metres clear headroom along the whole of the travel path required for the small waste collection vehicle. The section does not include realistic slab/beam depths, stormwater pipelines and other overhead services, which will need to be endorsed by a structural engineer. (d) No Construction and Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), prepared by a suitable qualified traffic engineer, has been submitted with this application. 10. INADEQUATE INFORMATION Particulars: (a) The SEE states that no front fence is proposed yet drawing 07.20/DA06 has a front fence elevation. Clarification is sought as to what is being proposed. It is noted that existing ground levels require a retaining wall (as is existing) along the site frontage to maintain existing levels. (b) The SEE states that the terraces on the ground and third floor provide planter boxes and a large extent of landscaping. No planter boxes or landscape area have been proposed on the ground or third floor plans. (c) The SEE statements within the ‘SEPP65 Landscape Principle’ are inconsistent with the landscape plan. No landscape planter boxes are proposed and no direct access from the terraces to the landscape areas is proposed. The statements made are therefore incorrect and misleading and misrepresents compliance with the SEPP65 landscape principle. (d) No arborist report was submitted with the application. To enable assessment of potential tree impacts it is required that a tree impact assessment report be undertaken by an AQF5 arborist for all existing trees located on site, neighbouring properties and nature strip where development works are proposed within the tree protection zones. The report should specifically address the following: · Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located adjacent to the site frontage. The proposed driveway and associated excavation is located within the tree’s identified tree protection zone and may result in the severance of structural roots. · The proposed driveway location will require the removal of a mature Fraxinus americana (American Ash) which is part of an avenue planting across the site frontage. No justification has been provided for the tree’s removal. It is preferred to retain the tree which would require a design change to the driveway entry. Subject to arboricultural assessment it is recommended the driveway be relocated between the two existing vehicle crossovers. · Chamaecyparis obtusa ‘Crippsii’ (False Hinoki Cypress) located within the site frontage. The submitted plans are inconsistent regarding the retention/removal of the tree. No justification has been provided for the tree’s removal. Clarification is sought as to what is proposed for the tree and if it is to be removed justification is required. · Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located adjacent to the eastern site boundary within the neighbouring property. Excavation for the proposed basement is located within a 2.0m setback from the tree within its tree protection zone and at the outer edge of the structural root zone. This excavation is likely to require severance of structural roots and may adversely impact upon the tree’s ongoing health, viability and possibly its stability. No assessment of the impacts of the proposed development to the tree has been undertaken. · There is a grouping of mature Eucalypts located at the rear of the site within the commuter car park. The landscape plan indicates significant regrading and excavation of the rear setback within the tree protection zone of these Eucalypts. No arboricultural impact assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the development works to the ongoing health and viability of these trees. (e) The landscape plan is inadequate for the following reasons: · The landscape plan is a concept plan only with an indicative plant schedule. To enable assessment it is required that the plan be a detailed plan with a full plant schedule including pot size at planting and quantities. The plan is to detail the location and species of proposed planting. · The plan is inconsistent with the BASIX certificate and architectural plans. The landscape plan proposes planter boxes associated for Units 11 and 12 which have not been included on the architectural plans or within the BASIX certificate. No objection is raised regarding having the planter boxes, however all plans and documentation need to be consistent. · The plan does not sufficiently resolve existing and proposed levels across the site and how level changes are to be retained/resolved. For example the rear setback is proposed to be excavated by approximately 1.0m with no retaining walls. Further detail is required. · The landscape plan fails to connect the proposed building with its landscape surrounds. It is recommended that the ground floor terraces/courtyards connect with the perimeter landscape area, particularly at the rear where there is an opportunity for the landscape setting to connect with the terraces and encourage use of the outdoor space. · Clarification is sought regarding the front fence/retaining wall. The existing wall supports raised soil levels and the mature Jacaranda located within the site frontage and therefore the wall is required. The wall has not been shown on the plans and has not been excluded from the deep soil landscape area calculations. · Further detail is required regarding the proposed access ramp connected to Unit 1. The unit floor level is approximately 1.4m above ground level with no retaining wall or balustrade indicated. The southwest elevation is inconsistent with other architectural plans and the landscape plan. Clarification is sought to enable assessment. · The landscape plan is inconsistent with the architectural plans regarding pedestrian access/fire egress to the rear of the site. Clarification is sought as to what is proposed to enable assessment. · The landscape plan does not propose any tree plantings in scale with the development within the side setbacks. As per LEP194 objectives it is required that tree planting be proposed within side setbacks for resident, neighbour and landscape amenity. · Canopy tree planting proposed is inconsistent with the desired landscape character for the area. It is required as per LEP194 objectives that tree species be endemic to Ku ring gai. · Tree locations are immediately adjacent to the rear site boundary immediately adjacent to the existing masonry wall that will restrict root growth. It is required that proposed tree locations be appropriate to ensure ongoing health and viability and avoid future conflicts with the built form. It is recommended/required that the trees be relocated with an increased setback from the masonry wall. · The landscape design proposes a single row planting of screening shrubs adjacent to the rear site boundary. This is inadequate to screen and soften the visual impact of the development works. It is required that the proposed planting be significantly increased to include understorey trees, screening shrubs, feature plantings, low shrubs, grasses and groundcovers to provide a layered landscape setting. The same can be said for the proposed landscape works within the site frontage. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

307

Establishment of a Council Committee Structure

File: S02080

Vide: GB.2

To provide options and recommendations on the committee structure and Councillor representations for Council’s committees.

During debate, Council resolved itself into Committee of the Whole

with the Press and Public included for discussion

moved by the Mayor, Councillor E Malicki and Councillor McDonald

and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Council resolved to return to Open Council

prior to vote after a Motion

moved by Councillors Szatow and Armstrong

was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Resolved:

(Moved: Mayor, Councillor E Malicki/Councillor McDonald)

A. That Council elect the Council representatives for the Audit Committee (noting that the Committee is chaired by an independent community member, Mr. John Gordon - Audit Committee). That Councillors Duncan McDonald, Jeff Pettett and Jennifer Anderson are all accepted as members of the Committee and further that other Councillors are invited to attend as observers as previously has occurred.

B. That Council elect Councillor Christiane Berlioz as Chairperson and Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond as the Alternate for the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee.

C. That Council elect Councillor David Armstrong as Chairperson and Councillor Cheryl Szatow as Deputy for the Flood Risk Management Reference Committee.

D. That determination of a committee structure be deferred until after Council has considered the organisational structure as required by the Local Government Act 1993.

E. That one session at the Councillor workshop be devoted to a high level discussion of organisational and committee structures.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The above Resolution was subject to a Motion. The Motion was:

(Moved: Councillors Ossip/McDonald)

B. That Council elect Councillor Christiane Berlioz as Chairperson and Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond as the Alternate for the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee.

C. That Council elect the Councillor David Armstrong as Chairperson and Councillor Cheryl Szatow as Deputy for the Flood Risk Management Reference Committee.

D. That Council also gives further consideration at the Councillor Workshop, being held on Wednesday, 31st October through to Friday, 2 November 2012, to what other Committees could be established.

E. That the General Manager includes in the aforementioned Councillor Workshop agenda a report for Council to consider its current organisational structure, and other possible alternative structures.

308

Representation on Community Committees / Organisations

File: S02342

Vide: GB.3

For Council to make appointments to Community Committees / Organisations for the 2012/2013 term.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/McDonald)

A. That Council make appointments to Community Committees/ Organisations and nominate the following representatives:

The Ku-ring-gai Police and Community Safety Committee

Representative: Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond

Ku-ring-gai Meals on Wheels Inc

Representative: Councillor Duncan McDonald

Alternate: Councillor Christiane Berlioz

Eryldene Trust

Representative: Councillor Jennifer Anderson

Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Bushfire Management Committee

Representative: Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond

Alternate: Councillor Christiane Berlioz

Metropolitan Public Libraries Association

Representative: Councillor Jennifer Anderson

Rural Fire Service District Liaison Committee

Representative: Councillor David Citer

Alternate: Councillor Duncan McDonald

Hawkesbury/Nepean Local Government Advisory Group

No Nominees

Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC)

Mayor, Councillor E Malicki (automatic appointment)

That Councillor Jennifer Anderson be elected as second delegate and that Councillor Christiane Berlioz as alternate.

Councillor Citer declared a conflict of Interest

in respect of the nomination and voting on the following

item and withdrew from the Chamber taking no part

in the discussion and voting on the item

Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service Inc Management Committee (KYDS)

Standing Orders were suspended

to allow nominees to address Council

moved by the Mayor, Councillor E Malicki and Councillor Anderson

and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present

Nominations for the position of representative to the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service Inc Management Committee (KYDS) were received from Councillor Cheryl Szatow and Councillor David Ossip and as such a ballot was conducted resulting as follows:

For Councillor Cheryl Szatow: 6 votes

For Councillor David Ossip: 3 votes

Councillor Cheryl Szatow was duly elected as representative of the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service Inc Management Committee (KYDS) and Councillor David Ossip for a possible alternate.

Councillor Citer returned to the meeting

KOPWA (Ku-ring-gai Old Peoples Welfare Association)

Representative: Councillor Cheryl Szatow

B. That the Community Committees / Organisations be informed of Council’s nominated representatives.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

309

Investment Report as at 30 September 2012

File: S05273

Vide: GB.4

To present to Council investments portfolio performance for September 2012.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/McDonald)

A. That the summary of investments and performance for September 2012 be received and noted.

B. That the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Armstrong withdrew

310

Draft NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

File: S02705

Vide: GB.7

To provide Council with an overview of the Draft NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, and formally refer the Council’s comments to the NSW State Government.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Szatow)

That comments be submitted to Transport for NSW based on the contents of the report sand that additional comments be included dealing with congestion points along the Pacific Highway.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present

Councillor Armstrong returned

311

Divestment of Surplus Land - Pymble

File: S08130

Vide: GB.8

To seek Council approval to divest the property at 12A Park Crescent, Pymble, which is no longer required for a future road.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/McDonald)

A. Council approve the divestment of 12A Park Crescent, Pymble.

B. Council authorise the General Manager and/or his delegate to set the reserve price established by an independent valuation report prior to the auction date.

C. In the event the property does not reach the reserve price set at public auction that Council authorise the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate within a variance of 10% of the reserve.

D. Council authorise the General Manager to execute all documentation and affix the Council Seal if required, to all documents associated with the sale of 12A Park Crescent, Pymble.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Meeting closed at 8.45pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 23 October 2012 (Pages 1 - 27) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 13 November 2012

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.3 / 44

Item GB.3	S06940
	19 October 2012

Gordon Interchange Upgrade and New Commuter Car Parking- Site inspection feedback

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	Following a site inspection and briefing held on 22 October 2012, the approval of Council is sought to enter into a Project Delivery Agreement with Transport for NSW for the Gordon Interchange Upgrade and Commuter Car Parking Project.

background:	On 29 May 2012, the NSW Government announced it will build nine new commuter car parks, providing more than 1,200 additional car spaces at train stations across the CityRail network. The announcement outlined the proposal for Gordon which will include more than 160 additional car spaces at two locations, upgrade of the bus interchange, and a new kiss-and-ride zone. The works are estimated to cost $44 million. Council at its meeting on 9 October 2012 considered the Officers’ Report and resolved to defer the matter for a briefing with Transport NSW.

comments:	On 22 October 2012 Councillors, Council staff and representatives from Transport for NSW (TfNSW) held an on-site inspection, followed by a presentation on the proposal. Previously, Council staff met with representatives of TfNSW from the Transport Projects Division on 6 June 2012. At the meeting, Council staff were briefed by TfNSW on the scope and nature of the project. Following this meeting, on 15 June 2012, TfNSW issued a Gordon Interchange Upgrade and Commuter Car Parking -Discussion Draft Heads of Agreement which set out the proposed parameters and agreements for the project.

recommendation:	That Council authorise the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate the development of a Heads of Agreement for the Gordon Interchange Upgrade and Commuter Car Parking Project and that Council authorise the General Manager to execute the legal document, to affix the Council Seal and to execute all necessary documentation, resulting from the development of the final Heads of Agreement.

Purpose of Report

Following a site inspection and briefing held on 22 October 2012, the approval of Council is sought to enter into a Project Delivery Agreement with Transport for NSW for the Gordon Interchange Upgrade and Commuter Car Parking Project.

Background

On 29 May 2012 the NSW Government announced it will build nine new commuter car parks at train stations across the CityRail network, providing more than 1,200 additional car spaces.

The nine new commuter car parks - some with new interchanges - will be built at Granville, Canley Vale, Gordon, Sutherland, Lindfield, Kiama, Moss Vale, Oak Flats and Padstow.

The announcement outlined the proposal for Gordon which will include more than 160 additional car spaces at two locations, upgrade of the bus interchange, and a new kiss-and-ride zone. The works are estimated to cost $44 million.

TfNSW has now started work on the design and planning approval process for each of these projects. TfNSW noted that the level of investment required, and the size of the project, may change as detailed work is undertaken.

Council at its meeting on 9 October 2012 considered the Officers’ Report and resolved to defer this matter for a site inspection.

Comments

On Monday evening 22 October 2012, the Councillors, Council staff and representatives from TfNSW held a site inspection for the proposed interchange upgrade and the new commuter car parking. This was followed by a briefing on the proposal at chambers by TfNSW.

A wide range of issues were discussed at the briefing including the:

· traffic and access in/around the proposed interchange/car park for buses, taxis and passenger vehicles movements;

· design features including bus shelters, awnings, signage, bicycle facilities;

· heritage – Gordon Station and settings and views;

· landscape and vegetation- retention/removal;

· duplication of North Shore line and proposed location of commuter parking ;

· pedestrian safety- lighting and design safety issues;

· road safety audit of designs;

· location of access/egress points for commuter parking;

· parking layouts and design on the east side;

· community consultation;

· timing and staging of the works;

· Gordon public domain works; and

· demand forecasting for commuter parking/rail patronage.

Previously, Council staff had met with representatives of TfNSW from the Transport Projects Division on 6 June 2012. At the meeting Council staff were briefed by TfNSW on the scope and nature of the project.

Following this meeting, on 15 June 2012, TfNSW issued the Gordon Interchange Upgrade & Commuter Car Parking - Discussion Draft Heads of Agreement (Draft HoA) which sets out the proposed parameters and general agreements for the project.

TfNSW has requested Council commence negotiations to prepare a legally binding agreement that will see the project through to fruition. The appropriate document for this is a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA).

The precursor to the PDA is a Heads of Agreement (HoA). Whilst the HoA itself is not legally binding, it sets out the agreed key terms of the primary documents to be entered into to ensure that the parties have a common understanding before formally documenting the project. A copy of the HoA is attached to this report in full as CONFIDENTIAL Attachment A1.

The HoA will form the basis of a PDA which becomes the legally binding contract between Council and TfNSW. The contents of the HoA are:

1. A statement of the parties to be involved in the project.

2. Statements regarding the location of the project and the scope of works.

3. Commentary on specific agreements between the parties such as land tenure and construction processes.

4. General agreements regarding responsibilities of the parties for design, construction, management and maintenance of the project.

Governance Matters

The relevant Council policies and plans in relation to this matter are the Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS), Town Centres Public Domain Plan 2010 (TCPDP) and the Gordon Local Centre Traffic Improvement Concept Plan (TICP).

The Ku-ring-gai ITS acknowledges that infrastructure actions towards improving the public transport system itself in Ku-ring-gai are largely out of Council’s control. Infrastructure such as bus/rail interchanges are a critical component of Sydney’s public transport network but Ku‑ring‑gai travel data suggests that relatively few bus-train or train-bus trips occur in Ku‑ring‑gai. One contributing factor is the poor quality of the interchanges.

A specific action in the ITS recommends that Council should work with TfNSW to construct better bus/rail interchanges at several locations, including Gordon.

The TCPDP is an adopted policy document of Council which provides a concept plan for a new bus interchange in Gordon. The plan foresaw redevelopment of the interchange based on prior discussions with representatives from the former Ministry of Transport.

To ensure consistency with Council’s policy it is recommended that the Draft HoA be amended to include an additional statement as follows:

- That the concept proposals developed by TfNSW be consistent with the objectives, principles, strategies and proposals of the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan 2010.

The TICP proposes a number of changes to the traffic network in the area around Wade Lane, St Johns Avenue and Henry Street, Gordon. This plan also received general concurrence from the Roads and Maritime Services during consultation for the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP. Other relevant actions from the ITS include implementation of road network improvements from Ku‑ring-gai Contributions Plan (2010), of which the TICP forms part of.

To ensure consistency with Council’s planning documents it is recommended that the Draft HoA be amended to include an additional statement as follows:

- That the traffic network developed by TfNSW be consistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Gordon Local Centre Traffic Improvement Concept Plan.

From a governance point of view the Draft HoA, with further development and the proposed amendments noted above, is considered an acceptable basis on which to move forward.

Risk Management

The risk to Council of adopting the Draft HoA for the purposes of drafting a formal development agreement is minimal as it will not be legally binding document.

Overall the provision of a new bus interchange and additional commuter car parking will be seen as a positive development for Gordon. Community consultation during preparation of the Town Centres/Local Centres LEPs showed that commuter car parking and the quality of the existing bus interchange is a significant issue for residents. Therefore there is a potential risk to Council’s reputation if Council were not to proceed in a timely manner with this project.

From a risk management point of view the Draft HoA, with further development and review, is considered an acceptable basis on which to move forward.

Financial Considerations

NSW State Government funding

The project design and construction is proposed to be funded, in its entirety, by TfNSW, as stated in the Draft HoA.

Ongoing Council management

The Draft HoA implies there may be some ongoing financial obligations to Council once the project is constructed. These include management of any roads created in the proposed car park/interchange upgrade and any tenure for permanent occupation of commuter car parking spaces.

In relation to roads, Council requires more detail around the design and construction of the proposed car park/interchange upgrade to understand the extent of the ongoing maintenance obligations resultant from the dedication of any new public roads. It is recommended that further information is sought from TfNSW to enable discussion and negotiation around this issue.

In relation to land tenure this also requires further information from TfNSW. At present Council staff have limited understanding of the ownership of the land proposed for occupation for construction and future permanent occupation as a commuter car park. Based on the limited information provided to Council the preceding matters are not currently acceptable.

There is also some ambiguity in the Draft HoA in regard to ownership of assets once construction is complete. Further discussions with representatives from TfNSW is required to clarify the intent of the statements in this regard.

Relationship to Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010

The final financial consideration is in relation to the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010. This adopted and in effect document proposes to fund various public domain, pedestrian and transport related upgrade works to the Gordon local centre including construction of a bus interchange in Henry Street. At the time of drafting Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, there were no State Government funds allocated to the project.

The work in the contributions plan would have been of a significantly lesser scale involving surface treatments to the bus area only without the underground car parking or kiss-and-ride zone as a total of just $929,875 (plus contingencies) was allocated to this work. A much smaller scale work is also proposed for the bus stop on the Werona Avenue side of the station valued at $121,500 (plus contingencies).

In terms of financial considerations the Draft HoA, with further development and the proposed amendments noted above, is considered an acceptable basis on which to move forward.

Social Considerations

The main social considerations are:

- the social and historical significance of Annie Forsyth Wyatt Garden;

- the heritage significance of Gordon rail station (State listed item);

- inconvenience to users of the rail station and interchange during construction; and

- the benefits of a new interchange to the community.

The Draft HoA does not specifically mention the first two points and it is recommended the following wording be incorporated:

- That the proposed development protects and enhances the social and historical significance of Annie Forsyth Wyatt Garden.

- That the proposed development conserves and enhances the cultural significance and setting of the State heritage listed Gordon Railway Station Group, (including primary view lines to the station).

In relation to the third point the Draft HoA specifically acknowledges the issue of inconvenience to users.

In terms of social considerations the Draft HoA, with further development and the proposed amendments noted above, is considered an acceptable basis on which to move forward.

Environmental Considerations

The main environmental consideration for the proposed development is the Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus citriodora) and the Blue Gum in the Annie Forsyth Wyatt Garden immediately to the east of the new development.

The Draft HoA does not specifically mention this tree and it is recommended the following wording be incorporated in the Draft HoA to ensure the tree is protected:

- That the proposed development protect the existing Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus citriodora) and the Blue Gum (planted in 2005 for National Trust 60^th Anniversary) in the Annie Forsyth Wyatt Garden.

From an Environmental point of view the Draft HoA, with further development and the proposed amendments noted above, is considered an acceptable basis on which to move forward.

Community Consultation

Community consultation for this project will be the responsibility of TfNSW, in liaison with Council.

Internal Consultation

At this stage consultation has occurred within the Strategy Department, the officers involved include the Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets; Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage Planner Specialist and Infrastructure Co-ordinator.

Summary

TfNSW are proposing a major redevelopment of the bus interchange area in Henry Street, Gordon which will include more than 160 additional car spaces, upgrade of the bus interchange, and a new kiss-and-ride zone. The works are estimated to cost $44 million.

TfNSW have issued the Gordon Interchange Upgrade & Commuter Car Parking -Discussion Draft Heads of Agreement (Draft HoA) which sets out the proposed parameters and general agreements for the project. TfNSW have asked that the Draft HoA be put to Council for their concurrence so that a formal development agreement may be prepared by TfNSW and Council.

A site inspection was held with Councillors, Council staff and TfNSW representatives on 22 October 2012 to brief Councillors on the proposal.

This report has reviewed the Draft HoA and found that it is generally considered to be acceptable from a Council Officer’s point of view, however, the report recommends a number of additions and clarifications to the Draft HoA.

In summary, the Draft HoA, with further review and development; inclusion of the amendments noted in this report; and legal review and advice to protect Council’s interest, is considered an acceptable basis on which to move forward with the preparation of a formal development agreement.

Recommendation:

A. That Council authorise the General Manager and/or his delegate to negotiate the development of a Heads of Agreement for the Gordon Interchange Upgrade and Commuter Car Parking Project and to incorporate the following additional matters into a formal development agreement to protect Council’s legal interest:

i. That the concept proposals developed by TfNSW be consistent with the objectives, principles, strategies and proposals of the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan 2010;

ii. That the traffic network developed by TfNSW be consistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Gordon Local Centre Traffic Improvement Concept Plan;

iii. That the proposed development protect the existing Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus citriodora) and the Blue Gum (planted in 2005 National Trust 60^th Anniversary) in the Annie Forsyth Wyatt Garden;

iv. That the proposed development protect and enhance the social and historical significance of Annie Forsyth Wyatt Garden;

v. That the proposed development conserve and enhance the cultural significance and setting of the State heritage listed Gordon Railway Station Group, (including primary view lines to the station).

B. That Council authorise the Mayor and the General Manager to execute the legal document, to affix the Council Seal and to execute all necessary documentation, resultant from the development of the final Gordon Interchange Upgrade and Commuter Car Parking - Heads of Agreement.

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Joseph Piccoli

Strategic Traffic Engineer

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Attachments:

Draft Heads of Agreement

Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.4 / 51

Item GB.4	S09053
	12 October 2012

Review of Submissions on Draft LEP 218 for Biodiversity, Riparian Land and Heritage Conservation Areas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To report to Council on the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to incorporate provision for biodiversity, riparian lands and Heritage Conservation Areas into the Ku‑ring‑gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.

background:	On 8 November 2011 Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal to implement an LEP to amend the KPSO to incorporate biodiversity and riparian lands provisions and Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs). The draft LEP was placed on public exhibition from 30 January to 27 February 2012.

comments:	As a result of the exhibition there were 127 submissions received. Consideration of the submissions has resulted in a number of minor changes to the Biodiversity and Riparian Lands maps. It is also proposed to reduce the extent of two draft HCAs. Other changes, including extensions to HCAs and listing of additional heritage items should be pursued through the draft Ku-ring-gai Principal Local Environmental Plan.

recommendation:	That Council vary the Planning Proposal as outlined in the report and forward the revised Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

Purpose of Report

To report to Council on the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to incorporate provision for biodiversity, riparian lands and Heritage Conservation Areas into the Ku‑ring‑gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.

Background

On 8 November 2011 Council resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal to implement a Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) to incorporate biodiversity and riparian lands provisions and Heritage Conservation Areas. The Planning Proposal (known as Draft LEP 218) was initiated as an interim planning measure to provide a level of protection for areas identified as having valuable heritage and environmental values and to form a basis for future residential, retail and commercial planning in the Principal LEP and the Local Centres LEP.

The matter of the development of an interim LEP (dealing with biodiversity and heritage issues) was agreed to by the Minister and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the basis that its development did not divert Council resources from development of a fresh town centres LEP or lengthen the overall timeframe for a new centres LEP and Council’s Principal LEP.

The planning proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) to:

i) include a clause and associated map relating to biodiversity protection;

ii) include a clause and associated map relating to riparian lands and waterways;

iii) delete existing heritage clauses and replacing them with the standard instrument LEP heritage conservation clause;

iv) include a heritage conservation areas map; and

v) to add additional definitions and amend existing definitions to support the new clauses.

The biodiversity and riparian provisions contained in Draft LEP 218 have been based on the Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study, Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP Draft Background Study (Ku‑ring-gai Council, 2011) which was previously exhibited (in a non-statutory form) as part of the development of the Principal LEP, including the biodiversity and riparian lands identified in the Ku‑ring-gai Town Centres LEP.

The identified Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) are a result of numerous studies conducted in Ku-ring-gai Council over many years to ascertain the cultural significance of heritage conservation areas. The most recent studies undertaken being:

· Paul Davies Pty Ltd (2008) Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Heritage Conservation Area Review;

· Paul Davies Pty Ltd (2010) Northern Heritage Conservation Area Review; and

· Architectural Projects (2010) Southern Heritage Conservation Area Review.

Each study reviewed areas previously identified in other studies as potential heritage conservation areas, in particular the Urban Conservation Areas Studies undertaken by Godden Mackay Logan from 2001-2005. The objective of the most recent studies was to assess the degree of change that had occurred in the last 6-10 years and determine the intactness of the potential heritage conservation areas.

A Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal was issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on 13 December 2011 (refer to Attachment A1).

A copy of the Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment A2) and supporting material for Draft LEP 218 were placed on public exhibition in accordance with the gateway determination from 30 January to 27 February 2012. The biodiversity, riparian and heritage conservation area maps and provisions contained in Draft LEP 218 were also carried forward into the preliminary draft Principal LEP adopted by Council on 6 March 2012.

The assessment and reporting on submissions on Draft LEP 218 has been delayed due to the resourcing requirements of the new Local Centres LEP. However, submissions specific to the areas covered by the local centres were considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 3 April 2012 and adopted prior to the exhibition of the draft Local Centres LEP 2012. The final Local Centre’s LEP adopted by Council on 31 July 2012 incorporates the relevant biodiversity, riparian lands and heritage conservation area provisions from draft LEP 218.

While Draft LEP 218 applies to the whole Ku-ring-gai LGA, the application of Draft LEP 218 within the Local Centres LEP areas has been resolved and finalised by Council as part of the Local Centres LEP process. Consequently this report will focus on the issues raised in relation to Draft LEP 218 relating to areas outside the Local Centres LEP, i.e. areas covered by the draft Principal LEP, which will be reported to Council in the near future.

Comments

Consideration of public submissions

Draft LEP 218 was exhibited from 30 January 2012 to Monday 27 February 2012. As a result of the exhibition there were 127 submissions received. These submissions related to both sites within the boundaries of the Local Centres LEP and sites that will be covered by the Principal LEP. Approximately 100 submissions related to areas outside the areas covered by the Local Centres LEP; however, there was some overlap within submissions.

Public submissions received for sites within the boundaries of the Draft Local Centres LEP were discussed in the reports on that LEP on 3 April 2012 and 31 July 2012 and incorporated in the final draft Local Centres LEP. Public submissions on draft LEP 218 received for sites covered by the Draft Principal LEP are discussed below.

Public submissions on biodiversity and riparian lands

40 public submissions on Draft LEP 218 related to biodiversity and riparian lands within the area covered. Issues raised in submissions included:

· support for the objectives, mapping and provisions of the Draft LEP;

· concerns that the Draft LEP should include additional detail or maps and that it does not go far enough in protecting ecological values;

· concern that individual property owners’ rights will be affected;

· objection that the Draft LEP was not notified in accordance with legislative requirements resulting in issues of procedural fairness; and

· site specific concerns related to the identification or categorisation of riparian lands or areas of biodiversity significance.

Attachment A3 provides a summary of these submissions and a response and recommendations resulting from their consideration. Submissions on the following specific areas were made:

· objection to the categorisation of riparian lands along the creek to Middle Harbour bounded by Babbage Road, Allard Avenue and Normac Street Roseville Chase as Category 1 – seeking category 2;

· objection to the inclusion of riparian lands through Little Digger Park (end of Amarna Parade and Roseville Avenue);

· support for riparian category (Category 3) for ‘Coleman’s Creek’ through 14, 16, 18, 20A, 21 and 22 Beaconsfield Parade and 1- 3 Averil Place, Lindfield;

· objection to inclusion of riparian lands along the boundary, and the north-eastern, north-western and south-western biodiversity areas at 59 Miowera Road North Turramurra;

· objection to the categorisation of the riparian lands at the boundary of 59 Miowera Road North Turramurra as category 3 – seeking category 2;

· objection of the inclusion of riparian lands through 41, 43 and 47 Griffith Avenue, Roseville;

· objection to the inclusion of biodiversity areas in the mapping for 414-420 Bobbin Head Road North Turramurra;

· objection to the categorisation of the riparian lands through 52 Finlay Road, Turramurra as category 2 – seeking category 3. Consideration of this submission has led to a recommendation for amendments to the riparian lands map for a number of other sites;

· objection to riparian land (category 3) at 6 Luxor Parade Roseville;

· objection to the categorisation of riparian lands along Moores Creek bounded by Amarna Parade and Luxor Parade Roseville as Category 1- seeking category 2.

These issues are discussed in detail in Attachment A3.

The issue which generated the highest number of public objections related to the categorisation of riparian lands between Amarna Parade and Luxor Parade. A further brief discussion of these issues is therefore included here. Seven submissions were received for this stretch of the riparian land along Moores Creek. Key concerns include:

· location of roads within the riparian land;

· previous clay fill and building rubble used for the road and dumped within the riparian land compromises the potential for restoration;

· the reserve is struggling as the bushcare group does not have adequate resources;

· does not provide link between significant bushland reserves or endangered ecological communities;

· effect of ‘riparian zoning’ on private properties:

- Uncertainty about development potential;

- Impact on property values;

- Requirement for revegetation resulting in:

§ bushfire risk;

§ overshadowing;

§ loss of front gardens; and

§ reducing connection to the rest of the zone, potentially impacting on heritage value of the heritage conservation area.

As stated in Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study, Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP Draft Background Study (Ku‑ring-gai Council, 2011):

“When assigning categories, priority is given to the degree to which a riparian corridor meets or has potential to meet the environmental objectives of that category, with the current core riparian zone (CRZ) width noted as a secondary consideration. In this way, a corridor in good ecological condition that provides significant terrestrial and aquatic habitat, yet is only 15 m wide, will be classed as category 2 not category 3”. (p.33)

This principle was applied to this reach as the existing core riparian land along this reach of Moores Creek between Amarna and Luxor Parades is between 20m – 30m in width from the top of each bank along the majority of the reach and it is an important bushland pocket within the already heavily urbanised area, despite past land use practices. The reach:

· is connected to larger reserves through Roseville Golf Course and is the most significant corridor remaining within the Moores Creek Catchment;

· includes an important bushcare site which has received considerable investment and support from Council; and

· is an important asset to the community.

The riparian classification will also support Council’s operational section in ensuring that the management of the road adjacent to the creek considers the impact on the riparian land.

While the road separates that main area of the creek from the residences, the residents themselves have noted the presence of riparian fauna such as Eastern Water Dragons in their yards, so there is clearly habitat across these roadways.

The riparian mapping does not represent a separate land use zoning for riparian areas within the Draft LEP. Rather, it will trigger relevant considerations for development applications. Each application will be assessed on its merits. Merit consideration will need to take into account in an integrated way matters related to bushfire protection, riparian enhancement, heritage protection, amenity, character etc. as well as the location of existing development and the scale of the proposal. In many cases the only requirement may be the retention and/or planting of some riparian vegetation, consistent with any bushfire or heritage requirements.

The riparian mapping extends from public land to private land across many sites within the LGA. The mapping procedure should be consistent across the LGA. Incorporating this information as part of a natural resource overlay map has been done to ensure this environmental value can be considered without imposing excessive restrictions on property titles or amending all affected land use zones.

The attached draft Riparian Lands and Biodiversity Maps (Attachments A5 and A6) show the resulting recommended amendments for the following areas:

· reduction from Category 2 to Category 3 Riparian Lands, with consequent changes to the Biodiversity Map near the following:

- 52 Finlay Road Turramurra;

- Lucinda/Mahratta Avenue, Wahroonga;

- Campbell Drive, Wahroonga;

- Comenarra Parkway/Kiogle Street, Wahroonga;

- Ada Avenue South, Warrawee;

- Blytheswood Avenue, Wahroonga;

- Challis Avenue and Katina Street, Turramurra;

- End of Cudgee Street, Turramurra;

- Alice Street, Turramurra;

- Linigen Place, St Ives;

- Melaleuca Drive, St Ives;

- North-western section of Avondale Golf Course;

· adjustment to the boundary between Category 1 and 2 Riparian Lands at Godfrey Avenue/Catalpa Crescent Turramurra to be perpendicular to the identified watercourse;

· reduction in extent of Category 1 Riparian Lands near Normac Avenue/Babbage Road, at the confluence of Middle Harbour with resulting changes to the Biodiversity Map;

· very minor changes to extent or category under a road (4 sites);

· reduction in the area of biodiversity on the biodiversity map to match the Category 3 riparian lands at 41, 43 and 47 Griffith Avenue, and the rear of 7-9 Allard Avenue Roseville Chase; and

· a reduction in the Category 1 biodiversity area at the north-west corner of 59 Miowera Road North Turramurra to the canopy of the trees rooted in 24 Milton Road with the 8 metre buffer around this.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the amended Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Maps be adopted as shown at Attachments A5 and A6. (Note: Due to the size of the maps they have been circulated to Councillors separately or can be viewed on Council’s website at http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/www/html/101-agendas-reports-and-minutes.asp)

It is recommended that the following terms be defined in the supporting DCP:

· riparian land;

· regionally significant species, if the term is used in the final written LEP instrument or the DCP; and

· threatened species, population or ecological community.

It is recommended that the priorities of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010- 2030 also be considered in Council’s revised Biodiversity Strategy.

Public submissions on heritage conservation areas

There have been 60 submissions received from the exhibition of Draft LEP 218 that pertained to heritage conservations areas, in the area covered by the proposed Principal LEP. Attachment A4 provides a summary of these submissions organised by suburb or specific issue. Responses and recommendations resulting from consideration of the submissions are included in the table.

The main issues raised and responses to those issues are as follows:

· Support for the areas included as draft heritage conservation areas. Many submissions were received, in particular for HCAs in the Roseville area, in support of the HCAs proceeding.

· Requests to increase the number of heritage conservation areas or the size of heritage conservation areas.

- Several submissions requested that additional HCAs be made, in particular, in Turramurra and Pymble. The submissions stated the work of previous reviews such as the National Trust’s Housing in NSW between the Wars and the Godden Mackay Logan Ku-ring-gai Urban Conservation Area studies. The decision to undertake a further review, for which Paul Davies Pty Ltd and Architectural Projects were engaged, was the result of significant change to housing that occurred following the introduction of the Exempt and Complying Codes SEPP. The SEPP permitted development to occur, without the need to apply to Council for development approval. The result has been the introduction of new development which is unsympathetic to the housing character of Ku-ring-gai. These most recent heritage conservation area reviews used the previous studies as a based and then assessed the impact of change and the degree of intactness of the proposed conservation areas. As a result, some areas which were formally Urban Conservation Areas did not meet the threshold of intactness for inclusion as heritage conservation areas.

- Several of the areas which were requested for inclusion are the subject of the Heritage Conservation Area peer review being conducted by Sue Jackson-Stepowski. Further discussion on the peer review is contained below.

· Concern over additional costs for development applications and house maintenance.

- As a result of the listing, certain developments which may have been exempt will now require development approval. This is necessary to retain the character and the cultural significance of conservation areas. The period of time in which these houses were developed without development approval resulted in the erosion of the heritage fabric and the introduction of detracting housing types, such as two storey rendered houses with diminished side setbacks in streets where the character was previously single storey bungalows, with facebrick facades surrounded by generous established gardens compromised of mixed shrubbery and selective native and introduced feature trees. The loss of the garden setting and significant trees has been as damaging to the character of these areas as the loss of the Federation and Inter-war houses.

- Other types of development which may have been complying development will now require Council development approval. These developments would still have incurred a cost as they required complying development certificate from a private certifier. Additional cost may be incurred if a heritage impact statement is required. It is recommended that council review its processes and requirements for development that would have otherwise been exempt or complying to minimise the burden on the owners of heritage properties.

- All houses require ongoing maintenance and places within heritage conservation areas are no different. However, places within conservation areas require a “like for like” replacement. For example, a slate roof could not be replaced with corrugated steel. The inability to use cheaper substitutes represents a loss of potential savings that could have been made on materials. The replacement of “like for like” is necessary to retain the recognised character of these conservation areas.

· Concern over the lack of public consultation.

- The consultation for the draft LEP was consistent with the Council resolution and the requirements of the Gateway Determination.

· Against a blanket approach to listing.

- The designation of heritage places at the local government level in NSW takes two forms:

1. heritage items and

2. heritage conservation areas.

- Heritage conservation areas acknowledge that places, not just single buildings, can have a special character that is worth conserving. Ku-ring-gai is blessed with many aesthetically significant housing types from the Victorian period through to the present. Those places considered to be of heritage significance having stood the test of time, and despite fads and fashions have been retained. These places are not just buildings but include the florally diverse, established garden settings, which epitomise the philosophy behind the garden suburb ideal. This being to provide healthy living environs, through the segregation of land-use, the provision of more parks, more street tree planting, and harmonious housing design within generous garden settings. As such, the inclusion of conservation areas in Schedule 5 of the LEP is not just to conserve houses but also to conserve the gardens, parks, street planting, recreation facilities, schools, and other community facilities which contribute to the aesthetic and an understanding of the history and social setting which led to the creation of these valuable places.

· Loss of development potential and inability to modernise their house.

- The inclusion of a property in a heritage conservation area does not preclude future new development, such as additions and sympathetic infill. Instead, change in these areas will be managed to allow the modernisation and expansion of homes while conserving the valued character and cultural significance of the conservation area. Subdivision and infill development is still permitted within a heritage conservation area provided this development is successfully supported by a heritage impact statement which can demonstrate that the significance of the conservation will not be detrimentally impacted by the proposed development.

As a result of consideration of submissions, it is recommended that amendments to the HCA maps be considered. This includes both amendments of HCA boundaries to remove certain areas and the inclusion of additional properties within HCA boundaries.

The proposed amendments to HCAs to remove certain areas are identified on the maps in Attachment A7. This includes the following:

· Recommended to amend draft HCA C30 Lindfield West Conservation Area, to create two HCAs:

1. C30 – Frances Street Conservation Area and

2. C30A – Lindfield West Conservation Area;

· Amend C34 - Archbold Farms Conservation Area to remove 1A-39 and 14-38 Park Avenue, Roseville.

The revised draft heritage map can be found in Attachment A8. (Note: Due to the size of the maps they have been circulated to Councillors separately or can be viewed on Council’s website at http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/www/html/101-agendas-reports-and-minutes.asp)

The proposed heritage amendments being considered that involve the listing of additional heritage items or the extension of HCA include the following:

· Amend Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include:

- 1-5 Railway Avenue Wahroonga and

- 9A-17 Railway Avenue Wahroonga;

· Amend the heritage map and include 15 and 19 Karuah Road, Turramurra in HCA C6 Ku‑ring-gai Avenue;

· Amend Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include 39 Victoria Street and 26 Lord Street Roseville in draft HCA C32 – Clanville Conservation Area.

As these additional listings were included as part of the exhibited planning proposal, it is not recommended that draft LEP 218 be amended to include them. The more appropriate process would be to have the additional listings subject to community consultation by including them within the draft Principal LEP.

Agency Consultation

Comments received from state agencies on Draft LEP 218 were addressed in the report to Council on the Principal LEP on 6 March 2012 and for the Local Centres LEP on 3 April 2012. The comments are summarised below. The detailed comments from the agencies are included at Attachment A9.

City of Ryde Council

No comment concerning the Planning Proposal.

Response

Noted.

Hornsby Shire Council

No comment concerning the Planning Proposal.

Response

Noted.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

Status of Coastal Shale Sandstone Forest (CSSF) should be classified as ‘considered eligible for listing as an endangered ecological community’. However, OEH supports the classification in these documents of CSSF as ‘regionally significant’ as it may take some time before the NSW Scientific Committee considers this community for listing.

OEH notes that the number of significance categories has been reduced from the early 2011 documents, and that category 5 patches will not be included in the LEP Biodiversity overlay, rather that they will be managed through general biodiversity provisions in the DCP and through other Council policies. This position is supported.

Response

Support noted. On 24 May 2011, Council resolved to further discuss the inclusions within the lowest biodiversity category with relevant agencies. OEH support for the current inclusions in the LEP finalises these discussions.

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority

The intent and objectives outlined in the Planning Proposal and the Proposed LEP provisions appear to be consistent with the Sydney Metropolitan CMA’s Catchment Action Plan, and respective NSW legislation. There is good correlation between the Natural Resources Biodiversity mapping and the CMA’s draft mapping of corridors, between the riparian lands mapping and categorisation and CMA mapping priorities, and between Council’s biodiversity mapping and the identified significance of the riparian lands map.

The LEP provisions for Biodiversity Protection would benefit from the inclusion of some additional definitions to clear up any ambiguity. Definitions, such as those contained in Draft Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study should be included for “regionally significant species” and for “threatened species, population or ecological community”.

Make an explicit inclusion in the current definition of “Riparian Land” to the biological factors that form the basis of ecosystem services in the proposed clause and its respective map. The Lovett and Price (1999) definition of riparian land is recommended: “Riparian land is any land which adjoins, directly influences, or is influenced by a body of water”. The explicit inclusion of biological factors unique to riparian land demonstrates their importance to the biodiversity of terrestrial and aquatic species, and therefore links to the biodiversity map.

To ensure consistency with the Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (5 (a)(vii)) and Water Management Act 2000 (3(b)), within the planning proposal, insert the term “protect” in Section 1. Objectives or intended outcomes (page 3), second bullet point on waterways and riparian lands.

Include trees located within golf courses in the biodiversity mapping as they have potential to provide habitat and conservation function.

Response

Support for the intent, objectives and correlation with mapping and relevant legislation is noted. Regarding definitions sought, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure does not generally support the addition of definitions to the LEP dictionary and discourages definitions in local provisions. Where possible, the Department seeks consistency through the adoption of model clauses, though variations are permitted where there is sufficient justification. The term ‘regionally significant species’ has been previously used in gazetted LEPs without a definition. The phrase ‘threatened species, population or ecological community’ refers to the common term ‘threatened’ used to refer to ‘threatened species legislation’, and it is unlikely this would result in any confusion. Whether a community is listed as critically endangered, or endangered it is still ‘threatened’. However, Council could define the terms in the DCP.

Council acknowledges that a more holistic definition of riparian land would include the influence of the land and water on each other. However, the definition used in the background study has been developed to provide clear planning direction where these important areas are involved, rather than leaving it open to discussion on what "influenced by a body of water" means in a practical sense. The definition used is not for scientific purposes, but rather to set a clear planning direction to protect the natural and aesthetic values of waterways and adjoining lands. The mapping and assessment process was designed with the geophysical processes of the natural system as well as the practical limitations of the urban area in mind. It is however recommended, that ‘riparian land’ be defined in the DCP as it is in the background study, where Council has more freedom to set definitions.

The objects of these Acts referenced above are to:

· encourage ecologically sustainable development; and

· protect, enhance and restore water sources, their associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity and their water quality.

It is recommended that the term ‘protect’ be inserted in the relevant section of the planning proposal prior to public exhibition, as requested by the Catchment Management Authority.

The issue of trees in golf courses was discussed in detail in the report to Council of 6 March 2012. Council resolved to include an additional area at the south-eastern end of Avondale Golf Course on the biodiversity map in the draft Principal LEP prior to exhibition. The matter will be addressed at the draft Principal LEP stage.

Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO)

No specific concerns with the proposed amendments as they appear to comply with current standards. AHO supports Council in not mapping Aboriginal sites or ‘objects’ in accordance with the revised NSW standard LEP provisions, as:

· it maintains the confidentiality of sensitive sites; and

· Council won’t be in breach if its licence agreement which prohibits the providing site data to third parties.

Due to the inadequacy of the Standard LEP instrument and changes that put the onus on proponents to ensure due diligence in reviewing and assessing potential harm to Aboriginal heritage, it is recommended that Council continues to utilise the site and potential area mapping, supporting information, and training made available by the AHO.

Response

The AHO support for not mapping known sites is noted. This view is important given the recommendations of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority, as discussed below.

Council continues to utilise the mapping, supporting information and trained staff in its development assessment and operational work.

Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority

Notes that the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Action Plan environmental targets and objectives are considered and that riparian areas are appropriately mapped and categorised in the proposed provisions.

As riparian areas often overlap with areas of Aboriginal cultural significance, attention is drawn to s.117 Direction No.9 on Conservation and Management of Environmental and Indigenous Heritage and the importance of mapping any identified areas of cultural significance.

Response

It is acknowledged that riparian areas do sometimes overlap with areas of Aboriginal cultural significance. Note that the Section 117 Directions have been amended. The directions under the previous no.9 are now included under Direction 2.3 Heritage Conservation. Part 4) of the direction requires a planning proposal to contain provisions that facilitate the conservation of:

b) Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and

c) Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places or landscapes identified by an Aboriginal heritage survey prepared by or on behalf of an Aboriginal Land Council, Aboriginal body or public authority and provided to the relevant planning authority, which identifies the area, object, place or landscape as being of heritage significance to Aboriginal culture and people.

The Principal LEP is proposed to include provisions to facilitate the conservation of sites, objects and places identified in b) and c) above.

A note included at the end of the Direction refers to the requirement to identify items, areas objects of places of indigenous heritage significance when using the standard LEP template. However, the Standard LEP Instrument has been amended since the drafting of this direction, to require the identification of such items, only where the relevant Aboriginal community has agreed to this.

Council has consulted with the relevant Aboriginal authority. The AHO has provided Council with information and mapping which identify sites or ‘objects’ of significance. As discussed above, the AHO does not support the mapping of these items or sites in the LEP.

Heritage Council of New South Wales

The Heritage Council of New South Wales supports the resolution of Council to adopt the new HCAs. It also Advises Council to ensure that the existing Development Control Plan (DCP) and any future DCPs include development controls that are specific to the proposed HCAs to guide development both within and adjoining the HCAs.

Response

The support of the Heritage Council of New South Wales and the acknowledgement of the comprehensive heritage reviews to identify Ku-ring-gai’s heritage conservation areas are noted.

Any new DCP drafted to support any gazetted HCAs will include development controls and management objectives and recommendations specific to the HCA to guide new development both within and in the vicinity of the HCA.

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

The RFS raises no concerns about the incorporation of natural resource and heritage conservation area overlays and provisions.

Council should consider the following which may be influenced by bushfire:

· The extension of vegetation closer to an asset may result in a hazard complaint and the need to remove the vegetation;

· Bushfire should be considered when assessing biodiversity and riparian lands, eg where existing development does not comply proposed controls a compromise should be sought;

· It may be useful to include the aims and objectives of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 into the assessment where bush fire risk may be increased;

· Improvement of biodiversity corridors and riparian lands should address obligations to protect life, property and assets as well as obligations to maintain and protect natural and cultural heritage, as per the NSW Biodiversity Strategy Guidelines for Ecologically Sustainable Fire Management July 2004;

· Heritage conservation areas within bushfire prone lands will conflict with landscaping restrictions for development on bushfire prone land;

· For low risk areas the requirements of Appendix 5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 may suffice (ie vegetation management, property maintenance principles);

· However, for bushfire attack level (BAL) 40 and BAL FZ, requirements for no exposed timbers and extra protection for glazed elements, may conflict with existing heritage items or development in HCAs;

· Lots with BAL 40 or BAL FZ should have reduced heritage restrictions.

Response

· In the categorisation of biodiversity areas the Draft Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study reduced the category of many areas of private land where dwellings were close to bushfire prone vegetation, in recognition that these areas may require management to protect life and property. However, it is recognised that conflicts will remain between the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, riparian and heritage values and the minimisation of bushfire risk.

· Any proposal must consider all of the values in an integrated way, so that a proper merit assessment can be carried out. Accordingly it will be important that the DCP include controls relating to the integration of these values at the earliest stage in the design process. In some cases a compromise may need to be reached to balance the conflicting values.

· All development proposals on bushfire prone lands need to consider the NSW Rural Fires Act 1997 and Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. The aims and objectives of the latter will be considered in any assessment of such proposals and do not require duplication in the LEP.

Department of Primary Industries: NSW Office of Water (NOW)

Reference is made to previous submission (16 May 2011)

Background Study Comments:

· Seeks additional aim of study: to identify waterways and riparian lands that need to be enhanced, rehabilitated and protected to improve aquatic and riparian linkages.

· Seeks amendment to the glossary to include reference to ‘riparian buffer’.

· Study could note benefits of establishing a vegetated riparian buffer.

· Recommended amendment for section 2.2 – clarify documented basis of riparian mapping (should be as per previous draft)

· Previous comments regarding section 1.1 (amendments to aims and objectives), 3.4.2 (corridor width), and management of biodiversity connectivity within regional fauna habitat and biodiversity corridors comments are re-iterated.

Comments relating to amendment of the planning scheme ordinance:

· Supports inclusion of riparian lands and waterways clause

· Supports inclusion of rehabilitating existing piped or channelised waterways

· Recommends the amendments to subclause 1, to 4 to simplify and clarify

· Supports the inclusion of the stream classification map but recommends that the legend is amended to include the category width measurements.

Response

Background Study Comments:

Prior to exhibition of the draft Principal LEP, the Draft Background Study will be updated to be consistent with the draft PLEP and taking into account the comments from the Office of Water.

Comments relating to amendment of the KPSO:

· Support for the riparian clause and the inclusion of rehabilitation of piped or channelised waterways is noted.

· Amendments to clarify the purpose of, broaden and simplify this clause were made to the riparian clause outlined in the Planning Proposal for the Principal LEP as sent to the agencies for consultation. It is recommended that the Riparian and Waterways clause in Draft LEP 218 be amended in line with the Planning Proposal for the draft Principal LEP.

· Ku-ring-gai’s riparian land and waterways are already highly urbanised, it should be recognised that there is existing development within these areas that needs to be considered. This clause does not only protect riparian lands and waterways from new development but must act to guide future changes to existing developments.

· The associated map clearly shows the boundaries of the riparian lands. While the measured distances will be included in the DCP, identifying the extent of the riparian lands on the LEP map, rather than by a distance from “the top of the bank” creates greater certainty for landholders about the presence or extent of riparian land on their site. Again, this is an urban area, and in most cases any additional distance resulting from measuring from the top of the bank would be minor relative to the overall buffer.

Recommendations

As a result of the consideration of agency submissions, the following is recommended:

· That Council continue to utilise the Aboriginal heritage site and potential area mapping, supporting information, and training made available by the AHO.

· That the Riparian and Waterways clause in Draft LEP 218 be amended in line with the Planning Proposal for the draft Principal LEP as included in Attachment 10.

· That the following terms be defined in the DCP: ‘riparian land’; ‘regionally significant species”, ‘threatened species, population or ecological community’.

· That the DCP include provisions relating to the integration of biodiversity, riparian and heritage values.

Aligned Projects

Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP

The Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP is currently with the Minister of Planning for gazettal. It includes heritage conservation areas, biodiversity and riparian areas, which took into account submissions received by Council on Draft LEP 218 for those areas covered by the six centres. These areas have therefore been omitted from the final draft of LEP 218.

Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP

Council has prepared a draft Principal LEP for the area of the LGA outside the boundaries of the Local Centres LEP. The draft is expected to be considered by Council for adoption in the near future. The provisions and maps in Draft LEP 218 are to be incorporated within the Principal LEP. However, as the Principal LEP covers all LEP related matters for most of the LGA, it is expected that this making of this LEP will take some time. It is therefore critical for the protection of heritage conservation areas and natural resources in Ku-ring-gai, that the provisions and mapping of Draft LEP not wait for the finalisation of the Principal LEP.

HCA Peer review

At the Ordinary Meeting on 13 December 2011, Council adopted a resolution to engage an independent consultant to undertake a peer review of several conservation areas in Turramurra and Pymble. At the Ordinary Meeting on 22 May 2012, Council adopted a further resolution to also peer review Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga.

Part D of Council resolution from 6 March 2012 required that any changes recommended to the heritage conservation areas as a result of the peer review be included within the Principal LEP prior to the public exhibition.

In March 2012 Council engaged an independent consultant to undertake the peer review. Much of the field work was undertaken and completed in April and May 2012. Unfortunately, due to consultant issues beyond Council’s control, a delay has arisen. A date is yet to be determined for the consultant’s recommendations of to be reported to Council.

Governance Matters

The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Local Government Act, 1993 (where relevant). A Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal was issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under section 56 of the EP & A Act on 13 December 2011 (Refer to Attachment A1).

A copy of the Planning Proposal and supporting material for Draft LEP 218 were placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Gateway Determination from 30 January to 27 February 2012.

Section 451 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that Councillors or members of Council committees must declare a pecuniary interest in any matter being considered by the Council or committee.

451 Disclosure and presence in meetings

(1) A councillor or a member of a council committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the council or committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

(2) The councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the council or committee:

(a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the council or committee, or

(b) at any time during which the council or committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

(3) For the removal of doubt, a councillor or a member of a council committee is not prevented by this section from being present at and taking part in a meeting at which a matter is being considered, or from voting on the matter, merely because the councillor or member has an interest in the matter of a kind referred to in section 448.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a councillor who has a pecuniary interest in a matter that is being considered at a meeting, if:

(a) the matter is a proposal relating to:

(i) the making of a principal environmental planning instrument applying to the whole or a significant part of the Council’s area, or

(ii) the amendment, alteration or repeal of an environmental planning instrument where the amendment, alteration or repeal applies to the whole or a significant part of the Council’s area, and

(b) the councillor made a special disclosure under this section in relation to the interest before the commencement of the meeting.

(5) The special disclosure of the pecuniary interest must, as soon as practicable after the disclosure is made, be laid on the table at a meeting of the Council and must:

(a) be in the form prescribed by the regulations, and

(b) contain the information required by the regulations.

Note: The code of conduct adopted by a Council for the purposes of section 440 may also impose obligations on Councillors, members of staff of Councils and delegates of Councils.

Risk Management

Draft LEP 218 was prepared to ensure that areas of biodiversity and riparian significance, and heritage conservation areas that have been identified through publicly available studies and through the former Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2010, are protected for the future. Further delay in making this LEP will reduce its statutory weight, and would likely result in works that will adversely impact on these areas, such as demolition of buildings that contribute to the heritage conservation areas or loss of significant trees.

Financial Considerations

The cost of the preparation of the Planning Proposal and review were covered by the Strategy and Environment Department’s operational budget.

Social Considerations

The proposed biodiversity and riparian clauses will protect and enhance the natural environment. In seeking to improve biodiversity, waterways and their buffers, there are the social and economic benefits for the whole community of living in a healthy natural environment. The character of the LGA is formed to a large extent through the retention of vegetation within the urban setting.

The proposed provisions may mean that individual development proposals are restricted in some way or have additional economic costs associated with vegetation or riparian management or offsets in order to develop. However, the use of an overlay with the biodiversity and riparian clauses means that the underlying zoning will continue to permit development in accordance with the zone. The proposed riparian and biodiversity LEP provisions provide for instances where adverse impacts are unavoidable, in which circumstances the proposed development must be designed and sited to have a minimum adverse impact and include mitigation measures.

On balance the overall the social and economic benefits of a strategic and consistent approach to biodiversity management outweighs possible additional costs and/or loss of perceived development potential.

There are social and economic costs and benefits to the introduction of heritage conservation areas, both to the individual and to the community. Protecting a conservation area has the benefit of conserving for current and future generations the aesthetic and social qualities which give the area its cultural value and make it an appealing place to live. Other benefits include certainty as to the types of and form of development that occur in a conservation area to ensure the character of the area retained.

It is also acknowledged that some restrictions and additional development costs may result from inclusion in a heritage conservation area. These include additional development controls and more rigorous scrutiny certain types of development such as demolition for new builds of contributory sites and lot subdivision or amalgamations. Heritage items or places within heritage conservation areas that are deemed as meeting the criteria for being heritage restricted under section 14G of the Valuation of Land Act, 1916 may be eligible for a heritage restricted valuation for the purposes of land tax.

On balance the overall the social and economic benefits from the conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage areas including the buildings, gardens and streetscapes provides outweighs possible additional costs and/or loss of perceived development potential of properties in heritage conservation areas.

Environmental Considerations

The planning proposal will have a positive effect on the protection of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, through the application of two maps identifying environmentally important areas; the ‘Natural resource – biodiversity protection map’ and the ‘Natural resource-Riparian land and waterways map’ and provisions to protect and enhance the natural values of these lands.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal for Draft LEP 218 has be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the publication “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” released by the Department of Planning and the requirement of the Gateway process under section 56 of the EP&A Act.

The Planning Proposal and supporting material was exhibited from Monday 30 January 2012 to Monday 27 February 2012 at Ku-ring-gai Council chambers and also made available on Council’s website. The exhibition was also notified in the North Shore Times.

There were 127 submissions received as a result of the public exhibition of Draft LEP 218. Of these, around 100 related to areas outside the areas covered by the Local Centres LEP. However, there was some overlap within submissions. There were 60 submissions related to the Heritage Conservation Areas matters outside of the Local centres, while 40 submissions related to biodiversity or riparian matters outside of the Local Centres.

There have also been a number of written representations made to Council since the close of the exhibition period. This information has been circulated to Councillors for their considerations.

All persons who made a submission have been notified of this matter being reported back to Council.

Internal Consultation

Draft LEP 218 was prepared in consultation with Council’s Department of Development and Regulation. A briefing for Councillors was also held in early November 2012.

Summary

Public submissions received for sites within the boundaries of the Draft Local Centres LEP were discussed in the reports on that LEP on 3 April 2012 and 31 July 2012 and incorporated in the final draft Local Centres LEP. This report focuses on the issues raised in submissions to Draft LEP 218 relating to areas outside of the Local Centres LEP.

As the issues within the Local Centres Areas have previously been resolved by Council, it is recommended that draft LEP 218 be amended to exclude the areas covered by Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

Biodiversity and Riparian

As a result of public submissions and comments from state agencies, amendments to the riparian and biodiversity maps are recommended for the following:

· The area of biodiversity on the biodiversity map at 41, 43 and 47 Griffith Ave, and the rear of 7-9 Allard Ave Roseville Chase.

· The biodiversity area at the north-west corner of 59 Miowera Rd North Turramurra

· A change from Category 2 to Category 3 Riparian Lands, with consequent changes to the Biodiversity Map where required to be consistent with the methodology for the following:

- 52 Finlay Road, Turramurra

- Lucinda/Mahratta Avenues, Wahroonga

- Campbell Drive, Wahroonga

- Comenarra Parkway/Kiogle Street, Wahroonga

- Ada Avenue, South Warrawee

- Blytheswood Avenue, Wahroonga

- Challis Avenue & Katina Street, Turramurra

- End of Cudgee Street, Turramurra

- Alice Street, Turramurra

- Godfrey Avenue/Catalpa Crescent, Turramurra

- Linigen Place, St Ives

- Melaleuca Drive, St Ives

- Avondale Golf Course behind St Andrew’s Drive

· The boundary between Category 1 and 2 Riparian lands at Godfrey Avenue/Catalpa Crescent Turramurra.

· Category 1 Riparian Lands near Normac Avenue/Babbage Road, at the confluence of Middle Harbour with consequent minor changes to biodiversity mapping.

· Very minor changes to the extent or category of riparian land (4 sites).

An amendment to the Riparian and Waterways clause in Draft LEP 218 is recommended as a result of agency comments. The revised clause is included at Attachment A10.

Heritage Conservation Areas

As a result of public submissions and comments from state agencies, the following amendments are recommended to the Draft LEP 218 Heritage Conservation Area maps:

· Amend draft HCA C30 Lindfield West Conservation Area, to create two HCAs:

- C30 – Frances Street Conservation Area and

- C30A – Lindfield West Conservation Area;

· Amend draft HCA C34 - Archbold Farms Conservation Area to remove 1A-39 and 14-38 Park Avenue, Roseville.

It is also recommended that the following additional heritage items and extension of HCAs be considered as part of the draft Principal LEP:

· Amend Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include:

- 1-5 Railway Avenue Wahroonga and

- 9A-17 Railway Avenue Wahroonga;

· Amend the heritage map and include 15 and 19 Karuah Road, Turramurra in HCA C6 Ku‑ring-gai Avenue;

· Amend Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include 39 Victoria Street and 26 Lord Street Roseville in draft HCA C32 – Clanville Conservation Area.

The revised maps for riparian, biodiversity and heritage conservation areas are included as Attachments A5, A6 and A7 respectively. Due to the size of the maps they have been circulated to Councillors separately or can be viewed on Council’s website at (http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/www/html/101-agendas-reports-and-minutes.asp)

Recommendation:

A. That Council resolve to vary the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance, 1971 to incorporate provision for biodiversity, riparian lands and Heritage Conservation Areas as follows:

i. Exclude the areas covered by Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

ii. Amend the Riparian Lands Map in accordance with the revised map at Attachment A5.

iii. Amend the Biodiversity Map in accordance with the revised map at Attachment A6.

iv. Amend the Heritage Conservation Area Map in accordance with the revised map at Attachment A8.

v. Amend the Riparian and Waterways clause in accordance with the revised clause included at Attachment A10.

A. That the revised Planning Proposal be submitted to the Minister in accordance with section 58(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

B. That Council requests that the Minister determine:

i. whether further community consultation under Section 57 of the EP&A Act is required, pursuant to section 58(3) of the EP&A Act; and

ii. whether the inclusion of a particular matters in the proposed local environmental plan be deferred, pursuant to Section 59(3) of the EP&A Act.

C. That delegation be granted to the General Manager to make all necessary corrections and amendments to the Planning Proposal for drafting inconsistencies, or minor amendments as necessary to ensure consistency with Department of Planning and Infrastructure policy.

D. The following additional heritage items and extension of HCAs be considered as part of the draft Principal LEP:

i. Amend Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include:

- 1-5 Railway Avenue Wahroonga and

- 9A-17 Railway Avenue Wahroonga;

ii. Amend the heritage map and include 15 and 19 Karuah Road, Turramurra in HCA C6 Ku‑ring-gai Avenue;

iii. Amend Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include 39 Victoria Street and 26 Lord Street Roseville in draft HCA C32 – Clanville Conservation Area.

E. That all persons who made submissions be notified of Council's decision.

Terri Southwell

Senior Urban Planner

Andreana Kennedy

Strategy - Heritage Planner Specialist

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Attachments:	A1 View	Gateway Determination	2011/285503
	A2 View	Planning Proposal - Amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to incorporate provisions for Biodiversity and Riparian land and Heritage Conservation Areas - Public Exhibition Version	2012/019562
	A3 View	Summary of submissions - Biodiversity - Riparian - Draft LEP 218	2012/238439
	A4 View	Summary of submissions on heritage conservation areas - Draft LEP 218	2012/237599
	A5 View	Draft LEP 218 Riparian Lands Map	2012/250669
	A6 View	Draft LEP 218 Biodiversity Map	2012/265170
	A7 View	Amendments to the Heritage Map	2012/264748
	A8 View	Draft LEP 218 Heritage Conservation Area Map	2012/265174
	A9 View	Public Agency Submissions under Section 56 of the EP&A Act	2012/250044
	A10 View	Revised Riparian and Waterways Clause - Draft LEP 218	2012/261955

APPENDIX No: 2 - Planning Proposal - Amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to incorporate provisions for Biodiversity and Riparian land and Heritage Conservation Areas - Public Exhibition Version

Item No: GB.4

1. Objectives or intended outcomes

The intended outcome of the planning proposal is to implement an LEP to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to incorporate biodiversity and riparian lands provisions and Heritage Conservation Areas to:

· protect, maintain and improve biodiversity

· maintain or improve waterways and riparian lands

· protect the specific character of Ku-ring-gai: its heritage and natural landscapes, and

· form the basis for future residential, retail and commercial planning in our LGA.

2. Explanation of the provisions to be included in the proposed local environmental plan.

This planning proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) to:

i. include a clause and associated map relating to biodiversity protection;

ii. include a clause and associated map relating to riparian lands and waterways

iii. delete existing heritage clauses and replacing them with the standard instrument LEP heritage conservation clause;

iv. include a heritage conservation areas map

v. add additional definitions and amend existing definitions to support the new clauses.

Details of the proposed provisions are as follows:

Biodiversity Protection

The proposed biodiversity provisions seek to protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity in the LGA and beyond. The objectives of the proposed clause relate to the protection and recovery of native flora and fauna, (including species and ecological communities listed as threatened in state or federal legislation), their habitat and linkages between habitat areas.

The clause relates to a map which identifies areas of strategic biodiversity significance, based on a conservation significance assessment. The focus is on the consideration of strategic landscape scale biodiversity processes. For example, the map includes areas that do not include vegetation, but that are important to link habitat areas. It also excludes some areas where isolated small stands of a threatened ecological community occur, as these will still be covered under threatened species legislation.

The provisions outline considerations for the consent authority and matters about which the consent authority must be satisfied. These relate to:

· the vegetation or habitat significance;

· the function of the vegetation, habitat or site within the landscape;

· the potential impacts of the development on the above;

· measures proposed to mitigate unavoidable impacts;

· opportunities for restoration, considering ‘no net loss’ as a guide.

The proposed clause has been previously approved by Parliamentary Counsel and was included within former gazetted Ku-ring-gai LEP (Town Centres) 2010 (See Attachment B1). The proposed Natural Resource Biodiversity Map is included as Attachment B2.

Riparian land and waterways

The proposed riparian provisions seek to protect or enhance waterways and riparian land in the LGA and downstream catchments. The objectives of the proposed clause relate to the protection and enhancement of water quality, aquatic and riparian habitats, (including for species and communities listed as threatened in state or federal legislation), bed and bank stability and the processes which support these. Scenic and cultural values are also sought to be protected.

The clause relates to a map which identifies riparian lands (including the waterways) in four categories, based on a conservation significance assessment.

The provision outlines considerations for the consent authority and matters about which the consent authority must be satisfied. These relate to:

· the natural values of the waterway and riparian land;

· the hydrological and ecological processes that support the above;

· the potential impact of the location and design of development;

· integration of riparian, stormwater and flooding measures;

· measures proposed to mitigate unavoidable impacts;

· opportunities for restoration.

The proposed clause has been previously approved by Parliamentary Counsel and was included within former gazetted Ku-ring-gai LEP (Town Centres) 2010 (See Attachment B1). The proposed Natural Recourse Riparian Map is included as Attachment B3

Heritage Conservation Areas

The proposed heritage conservation area provisions seeks to protect heritage in Ku-ring-gai through amending the KPSO to introduce 38 new heritage conservation areas and include the standard heritage clause (Cl 5.10) from the standard instrument LEP template.

Specifically, the proposed LEP is seeking to amend the KPSO as follows:

1. Amend clause 4.(1) Interpretation to include definitions consistent with the standard instrument LEP template.

New definitions to be added:

· Aboriginal object

· Aboriginal place of heritage significance

· archaeological site

· curtilage

· demolish

· excavation

· heritage conservation area

· heritage conservation management plan

· heritage impact statement

· heritage management document

· maintenance

· nominated State heritage item

Definitions to be omitted and a new definition added:

· heritage item

· heritage significance

· relic

2. To omit the clauses 61D, 61E, 61F, 61G and 61H pertaining to:

· Development of heritage items;

· Development in the vicinity of heritage items;

· Conservation areas; and

· Conservation incentives relating to heritage items.

And insert from the standard instrument LEP template new clauses being clause 5.10 (1) - (10) Heritage conservation.

3. Amend Schedule 7 Heritage Items to include Part 3 - Heritage conservation areas and list the following 38 heritage conservation areas:

1. Wahroonga Conservation Area

2. Heydon Avenue, Warrawee/Woodville Avenue, Wahroonga Conservation Area

3. Warrawee Conservation Area

4. Mahratta Conservation Area

5. Laurel Avenue/King Street Conservation Area

6. Ku-ring-gai Avenue Conservation Area

7. Park Estate Conservation Area

8. Pymble Heights Conservation Area

9. Fernwalk Conservation Area

10. Orinoco Street Conservation Area

11. Pymble Avenue Conservation Area

12. Gordondale Estate Conservation Area

13. Roberts Grant Conservation Area

14. Love Estate/Thorne/Oatley Grant Conservation Area

15. Gordon Park Estate McIntosh/Ansell Grant Conservation Area

16. St Johns Avenue Conservation Area

17. Gordon Park Conservation Area

18. Yarabah Avenue Conservation Area

19. Smith Grant Conservation Area

20. Greengate Estate Conservation Area

21. Springdale Grant Conservation area

22. Crown Blocks Conservation Area

23. Lynwood Avenue Conservation Area

24. Marian Street Conservation Area

25. Stanhope Road Conservation Area

26. Oliver Grant Conservation Area

27. Blenheim Road Conservation Area

28. Wolseley Road Conservation Area

29. Balfour Street/ Highfield Road Conservation Area

30. Lindfield West Conservation Area

31. Trafalgar Avenue Conservation Area

32. Clanville Conservation Area

33. Earl of Carnarvon Conservation Area

34. Archbold Farms Conservation Area

35. The Grove Conservation Area

36. Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Conservation Area

37. Garden of Roseville Estate Conservation Area

38. Shirley Road Conservation Area

4. Incorporate a new map titled ‘Heritage Conservation Area Map’ that identifies the new heritage conservation areas as listed in the Schedule 7 amendment above.

The proposed clauses for Heritage Conservation may be found in Attachment C1. The proposed Heritage Conservation Area Map is included as Attachment C2.

3. Justification for those objectives, outcomes and provisions and the process for their implementation.

A. Need for the planning proposal.

A1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

Yes, the planning proposal results from extensive studies undertaken by Ku-ring-gai Council for biodiversity, riparian and heritage matters. The details of these studies are outlined below.

Biodiversity and Riparian studies

A number of previous studies have identified the need for land use planning to address the pressures on biodiversity and riparian lands resulting from urbanisation in Ku-ring-gai.

The Ku-ring-gai Residential Development Strategy: Environmental Baseline Study, for Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Conacher Travers Pty Ltd, 2000) identified a number of key natural environmental values within the LGA. These include:

· the three surrounding National Parks,

· remnant pockets of native vegetation within the urban environment providing refuges for many flora and fauna species as well as critical last vestiges for threatened ecological communities

· waterways and riparian lands

· linkages between the major reserves of the local area

· the range of topographical representations, elevations, aspects and soils which have resulted in a diversity of habitats, supporting a range of threatened flora and fauna.

Conacher Travers (2000) identified the key pressures from urbanisation, including clearing and fragmentation, stormwater runoff, increased nutrients, bushfire and bushfire management and introduced species. The study identified a range of environmentally sensitive areas that need consideration in land use plans, including broad ‘bio-links’ containing existing tree canopy, riparian lands and lands adjacent to open space or bushland.

In 2004, Council, in conjunction with Macquarie University and the NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR), undertook a mapping (desktop) and categorisation of riparian lands in the LGA. The categories were based on the approach developed in 2004 by DIPNR in Riparian Corridor Management Study: Covering all of the Wollongong Local Government Area and Calderwood Valley in the Shellharbour Local Government Area, which defines the core functions as well as the current and predicted environmental significance. This was used to develop Council’s Riparian Policy.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s Lands of High and Special Ecological Value, Draft Methodology (2008) built on the Conacher Travers study and riparian study outlined above and incorporated a conservation significance assessment of vegetation and riparian mapping for the 6 centres covered in the former Ku-ring-gai LEP (Town Centres) 2010. This was undertaken in conjunction with extensive field validation of riparian lands and vegetation mapping of the LGA, starting with the Town Centre areas. The study was designed to integrate with broader regional mapping and inform the protection of important natural resources under the LEP. The conservation significance assessment led to the development of map overlays and accompanying LEP provisions for the protection of biodiversity significance and riparian lands, similar to that proposed in the current planning proposal. This was incorporated within the LEP at that time. The land use recommendations also included the use of environmental zones within the centres covered by the LEP, resulting in the application of E2 Environmental Protection and E4 Environmental Living to a number of sites within the former LEP.

The Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study, Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP Draft Background Study (Ku-ring-gai Council, 2011) used the detailed vegetation and riparian mapping as for the previous study, but for the rest of the LGA. It refined the conservation significance methodology to take into account the broader vegetation and riparian mapping and an analysis of the outcomes of the previous conservation significance assessment methodology, as applied at the LGA scale. Areas of strategic ecological significance are mapped and categorised. The study recommends a map overlay and local provisions for the Principal LEP, with a more detailed breakdown of categories and controls within the accompanying DCP. This approach is in line with the planning proposal.

As in the previous study, the land use recommendations also include the use of environmental zones. All four environment zones under the Standard LEP Instruments are recommended for inclusion in the Principal and Town Centres LEPs. This work is continuing.

Subsequent to the exhibition of the Draft Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study further minor refinements of the methodology and mapping have been undertaken and incorporated within the Biodiversity and Heritage LEP proposed by the Planning Proposal.

Heritage studies

Numerous studies have been conducted in Ku-ring-gai Council over many years to ascertain the cultural significance of heritage conservation areas. The most recent studies undertaken being:

· Paul Davies Pty Ltd (2008) Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Heritage Conservation Area Review;

· Paul Davies Pty Ltd (2010) Northern Heritage Conservation Area Review; and

· Architectural Projects (2010) Southern Heritage Conservation Area Review.

Heritage conservation areas were assessed in accordance with the ‘Burra Charter’ and the associated ‘Guidelines’ and the NSW Heritage Office ‘Heritage Manual’. The reports and associated inventory sheets were publicly exhibited. Some amendments were made to the proposed HCAs based upon consideration of community submissions and the results of further assessment. The Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Heritage Conservation Area Review was presented to the (former) Ku-ring-gai Planning Panel who adopted the recommendations for the proposed heritage conservation areas within the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres. The Northern and Southern Heritage Conservation Area Reviews were presented to Ku-ring-gai Council who adopted the recommendations for the proposed heritage conservation areas in Ku-ring-gai outside of the Town Centres.

Attachment D includes a Statement of Significance for each of the HCAs adopted by the (former) Ku-ring-gai Planning Panel and Ku-ring-gai Council and are now recommended for inclusion in the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.

A2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

Biodiversity and Riparian

If the biodiversity and riparian areas were required to wait for the Principal and Town Centre LEPs, this would leave the identified areas unnecessarily unprotected for a continued extended timeframe. This could be detrimental as these areas were already identified through the former Ku-ring-gai LEP (Town Centres) 2010 (exhibited as a draft in 2008) and Council’s Draft Biodiversity and Riparian Background Study exhibited early in 2011.

Another method may be relying on state and federal legislation and Council’s existing policies; in particular, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Ku-ring-gai Riparian Policy 2004 and DCP 47 - Water Management.

However, the lack of a strategic framework means that decisions are made only on a reactive basis, while the complexity and intertwining of the natural and urban environments in Ku-ring-gai has also contributed to fairly ad hoc decision-making in respect to the protection of biodiversity and riparian lands.

Another method may be the use of land use zones to restrict uses in environmentally sensitive areas. This method will be used in the future Principal and Town Centres LEPs, however, it is intended to limit their use to ensure that environmental zones are only applied to an entire site or area where there are severe or a range of constraints, relying on the biodiversity and riparian mapping (supplemented by DCP provisions) across other lands. Reliance on environmental zones alone would either unnecessarily limit development opportunities at one end of the scale, or provide inadequate biodiversity and riparian protection across the LGA at the other end.

It should be noted that more detailed provisions will be included in a development control plan (DCP).

The planning proposal offers a strategic framework to trigger the consideration of biodiversity and riparian values regardless of the zone, especially in the period prior to the gazettal of the Principal and Town Centre LEPs. As such, the most appropriate means to protect biodiversity and riparian lands, at this time, is to identify areas of strategic biodiversity and riparian significance on a map, with accompanying provisions within the LEP.

Heritage

The existing statutory mechanism for the protection of local heritage in New South Wales is inclusion on the heritage schedule and heritage map of a given local government area’s local environmental plan. The amendment of the KPSO to include the recommended heritage conservation areas will enable Council to conserve these culturally significant areas and protect them from further erosion though demolition and unsympathetic development.

At this stage, Ku-ring-gai has no gazetted heritage conservation areas. If the heritage conservation areas were required to wait for the gazettal of the Town centres and Principal LEPs, this would leave the identified areas unnecessarily unprotected and susceptible to demolition.

A3. Is there a net community benefit?

This Planning Proposal does not involve a rezoning and therefore the ‘Net Community Benefit Test’ is not applicable. However, this Planning Proposal will provide a community benefit via the opportunity to update our planning controls, retain the values of Ku-ring-gai’s built and natural heritage whilst also providing a basis for the future implementation of plans to respond to the Metropolitan Strategy and sub-regional planning.

Biodiversity and Riparian

The proposed biodiversity and riparian clauses will protect and enhance the natural environment. These clauses are aimed at improving biodiversity, waterways and their buffers, which benefits the whole community by sustaining a healthy natural environment to live in. There is also an overall community benefit through the implementation of a strategic and consistent approach to biodiversity management.

Heritage

Protecting a conservation area has the benefit of conserving for current and future generations the aesthetic and social qualities which give the area its cultural value and make it an appealing place to live. Other benefits include certainty as to the types of and form of development that occurs in a conservation area, ensuring the character of an area is retained.

It is acknowledged that some restrictions and additional development costs may result from inclusion in a heritage conservation area. However, on balance the community benefit from the conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage areas including the buildings, gardens and streetscapes provides a net community benefit.

B. Relationship to strategic planning framework.

B1. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy?

Yes, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives and actions contained in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and the draft North Subregional Strategy.

The relevant strategic directions and associated actions in the Metropolitan Plan are:

· Tackling Climate Change and Protecting the Environment

o Action G3.1 Integrate environmental targets into infrastructure and land use planning. This action outlines measures, such as using the most up to date information such as biodiversity mapping to ensure environmental targets can be achieved and monitored regularly, and establishing consistent and measurable metrics to allow comparative assessment. These measures contribute to natural resource management targets while balancing economic and social factors.

o Action G4.2 Guide Councils in mapping significant riparian corridors. This action recognises that quality, up-to-date mapping informs decision making on the protection of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity values and on meeting objectives and targets, and the essential role of riparian corridors in protecting a waterway’s aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity values and the stability of its bed and banks.

o Action G6.1 Implement the NSW Biodiversity Strategy to protect identified priority conservation areas and guide land use planning. The Draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy 2010-2015 includes the following:

§ Target 4: By 2015, regional land-use planning processes are informed by landscape scale biodiversity assessment and contain provisions that contribute to the protection of biodiversity.

§ Objective 6: Use strategic mechanisms to assess, conserve and improve biodiversity values in land-use planning

§ Objective 9: Protect and restore aquatic ecosystems.

· Achieving Equity, Liveability and Social Inclusion

o Action H1.1 Incorporate equity, liveability and social inclusion as a strategic direction in Subregional Strategies to ensure they can be implemented at the local level and in council LEPs. This action includes a requirement for subregional planning including LEPs, to encourage and strengthen heritage, to integrate local identity and integrate new communities with existing local communities.

The proposed instrument will include specific provisions for riparian and biodiversity protection. These will relate to up-to-date riparian and biodiversity mapping layers based on a strategic approach and a consistent methodology.

The proposed heritage conservation areas and associated clauses will ensure that heritage is strengthened and can be integrated within future planning for the centres and the LGA as a whole.

These measures will not compromise the potential to achieve the other aims of the Metropolitan Plan, but will ensure that they can be considered as an integral part of future planning decisions.

The most applicable objectives and actions in the draft North Subregional Strategy are those related to Environment, Heritage and Resources.

The biodiversity and riparian clauses will support the following aims of the Draft North Subregion: Draft Subregional Strategy:

· the protection of Sydney’s unique plants and animals;

· improvement of the health of waterways;

· improvement in the sustainable use of resources;

· addressing and responding to climate change.

The proposed instrument will include specific provisions and mapping layers which address biodiversity and riparian issues. It will not compromise the potential to achieve the other aims of the Draft Strategy.

An aim of the Draft North Subregional Strategy is to protect the environment and a key action to conserve Sydney’s cultural heritage. The conservation of culturally significant heritage conservation areas in Ku-ring-gai is consistent with this objective.

B2. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?

Yes, Council adopted the Community Strategic Plan 2030 on 13 October 2009. This Strategic Plan is based around the following principal activity areas:

· community development

· urban environment

· natural environment

· planning and development

· civic leadership and corporate services

· financial sustainability

The planning proposal is not inconsistent with this Strategic Plan, specifically the following objectives:

· Comprehensive Integrated Principal LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP) completed for the local government area (LGA) that addresses the Metropolitan Strategy and North Subregion objectives

· Protect, enhance and where appropriate increase local biodiversity and terrestrial, habitats and connectivity between reserves

· Council planning systems apply the principles of sustainability, best practice urban design and place making to meet the needs of the community

B3. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies?

The following table identifies the key applicable SEPPs and outlines the planning proposal’s consistency with those SEPPs. A checklist of compliance with all applicable SEPPs is contained at Attachment E.

SEPP	Comment on Consistency
SEPP No. 19 Bushland in Urban Areas	When preparing draft local environmental plans for any land to which SEPP 19 applies, other than rural land, the council shall have regard to the general and specific aims of the Policy, and give priority to retaining bushland, unless it is satisfied that significant environmental, economic or social benefits will arise which outweigh the value of the bushland. Compliance with SEPP 19 is one of the considerations addressed through the biodiversity mapping and the Biodiversity and Riparian Lands, Draft Background Study (Ku-ring-gai Council, 2011). These have guided the implementation of planning provisions for SEPP 19 bushland.
SEPP No.44 - Koala Habitat Protection	In order to give effect to the aims of this Policy, a council should survey the land within its area so as to identify areas of potential koala habitat and core koala habitat, and make or amend a local environmental plan to include land identified as a core koala habitat within an environmental protection zone, or to identify land that is a core koala habitat and apply special provisions to control the development of that land. Feed trees identified within SEPP 44 are found in Ku-ring-gai. Any potential habitat is likely to be within the areas identified as Regional Fauna Habitat in the Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Draft Background Study (Ku-ring-gai Council, 2011) proposed for inclusion in the Natural Resource – Biodiversity Protection Map, with its associated provisions. However, no core koala habitat has been identified in the LGA in the land to which this SEPP applies, and the most recent koala sighting within the LGA of which Council is aware was over 40 years ago.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008	The Codes SEPP aims to provide streamlined assessment processes for development certain types of development that are of minimal environmental impact and identifying types of complying development that may be carried out in accordance with complying development codes. The biodiversity provisions contained in the planning proposal will not affect the application of the SEPP as it does not identify land as an “environmentally sensitive area” as defined by the Codes SEPP. The planning proposal does include the implementation of “heritage conservation area(s)” as defined by the Codes SEPP. This will limit the application of the codes under the SEPP on the land identified as heritage conservation areas in this planning proposal.
SREP No.20 Hawkesbury-Nepean River	The deemed SEPP requires consideration be given to the impact of future land use in Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment in a regional context. It also requires an environmental planning instrument to have regard to general and specific considerations, policies and strategies related to total catchment management, water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, flora and fauna, riverine scenic quality, agriculture, aquaculture and fishing, urban and rural residential development, recreation and tourism and the Metropolitan Strategy. Considerations under the SEPP have been taken into account when developing provisions under the planning proposal. The proposal particularly addresses water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas and flora and fauna within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment.
SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005	The deemed SEPP aims to establish a balance between maintaining and restoring the natural, heritage and scenic values of the Sydney Harbour catchment, promoting recreational access to the foreshore and waterways and promoting a prosperous working harbour. It establishes planning principles and controls for the catchment as a whole that are to be considered and, where possible, achieved in the preparation of environmental planning instruments. The planning proposal is consistent with the SEPP as it aims to protect and enhance identified environmentally sensitive lands and waterways and implement appropriate planning provisions. No changes in heritage status are proposed for sites identified within the Sydney Harbour Catchment.

B4. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?

The following table identifies applicable Section 117 Directions and outlines the planning proposal’s consistency with those directions. A checklist of compliance with all Section 117 Directions is contained at Attachment E.

Directions under S117

Objectives

Consistency

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

The objectives of this direction are to:

(a) Encourage employment growth in suitable locations,

(b) protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not reduce the area or the floor space potential of existing business zones.

2.1 Environment Protection Zones

The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

Consistent.

While no changes are proposed to zoning, it is proposed that the LEP include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas.

The planning proposal proposes to identify land for environment protection purposes in the LEP and introduce provisions with improved environmental protection standards applying to the land.

2.3 Heritage Conservation

The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental Heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

Consistent.

The LEP will include the provisions to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance. This will take the form of the standard instrument heritage conservation clause and will also include the introduction of heritage conservation areas.

2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas

The objective of this direction is to protect sensitive land or land with significant conservation values from adverse impacts from recreation vehicles.

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not propose to enable land to be developed for the purpose of a recreation vehicle area.

3.1 Residential Zones

The objectives of this direction are:

(a) to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs,

(b) to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not contain any provisions that will reduce the area of land zoned for housing or reduce permissible residential density of land. It does propose to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment.

3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates

The objectives of this direction are:

(a) to provide for a variety of housing types, and

(b) to provide opportunities for caravan parks and manufactured home estates.

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not propose any rezoning or changes in provisions relating to caravan parks.

3.3 Home Occupations

The objective of this direction is to encourage the carrying out of low-impact small businesses in dwelling houses

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not propose any changes to the provisions relating to home occupation

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport.

The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

(a) improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, and

(b) increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars, and

(c) reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car, and

(d) supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services, and

(e) providing for the efficient movement of freight.

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not propose any changes to zoning or land use.

The natural resource and heritage provisions will not prevent the achievement under the future Town Centres and Principal LEPs of zoning and land uses consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development and The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy.

4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

The objective of this direction is to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts from the use of land that has a probability of containing acid sulfate soils.

Consistent.

There are small areas in Ku-ring-gai with a probability of containing acid sulfate soils. These areas are identified for their natural values within the proposed environmentally sensitive lands maps, affording them greater protection. The planning proposal does not propose an intensification of land uses on this land.

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection

The objectives of this direction are:

(a) to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas, and

(b) to encourage sound management of bush fire prone areas.

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not propose any alterations to zoning or land use, and nothing in the proposed instrument would prohibit the carrying out of bushfire hazard reduction works in asset protection zones.

Significant portions of the areas identified as environmentally sensitive are bushfire prone lands.

The identification of the core environmentally sensitive lands, which are the backbone of the biodiversity map, was reduced in many areas as a result of the consideration of the need for bushfire protection measures.

Consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service is proposed as outlined in D2.

6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements

The objective of this direction is to ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not seek to incorporate additional provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority, or identify development as designated development.

6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes

The objectives of this direction are:

(d) to facilitate the removal of reservations of land for public purposes where the land is no longer required for acquisition

Consistent.

The planning proposal does not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes. However, by identifying areas of natural resource and heritage significance, it will support future considerations in relation to the reservation of land for public purposes.

7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036

The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the vision, transport and land use strategy, policies, outcomes and actions contained in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036.

Consistent.

The planning proposal is consistent with the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036

Details are contained under Section 3- B1 above.

C. Environmental, social and economic impact.

C1. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

There is no identified critical habitat within or directly adjoining the LGA at this time.

The planning proposal will actually have a positive affect on the protection of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, through the application of two maps identifying environmentally important areas; the ‘Natural resource – biodiversity protection map’ and the ‘Natural resource-Riparian land and waterways map ’ and provisions to protect and enhance the natural values of these lands.

C2. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

There will be positive environmental effects through the protection of the existing natural and built environment.

C3. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

Due to the nature of this planning proposal, it is not possible to undertake a definitive study on its social and economic effects. However, it is considered that the proposed clauses adequately address any social and economic effects.

Biodiversity and Riparian

Heritage

D. State and Commonwealth interests.

D1. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

As the planning proposal will not result in any increases in residential density or intensity of land uses and as such will not place additional demands or pressures on existing infrastructure.

D2. What are the views of State and Commonwealth Public Authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination, and have they resulted in any variations to the planning proposal?

The views of State and Commonwealth Public Authorities will not be known until after the initial gateway determination. It is proposed that the following State and Commonwealth Public Authorities will be consulted:

· NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

· Land and Property Management Authority

· NSW Office of Water

· NSW Rural Fire Service

· National Parks & Wildlife Service

· NSW Heritage Office

· Aboriginal Heritage Office

· Hornsby Shire Council

· Ryde City Council

· Warringah Council

· Willoughby City Council

· Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority

· Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority

Comments received to date from public authorities are included at Attachment F.

4. Details of the community consultation that is to be undertaken on the planning proposal.

Community consultation will be conducted in accordance with the publication “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” released by the Department of Planning.

The planning proposal will also be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 57 of the EP&A Act and/ or any other requirements as determined by the Gateway process under section 56 of the EP&A Act.

Amendments and clarifications to the Planning Proposal for the purposes of community consultation are included at Attachment G.

ATTACHMENT A – Letter from Minister for Planning and Infrastructure

ATTACHMENT B1 – Proposed Biodiversity and Riparian Land LEP provisions

Biodiversity Protection

(1) The objective of this clause is to protect, maintain and improve the diversity and condition of native vegetation and habitat, including:

(a) protecting biological diversity of native flora and fauna, and

(b) protecting the ecological processes necessary for their continued existence, and

(d) protecting, restoring and enhancing biodiversity corridors.

(2) This clause applies to development on land that is identified as “Areas of Biodiversity Significance” on the Natural Resources - Biodiversity Map.

(3) Before granting development consent for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

(a) the impact of the proposed development on the following:

(i) any native vegetation community,

(ii) the habitat of any threatened species, population or ecological community,

(iii) any regionally significant species of plant, animal or habitat,

(iv) any biodiversity corridor,

(v) any wetland,

(vi) the biodiversity values within any reserve,

(vii) the stability of the land, and

(b) any proposed measure to be undertaken to ameliorate any potential adverse environmental impact, and

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a) is consistent with the objectives of this clause, and

(b) is designed, and will be sited and managed, to avoid any potential adverse environmental impact or, if a potential adverse environmental impact cannot be avoided:

(i) the development minimises disturbance and adverse impacts on remnant vegetation communities, habitat and threatened species and populations, and

(ii) measures have been considered to maintain native vegetation and habitat in parcels of a size, condition and configuration that will facilitate biodiversity protection and native flora and fauna movement through biodiversity corridors, and

(iii) the development avoids clearing steep slopes and facilitates the stability of the land, and

(iv) measures have been considered to achieve no net loss of significant vegetation or habitat.

(5) In this clause:

biodiversity corridor means an area to facilitate the connection and maintenance of native flora and fauna habitats. Within the urban landscape, biodiversity corridors may be broken by roads and other urban elements and may include remnant trees and associated native and exotic vegetation.

Riparian land and waterways

(1) The objectives of this clause are:

(a) to protect or improve:

(i) water quality in waterways, and

(ii) stability of the bed and banks of waterways, and

(iii) aquatic and riparian habitats, and

(iv) ecological processes in waterways and riparian areas, and

(v) threatened aquatic species, communities, populations and their habitats, and

(vi) scenic and cultural heritage values of waterways and riparian areas, and

(b) where practicable, to provide for the rehabilitation of existing piped or channelised waterways to a near natural state.

(2) This clause applies to development on land that is identified on the Natural Resources - Riparian Lands Map as:

(a) Category 1, or

(b) Category 2, or

(d) Category 3a.

(3) Before granting development consent for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider the impact of the proposed development on the following:

(a) water quality in the waterway, and the natural hydrological regime,

(b) aquatic and riparian habitats and ecosystems,

(d) the movement of aquatic and terrestrial native species,

(e) habitat of any threatened species, population or ecological community,

(f) public access to, and use of, any public waterway and its foreshores,

(g) any opportunities for maintenance, rehabilitation or re-creation of watercourses, aquatic and riparian vegetation and habitat.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a) is consistent with the objectives of this clause, and

(b) is designed, and will be sited and managed, to avoid any potential adverse environmental impact or, if a potential adverse environmental impact cannot be avoided, the development:

(i) is designed and sited so as to have minimum adverse impacts, and

(ii) incorporates effective measures so as to have minimal adverse environmental impact, and

(iii) mitigates any adverse environmental impact through the rehabilitation or remediation of any existing disturbed or artificially modified riparian area on the site.

ATTACHMENT C1 – Proposed Heritage Conservation LEP Provisions

Proposed amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance

Make amendments to clause 4.(1) Interpretation to be consistent with the standard LEP template:

Aboriginal object means any deposit, object or other material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of an area of New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains.

Aboriginal place of heritage significance means an area of land, the general location of which is identified in an Aboriginal heritage study adopted by the Council after public exhibition and that may be shown on the Heritage Map, that is:

(a) the site of one or more Aboriginal objects or a place that has the physical remains of pre-European occupation by, or is of contemporary significance to, the Aboriginal people. It may (but need not) include items and remnants of the occupation of the land by Aboriginal people, such as burial places, engraving sites, rock art, midden deposits, scarred and sacred trees and sharpening grooves, or

(b) a natural Aboriginal sacred site or other sacred feature. It includes natural features such as creeks or mountains of long-standing cultural significance, as well as initiation, ceremonial or story places or areas of more contemporary cultural significance.

Note. The term may include (but is not limited to) places that are declared under section 84 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to be Aboriginal places for the purposes of that Act.

archaeological site means a place that contains one or more relics.

curtilage, in relation to a heritage item or conservation area, means the area of land (including land covered by water) surrounding a heritage item, a heritage conservation area, or building, work or place within a heritage conservation area, that contributes to its heritage significance.

demolish, in relation to a heritage item or an Aboriginal object, or a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area, means wholly or partly destroy, dismantle or deface the heritage item, Aboriginal object or building, work, relic or tree.

excavation means the removal of soil or rock, whether moved to another part of the same site or to another site, but does not include garden landscaping that does not significantly alter the shape, natural form or drainage of the land.

heritage conservation area means an area of land of heritage significance:

(a) shown on the Heritage Map as a heritage conservation area, and

(b) the location and nature of which is described in Schedule 5,

and includes any heritage items situated on or within that area.

heritage conservation management plan means a document prepared in accordance with guidelines prepared by the Division of the Government Service responsible to the Minister administering the Heritage Act 1977 that documents the heritage significance of an item, place or heritage conservation area and identifies conservation policies and management mechanisms that are appropriate to enable that significance to be retained.

heritage impact statement means a document consisting of:

(a) a statement demonstrating the heritage significance of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, and

(b) an assessment of the impact that proposed development will have on that significance, and

heritage item means a building, work, place, relic, tree, object or archaeological site the location and nature of which is described in Schedule 7.

Note. An inventory of heritage items is also available at the office of the Council.

heritage management document means:

(a) a heritage conservation management plan, or

(b) a heritage impact statement, or

(c) any other document that provides guidelines for the ongoing management and conservation of a heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place of heritage significance or heritage conservation area.

heritage significance means historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value.

maintenance, in relation to a heritage item, Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place of heritage significance, or a building, work, archaeological site, tree or place within a heritage conservation area, means ongoing protective care, but does not include the removal or disturbance of existing fabric, alterations (such as carrying out extensions or additions) or the introduction of new materials or technology.

nominated State heritage item means a heritage item that:

(a) has been identified as an item of State significance in a publicly exhibited heritage study adopted by the Council, and

(b) the Council has, by notice in writing to the Heritage Council, nominated as an item of potential State significance.

relic has the same meaning as in the Heritage Act 1977.

To omit the clauses 61D, 61E, 61F, 61G and 61H and insert from the standard LEP template new clauses being clause 5.10 (1) - (10) Heritage conservation:

Heritage conservation

Note. Heritage items (if any) are listed and described in Schedule 7. Heritage conservation areas (if any) are shown on the Heritage Conservation Area Map as well as being described in Schedule 7.

61D (1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Ku-ring-gai Council,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

(2) Requirement for consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a).... demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) a heritage item,

(ii) an Aboriginal object,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

(b) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 7 in relation to the item,

(c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

(d) disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(e) erecting a building on land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(f) subdividing land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

(3) When consent not required

However, development consent under this clause is not required if:

(a).... the applicant has notified the consent authority of the proposed development and the consent authority has advised the applicant in writing before any work is carried out that it is satisfied that the proposed development:

(i)..... is of a minor nature or is for the maintenance of the heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place of heritage significance or archaeological site or a building, work, relic, tree or place within the heritage conservation area, and

(ii).... would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place, archaeological site or heritage conservation area, or

(b).... the development is in a cemetery or burial ground and the proposed development:

(i) is the creation of a new grave or monument, or excavation or disturbance of land for the purpose of conserving or repairing monuments or grave markers, and

(ii) would not cause disturbance to human remains, relics, Aboriginal objects in the form of grave goods, or to an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, or

(c) the development is limited to the removal of a tree or other vegetation that the Council is satisfied is a risk to human life or property, or

(d) the development is exempt development.

(4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

(5) Heritage assessment

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

(a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or

(b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

(6) Heritage conservation management plans

The consent authority may require, after considering the heritage significance of a heritage item and the extent of change proposed to it, the submission of a heritage conservation management plan before granting consent under this clause.

(7) Archaeological sites

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development on an archaeological site (other than land listed on the State Heritage Register or to which an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies):

(a) notify the Heritage Council of its intention to grant consent, and

(b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

(8) Aboriginal places of heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a) consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b) notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

(9) Demolition of nominated State heritage items

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause for the demolition of a nominated State heritage item:

(a) notify the Heritage Council about the application, and

(b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

(10) Conservation incentives

The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage significance is facilitated by the granting of consent, and

(b) the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c) the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried out, and

(d) the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and

(e) the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

To include in Schedule 7 Heritage Items, Part 3 - Heritage conservation areas an additional 38 heritage conservation areas being:

Part 3 - Heritage Conservation Areas

Description	Identification on Heritage Map	Significance
Wahroonga Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C1”	Local
Heydon Avenue, Warrawee/Woodville Avenue, Wahroonga Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C2”	Local
Warrawee Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C3”	Local
Mahratta Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C4”	Local
Laurel Avenue/King Street Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C5”	Local
Ku-ring-gai Avenue Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C6”	Local
Park Estate Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C7”	Local
Pymble Heights Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C8”	Local
Fernwalk Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C9”	Local
Orinoco Street Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C10”	Local
Pymble Avenue Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C11”	Local
Gordondale Estate Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C12”	Local
Roberts Grant Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C13”	Local
Love Estate/Thorne/Oatley Grant Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C14”	Local
Gordon Park Estate McIntosh/Ansell Grant Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C15”	Local
St Johns Avenue Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C16”	Local
Gordon Park Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C17”	Local
Yarabah Avenue Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C18”	Local
Smith Grant Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C19”	Local
Greengate Estate Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C20”	Local
Springdale Grant Conservation area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C21”	Local
Crown Blocks Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C22”	Local
Lynwood Avenue Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C23”	Local
Marian Street Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C24”	Local
Stanhope Road Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C25”	Local
Oliver Grant Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C26”	Local
Blenheim Road Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C27”	Local
Wolseley Road Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C28”	Local
Balfour Street/ Highfield Road Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C29”	Local
Lindfield Park Estate Conservation Area	Shown by red hatching and labelled “C30”	Local

ATTACHMENT D - Heritage conservation area statements of significance

1. Wahroonga Conservation Area

Wahroonga Heritage Conservation Area is of heritage significance for its distinctive residential streetscapes which evidence the transformation of early subdivisions of the 1890s into the later rectilinear grid lot street and lot pattern of later subdivisions including the Wahroonga Heights Estate. The area contains a significant collection of grand residences from the Federation and Inter-war periods, built following the opening of the North Shore railway line in 1890, many of these the residences of prominent families of this period, and often designed by prominent architects, for example the 1894 Ewan House (formerly Innisfail) designed by architect Herbert Wardell for John Thomas Toohey, and eleven houses designed by the architect Howard Joseland. The western end of Burns Road and western side of Coonanbarra Road are representative streetscapes of intact more modest Federation period houses.

The through-block pathways and formal avenues of street trees within the area (in Burns Road, Water Street and Coonanbarra Road) along with the formal landscaping of Wahroonga Park, and its distinctive John Sulman-designed shops in Coonanbarra Road facing the Park, are a tribute to the work of the Wahroonga Progress Association in the early 20th century (which included Sulman as a member), and have resulted in a high-quality and distinctive residential landscape.

2. Heydon Avenue, Warrawee/Woodville Avenue, Wahroonga Conservation Area

The Heydon Avenue Warrawee/Woodville Avenue Wahroonga Heritage Conservation Area is a distinctive residential area of historical and aesthetic significance for its fine Federation and Interwar period streetscapes, including Yosefa Avenue, which contains houses designed by architect Augustus Aley. The area contains a number of heritage items by notable architects including Redleaf and Inglewood, both designed by Howard Joseland. Significantly, the area retains its oldest house, Reaycroft at 17 Heydon Avenue, built in the Federation Queen Anne style in 1895 to a design by architects Castleton and Lake for Judge Heydon, after whom Heydon Avenue is named.

3. Warrawee Conservation Area

Warrawee Heritage Conservation Area is of aesthetic significance for its remarkable concentration of architecturally distinguished houses set within fine landscaped garden settings on large sites, many of the houses designed by notable architects including Eleanor Cullis-Hill, John Horbury Hunt, H. Joseland, Joseland & Gillings, Maurice B. Halligan, John Sulman, Hugh Venables Vernon, Waterhouse & Lake, and Wilson, Neave & Berry. Fine gardens blend with regenerated native trees and the undulating topography to create an aesthetically fine residential landscape. Warrawee Heritage Conservation Area is of historical significance as an exclusively residential area, which retains evidence of its early settlement, subdivision and continuing development, in its main road pattern created in the 1890s, and evidence of later subdivision of earlier estates such as the Pibrac Estate subdivision of 1920, which created Pibrac Avenue. A notable feature of the area’s layout, which is of historical significance, is the early creation of battleaxe allotments from the 1917 subdivision of the Warrawee Garden Estate.

The area is also of historical significance for its collection of early houses associated with prominent historical figures including Pibrac, the home of Frederick Eccleston Du Faur (1832 -1915); Roseburn and Kooyong designed for two of the Gillespie brothers, proprietors of Anchor Flour Mills and prominent benefactors of Knox Grammar School, and Audley, designed for Preston L. Gowing of Gowings department stores.

4. Mahratta Conservation Area

The Mahratta Heritage Conservation Area is of historical and aesthetic significance for its largely intact fabric (houses, gardens, street layout) dating from the 1890s through to the inter war period into the 1940s. The area is of aesthetic significance as: it encompasses the State Heritage Listed Mahratta built 1941 on the corner of the Pacific Highway and Fox Valley Road with its substantial gardens designed by Paul Sorenson; the 1924 subdivision of Myall Avenue as a rare early cul-de-sac design, distinctive for its Inter war period housing and circular planting bed; the 1912 subdivision of the eastern end of Gilda Avenue, with its collection of Federation period to inter-war period housing.

The area is of historical significance as one of the earliest areas of housing development on the western side of the Pacific Highway at Wahroonga, encompassing the 1912 Warrawee View Estate (eastern end of Gilda Avenue) and the Myall Avenue (a subdivision of part of Toohey’s Estate). The 1943 aerial photo of the area shows the eastern end of Gilda Avenue with unified formal street tree plantings (likely brush box), indicating the influence of the Wahroonga Progress Association in the early 20th century.

5. Laurel Avenue/King Street Conservation Area

The Laurel Avenue/King Street Heritage Conservation Area is a small distinct area which contains a collection of Federation and Inter-war period buildings of high aesthetic and historical significance. These buildings illustrate the complex subdivision history of the area following the opening of the railway in 1890 and the intensification of suburban development in the Inter-war period. Laurel Avenue contains a collection of Inter-war Georgian Revival style housing, including two houses designed by the architect Leith McCredie. St. James Anglican Church at 5 King Street is considered to be of social, historical and aesthetic significance.

6. Ku-ring-gai Avenue Conservation Area

The Ku-ring-gai Avenue Heritage Conservation Area is of historic, aesthetic, social and technological significance as one of the most socially prestigious Federation period streets in Sydney and potentially New South Wales. Ku-ring-gai Avenue derives its fine aesthetic qualities from its collection of grand Federation period residences set in generous and well-proportioned garden settings which blend into the mature brush box avenue street tree planting. Many of these residences were designed by prominent Sydney architects, including Thomas Frame Cosh (of Slatyer & Cosh, Spain & Cosh), Arthur Stanton Cook, G.M. Pitt junior, Robertson & Marks and Sir John Sulman.

The Avenue is also of historical and social significance for its association with the important artist Grace Cossington Smith, whose works were inspired by her home and its setting; and for its association with prestigious and influential early residents including the Penfold family (stationers) and many of Sydney’s most prominent early twentieth century architects, including Charles Slatyer, Thomas Frame Cosh, John Spencer Stansfield, Sir John Sulman and Arthur Stanton Cook.

7. Park Estate Conservation Area

The Park Estate Heritage Conservation Area is historically and aesthetically significant as an intact portion of the Park Estate subdivision associated with Robert Pymble and his descendants, for Robert Pymble Park, and as an area of fine substantial houses of the Federation and the Inter-war period, in a variety of architectural styles, many of which are listed heritage items and exemplars of their various architectural styles.

8. Pymble Heights Conservation Area

A largely intact portion of the 1892 Pymble Heights Estate subdivision encompassing a large number of heritage items, particularly intact Victorian, Federation and Inter-war period housing. The area is of aesthetic significance for its fine groups of Victorian, Federation period and Inter war period houses, outstanding groups including the group of heritage items at Nos. 35-45 Grandview Street and 2 Wellesley Road (Corner Grandview Street) which illustrate the transition from Victorian to Federation period architectural styles; and the group of heritage items at 19-33 Church Street, an impressive group of high quality houses built from the 1890s on a ridge top affording district views: these Church Street houses were particularly prominent in historic photos c. 1900 taken from Grandview or King Edward Streets looking north. The Pymble Heights heritage conservation area is of historical significance as it represents the high quality housing development for wealthy families which followed closely on the opening of Pymble railway station on 1 January 1890. Both Hoffbank at 33 Church Street and Kiewa at 29 Church Street, were constructed for the wealthy woolbroker Duncan Carson.

9. Fern Walk Conservation Area

The Fern Walk Heritage Conservation Area is of historical significance as an area developed from later subdivision of land once part of McKeown’s land in the 19th century. The area encompasses a largely intact mix of Federation, Inter-war and 1940s period housing, with some later housing. The area is of historical significance for its pattern of subdivision, re-subdivision and development from November 1892 through to the 1940s.

The area is of aesthetic significance for its fine groups of Federation period, Inter war period and 1940s houses, illustrating a variety of architectural styles of those periods including Federation Queen Anne, Federation Arts & Crafts, Inter War California Bungalow, Inter War Mediterranean, Inter War Spanish Mission, and Inter War Georgian Revival. Housing within the area includes modest c. 1900 cottages (18 and 20 Mona Vale Road), larger heritage-listed Federation period houses, and, in Fern Street, groups of Inter war California Bungalows and later 1940s houses.

10. Orinoco Street Conservation Area

Orinoco Street is significant historically and aesthetically as an highly intact portion of the 1894 Hamilton Estate subdivision developed from the early 20th century, and for its collection of Peddle Thorp designed bungalows. The Heritage Conservation Area boundary also encompasses 16 Livingstone Avenue, a house designed 1956-57 by architects Morrow & Gordon for Grace Irene Gordon, wife of Percy J. Gordon architect, principal of the firm at the time, as his family residence. The area is considered rare for its concentration of housing designed by a single architectural firm (Peddle Thorp later Peddle Thorp & Walker) between 1913 and 1930, and for its collection of fine inter war period housing at the southern end of Orinoco Street, wrapping around into Livingstone Avenue.

11. Pymble Avenue Conservation Area

Pymble Avenue Heritage Conservation Area is historically significant as a portion of Richard’s Wall’s 1824 land grant which became the Pymble Station Estate subdivision of 47 one-acre residential lots on either side of Pymble Avenue, advertised for sale between 1893 and 1910, developed in the Federation to inter-war period, with substantial one and two storey houses, often architect-designed. The area is of aesthetic significance for its group of fine, Federation to inter-war period houses in generous garden settings within a spectacular mature blue gum high forest streetscape. The area contains a representative collection of fine houses including:

· Grey House 59 Pymble Avenue constructed c. 1916 to the design of architect Hedley Vicars Graham for Jane and Oscar Curtis, exporter, built on Lot 41 of the Pymble Station Estate (heritage listed). In 1918 Jane Curtis sold the property to the Presbyterian Church, which used it as a residence for the Principal of its Ladies College (PLC). Dr. Marden, Miss Everett and Miss Nancy Jobson, all lived there. This property is historically associated with PLC school.

· Elderslie 41 Pymble Avenue, designed by architects Peddle Thorp & Walker in 1939 with innovative design features (heritage listed)

· 37 Pymble Avenue, constructed 1940 to the design of architect J. Aubrey Kerr for Jean and Colin Milne

· Grenier aka Brambledene, 61 Pymble Avenue, constructed c. 1918 for Millicent and Edward Bryant, reputed to have been designed by architects Waterhouse & Lake, built on Lot 40 of the Pymble Station Estate. Millicent Bryant became the first Australian woman to gain a pilot’s license on 28 March 1927.

· Boongala, 56 Pymble Avenue, built 1939 for Geoffrey Phillip Stuckey, a fellow of St. Paul’s College, Sydney University, admitted to the NSW Bar in 1924, and joint editor for the 2^nd edition of Parker’s Equity Practice in NSW 1949.

· Orana, 60 Pymble Avenue, designed 1937 by architects Peddle Thorp & Walker for Claude Robinson Cornwell, company manager. The house was the subject of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald Women’s Supplement on 16 January 1939.

12. Gordondale Estate Conservation Area

Gordondale Estate Conservation Area is historically significant as part of the late nineteenth century subdivision of Gordondale Estate. The subdivision reflects anticipated improved transport connections due to the construction of the North Shore Rail line. The area is aesthetically significant with fine examples of substantial Federation and Inter-war style houses on large blocks with well established garden settings.

13. Roberts Grant Conservation Area

Roberts Grant Conservation Area is historically significant as an intact portion of the Roberts’ 1856 25 acre land grant whose boundaries are evident through the following streets; Nelson, Melkin End, and Rosedale Road. The Conservation Area has aesthetic significance for the large number of intact Federation and Inter-war houses. The setting of the houses is complemented by the substantial gardens, and significant native and introduced trees.

14. Love Estate/Thorne/Oatley Grant Conservation Area

The conservation area Love Estate/Thorne/Oatley Grant Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the Thorne 1856 100 acre land grant and the 1882 19 Choice Farms subdivision. The area has high aesthetic significance as a highly intact and consistent Interwar development and for the high proportion of quality houses including Stonyhurst at 4 Matang Street. The streets in the area derived their names from the owners at the time of the subdivision the Love family.

15. Gordon Park Estate McIntosh/Ansell Grant Conservation Area

The Gordon Park Estate McIntosh/Ansell Grant Conservation Area Conservation Area has historic significance as the part of the 1823 Ansell 40 acre land grant purchased by McIntosh and the late nineteenth century subdivision of Gordon Park Estate evident in McIntosh Street. The area is aesthetically significant for its intact Inter-war houses representing a mix of styles from the Inter-war period.

16. St Johns Avenue Conservation Area

St. Johns Avenue Conservation Area is of heritage significance for its intact Federation and Inter-war period housing, its dramatic streetscape derived from the narrow paved carriageway, wide grassed verges and mature brush box avenue planting, as the first paved road in Ku-ring-gai, and for its association with and the heritage significance of St. Johns Church, manse and cemetery, which encompass significant historical and social values for Ku-ring-gai. The Pacific Highway section of the proposed HCA is of aesthetic and historical significance for its collection of fine Federation and Inter-war period housing.

17. Gordon Park Conservation Area

The Gordon Park Heritage Conservation Area is of historical and aesthetic significance as an intact portion of the Gordon Park and Brown’s Estates developed from 1895, illustrative of the 1890s post railway development in Gordon, with a predominant Federation to Interwar period character. The area features key heritage items Eryldene 17 McIntosh Street (listed on the State Heritage Register) and 49 and 51 Werona Avenue Gordon.

18. Yarabah Avenue Conservation Area

Yarabah Avenue is significant as part of a 1920s subdivision which retains its inter-war character of single storey Inter-war California Bungalows, including the remarkable heritage-listed bungalow Nebraska designed by architect Alexander S Jolly at 17 Yarabah Avenue.

19. Smith Grant Conservation Area

The Smith Grant Conservation Area has historic significance as an intact portion of the Joseph Smith 40 acre land grant whose boundaries are evident through Essex Street and the Pacific Highway. The area evidences an overlay of Inter-war subdivision after an earlier land release, including the Open View Estate 1921, and the Fairmont Estate 1928. The area has aesthetic significance as a reasonably intact and consistent early Twentieth Century subdivision and for the high proportion of quality houses.

20. Greengate Estate Conservation Area

The Greengate Estate Conservation Area has historic significance as a portion of the Foster 70 acre land grant. The area has aesthetic significance as a highly intact early Twentieth Century subdivision with buildings from the Federation and Inter-war period. In particular, the Arts and Craft and Bungalow styles are well represented.

21. Springdale Grant Conservation Area

The Springdale Grant Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the Jane Bradley’s 1839 160 acre land grant whose boundaries are evident through the following streets: Karanga Avenue, Locksley Street, Roseberry Road and Stanhope Rd. The area has aesthetic value for the high number of intact Federation and Inter-war buildings. The area is characterised by medium to large lots with well established gardens. The houses are almost exclusively detached residences, with only few exceptions. The area has groupings of Federation and Interwar housing. Architectural styles present include Federation Queen Anne, Arts and Crafts and Bungalow, and Inter-war Old English, Spanish Mission, Mediterranean and Californian Bungalow. Many houses retain period landscape features including sweeping drives, borders of mixed shrubberies and planted out beds.

22. Crown Blocks Conservation Area

The Crown Blocks Conservation Area has historic significance as Crown Blocks which sold in the1890s whose boundaries are evident through the following streets: Tryon Road, Nelson Road and the boundary of original large lots. The area has historic significance for the further subdivision of Crown Blocks as Mackenzie Estate in 1907, Lightcliff Avenue and Slade Avenue in 1916 and Belhelvie Estate in 1919. The area has aesthetic significance for the intact Federation and Inter-war houses. Nelson Road consists mainly of Federation period houses with consistent siting, massing and architecture. Lightcliff Avenue represents a significant example of cohesive subdivision and development with housing styles including Inter-war Mediterranean and Old English. The Seven Little Australians Park and Killara Oval are important inclusions to the HCA, providing large landscape elements of high visual amenity.

23. Lynwood Avenue Conservation Area

The Lynwood Avenue Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the Edwin Booker 80 acre land grant purchased by Captain Pockley who established his home Lorne and an orchard here. The boundary of the land grant is evident through Karranga Avenue and Locksley Street. The area has aesthetic significance for the highly intact and cohesive late Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century development. The area includes a large number of heritage items. It is characterised by mostly intact Federation and Inter-war development. Housing types present represent the varied architectural styles of the periods, including Old English, Spanish Mission, Mediterranean and Californian Bungalows, many of the homes architecturally designed. Mature native and introduced trees, on private property and as street trees, add to the high visual quality of the area.

24. Marian Street Conservation Area

The Marian Street Heritage Conservation Area is of high local historic and aesthetic significance as a good and largely intact residential precinct characterised by streetscapes of good, high quality examples of single detached houses from the Federation, Inter-war and Post-war periods. The built context is enhanced by large garden settings, wide street proportions, street plantings and remnant and planted native trees; elements which are synonymous with the Ku-ring-gai area. The early grant boundaries, estates and subdivision pattern significantly remain visible in the current layout and pattern of development and late 19th and early to mid 20th century building stock retains a high level of integrity. The early development is also overlayed by later land subdivisions and some consolidation and later development which reflect changes in the wider rail and road networks and ongoing evolution of the local and wider area. Despite these changes the area significantly retains part of the original vision for the area with emphasis on residential, recreational and cultural development.

25. Stanhope Road Conservation Area

The Stanhope Road Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the Jane Bradley’s Springdale 1839 160 acre land grant whose boundaries are evident through Stanhope Rd and the Pacific Highway. The area has aesthetic significance a good and largely intact residential precinct characterised by streetscapes of good, high quality examples of single detached houses from the Federation, Inter-war and Post-war periods. The built context is enhanced by large garden settings, wide street proportions, street plantings and remnant and planted native trees; elements which are synonymous with the Ku-ring-gai area. The early grant boundaries, estates and subdivision pattern significantly remain visible in the current layout and pattern of development and late 19th and early to mid 20th century building stock retains a high level of integrity. The early development is also overlayed by later land subdivisions and some consolidation and later development which reflect changes in the wider rail and road networks and ongoing evolution of the local and wider area. Despite these changes the area significantly retains part of the original vision for the area with emphasis on residential, recreational and cultural development.

26. Oliver Grant Conservation Area

The Oliver Grant Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the Henry Oliver 45 acre land grant which was later divided into 3 farms. The grant boundaries are evident through Stanhope Road and the Pacific Highway. The area has aesthetic significance for the high quality intact buildings from the Federation and Inter-war periods.

27. Blenheim Road Conservation Area

Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area has historical and aesthetic significance as an intact area of Federation Queen Anne and Inter-war California Bungalow style housing with mature street tree planting, including three listed heritage items, which represents an intact portion of the 1911 Heart of Lindfield subdivision.

28. Wolseley Road Conservation Area

Wolseley Road is of aesthetic and historical significance for its collection of Federation and Inter-war period housing, built following subdivision as part of the 1911 Heart of Lindfield Estate, and for its magnificent avenue of mature brush box trees.

29. Balfour Street/ Highfield Road Conservation Area

The area is of aesthetic and historical significance as an intact area of Federation Queen Anne style housing, including a presbytery (10 Highfield Road), representative of the development of the 1884 Gordon Park Estate subdivision. The area also includes the c. 1940s Holy Family Catholic church and school at 2-4 Highfield Road (corner Pacific Highway), which is a property which includes 7 Balfour Street, one of the intact group of Balfour Street Federation Queen Anne style houses.

30. Lindfield West Conservation Area

The Lindfield West Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the late nineteenth century subdivision Gordon Park Estate (1884) evident in the following streets: Beaconsfield Parade, Norwood Avenue and Gladstone Avenue lots and some houses. The area has aesthetic significance as a mostly intact and consistent late nineteenth century development consolidated in the Inter-war period and several quality houses from the Federation and Inter-war periods. Frances Street has a large number of heritage items and the street consisting of predominantly single storey Inter-war Bungalows is of high aesthetic significance.

31. Trafalgar Avenue Conservation Area

The Trafalgar Avenue area is of aesthetic and historical significance as it encompasses intact portions of the Clanville, Seldon and Runnymede Estate subdivisions, containing Federation and Inter-war housing.

32. Clanville Conservation Area

The Clanville Conservation Area has historic significance as the part of the David Dering Mathew 400 acre land grant “Clanville”. The area has further historic significance for the successive subdivision of “Clanville” in the late nineteenth century subdivisions of Roseville Park Estate (1893) and Roseville Station Estate (1896), and the early twentieth century subdivisions of Clanville Estate (1903); Clanville Heights Estate (AKA Lindfield Heights Estate of 1906) (1905); Terry’s Hill Estate (1908); Clermiston Estate (1912); Taraville Estate (1914); The First Estate (1918); The Garden Estate (1920); Horden’s Roseville Estate (1922) and Archbold Hill Estate (1923). The area has aesthetic significance for the highly intact and quality Federation and inter-war houses. Architectural styles present from the Federation period include Federation and transitional Bungalows, Queen Anne, and Arts and Crafts, and present from the Inter-war period mostly Californian Bungalows but also Old English, Art Deco and Spanish Mission.

33. Earl of Carnarvon Conservation Area

The Earl of Carnarvon Conservation Area has historic significance as the John Jamieson 49 acre land grant, whose boundaries are evident through the following streets: Carnarvon Road, Earl Street and Archbold Road. The area has high historic significance as 1922-3 Earl of Carnarvon subdivisions evident in the following streets: Merlin Street, Roseville Avenue, Luxor and Amarna Parade. The subdivisions were developed by Arthur Rickard as the ‘ideal Bungalow Estate’. The area was fully developed by 1943. The naming of the Estate and streets reflects the discovery of Tutankhamen’s tomb in 1922. The area has high significance as a highly intact and consistent Inter-war development.

34. Archbold Farms Conservation Area

The Archbold Farms Conservation Area has historic significance as the James Archbold 33 acre land grant whose boundaries are evident through Archbold Road and Earl Street and divided into four farms in the 1880s. The area has historic significance for its early twentieth century subdivision of the 1880s farms as the Winifred Estate (1903), the Roseville Heights Estate (1906) and the Upper Clanville Estate (1911), evident in the following streets: Duntroon Avenue, Addison Avenue and Park Avenue lots and houses. The conservation area has aesthetic significance for the intact and consistent Inter-war development throughout the conservation area and the high quality Federation transitional period architecture in Duntroon Avenue. The houses are aesthetically enhanced by established garden settings and streetscapes with significant street trees.

35. The Grove Conservation Area

The Grove Heritage Conservation Area is of historical and aesthetic significance as it encompasses intact streetscapes of Federation to Inter-war period housing, largely single storey, with mature street tree planting (predominantly brush box) characteristic of the same period. The area reflects its historical development following both the 1903 Clanville Estate subdivision and re-subdivision in 1922 as part of Hordern’s Roseville Estate.

36. Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Conservation Area

The Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Heritage Conservation Area is of historical and aesthetic significance as an area of Federation Queen Anne style housing which represents an intact portion of the 1903 Clanville Estate subdivision.

37. Garden of Roseville Estate Conservation Area

The Garden of Roseville Estate Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the William Henry land grant . The area has historic significance as an early twentieth century subdivision of the Garden of Roseville Estate (1914), evident in street layouts, lots and some houses. The conservation area has high aesthetic significance as a highly intact and consistent early twentieth century development, whose Inter-war streetscapes are enhanced by the consistent architectural style, mostly Inter-war Californian, and Arts and Crafts Bungalows.

38. Shirley Road Conservation Area

The Shirley Road Conservation Area has historic significance as part of the Henry Fitzgerald and Jenkins land grants. The conservation area has historic significance as a collection of early twentieth century of subdivisions including the Shirley Road Estate (1909), Jenkins Estate (Glenearn) (1909), Jenkins Estate 1st Subdivision (1912), Lynwood Estate (1915), and a collection of Inter-war subdivisions including Recreation Park Estate (1925), Toongarah Estate (1931), Millwood Estate (DP 17798) (1936) evident in the lots and some houses. The conservation area has aesthetic significance as it is highly intact Federation and Inter-war development. Federation residences on Shirley Road have fine architectural detailing and are set in generously landscapes gardens. The type of buildings on Shirley Road range from large and notable residences, to smaller examples of both the Federation and the Inter-war periods.

ATTACHMENT E - Assessment of Planning Proposal Consistency with Section 117 Direction and State Environmental Planning Policies

PART A: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES	Not relevant	Consistent
SEPP1 Development Standards	ü
SEPP4 Development Without Consent	ü
SEPP6 Number of Storeys in a Building	ü
SEPP19 Bushland in Urban Areas		ü
SEPP21 Caravan Parks	ü
SEPP22 Shops and Commercial Premises	ü
SEPP30 Intensive Agriculture	ü
SEPP32 Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)	ü
SEPP33 Hazardous and Offensive Development	ü
SEPP44 Koala Habitat Protection		ü
SEPP55 Remediation of Land	ü
SEPP60 Exempt and Complying Development	ü
SEPP62 Sustainable Aquaculture	ü
SEPP64 Advertising and Signage	ü
SEPP65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development	ü
SEPP70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)	ü
SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009	ü
SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) – 2004	ü
SEPP Building Sustainability Index : Basix 2004	ü
SEPP Major Development 2005	ü
SEPP Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries 2007	ü
SEPP Temporary Structures 2007	ü
SEPP Infrastructure 2007	ü
SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009	ü
SEPP Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008		ü
SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011	ü

PART B: REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS	Not relevant	Consistent
SYDNEY REP20 Hawkesbury-Nepean River		ü
SYDNEY REP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005		ü

PART C: DIRECTIONS UNDER S117(2)	Not relevant	Consistent
PART 1 – GENERAL DIRECTIONS
1. Employment and Resources
1.1 Business and Industrial Zones		ü
1.2 Rural Zones	ü
1.3 Mining, Petroleum production and Extractive Industries	ü
1.4 Oyster Aquaculture	ü
1.5 Rural Lands	ü
2. Environment and Heritage
2.1 Environment Protection Zones		ü
2.2 Coastal Protection	ü
2.3 Heritage Conservation		ü
2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas		ü
3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development
3.1 Residential Zones		ü
3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates		ü
3.3 Home Occupations		ü
3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport		ü
3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes	ü
4. Hazard and Risk
4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils		ü
4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land	ü
4.3 Flood Prone Land	ü
4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection		ü
5. Regional Planning
5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies	ü
5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchments	ü
5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast	ü
5.4 Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast	ü
5.5 Development in the vicinity of Ellalong, Paxton and Millfield (Cessnock LGA)	ü
5.6 Sydney to Canberra Corridor (Revoked 10 July 2008. See amended Direction 5.1)	ü
5.7 Central Coast (Revoked 10 July 2008. See amended Direction 5.1)	ü
5.8 Second Sydney Airport: Badgerys Creek	ü
6. Local Plan Making
6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements		ü
6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes		ü
6.3 Site Specific Provisions	ü
7. Metropolitan Planning
7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036		ü

APPENDIX No: 3 - Summary of submissions - Biodiversity - Riparian - Draft LEP 218

Item No: GB.4

Issue	Response	Recommendation
General Riparian and Biodiversity
It is recommended that the objectives of the Ordinance in respect of biodiversity, waterways and riparian lands be commended to the respective federal and state authorities to form the basis of nationally uniform planning requirements for future development in Australia.	The objectives will be considered by the NSW state government Department of Planning and Infrastructure prior to gazettal of the LEP.	No change recommended.
The work that Council staff has achieved in documenting the natural heritage of Ku-ring-gai is impressive and vital to the planning process.	Noted and appreciated.	No change recommended.
‘Yes’ to Biodiversity ‘No’ to over-development.	Noted.	No change recommended.
The LGA is formally un-acknowledged for its ecological significance. All legally binding protections must be contained in the Biodiversity LEP as a stand-alone, scientific and secure land-use planning document. It should be the basis for a model planning instrument, contributing to the Local, State and National effort to protect Australia’s biodiversity reserve. Too much reliance is placed on non-statutory documents (DCPs, Council reports, Studies) and on aerial mapping. I suggest the comments, Tables and detail in the Environmental Baseline Study of 2000 be included in a stand alone Biodiversity LEP. The proposed clause is strong, but it must mention the critically endangered classification of key ecological communities and it must include soils, soil maps, the geology and the topography of Ku-ring-gai as these are the basis for the habitat and ecosystems which are to be scientifically protected). The definition of Natural Areas in the Biodiversity LEP needs to be made clear, and expanded definition and clarification in the Glossary of the Biodiversity Study is needed on page 7 and page 58. Also, should the LEP clearly state that: Category 1 vegetation which is CEEC needs to be zoned E2 in this LGA? Zoning for development in environmentally sensitive areas has created many problems for planning staff at all levels. Juggling categories of vegetation, coping with Greenweb mapping limitations and delegating protection to the DCP and the Biodiversity Strategy are largely difficult and artificial protection measures. These are not legal instruments for preventing significant reductions in biodiversity. Private ownership must be dealt with in a sensitive manner by referencing the national interest – the concept of Urban Forest is vital for public understanding.	The role of the LEP as a plan is set by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). It is a land use planning instrument. The instrument is based on studies done, but cannot include the details of those studies. Further, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, through the Standard LEP Instrument, its Planning Circulars and Practice notes, determines what can and cannot be included in an LEP. The EP&A Act also provides for a DCP, which is able to provide more detail, such as design related provisions, than the LEP. Council cannot work outside this legislative framework. The work undertaken for the assessment of biodiversity for draft LEP 218 has built on, but been much more extensive than that undertaken for the study of 2000, and included a high degree of ground-truthing rather than exclusively relying on aerial mapping. The identification of specific endangered communities is inappropriate, and could in fact lead to inadequate consideration of other threatened ecological communities, now or in the future. It must be recognised that planning inherently involves the consideration of conflicting objectives, complicated by past decisions which have ongoing implications, socially, ecologically and economically. Land use plans can only address some of these conflicts, but in many cases, they will need to be resolved at a more detailed scale.	No change recommended.
The non-recognition of cumulative impact – one of many system problems affecting Ku-ring-gai due to incrementing removal of seed-bank and soils – is of special significance because no Local Environment Study (LES) was done before gazettal of Ku-ring-gai LEP 194. The biodiversity clause should specifically include references to the soil seed bank. The definition of Natural Areas in the Biodiversity LEP needs to be made clear, and expanded definition and clarification in the Glossary of the Biodiversity Study is needed on page 7 and page 58. Also, should the LEP clearly state that: Category 1 vegetation which is CEEC needs to be zoned E2 in this LGA?	The background study was specifically undertaken to address the need for a strategic approach in order to address the issue of cumulative impact. The biodiversity mapping results directly from the outcomes of the study. It is not necessary to specifically refer to the soil stored seedbank in the LEP as consideration of the soil seedbank is implicit in the consideration of ‘vegetation community’ during development assessment. Clause 6.5 (3) identifies seven environmental variables that Council must consider when considering the impact of a development during the development assessment process on land to which the clause applies. The soil stored seed bank is considered as part of the community in the first point (i) any native vegetation community. It is envisaged that the upcoming Principal LEP will further help to avoid cumulative impacts through the use of environment zones. The definition of Natural Areas in the Background Study is “All Council managed land classified as community land and zoned ‘Natural Areas’ under the Local Government Act 1993 and crown land under the Crown Lands Act 1989 (under the care control and management of Ku-ring-gai Council as zoned natural area).” The use of the term “zoned” may be confusing and will be reviewed in the next version of the Background Study. However, this is not relevant to Draft LEP 218.	No further change recommended.
The Biodiversity LEP has not sought any solid input from the Department of Environment and Climate Change.	Agency consultation, including with the Office of Environment and Heritage has been undertaken for both draft LEP 218. The responses to Draft LEP 218 were included in the report on the Local Centres LEP (3 April 2012) and the Principal LEP (6 March 2012), and the more recent responses are included in the body of this report.	No change recommended.
General Support for LEP 218 for the protection of biodiversity and riparian areas in Ku-ring-gai. Concerns are raised over traffic planning to address areas of increased population and adequate drainage corridors. Especially the drainage corridors and drainage structures associated with Moores Creek, Gordon Creek and other waterways of Ku-ring-gai which feed Middle Harbour and Lane Cove River.	Support noted. Draft LEP 218 does not propose additional population. Control of drainage from areas identified for more intense development will be addressed through the DCP which will include controls relating to on-site detention and retention of stormwater. The improvement of the existing drainage corridors and structures is addressed through council’s strategic integrated catchment plans and operationally through the drainage works program.	No change recommended.
The objectives in LEP 218 in respect to biodiversity, waterways and riparian lands should be brought to the attention of the respective state and federal authorities. This will then form the basis of future development in Australia. This would address the issues which do not seem to be adequately addressed when allowing coal seam gas work, for example.	Support for the objectives is noted. The state government will ultimately determine whether to include these objectives in any gazetted plan. The suggestion is beyond the scope of the LEP.	No change recommended.
The submission supports the objectives of the Planning Proposal. However, the following concerns are noted: ·· The plan however should mention the critically endangered ecological communities (CEECs), Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. ·· The mapping on which the plan is based should consider the defining topography and geology of Ku-ring-gai, as was done in the 2000 Environmental Baseline Study to ensure correct identification and protection of CEECs. ·· Seeks the use of the E2 zone for Council lands, categorised as Natural Areas with CEECs.	The inclusion of specific ecological communities is not supported, as this could potentially reduce the protection for endangered ecological communities that are not specified. This applies to other endangered ecological communities currently listed under threatened species legislation that occur in Ku-ring-gai, as well as any communities that may be listed in the future. Topography and geology were factors considered in the vegetation mapping on which the background study, and therefore the draft LEP mapping were based. The background study built on the work undertaken for the 2000 Baseline study. Draft LEP 218 does not include any zoning. This matter will be addressed at the Principal LEP stage.	No change recommended.
Riparian – General
Objectives of Riparian Land and Waterways 1(b) should be amended to "where practicable and reasonable to provide for the rehabilitation of existing piped or channelised waterways to a near natural state" to protect existing residential amenity, ensuring owners’ land use rights are properly considered.	The addition of the term “or reasonable” would not add any clarity. The term “practicable” includes the concept of reasonableness. It is noted that the DCP will identify matters that need to be considered in assessing what is ‘practicable’ to ensure a consistent and reasonable approach to the application of Category 3a riparian zones.	No change recommended.
Support of the following concerns and recommendations in CMAs report dated 20 January 2012: §§ “Planning Proposal – Section 1. Objectives or intended outcomes (page 3) the CMA feels the term “protect” should be inserted at the commencement of the second bullet point on waterways and riparian lands. This will ensure consistency with Objects of the EPAA (5(a) (vii)) and WMA (3(b)). §§ “the current definition of “Riparian Land” in the “Draft Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study – Agency consultation” (Glossary p8 and Section 2 Assessment of riparian lands p.29) is insufficient, as it references the physical appearance/features of riparian land but ignores the biological factors that form the basis of the ecosystem services critically provided by watercourses and their riparian land. This is critically important as the explicit definition of Riparian Land does not appear in the proposed clause and its respective map as discussed in the “Planning Proposal – Amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to incorporate provisions for Biodiversity and Riparian Land and Heritage Conservation Areas”. Further the explicit exclusion, in a definition, of the biological factors unique to riparian land demonstrates their significance and importance to biodiversity of terrestrial and aquatic species (both flora and fauna). In turn this demonstrates the link to the Natural Resource Biodiversity Map. The SMCMA recommends that Ku-ring-gai Council systematically uses the Lovett and Price (1999) definition of riparian land: “Riparian land is any land which adjoins, directly influences or is influenced by a body of water””.	The objects of these Acts referenced above are to: o encourage ecologically sustainable development; and o protect, enhance and restore water sources, their associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity and their water quality. Note that the background studies have considered objectives of regional and subregional plans, such as:- ·· the protection of Sydney’s unique plants and animals; ·· improvement of the health of waterways; and §§ ...the ‘Natural resource-Riparian land and waterways map ’ and provisions to protect and enhance the natural values of these lands natural resource maps and associated local provisions Accordingly the matter is adequately addressed in the planning proposal. Council acknowledges that a more holistic definition of riparian land would include the influence of the land and water on each other. However, the definition used in the background study has been developed to provide clear planning direction where these important areas are involved, rather than leaving it open to discussion on what "influenced by a body of water" means in a practical sense. The definition used is not for scientific purposes, but rather to set a clear planning direction to protect the natural and aesthetic values of waterways and adjoining lands. The mapping and assessment process was designed with the geophysical processes of the natural system as well as the practical limitations of the urban area in mind. It is however recommended, that ‘riparian land’ be defined in the DCP as it is in the background study, where Council has more freedom to set definitions.	It is recommended that ‘riparian land’ be defined in the DCP.

Site

Issue

Response

Recommendation

Riparian – Site Specific

Riparian Zone known locally as Coleman’s Creek

14, 16, 18, 20A, 21, 22 Beaconsfield Pde, Lindfield

1, 3 Averil Place

Support of adding the Category 3 Riparian Zone to the KPSO and the new Riparian and Biodiversity LEP.

Council is urged to continue to protect the Riparian Zone and biodiversity in Lindfield as was previously exhibited in the last Town Centres plan 2008.

In 2006 and 2008 the category 3 Riparian System was to have a buffer 10m either side, not 8m as proposed in this LEP. Council should review this change and return to the more adequate 10 metre buffer.

Support noted.

There have been minor changes to the biodiversity significance assessment methodology which result in some minor changes in this locality. This is a result of adapting the methodology to apply to the available mapping for the whole LGA and further discussions with OEH.

Category 3 riparian zones have a buffer of 10m either side of the centreline of the watercourse, not 8m.

No change recommended.

52 Finlay Rd, Turramurra

Please review site for downgrade from Category 2 to Category 3 because:

§§ The watercourse is <1m wide and only carries water for a short period after medium to heavy rain

§§ Areas of the same watercourse upstream and downstream are classified as zone 3

§§ Development of surrounding properties was done before riparian classification and may not necessarily have followed the current buffer recommendations, which in some instances does not seem to disturb water flow or native habitat

§§ The current classification was done 8 years ago and may not be fully applicable today.

Additional investigation of the isolated Category 2 reaches through private property in this area was undertaken.

This category 2 area is a very small stretch, bounded on either side by Category 3 riparian areas. Although there are some restricted areas between properties or undeveloped lots where a full 20m buffer may be possible, at present there is a significant amount of subdivision and existing development in the area which would largely restrict application of the category 2 distance requirements on either side of the water course.

Further desktop assessment shows there are only 3 lots (one of which is the submitters) identified in the area (yellow stripes) where the objectives of the category 2 riparian zone could be applied consistently across the site on least one side of the creek. These lots are typically thin and are isolated from more connected areas and are not dominated by vegetation from key vegetation communities - reducing the potential for category 2 objectives to be achieved.

All the lots indicated with a blue outline have existing development within the core riparian lands, or the nature of the subdivision has resulted in any development to be undertaken would be within the core riparian zone.

In the circumstances, re-categorising these areas as Category 3 is supported.

Other sites in similar circumstances

Following on from this, and to ensure consistency in mapping across Ku-ring-gai, investigation has been undertaken across the whole LGA to determine areas where existing development would already cause significant restriction to both sides of the watercourse or where the tributary is very tiny and part of a first order stream. These reaches do not warrant the higher category.

Please note that in undertaking this assessment isolated pockets of higher category zoning identified in respect to council bushland, parkland or technical services (such as drainage reserves) will be retained noting that the riparian mapping is also used to inform council operations and adjacent properties will be assessed on a merit basis. Reaches where there is a consistent riparian buffer along one side of the watercourse have been maintained - with properties on the thinner buffer side to remain on the merit assessment basis. In addition some isolated pockets where the larger buffer is currently present have been maintained where they are part of a larger corridor.

In addition, it is noted that some of the recommended riparian changes will result in changes to the map identifying areas of biodiversity significance, in line with the methodology adopted in the background study. Not all riparian changes will result in such changes however due to the presence of key vegetation communities or identified corridors through these lands.

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal for the Draft LEP 218 be amended prior to exhibition to change category 2 riparian lands at the following locations to category 3, as identified in the attached draft LEP Riparian Lands map:

·· 52 Finlay Road Turramurra

·· Lucinda/Mahratta Ave, Wahroonga

·· Campbell Dr Wahroonga

·· Comenarra Pkwy/Kiogle St Wahroonga

·· Ada Ave South Warrawee

·· Blytheswood Ave Wahroonga

·· Challis Ave &Katina St Turramurra

·· End of Cudgee St Turramurra

·· Alice St Turramurra

·· Godfrey Ave/Catalpa Cres Turramurra

·· Linigen Pl St Ives

·· Melaleuca Dr. St Ives

·· Avondale golf course behind St Andrew’s Drive

It is recommended that the boundary between Category 1 and 2 at Godfrey Ave/Catalpa Cres Turramurra be adjusted to be perpendicular to the identified watercourse as identified on the Draft LEP 218 Riparian Lands map.

It is recommended that consequent changes to the Biodiversity Map be made as shown on the attached draft LEP 218 Biodiversity Map, to ensure consistency with the methodology.

41,43,47 Griffith Ave, Roseville

Inclusion of these sites as riparian lands is not justified-even for category 3 - due to the history of the development of this area, which included dumping, creek diversions and piping to enable the residential subdivisions.

Objection to inclusion of 43 Griffith as riparian land because of:

§§ Extension of riparian zone into very limited residential open space areas available on the site

§§ Land conditions (deep excavated rock channel dropping into deep stormwater pit would result in erosion)

§§ The inclusion of riparian zones in areas where the subdivision pattern relied on the relocation of urban stormwater channels to property boundaries would significantly disadvantage affected properties and would not be in the public interest

§§ The difficult and dangerous access to/within the site

§§ Pipe should not be removed and opened up as it is 70m long before it opens up to the channel

§§ The isolated nature of the site – little environmental benefit

As outlined in the background study we have mapped reaches where they currently exist and/or where pipes and easements are present rather than relying solely on topography as per the 2004 Map of Riparian lands. The current map should reflect current positions better and there is no suggestion to move reaches to different and/or more natural parts of the landscape.

The category 3 riparian zone was developed for these urbanised and altered creek systems. The mapping is based on where the creek (whether modified or not) is present now. This is to ensure that current subdivision patterns and development are considered in considering riparian lands.

Previous disturbance to watercourses so that that they are now considered artificially modified does not warrant removal from the mapping. The riparian controls do not require any drainage lines to be re-directed to a previous or more natural drainage line. It is important to note that these buffers are significantly smaller than the 40m from a watercourse previously used as a trigger for considering riparian issues in developments. This recognises the urbanised nature of the area.

The riparian controls cannot override other water management and DCP controls that are designed to prevent flooding and erosion issues.

The riparian area includes the existing ‘excavated rock channel’. The inclusion of this area would protect the natural values that remain, including its value as a habitat refuge, and its long term planning potential to re-connect this 70m stretch. Note: this is not a long reach in comparison to other piped areas in the LGA.

No change recommended.

6 Luxor Pde Roseville

Remove Category 3 zoning on 6 Luxor Pde because it:

§§ Virtually renders land useless even for re-building

§§ Encompasses a vegetable garden developed over time

§§ Is not shown on the Riparian map as having any biodiversity sensitivity or linkage to other communities.

This site has been mapped as category 3 due to the presence of an open waterway. This was previously identified as category 2 based on tree canopy along the reach. However it was revised to category 3 following initial feedback and site investigation following initial exhibition of the background study and report in March 2011.

Riparian land mapping is not a zoning and as such cannot override the primary land use zoning for residential purposes. The riparian provision are not a prohibition on development, rather, they are matters of consideration for any proposed development.

Land uses that already occur within riparian land will be considered in more detail in the DCP.

Waterways and riparian zones themselves provide important habitats and are sensitive environments – as outlined in the background study.

No change recommended.

Moore’s Creek Reserve Area bound by Amarna Pde and Luxor Pde;

Moore’s Creek Reserve Area btw Roseville Golf Course and Roseville Ave;

Moore’s Creek Reserve

The creek should be graded as Category 2 rather than Category 1 for the following reasons:

§§ The area has become a degraded stormwater channel including sewerage overflows and manholes

§§ The riparian land is bound on three sides by urban roads and a golf course at the other end

§§ The riparian land extends over roads and into homes and properties – devaluing (often) the owners’ main asset

§§ Encroaches on properties that are in a Bushfire Buffer Zone – increased fire risk from native vegetation, of a density to comply with the Category 1 zoning

§§ Crowds out and degrades front gardens as a result of Riparian encroachments, and potential overshadowing by large trees

§§ Is divorced from main area of the zoning by intervening streets and which could also have a negative effect of the continuance of the Heritage designation of the area (including garden settings as one element in the approval process)

§§ The LEP support study (p.31) endorses the proposition: “…Infrastructure such as roads, drainage, stormwater structures, services, etc. should not be located within a CRZ” as well as “Where there are significant changes in land use along the length of identified riparian land, such as a road or a change from bushland to residential areas, a merit assessment would be required to assess any proposal for these areas”.

As stated in the background study report:

This principle was applied to this reach as the existing core riparian land along this reach of Moores creek between Armarna and Luxor Parades is between 20m – 30m in width from the top of each bank along the majority of the reach and it is an important bushland pocket within the already heavily urbanised area.

This reach was identified as category 1 for the 2004 mapping and policy and was considered appropriate to maintain as:

• the area is connected to larger reserves through Roseville Golf Course,

• the site is an important bushcare site which has received considerable investment; and

• it is considered an important asset to the community.

Matters related to bushfire protection, eg for the front yards, will need to be considered in an integrated way through a merit assessment at the DA stage, together with matters such as riparian enhancement, heritage protection, character etc.

The riparian mapping does not represent a separate land use zoning for riparian areas within the draft PLEP. Rather, it will trigger relevant considerations for development applications – as stated in the quoted study (p. 31).

Each application is assessed on its merits. The DCP will provide more detailed guidance on how the location and scale of existing development may affect the requirements on site. The requirements would be reduced where existing development is located in the riparian land and the scale of the development is small.

No change recommended.

Request to change the designation of the Moores Creek reserve area from Category 1 to Category 2 Riparian Zone. The frontages of Luxor, Armana parades, Roseville Avenue and Merlin street are affected by this Riparian zoning and Bushfire protection buffer zone. The submission states that residents do not want an increased fire risk from native vegetation. The Category 1 zoning will have a negative affect on the continuation of the heritage designation of the area, as “green scapes” are included in the considerations of an approval process.

The reserve is struggling and the Bushcare group does not have the resources to maintain the area and Council seems distant and disinterested in helping.

By changing the zoning and restricting the boundaries of the Riparian zoning to the reserve itself, isolated lot encroachments would be minimised and would not minimise the conservation integrity of the site.

The majority of the riparian lands shown on these properties represent the ‘buffer’ section of the lands mapping which specifically allows for asset protection zones to be established. Even for those properties where the core area does extend onto their land the riparian lands provisions cannot override the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Council support the bushcare group and the site is advertised as being part of Two Creeks track, a popular bushwalking track to Middle Harbour. Last year an E-Levy small grant funded the access crossing over Moores Creek almost directly opposite 31 Amarna Parade. Volunteers are welcome to help the bushcare program and residents are asked to reduce the impacts of urbanisation on fragmented bushland.

The riparian lands mapping does not represent a different land zoning.

It is important to note that the Riparian policy applies to Council’s operational works, and therefore ensures that Council’s management of the road adjacent to the creek considers the impact on the riparian land. Reducing the buffer to category 2 will minimise and in some areas remove the requirements on council’s operational activities to consider the riparian land and may increase negative impacts within the reserve.

No change recommended.

Moores Creek bounded by Armana Pde and Luxor Pde; and

The creek to Middle Harbour bounded by Babbage Rd, Allard Av and Normac St Roseville Chase.

These creeklines should be graded as category 2 rather than category 1 for reasons including:

§§ They were subject to extensive clay fill and building rubble during the inter-War and early post-War development era in Roseville

§§ This materially and irreversibly damaged the original sandstone vegetation and soil. Its ecological worth is unlikely to recover and thus why would council want to protect it?

§§ They are relatively narrow with typical widths around 60m

§§ Bounded on both sides by urban road which were built on clay fill and building rubble over original sandstone soil

§§ Neither portion of these creeks provides linkages between significant bushland reserves or endangered ecological communities.

§§ The riparian and buffer zones extend into private property causing uncertainty about the development potential and financial value of the sites.

Moores Creek bounded by Armarna Pde and Luxor Pde:

This site has been identified as category 1 riparian land despite past land use practices and the impacts of development, as it is the most significant corridor remaining within the Moores Creek Catchment. The area is connected to larger reserves along Middle Harbour through Roseville Golf Course, and consequently it provides the primary service of category 1 riparian lands to provide an environmental corridor.

Similarly, the creek to Middle Harbour bounded by Babbage Rd, Allard Av and Normac St Roseville Chase is located in a bushland reserve adjoining Middle Harbour, and is important as it is part of the connection for the “Roseville Bridge” wildlife corridor. Consequently it provides the primary service of category 1 riparian lands to provide an environmental corridor. However, it was noted that Category 1 Riparian zone extends beyond the confluence with Middle Harbour (category 2). It is recommended the category 1 corridor is moved up to the foreshore edge, recognising existing residential and parkland development on the foreshore frontage.

The riparian mapping extends from public land to private land across many sites within the LGA – the mapping procedure should be consistent across the LGA and incorporating this information as part of a natural resource overlay map has been done to ensure this environmental value can be considered without imposing excessive restrictions on property titles or amending all affected land use zones.

No change recommended.

That the extent of the Category 1 riparian lands at the confluence of Middle Harbour (near Normac St/Babbage Rd) be amended so it does not extend beyond the creek’s confluence with Middle Harbour, as shown in the attached draft LEP 218 – Riparian Lands Map.

Little Digger Park (end of Amarna Pde and Roseville Ave)

This site should not be included in any Riparian Land because:

§§ it is the only park on this side of Archbold Rd within walking distance for children to play;

§§ It should be preserved as is, with its beautiful trees and small area of open grass.

The site is mapped as Category 2 Riparian land. The draft LEP includes a provision requiring any development of the site to consider a number of matters relating to the riparian values of these lands. This is a trigger for consideration, not a prohibition on development or a requirement to restore the area to its original state.

Any assessment of works proposed will, as always, need to integrate the social, economic and ecological values. The proposed Riparian land does not prevent its use for recreational purposes.

No change recommended.

Lot 31, Miowera Rd, North Turramurra (previously owned by Guides NSW)

Mapped Category 3 with the lower piped sectioned mapped Category 3A.

This creek was previously mapped Category 1 on the 2004 Council Riparian Policy map.

The open creek through the lower bush land, Open Space zoned section of Lot 31 as Category 1.

The upper open reach of creek should have been mapped Category 2 as it is significant ‘Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat’ which is the definition of Category 2. It meets several of the criteria (p.32 of the study):

§§ It provides connectivity between riparian vegetation and a formal bush reserve that adjoins Ku-ring-gai National Park

§§ It has high habitat value

§§ It has potential for re-instatement of a riparian corridor, as the piped section of creek could easily be re-opened and restored to its original form to provide continuity of the natural creek

§§ It contains on the upper reach the original wide, sandstone rocks which create small natural waterfalls which are also present at the other end of the piped section into the bush reserve

§§ Residents intend to remove the bamboo present and restore the native vegetation on the council verge

§§ The core riparian corridor on one side contains mature native trees which provide habitat for a range of native birds

§§ The fact that a developer has purchased the site does not justify reducing the category of the creek and does not justify dismissing the opportunity to re-open the piped section

The identified category 3 riparian land is based on a small very disturbed upper reach of the creek which connects through a piped section to the larger creek to the east that runs through the bushland to the east.

This upper section of creek is a first order headwater stream and was identified as category 3 due to the extensive re-alignment and existing development within the riparian zone including the road and Guide’s buildings. The only remnant vegetation in this section exists immediately along the banks of the creek and there is very little remnant vegetation beyond this. Nor are there any threatened or endangered ecological communities, species or populations within this stretch of land.

The identification of the piped section as category 3a specifically identifies its potential for re-establishment in the future.

No change recommended.

59 Miowera Rd North Turramurra

Questions are raised over the definition of ‘riparian’ and the broad terminology used. The definition includes elements which are not covered by the term ‘river’ in the Water Management Act. While it is noted that the Sydney Metropolitan CMA seeks an even broader definition of ‘riparian’, it is submitted that the term should include only those areas covered by the definition of ‘river’ in the Water Management Act, and therefore exclude artificially created channels, that are not ‘natural channels artificially improved’.

Consultant reports are attached, showing that the water course along the south-west boundary was a “consequence of the formalising and the forming of Miowera Road” and is not located in the path of a natural watercourse. Accordingly the area does not warrant its respective riparian zonings (Category 3 and 3a).

The vegetation along this section has been classified as Category 2 biodiversity significance only due to the mapping of this area as riparian land. As the channel should not be mapped as riparian, and the area supports only exotic and planted natives along the channel, this area on the biodiversity map should be removed. This is further supported by the consultant Worley Parsons (report attached) who states ‘the channel and surrounding vegetation is not considered to be critical riparian habitat or to have any significant environmental value...non- native vegetation was found along the channel (eg bamboo). Further, no significant native vegetation was found and there has been no visible attempt to vegetate the channel with native species.’

Issues of procedural fairness have been raised by the submission concerning non compliance with section 4.5 of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s “A Guide to preparing Local Environmental Plans” and clause 3(b) of the Gateway Determination as follows:

·· The landowner did not receive written notice, advising them of the exhibition of the planning proposal.

·· Having found out by chance an extension of only 11 days was given- but this was not given to others in the community.

·· Council has received and acknowledged a variety of correspondence seeking advice on when PPs would be advanced, but Council has not provided feedback.

·· A weblink is provided at p35 of the background study which does not provide a working link to the CMA mapping.

These issues have “deprived the community including those persons most directly affected” from having any participation in the planning process, contrary to the objects of the EP&A Act.

The planning proposal is misleading in that it states that ‘no changes are proposed to zoning. However the background study recommends that lands zoned County Open Space be considered for inclusion in the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone.

The submission requests that the planning proposal be deferred until these problems are addressed satisfactorily.

Council’s mapping is materially wrong, and as a direct result the planning proposal will adversely affect the site and will impact viability and future development potential. Amendments are required to address these issues.

Accordingly a public hearing under s.57 of the Act is requested to further investigate and deliberate these matters relating to the site in an open and public way.

All areas within the LGA have been mapped according to the methods in the background study to ensure consistency.

It is important to note that this tributary to Cowan creek, although extensively modified, is included within part (b) of the definition of a ‘River’ from the NSW Water Management Act (2000) which includes:

“(a) any watercourse, whether perennial or intermittent and whether comprising a natural channel or a natural channel artificially improved, and

(b) any tributary, branch or other watercourse into or from which a watercourse referred to in paragraph (a) flows, and

(c) anything declared by the regulations to be a river, whether or not it also forms part of a lake or estuary, but does not include anything declared by the regulations not to be a river.”

This site has also been subject to submissions requesting category 2 classification for the open section of channel (see submission for Lot 31, Miowera Rd, North Turramurra (previously owned by Guides NSW)).

Investigation into this site considering historical aerial photographs and anecdotal evidence from a long term resident suggest that was an existing watercourse, however it has been artificially modified and moved over time to be located in its current position. As such the reach is not on its natural location in the landscape, however it is considered to be a natural watercourse artificially modified. Identification of the riparian zone in the current location follows the methods outlined in the background study (pp. 32-34).

The interface between water and land provides an important habitat for plants and animals. The mapped riparian area supports native and exotic species. Both native and exotic species provide habitat for native fauna. During a short site visit in response to this submission a Brush Turkey and Swamp Wallaby were observed in the mapped riparian zones. The mapped areas have environmental values including being habitat for native fauna.

The gateway determination required the planning proposal to be publicly available for 20 days, and to comply with the requirements for exhibition listed in section 4.5 of A Guide to Preparing LEPs (Department of Planning 2009). The Planning Proposal was exhibited from Monday 30 January 2012 to Monday 27 February 2012 a period of more than 20 days.

A Guide to Preparing LEPs states the following in relation to community consultation:

Community consultation is commenced by giving notice of the public exhibition of the planning proposal:

·· in a newspaper that circulates in the area affected by the planning proposal;

·· on the web-site of the RPA; and

·· in writing to adjoining landowners, unless the planning authority is of the opinion that the number of landowners makes it impractical to notify them.

Notice of the exhibition was given in the local newspaper and on Council’s website. Further the planning proposal was also available on the website. Individual landholders were not given written notice, as Council determined that it was impractical to notify them, especially given that the clause and maps were intended to be incorporated in the near future in the Local Centres LEP and the Principal LEP and that Council intended to write to adjoining landowners for both of these LEPs.

The Guide also specifies the materials to be available. These materials were available to the public at Council offices during the exhibition period.

Re the weblink, the background study explains that the CMA mapping is in draft form, currently being undertaken, with ongoing consultation. It states only that the link provides access to more information, not the mapping itself.

Re the zoning issue raised, the background study was not itself on exhibition at that time. The Planning Proposal itself was on exhibition, for Draft LEP 218 which included only heritage conservation areas and overlays with related provisions for biodiversity and riparian lands – no zoning.

Note that the relevant mapping from draft LEP 218 is also being incorporated within the Principal LEP and that therefore the community has another opportunity to comment on the maps and associated provisions.

Section 57(5) of the Act states:

If:

(a) a person making a submission so requests, and

(b) the relevant planning authority considers that the issues raised in a submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing,

the relevant planning authority is to arrange a public hearing on the issues raised in the submission.

The natural resource maps do not prohibit development of this site. Rather, they seek to ensure that future development considers the ecological values of the site.

This issue is not considered to be of such significance that it should be the subject of a public hearing.

No change recommended.

Issue	Response	Recommendation
Biodiversity – General
Support of the following concerns and recommendations in CMAs report dated 20 January 2012: §§ Include additional definitions in the draft LEP for “regionally significant species” and “threatened species, population or ecological community” and suggest the definitions contained within the “Draft Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study” December 2011 could be used §§ Concern that “only the perimeter areas of golf courses within the LGA have been included in the biodiversity mapping. The CMA says “the value of trees within the golf courses themselves appears to have been overlooked, yet street trees and patches of trees less than 0.1ha in size have been included elsewhere The CMA says “there has been research that has shown the value of golf courses for biodiversity…particularly when located in an urbanised environment. Therefore, golf courses have the potential to provide habitat and conservation function in Sydney and in the Ku-ring-gai LGA, particularly when adjacent to a bushland patch where they can act as a buffer from more intensive land uses such as housing. Other potential benefits of golf courses include: aesthetics and amenity, provision of pervious surfaces within the catchment and recreation/health.”	Regarding definitions sought, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure does not generally support the addition of definitions to the LEP dictionary and discourages definitions in local provisions. Where possible, the Department seeks consistency through the adoption of model clauses, though variations are permitted where there is sufficient justification. The term ‘regionally significant species’ has been previously used in gazetted LEPs without a definition. The phrase ‘threatened species, population or ecological community’ refers to the common term ‘threatened’ used to refer to ‘threatened species legislation’, and it is unlikely this would result in any confusion. Whether a community is listed as critically endangered, or endangered it is still ‘threatened’. However, Council could define the terms in the DCP. At its meeting of 6 March 2012, Council adopted changes to the biodiversity mapping of Avondale Golf course as a result of the comments in the agency submission. No further change is required.	It is recommended that Council define in the DCP: ·· regionally significant species, if the term is used in the Written LEP instrument or the DCP, and ·· threatened species, population or ecological community.
No mention of the Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEECs) i.e. Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF). BGHF and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest should be specifically mentioned in Attachment B1, either in Cl 1(ac) or (c) and Cl 3(a)(ii) Include the following in the background study and the LEP: "Ku-ring-gai has two critically endangered ecological communities: BGHF (listed CEEC under both the Threatened Species Act 1995 NSW and the EPBC Act 1999) and STIF listed as a critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Threatened Species Conservation Act.”	The background study identifies all the threatened ecological communities which occur in Ku-ring-gai – eg pages 21, 22, including BGHF and STIF and their status under threatened species legislation. Both of these communities are identified as key vegetation communities for the purposes of the conservation significance assessment which produced the biodiversity mapping in the Planning Proposal for the LEP. The sentence as proposed is not appropriate to an LEP. However, it is noted that the proposed LEP Biodiversity Protection clause (in Attachment B1) includes reference to threatened ecological communities in the objectives at (1) c) and in subclause (3)(a)(ii). This would automatically include BGHF and STIF as well as other threatened ecological communities that occur within the LGA, (eg Coastal Flats Swamp Mahogany Forest) or that may be identified in the future. Limiting the reference to only 2 communities would reduce the protection of biodiversity under the LEP.	No change recommended.
The LEP should include environmental zones, not just overlays for ecological protection.	Draft LEP 218 was only intended to be an interim LEP to identify and protect areas of significance, while the preparation of the draft Local Centres LEP and Principal LEPs was continuing. The Local Centres LEP and the upcoming Principal LEP include environmental zones.	No change recommended.
Topology, geology and soils, especially those associated with identification of and protection of the CEECs of BGHF and STIF are not mentioned and must be articulated in the LEP. Soils/seedbank, topography and geology are critical and intricately linked to CEEC identification and survival. §§ Seed-bank has been afforded protection by the NSW Threatened Species Scientific Committee and therefore the soils associated with CEECs and EECs must be recorded in this LEP in order to protect them. Soil studies and maps are absent from the LEP and supporting study. It is recommended that soil maps such as those included in the Environmental Baseline Study of 2000 in Table 2.3 be included in the LEP. Aerial mapping is inadequate in this regard.	Aerial mapping was only part of the methodology used in the vegetation mapping. For instance, soil mapping and extensive ground-truthing were also used. While field mapping was generally limited to areas with canopy, where key vegetation communities were regenerating adjoining these areas they were included. Field verification was also required in many instances in regard to soil mapping, as the available mapping is not at a fine enough scale to determine boundaries between communities. It is acknowledged that the Scientific Determination, for BGHF for instance, notes that ‘..above ground individuals of some species may be absent, but the species may be represented below ground…” However, the presence of canopy identifies the threatened community: ‘The distribution comprises a series of small remnant patches, the largest of which is less than 20ha. Highly modified relics of the community also persist as small clumps of trees without a native understorey.’ The government’s standard instrument order provides for a standard LEP instrument. While local provisions may be included with the agreement of DPI, the inclusion of a soil map does not meet the requirements for local provisions.	No change recommended.
Concepts of Urban Forest and cumulative impact should be referred to, as these will become accepted norms.	The planning proposal for Draft LEP 218 are built on a range of studies, including studies on biodiversity and riparian values. The approach of these studies and the drafting of the LEPs was to establish a landscape scale approach to the protection of ecological values to guide ecological protection and enhancement as well as development from a broader strategic viewpoint, rather than focussing only on specific threatened species or communities. This approach provides a much better tool for the assessment of cumulative impacts. This will be further supported by breaking down the biodiversity layer into categories, which outline the functions and rationale for the inclusion of these lands. While the term ‘urban forest’ may not be specifically used, it is obvious that the planning proposal includes many areas of urban forest within the biodiversity overlay. Indeed, the historical difficulties associated with the assessment of the significance of particular areas of urban forest was a key reason for the undertaking of the study and the inclusion of the biodiversity overlay in these LEPs.	No change recommended.
The LEP should inform the planning process by referencing NRMMC and other Federal Agencies (http://www.mincos.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1890379/nrmmc16res.pdf) to protect biodiversity by stating that loopholes allowing environmental damage (e.g. by LEP 194) should be closed by zoning for environmental conservation. LEP 194 needs to be repealed in view of the levels of construction take-up already achieved. Advice needs to be sought to protect the LGA by the repeal of LEP 194. If protection for Biodiversity mapped from LEP 194 is sincerely intended – then down-zoning of such areas should be indicated in the LEP Planning Proposal.	The National Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) in this document considers the review of strategies, such as the National Biodiversity Strategy. A key focus is the identified need to shift conservation efforts towards integration at the landscape [and seascape] scale and to support the building of ecological resilience to address risks from climate change. The planning proposal for the draft LEP 218 and have used this approach. The Council’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Minister specifically stated that LEP 194 would not be repealed. The biodiversity overlay approach means that, even where a site is zoned for a number of reasons for higher density development, the ecological values across the landscape will still need to be considered.	No change recommended.
The LEP needs to include Recovery Plans and Action Plans to protect local biodiversity, e.g. for BGHF and STIF; the Recovery Plan or Priority Action Statement relating to biodiversity conservation of CEECs should be flagged, stated, indicated or mentioned in the LEP. The Recovery Plan being completed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service for the Cumberland Plain will include CEECs such as BGHF and even though not completed, must be identified in the LEP. Management, monitoring and community-awareness practices such as those found in the brochure of Best Practice Guidelines for BGHF in 2008 should be included within the LEP, and if this requires further studies then these should be completed and included in the LEP.	Recovery and Priority Action Statements and Best Practice Guidelines for particular ecological communities are made by the Office of Environment and Heritage, not by Council. Such plans cannot be included in the LEP under the state government’s standard LEP template. Further the inclusion of such plans in an LEP, would not allow for future plans and statements as they are finalised.	No change recommended.
Recommendation to include the list of threatened species in Ku-ring-gai as found in the Biodiversity Strategy 2006 (or as updated) to provide a more complete picture of the threatened species which require protection. If we do not highlight species that require special management and consideration, they will likely not be considered in future planning. In the supporting Biodiversity study, there are comprehensive descriptions of habitat in which threatened species are known to live. Just as HCAs are listed in a table under the Heritage provisions, it is requested that these areas be listed in a table under the LEP. Details such as three tables summarizing biodiversity and listing the critically endangered ecological communities, the endangered, threatened and vulnerable species embraced by this LGA, is seen as essential for attachment in the Biodiversity LEP. These are found in the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy Appendix 6 Biodiversity Data.	The appropriate location for the list of threatened species are the various NSW and Commonwealth threatened species Acts, namely the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These Acts are updated as soon as the Scientific Committee makes its determinations, whereas an LEP is only updated periodically. Inclusion in the LEP, even were it permitted by DPI, would therefore likely result in newer listings having less protection.	No change recommended.
Biodiversity mapping in the Biodiversity supporting study should be included within the LEP Planning Proposal for future reference by planners and ecologists. It is recommended that the following maps from the Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study: Public Exhibition Draft be included in the LEP: §§ Fig 1: Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area §§ Fig 2: Formal Reserves and Fauna Habitat §§ Fig 3: Local and Regional Fauna Habitat §§ Fig 4: Patch size of Formal Reserves within and surrounding Ku-ring-gai §§ Fig 5: Biodiversity Corridors	Maps included in the LEP are those permitted by DPI under the standard instrument template. The maps reference were used (among other matters) to identify areas of biodiversity significance in the Planning Proposal for Draft LEP 218. These maps will be broken down into categories within the DCP, in line with the recommendations of the background study. These mapped areas will be identified within these categories.	No change recommended.
The wording of the proposed clause in page 3 and Attachment B1 should ensure that goals of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy are met in full in Ku-ring-gai (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/index.html#framework)	The vision of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010- 2030 is ‘that Australia's biodiversity is healthy and resilient to threats, and valued both in its own right and for its essential contribution to our existence.’ A single planning proposal cannot ensure that this vision is met. However, the provisions and zones in the planning proposals for LEP 218 go some way to providing for this vision where development is proposed within the LGA. Many other areas of Council operations also affect biodiversity conservation, from community programs through to council’s own on ground projects. The Biodiversity Strategy provides a link across all of these areas. The Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity strategy is being updated to deliver national and state targets on a local basis where applicable.	That the revised Biodiversity Strategy consider the priorities of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010- 2030.
The Biodiversity LEP section of the Planning Proposal is less in size and depth than the Heritage section of the Planning Proposal. Greater detail needs to be included for genuine biodiversity protection. Most usefully Attachments should be included.	The size of the provisions in the LEP does not dictate their depth or strength. The standard LEP template provides limited opportunity for local provisions, and this opportunity has been used to the fullest extent permissible as provided for in the Standard LEP Order, Instrument and associated Planning Circulars, Practice Notes and model clauses. The standard template provides for a limited number of Schedules (or attachments) which do not include a schedule for biodiversity protection.	No change recommended.
The Biodiversity LEP and biodiversity and riparian lands need to be developed, reviewed and managed by a reference committee to form a model document covering all interdependent factors governing biodiversity conservation strategies in LGAs, to form guidelines for State capability adherence to the Australia-wide management of its national biodiversity conservation strategy.	This is beyond the scope of an LEP.	No change recommended.
The LEP should state that E2 zoning should cover CEECs. It should be clear that all Natural Areas containing CEECs are to be zoned E2. The definition of ‘Natural Areas’ in the supporting Biodiversity Study is not detailed enough. It should clarify that CEECs occur in Natural Areas and Category 1 Key Vegetation Communities, protected by the NSW Threatened Species Act 1995. The same detailed definition must also be stated in the LEP as advised by the Environmental Defender’s Office.	The planning proposal for Draft LEP 218 is limited to heritage conservation areas, and areas of biodiversity or riparian significance in the form of overlays. The draft Local Centres LEP and the Planning Proposal for the Principal LEP address zoning issues. There is no reference to council’s natural areas in the draft LEP, and therefore no definition is required here.	No change recommended.
Flora and fauna lists should be included in the main Study for the purpose of raising awareness of the significance of the issues.	It is preferable to include flora and fauna lists in documents that are consistently updated over time, such as the Biodiversity Strategy.	No change recommended.
Clarification on the distinction between (a) Zoning for Open Space and Recreation and (b) protecting Ku-ring-gai for the future needs of critically endangered biodiversity is required. Will the vegetation be accorded critically endangered recognition if these areas are targeted for Open Space and Recreation? This does not appear to be in the Planning Proposal. If land zoned Natural Areas is put up for public “use”/”amenity”/”recreation”/”Open Space” – will the CEECs contained within be reclassified?	The biodiversity and riparian overlays identify those areas considered at a landscape scale to warrant protection. This includes many areas with critically endangered ecological communities. The overlay applies regardless of the zoning, so may apply both to open space zones and environmental zones (as well as private lands). Council does not apply ‘critically endangered recognition’. This is applied through the relevant threatened species legislation at state and federal levels. In undertaking the background study a number of areas were identified where the categorisation under the Local Government Act 1993 was inappropriate. Council has over the past 18 months, adopted a number of changes to boundaries of these categories, eg from ‘sportsfield’ to ‘natural area’ or vice versa. This has then been considered in determining the biodiversity overlay and the appropriate zoning. It is noted that zoning is a relatively blunt instrument from the point of view of determining detailed boundaries, and is therefore supported by the more detailed biodiversity and riparian overlays.	No change recommended.

Site

Issue

Response

Recommendation

Biodiversity –Site specific

41, 43 and 47 Griffith Ave, Roseville

The width of the zone on this site still reflects earlier Cat. 2 riparian zoning, but should not because:

§§ Very little canopy is original native vegetation, many weedy species

§§ Site contains no endangered ecological communities or species

§§ Difficult access for maintenance (24m drop over site)

§§ Any existing original native vegetation is highly susceptible to weed invasion due to higher soil fertility from past fill and urban stormwater

Categorising such a large site for biodiversity would be counter-productive, unreasonable, unsustainable and in the long term against the public interest.

The biodiversity map may still be based on the previous categorisation of the riparian lands as Category 2. The vegetation is sandstone based and not a key vegetation community. The methodology in these circumstances only includes the vegetated area within the identified riparian lands as Category 2 vegetation, but also includes a buffer of 8m as Category 4. The resulting biodiversity area will therefore still be wider than the Category 3 riparian lands.

Note: The Category 3 riparian zone does not depend on native vegetation – while appropriate native vegetation is the most suitable in riparian lands, any vegetation can still provide habitat, corridor, stability and water quality benefits.

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal for LEP 218 be amended as follows:

·· Reduce the area of biodiversity on the biodiversity map to match the Category 3 riparian lands at 41,43 and 47 Griffith Ave, and the rear of 7-9 Allard Ave Roseville Chase (see attached Biodiversity Map).

59 Miowera Rd North Turramurra

Object to the inclusion of the north-western area (corner of Milton and Miowera) on the biodiversity map as Category 1 (as shown in the Background study). This area is separated by a road from bushland and contains no significant vegetation. An attached report by Conacher Travers verifies that development of this area would have ‘no significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats’.

Also object to the eastern biodiversity affectation (Category 1 Regional fauna habitat in the Background study). This area should be limited to the area currently zoned ‘County Open Space’ which is located between Cowan Creek and the cliff line. The area above the cliff line has no biodiversity significance. An attached report by Conacher Travers verifies that development of this area would have ‘no significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats’. In fact Conacher notes that the ‘proposed development is likely to provide an opportunity to manage the invasion of native vegetation.’ The area above the cliff is zoned residential and the biodiversity mapping should be consistent with the zoning.

Object to the figure at p55 of the background study including this site within regional fauna habitat.

Agreed. The trees at the north west corner of 59 Miowera Rd are exotic and do not meet the definition of Category 1. The mapped area should be reduce to the canopy of the trees rooted in 24 Milton Rd. An 8m buffer will apply.

The biodiversity mapping at the east of the site applies to the vegetation to the cliff top plus a 10m buffer. The biodiversity mapping is compatible with residential zoning. The biodiversity significance mapping highlights areas for consideration of environmental constraints during the development application phase. During a short site visit in response to this submission a Swamp Wallaby was observed in this area supporting its categorisation as regional fauna habitat.

A significant portion of this site, as acknowledged by the submitter, is regional fauna habitat. The figure at p55 is a broad map showing the biodiversity corridors and their broad context. The more detailed and refined mapping has been used for the draft LEP.

It is recommended that the Category 1 area at the north western corner of 59 Miowera Rd North Turramurra be reduced to the canopy of the trees rooted in 24 Milton Rd, and the 8m Category 4 buffer applied around this, consistent with the methodology as shown at the attached draft LEP 218 Biodiversity Map.

No change recommended.

414-420 Bobbin Head Road North Turramurra

Identification of vegetation as category 3 in the Background study is wrong, so these areas should not be included in the draft LEP. Consultant’s report is provided.

The vegetation must not be significant as Ku-ring-gai Council approved housing on allotments within the area. Any requirement to preserve the vegetation along the Murrua Road frontage would inhibit the construction of the already approved site at stage 5 of the development.

Identification of vegetation in the middle of the site as category 5 is wrong as it has no regard to the condition of the tree.

The submission quotes the consultant report from Wildsearch: “For the Draft study to provide a valid guide to the ecological value of the treed areas it must take into consideration the condition of the vegetation at the outset of mapping to ensure that only vegetation with ecological value is mapped. Further, the characteristics of vegetation that provide ecological functions that aid biodiversity must be defined so that guidance can be provided as to what kind of modifications can occur in existing urban areas without significantly affecting biodiversity”.

Objects to consideration of vegetation as a KVC where it does not meet the condition requirements of the endangered ecological community (EEC) under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

·· The landowner did not receive written notice, advising them of the exhibition of the planning proposal.

·· Having found out by chance an extension of only 11 days was given- but this was not given to others in the community.

·· Council has received and acknowledged a variety of correspondence seeking advice on when PPs would be advanced, but Council has not provided feedback.

·· A weblink is provided at p35 of the background study which does not provide a working link to the CMA mapping.

These issues have “deprived the community including those persons most directly affected” from having any participation in the planning process, contrary to the objects of the EP&A Act.

The submission claims LEP 218 will significantly affect the site by reducing the reasonable future development potential. The mapping is incorrect and thus must be amended. The submission requests a public hearing under section 57 of the EP& A Act. The Minister and Council should seek and consider further submissions from the public on the matter. Given the seriousness of the error in Council’s mapping, if it remains as is the owner will be forced to challenge the validity of LEP 218.

Written acknowledgement of the submission is requested as well as a meeting with the applicant.

Category 3 applies to Key Vegetation Community (KVC) patches that are ≥ 0.1ha in size, or, contain KVC vegetation in good, moderate condition (Ku-ring-gai Council 2011Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity and Riparian Lands Study (KBRLS); p.58). The category 3 areas mapped for 414 – 420 Bobbin Head Rd North Turramurra meet these criteria as the vegetation along Murrua Rd and in the north eastern corner of the site are part of a key vegetation community (KVC) ≥ 0.1ha in size. KVCs in Ku-ring-gai Council area include communities identified as CEECs, EECs and regionally significant vegetation communities identified by Council, regardless of condition.

The inclusion of an area within the biodiversity mapping in the draft LEP is a trigger for consideration of biodiversity issues in accordance with the biodiversity clause. It does not prohibit development. Rather it seeks to assist in the protection, enhancement and monitoring of biodiversity (KBRLS p: 58). At the DA stage decisions will be made based on mapping refinements at the site scale, condition and function (including the biodiversity category as identified in the associated DCP) of the vegetation and habitat, assessment of the cumulative impacts on regional resources, the most recent national and state legislation, and any mitigation measures proposed in the DA.

Category 5 is applied to KVC patches that are <0.1ha in size and do not contain KVC vegetation in good, moderate condition. (KBRLS; p.58). This patch meets these criteria.

The ecological principles underlying the identification of biodiversity corridors and supporting regional connectivity include: avoiding local extinction, reproduction and genetic mixing, pollination and seed dispersal, response to change, regeneration and increasing habitat

(KBRLS; p: 49). In order for remnant vegetation to provide ecosystem services such as: maintenance of Threatened Ecological Communities across a range of topographies, biodiversity reservoirs, stepping stones for fauna and seed bank / pollination resources, habitat for birds and invertebrates, nesting, feeding and hollow sites for birds and habitat for pollinators, the first and most important factor is that the plants exist.

The extent of modification permitted will change with the cumulative impacts of development and in response to the legal status of endangered species, populations and ecological communities as identified under national and state legislation. However, further more detailed provisions for each category will be provided in the DCP.

The inclusion of vegetated areas as key vegetation communities has been based upon vegetation community not condition. As such KVCs may include areas outside the scope of conditions required to meet the determination. The background study notes that this allows for future variations in determinations for endangered ecological communities. It is also critical to note that the the objectives of the study are broader than just the protection of species, populations and ecological communities listed under threatened species legislation. The aim of the study, and of Draft LEP 218 is to provide a landscape scale strategic approach to biodiversity conservation. This approach enables the consideration of the value of vegetation and habitat that would not necessarily meet the listing under legislation, but is nevertheless important for the protection of biodiversity at the landscape scale. The urbanised nature of the LGA and therefore the highly fragmented landscape means that even relatively degraded patches become important for the survival of a community.

A Guide to Preparing LEPs states the following in relation to community consultation:

Community consultation is commenced by giving notice of the public exhibition of the planning proposal:

·· in a newspaper that circulates in the area affected by the planning proposal;

·· on the web-site of the RPA; and

·· in writing to adjoining landowners, unless the planning authority is of the opinion that the number of landowners makes it impractical to notify them.

Notice of the exhibition was given in the local newspaper and on Council’s website. Further the planning proposal was also available on the website. Individual landholders were not given written notice, as Council determined that it was impractical to notify them, especially given that the clause and maps were intended to also be incorporated in the near future in the Local Centres LEP and the Principal LEP and that Council intended to write to adjoining landowners for both of these LEPs.

The Guide also specifies the materials to be available. These materials were available to the public at Council offices during the exhibition period.

Section 57(5) of the Act states:

If:

(a) a person making a submission so requests, and

(b) the relevant planning authority considers that the issues raised in a submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing,

the relevant planning authority is to arrange a public hearing on the issues raised in the submission.

This issue is not considered to be of such significance that it should be the subject of a public hearing.

Written acknowledgement of the submission was sent.

No change recommended.

APPENDIX No: 4 - Summary of submissions on heritage conservation areas - Draft LEP 218

Item No: GB.4

Summary of issues raised in public submissions to Draft LEP 218

General issues

Theme	Issue/Concern	Comment	Recommendation
Overall support for the LEP, however, would like the number of HCAs expanded.	Express strong support for HCAs. Support for HCAs as a way of preventing inappropriate development. HCAs will maintain the valued character and residential amenity of the area, while managing change that is sympathetic to the house and the streetscape. In addition to the proposed HCAs, the following HCAs should be included: · Any areas the residents submit they want · Recommendations by Jane McMillan - the 28 national Trust Urban Conservation Areas should be identified on maps and given statutory protection with the provision that residential height limits are not to exceed 2 storeys	Support for HCAs is noted. HCAs are not the mechanism for preventing inappropriate development. Their intent is to conserve areas identified by the community as a place worth conserving and assessed by a heritage professional as being culturally significant. It is agreed that those valued areas, assessed as being significant, should be conserved and future sympathetic and contextual development guided by the LEP and DCP. The inclusion of HCAs should be the result of a formal assessment process against the recognised criteria for significance as outlined by the Heritage Branch in their publication “Assessing Heritage Significance”. Community requests for HCAs can be a starting point but community want does not always equate with heritage significance.	No action recommended.
Effect on house prices.	Concerned about HCA impact on value of their house.	Numerous studies in Australia and overseas have concluded that the effect of designation on house prices is negligible and in fact greater effects are derived from locational factors such as proximity to schools and public transport, and desired attributes, like the number of bathrooms. Being within a HCA does not prohibit new development and change it just requires that this development occurs in a way that does not degrade the conservation area.	No action recommended.
Additional costs.	Concerned over the potential financial burden of additional administrative and planning costs if included in a conservation area.	Following the gazettal of the Principal LEP, options for improving the DA process for heritage items and places within HCAs should be reviewed. This could include reviewing the notification requirements, reviewing the generic need for Heritage Impact Statements, providing pre DA advice and drafting a clear list of exempt development	Review administrative processes and costs for heritage places.
Lack of consultation	Alarmed at the lack of consultation and the fact places were listed without so much as a letter from Council.	The consultation for the exhibition of Draft LEP 218 was consistent with the Council resolution of 8 November 2011 being: That the Planning Proposal be exhibited in accordance with any gateway determination and the requirements of Section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Prior to the statutory exhibition, extensive non-statutory consultation was undertaken which included six community information sessions and a mail-out to all affected properties. The proposed exhibition of the Draft Principal LEP will provide another opportunity for the community to comment on the draft heritage conservation areas. All affected property owners will receive a letter informing them of the exhibition, where the documents may be viewed and how they can make a submission.	No action recommended.
Blanket listing	Against a blanket approach to listing that includes individual places regardless of the lack of heritage significance.	The designation of a heritage conservation area is intended to conserve the collective attributes of an area which contribute to the cultural significance of the place. These attributes are not in isolation or specific to an individual property but are recognized throughout the area. In Ku-ring-gai these attributes are often the fine examples of Federation to Inter-war architecture, and occasionally Post-war architecture, the established gardens, street trees and native canopy. Designation of a conservation area is intended to protect these attributes which may not be counted in an individual listing or compromised by edge effects where the listings are interspersed with non-listed properties.	No action recommended.
Loss of development potential	Concerns that with the planning constraints placed upon a place in a heritage conservation area they will be unable to build a modern family home	Alterations and additions are possible with development consent within a HCA. Substantial development with consent may be possible at the rear of existing buildings, consistent with the trend for large open space living/family areas opening onto the private open space.	Develop design guidelines and highlight positive examples of sympathetic modern development in heritage conservation areas.

Wahroonga

Theme	Issue/Concern	Comment	Recommendation
Support for Mahratta HCA	Supportive of HCA C4 (Mahratta). Resident in this HCA.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Support for Mahratta HCA	Supportive of HCA C4 (Mahratta). Would like the HCA to include all of Gilda Avenue.	The boundary of the HCA on Gilda Avenue reflects the historical subdivision pattern and the layers of development in the street. The exclusion of the western end is reflective of the reduced heritage value of a more recent development period. The western end is still zoned R2 and new development is restricted to a maximum potential of two storey residential dwellings. The effect of this type of development on the HCA is not considered to be potentially detracting or detrimental. It is not considered necessary to expand the HCA to protect the setting.	No action recommended.
HCA C4 is not of heritage significance and should be removed.	Does not support the inclusion of of HCA C4 (Myall Avenue). Objects to the process, that saw the smaller HCA, once part of the larger proposed HCA 26, included after the consultants recommended that HCA 26 failed to reach the threshold of significance for inclusion. States the inclusion occurred without public consultation. Rejects Myall Avenue as contributory to the HCA and requests own house be excluded from HCA and strongly objects to 3 Myall Avenue as a contributory building.	The house at 3 Myall Avenue Wahroonga is located within the boundary of draft HCA C4 (Mahratta). This HCA was reviewed on the basis of submissions received in the non statutory exhibition of proposed heritage conservation areas in 2011 and was recommended for inclusion by Paul Davies in 2011. The wider HCA 26 was rejected due to the large number of non-contributory buildings, which indicated the level of intactness of the wider HCA had been compromised. The reviewed and smaller HCA has a higher percentage of contributory buildings and is considered to be significantly intact. The key development periods for the HCA are from the Federation period to the 1940s. The house at 3 Myall Avenue is an Inter-war bungalow. It is considered contributory as its building period, form, setback, materials and massing conform to the characteristics of buildings from a key development period of the HCA. Many of the HCAs in Ku-ring-gai are not typified by rows of identical houses. This is particularly true of parts of Wahroonga where larger lots were later subdivided for Inter-war infill development.	No action recommended.
Wahroonga Village should be in a HCA	General support for the LEP. Requests that Wahroonga Village and the state listed Wahroonga Station should be peer reviewed for inclusion in a HCA. Asks what happened about the 20 May 2011 Council resolution to peer review Wahroonga Village. The Wahroonga Group which includes: · the State listed Wahroonga Station Group · the Wahroonga shopping village and · Wahroonga Park (with associated heritage streetscape and buildings) Is the largely intact remainder of the earliest village development in Ku-ring-gai. It is a unique historical precinct requiring its own discreet recognition and management recommendation.	Wahroonga Station is already within a HCA. Wahroonga Village was reviewed by Paul Davies Pty Ltd as part of the northern heritage conservation area review (2010). The consultants found the area did not meet the threshold for inclusion as a HCA, however, as mentioned in your own submission another alternative was put forward – with the recommendation by Paul Davies for a site specific DCP to guide future development and maintain the character of the precinct. Wahroonga Park and the Wahroonga Station Group are both already included in draft HCA 1 – Wahroonga Conservation Area. The boundary of this HCA reflects the National Trust UCA boundary. The peer review of Wahroonga Village also found the area did not meet the threshold of significance to be included as a HCA. Based on the recommendation of Paul Davies Pty Ltd, Council undertook a heritage assessment of the following properties: · 1-5 Railway avenue Wahroonga and · 9A-17 Railway Avenue Wahroonga These were found to be significant and have been included in the draft heritage list (Schedule 5) of the draft Principal LEP.	Amend the Principal LEP to include in Schedule 5 and on the heritage map: · 1-5 Railway Avenue Wahroonga and · 9A-17 Railway Avenue Wahroonga.
The proposed HCA 26 should be instated as a draft HCA	Requests the area of HCA 26 that includes Woonona Avenue, Neringah Avenue and the Wahroonga Village be included.	The submission from Robertson and Hindmarsh supporting the inclusion of Woonona Avenue and Neringah Avenue was made regarding the non-statutory exhibition of the Northern Heritage Conservation Area Review completed in 2010. Changes to these streets since 2010 include development approval for the demolition of 5 buildings to make way for the new buildings at Neringah hospital. The submission also assumed that the listing of a lot as a heritage item meant the lot is contributory. Unfortunately, due to subdivision and recent development, in the map inclusion within the polygon that represents a heritage place does not mean the buildings/grounds on that lot have heritage significance or are contributory. Where possible, these inconsistencies are being addressed in the Principal LEP. It is important when determining what reaches the threshold of significance to not just look at coloured blocks on a map or numbers in a spreadsheet. Walking the street and getting an overall sense of the visual intactness and the presentation of the street as a “place worth conserving” is also highly critical. This was done by Paul Davies Pty Ltd. Analysis of the maps was not the sole determining factor.	No action recommended.
Request additional HCAs	In addition to the proposed HCAs, the following HCAs should be included: · HCA recommendations by Jennifer Harvey – Wahroonga Village (village shops, railway precinct and Wahroonga Park); expand HCA 26;	The park and the Wahroonga Station Group are included in the Wahroonga Conservation Area. Wahroonga Station was assessed by Paul Davies Pty Ltd and in a peer review by John Oultram. Both concluded the area to not be intact enough to include within a HCA. Several places were recommended as potential items. 1-5 Railway Avenue and 9A-17 Railway Avenue have been included as draft heritage items.	Include 1-5 Railway Avenue and 9A-17 Railway Avenue Wahroonga as draft heritage items in Schedule 5 of the Principal LEP.
Support for a Fox Valley Road HCA	Requests Fox Valley precinct between Pacific Highway and Ada Avenue be peer reviewed given the high density of heritage items and contributory buildings.	On 22 May 2012 Council adopted a resolution to review Fox Valley Road from Pacific Highway to Lucinda Avenue. Any resolutions from Council to include additional HCAs will be addressed in a planning proposal to amend the Principal LEP.	Await the findings of the peer review to determine whether to proceed with a planning proposal.
Support for HCA C4 – Mahratta Conservation Area.	Supports HCA C4 (Mahratta). Would like whole of Gilda Avenue to be included in HCA C4.	Gilda Avenue represents two distinct periods of development. This is clearly identifiable in the 1943 aerial which shows the Pacific Highway end of the street development with houses and the Ada Avenue end of the street mostly undeveloped and still heavily treed. The Ada avenue end of the HCA is not considered represent a significant development period and is not included in the HCA.	No action recommended.
Opposes HCA C4	Opposed to LEP. Specifically mentions Pacific Highway and loss of amenity. Concerned re financial impact and the lack of notification.	HCA C4 was adopted as a result of submissions to the non-statutory exhibition of the Northern HCA Review. The area included was assessed as being in the majority intact and representative of the key development periods being Federation and Inter-war. The exhibition of the Principal LEP will be notified to affected residents via letter notification and residents will have the opportunity to comment through this process.	No action recommended.
Opposes HCA C4	Opposed to LEP, specifically mentions C4. Objects to inclusion in a HCA on the grounds of own house (2a Gilda Avenue) being built post study period (1960s).	This area was reviewed by Paul Davies after submissions received in the non-statutory exhibition. 2a Myall Avenue was built after the study period and consequently was given a rating of “neutral” by the consultants reviewing the area. However, the majority of houses in Myall Street were identified as ‘contributory’ and coupled with the street being identified as a ‘rare early cul-de-sac design (1924), distinctive for its Inter war period housing and circular planting bed” the area was assessed as having significant character worthy of conservation as a heritage conservation area. This area was reviewed by Paul Davies after submissions received in the non-statutory exhibition.	No action recommended.

Warrawee

Theme

Issue/Concern

Comment

Recommendation

Request additional HCAs

In addition to the proposed HCAs, the following HCAs should be included:

· Warrawee Station;

Warrawee Station – agreed to include this in the Warrawee Conservation Area. The Warrawee Station Group is identified on the State rail s.170 register and is considered to be significant and contributory to the HCA.

Amend the heritage map to include the Warrawee Station Group in C3 – Warrawee Conservation Area.

Turramurra

Theme

Issue/Concern

Comment

Recommendation

Request additional HCAs

In addition to the proposed HCAs, the following HCAs should be included:

· Turramurra Precinct

· HCA recommendations by Jennifer Harvey –reassess UCA 22 Bobbin Head Road (many potential items on Warrangi Street); extend C6 Ku-ring-gai Avenue to include 15 Karuah Road

Several areas in Turramurra are the subject of the peer review. This includes Gilroy Road and Eastern Road. Hillview is already included as a draft HCA.

While there are several items and potential items on Warrangi Street for the most part these places are not closely clustered, with the exception of the few around Berrillee Lane. Warrangi Street is not considered to be mostly intact or aesthetically significant.

The property at 15 Karuah Road is considered to be significant andf contributory to the HCA. It is recommended to extend C6 - Ku-ring-gai Avenue Conservation Area to include 15 Karuah Road, Turramurra. This extension would also take in 19 Karuah Road, and the battleaxe drive of 17 Karuah Road which is considered neutral.

Investigate extending C6 Ku-ring-gai Avenue to include 15 and 19 Karuah Road, Turramurra.

Pymble

Theme	Issue/Concern	Comment	Recommendation
Support for HCAs.	Supports LEP. Specifically, Telegraph Road, Pymble (partially included in HCA C7) – would like the HCA to be extended to include entire Road.	It was Council’s recommendation at the Meeting of 13 December 2011 that an independent peer review of this area (Telegraph Road) as a potential HCA be undertaken, and this work is currently underway.	No action recommended.
Request additional HCAs	In addition to the proposed HCAs, the following HCAs should be included: · HCAs in Pymble should be larger to reflect the high numbers of heritage items; · Telegraph Road and Mona Vale Road (due to the historical significance and large number of heritage items).	On 13 December 2011 Council adopted a resolution to review: · Pymble Avenue both sides from the top down to house # 69 ( just over the hill which climbs up from the Rand intersection). · Orinoco Street both sides. · Livingstone Avenue both sides from junction with top of Orinoco down to house numbers 77A and 80 ( just past junction with Penrhyn). · Area bounded by Avon Road, Linden Avenue, Beechworth Road and Railway (includes Avon Road, Avon Close, Lonsdale Avenue, Barclay Close, Arilla Road, Mayfield Avenue, Allawah Road, Arden Road, Linden Close and Beechworth Road [in all cases both sides of the street including Avon Road (even though one side is currently PLC School]). · Church St - Continuation to Mona Vale Road (both sides), including the Bird Sanctuary and Orana/Kwyong Ave loop · Wellesley Road - Continuation to Church Street (both sides) · King Edward Street (between Station & Church Street) - Include opposite side · Mocatta Avenue - Include opposite side · Station Street (between Grandview Street and Church Street) - Both sides · Mona Vale Road - Both sides, between Mona Vale Road & Dalrymple-Hay Forest · Telegraph Road - Both sides, between Pacific Highway and Mona Vale Road. Any resolutions from Council, that result from this review, to include additional HCAs will be addressed in a planning proposal to amend the Principal LEP.	Await the findings of the peer review to determine whether to proceed with a planning proposal.
Does not support the proposed Pymble Heights HCA – C8	States that less than half the buildings within the HCA are listed as heritage items and there is no consistent heritage theme in the HCA. Listing will impose additional restrictions on owners to maintain, alter and update their homes for houses that do not individually have heritage value States that the Paul Davies 2010 report identified that part of the HCA lacks a consistent streetscape and doesn’t have representative value or is not contributory to a streetscape worth conserving and therefore the entire HCA should be excluded.	The statement of significance for HCA C8 – Pymble height Conservation Area states: “A largely intact portion of the 1892 Pymble Heights Estate subdivision encompassing a large number of heritage items, particularly intact Victorian, Federation and Inter-war period housing. The area is of aesthetic significance for its fine groups of Victorian, Federation period and Inter war period houses…” The theme of development of high quality houses from the Victorian period through to the end of the Inter-war period is the dominant aesthetic and historic theme for the Pymble Heights Conservation Area. Places in heritage conservation areas do have additional development requirements. These include the need to conserve the heritage significance of the area. Development is still permissible with consent and can include modern and innovative design; however, new development should not detract from the heritage value of the area. The requirements for developing places in conservation areas are different to those of heritage items and in some instances development can still occur on a house in an HCA without requiring a DA under the Exempt and Complying SEPP. The proposed boundary for HCA C8 represents that part of the larger former UCA 17 that the consultant concluded was still intact and of heritage significance. The exclusion of other streets assessed as not intact is not reason for the exclusion of streets that are intact.	No action recommended.

Gordon

Theme

Issue/Concern

Comment

Recommendation

Request additional HCAs

In addition to the proposed HCAs, the following HCAs should be included:

· All of Gordon east of the railway as per National Trust)

The Gordon HCAs east of the rail line have been extended to include the Khartoum Avenue/Robert Road HCA and an expansion of the Gordondale Estate HCA to include 6-16 Park Avenue under the draft Local Centres LEP.

Those areas in the former UCA which are not included have been assessed as not being intact.

No action recommended.

Lindfield

Theme	Issue/Concern	Comment	Recommendation
Support for HCA C30 (Lindfield West Conservation Area)	Support protection of C30, the canopy of Ku-ring-gai and the creek. Support proposals to stop redevelopment of Beaconsfield Parade	Noted.	No action recommended.
	Supports LEP. Specifically mentions HCA C30 (Lindfield West Conservation Area). Submission on behalf of the Friends of Beaconsfield Parade and Drovers Way Inc (FOB). Ask that submission be noted as having the support of GML and over 30 families in or adjoining C30. Particularly concerned about the upzoning of properties on the eastern interface of the HCA and the impact this would have on 12, 14 and 16 Beaconsfield Parade, and the threat to the heritage value of 14 and 16 Beaconsfield Parade.	This HCA (C30 – Lindfield West Conservation Area) was added to the proposed list of HCAs in 2011 by Ku-ring-gai Councillors at an ordinary meeting of a Council and is now slated to proceed. The removal of 16 Beaconsfield Parade from the HCA would not degrade the visual setting as seen from the street, as number 16 is not visible unless one walks up the handle of this recessed battleaxe lot. The intended zoning is R3 which would allow town house like development to a maximum building height of 11.5 m and an FSR of 0.8:1. Council at its Ordinary meeting of 3 April 2012 resolved to remove12 and 16 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield from the proposed draft HCA in the Principal LEP – Planning Proposal, for the purposes of creating an R3 interface zone between the R4 zone and approved development on Drovers Way and the R2 zone on Beaconsfield Parade.	No action recommended.
	Opposes the proposed eastern boundary of the West Lindfield HCA (HCA C30) Notes that there is no difference in the heritage value of the buildings in the Local Centres between the eastern boundary of HCA 30 and the Pacific Highway, and those proposed in C30. The buildings at the interface between the HCA and the Local Centres are compromised by the upzoning the heritage overlay. Specific mention of 9B, 11, 15, 17, 12 & 18 Beaconsfield Parade. -Suggest two options for re-alignment of boundary for HCA C30 – either include the buildings in the Local Centres in the in the draft HCA or exclude interface affected properties from the draft boundary of HCA C30 with a potential upzoning.	The impact on these properties is recognised and Council acknowledged this by adopting the resolution at the 3 April 2012 Ordinary meeting to remove the HCA overlay and upzone to R3 12 and 16 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield and 9B, 11, 15 and 17 Gladstone Parade, Lindfield.	No action recommended.
	Supports LEP and specifically mentions HCA C30 – West Lindfield conservation Area. Does not support the zoning under LEP 194. Not supportive of the potential up-zoning for 12 & 16 Beaconsfield Parade – adverse impact on 14 Beaconsfield Parade (heritage item) and the loss of the significant building at 16.	The areas referred to as zoned under LEP 194, now have an approved development application. The Council resolved to address the interface issues created by the approved future apartments by upzoning the interface to R3. This decision was based upon numerous planning considerations which included but was not limited to amenity, built form, environmental considerations and the heritage significance of the places to be upzoned and the heritage item at 14 Beaconsfield Parade.	No action recommended.
	Supports LEP. Specifically HCA C30 – Lindfield West Conservation Area. Does not support any upzoning. Suggests a potential heritage item: 10A – apparently built in 1954 designed by Sydney Anchor (garden with signatures of Jorn Utzon (opera house) in a concrete slab. Submission asks it to be noted as having the support of Godden Mackay Logan and over 30 other families in or adjoining the proposed HCA C30.	This HCA was added to the proposed list of HCAs in 2011 by Ku-ring-gai Councillors at an ordinary meeting of a Council and is included as a draft HCA. 10A Beaconsfield Parade is included within an approved development application and is not recommended to be included as a potential heritage item.	No action recommended.
Supports C28 - Wolseley Road Conservation Area	Support the LEP, specifically mentions C28 (Wolseley Road Conservation Area) and the significance of Treatts Road.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Opposes to HCA over Frances Street Lindfield	Opposed to LEP, specifically mentions C30 – Lindfield West Conservation Area. Concerned regarding loss of development potential – asks for houses in Frances Street not currently affected by a heritage order to be removed from the HCA.	Frances Street was identified as contributory from the initial review in 2010/2011. First split between two recommended HCAs, Council’s report in 2011 supported the recommendation for Frances Street to be included as one whole HCA. In 2011 this area was expanded to include Beaconsfield Parade – resulting from submissions received as part of the non-statutory exhibition process. Houses in HCAs can still be developed, however, new development must conserve the recognised values of the HCAs and not impact on the heritage significance.	No action recommended.
Opposes inclusion Norwood Avenue in HCA C30.	Opposed to LEP and specifically HCA C30 (Lindfield West Conservation Area – Norwood Avenue).	This draft HCA was included in 2011 as the result of an amendment to the resolutions by Councillors at the Ordinary meeting of 28 June 2011. It is agreed that significant portions of the HCA do not reach the threshold for inclusion as a conservation area. In particular the south eastern side of Beaconsfield Parade from numbers 12-32. These houses, with the exception of the heritage item at 14 Beaconsfield Parade, represent a mix of houses, clearly built post the key development periods, of low aesthetic significance and not contributory to the HCA. Beaconsfield Parade is wide, the grassed verges are also wider than most in the area and there is a lack of visual connection between the houses on the north west side and the houses on the south east side. Other parts of the HCA that are represented by a majority of neutral properties includes 11-23 and 8-22 Norwood Avenue, and 11-23 and 8-24 Gladstone Parade. This areas should also be excised from the HCA.	Recommended to amend the HCA to create two HCAs which reflect the contributory buildings and remove those portions which are clearly not culturally significant. Recommended to amend draft HCA C30 Lindfield West Conservation Area, to create two HCAs · C30 – Frances Street Conservation Area and · C30A – Lindfield West Conservation Area;
-	Requests the removal of 16 Beaconsfield Parade from HCA C30 (Lindfield West Conservation Area). House has interface issues with existing new development. Asks that 16 Beaconsfield parade be excluded from the draft HCA C30.	The house at 16 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield was excluded from HCA C30 as the result of a Council resolution at the Ordinary meeting of 3 April 2012. It is acknowledged that 16 Beaconsfield Parade has significant interface issues with the approved development on the adjoining property. As a battleaxe site and with a proposed zoning of R3 and a height of 11.5 m, the changes do not represent a threat or impact to the aesthetic value of the HCA. The Councillors decision to remove the property from the HCA was based on sound planning considerations which will result in a good transition between the higher density development and the HCA.	No action recommended.
Support for C29 and C30	Supportive of LEP. Specific mention of HCAs C29 (Balfour Street/Highfield Road Conservation Area) C30 (Lindfield West Conservation Area).	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Rejects the inclusion of C30 – Lindfield West Conservation Area	The submission refers to the Council decision to include C30 against the recommendations of the Council officer’s report of 28 June 2011. Submission states that the inclusion of the HCA was based on the request of only a few residents and does not reflect an objective heritage assessment. Lindfield West should be removed as a HCA with the exception of Frances Street. Requests a public hearing pursuant to s. 57(5) of the EP&A Act to review the planning processes that led to the inclusion of C30 in LEP 218.	The Council as the relevant planning authority does not consider the issues raised in a submission to be of such significance as to warrant a public hearing. The issues can be dealt with by this report. There is some merit to the inclusion of parts of C30 in a HCA, however, it is agreed that some streets should not be included. Beaconsfield Parade is the street from which most the contention has arisen. The properties on Drovers Way that were zoned 2D3 have successfully obtained development approval. The properties directly downhill from this site are proposed to be zoned R3 (see above). An assessment of the contribution mapping and further ground truthing has been undertaken to assist in assessing the request by several residents in the HCA to be removed. The request to include the south side of Beaconsfield Parade seems more about preventing development than recognising the value of a heritage conservation area. 14 Beaconsfield Parade is a heritage item and an important place that should be conserved. It doesn’t mean that the majority of houses around it which are not contributory should be preserved in a HCA. The houses on the northern side of Beaconsfield Parade are of some merit, and along with the houses in Frances Street can appropriately be included in a HCA.	C30 to be amended as described above.

Theme	Issue/Concern	Comment	Recommendation
Support for Roseville HCAs	Supports the LEP and the objective to protect the character of Ku-ring-gai. Specific mention of C32, C35, and C36. Submission “encourages” expansion of Roseville HCAs to include all of Clanville Road, Lord Street, Marjorie Street and Roseville Avenue.	The HCAs in Roseville have been expanded where the level of significance and intactness warranted inclusion of additional areas. That part of Lord Street within the Principal LEP boundary that is not included includes 26 Lord Street. It agreed the HCA should include 26 Lord Street as it is a corner property and the adjoining properties and the house opposite the primary frontage are all within a HCA. Its exclusion is nonsensical in terms of the ongoing management of the HCA, as it is a contributory item and potentially could gain development approval under the Exempt and Complying SEPP, which does not guarantee that appropriate consideration would be given to the context of the HCA.	Investigate amending Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include 26 Lord Street Roseville in draft HCA 32 – Clanville Conservation Area.
	Supports LEP. Specifically mentions C36 (Bancroft Avenue). Commends Council’s requirement for “emphasising compatible streetscape”.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Opposes HCAs in Roseville.	Opposed to LEP. Specifically mentions C32, C35, C36 – Roseville. Confused by notification/communication – from community groups (i.e. Archbold Estate) masquerading as Council.	HCAs C32, C35, C36 are all included as HCAs. The property at 34 Marjorie Street Roseville is contributory to the HCA. It is located within the Clanville Conservation area which covers a large swathe of the eastern side of Roseville. The area is considered to have heritage significance for the highly intact and quality Federation and Inter-war house. The actions of community groups are not within the purview of responsibility of Council.	No action recommended.
Supports HCAs in Roseville.	Supports LEP. Specific mention of HCAs C32, C35, C36. Seek amalgamation of HCAs C35/36 to create one large HCA from Hill Street to Archbold Road inclusive.	The Principal LEP does not include those areas covered by the Local Centres LEP. It is agreed that those places assessed as contributory in the most recent studies should be included in a draft HCA. As such it is recommended to include 39 Victoria Street Roseville in C32 – Clanville Conservation area. The house was assessed as contributory and neighbouring properties and the houses opposite are included in the draft HCA.	Investigate amending Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include 39 Victoria Street Roseville in draft HCA 32 – Clanville Conservation Area.
Supports the Roseville HCAs	Overall support for the HCAs but does not believe they go far enough. Against multi-storey development adjacent to single-storey.	Support is noted. The work to assess and include places of heritage significance has not stopped and the Local Centres and Principal LEPs are not end points. The interface between the boundaries of the Local Centres and Principal LEP areas has been considered when determining zoning. Where possible transition zones have been created to protect the heritage value of conservation areas.	No action recommended.
Supports the Roseville HCAs: C32 (Clanville Estate Conservation Area); C35 (The Grove Conservation Area); C36 (Lord Street /Bancroft Avenue Conservation Area). Would like some areas expanded.	The boundary to be extended to include the following: · north of Clanville Road; · Boundary St between Spearman Street & Archbold Road. · 39 Victoria Street and 26 Lord Street The submission includes an expert’s (Architectural Projects) report which emphasises the significance of the Archbold Estate as ‘a highly intact area of exceptional quality’ and recommends reflecting the historic boundaries i.e. bound by Boundary Street to the south, Archbold Road to the east, the railway to the west and Chelmsford Avenue to the north. Boundary Street should be included to reinforce and support the Willoughby HCA, to create a historically meaningful boundary to the HCA and to protect the heritage items on this street that reflect the earliest settlement of the area.	The north of Clanville Road was excluded because of the lack of contributory buildings. The street has been zoned R2, permitting single residential dwellings with a maximum height of 2 storeys. This should retain an appropriate residential and garden setting for the HCA on the southern side of Clanville Road between McLeod Avenue and Trafalgar Avenue. The Heritage Branch in its draft publication “Guidelines for the identification and management of change in heritage conservation areas” states that a boundary definition requires making practical decisions. An important consideration is how the significance is reflected in the historical records and on the ground. Being a boundary to a historical subdivision is not enough for inclusion. What is on the ground needs to reflect the significance. An area recognised for its aesthetic value and in particular as a garden suburb, should be legible as such. The houses on Boundary Street have been compromised by the high volume of traffic. The houses on the Willoughby side of the road have lost a large portion of their front setback with massive implications on amenity. Their inclusion in a HCA has restricted their ability to reasonably respond to this loss of amenity i.e. high masonry front fences on the front boundary. The connection between the Willoughby and Ku-ring-gai HCAs was lost when the road was widened, the front setbacks on the Willoughby side reduced and six lanes of busy traffic separated the two sides of the street. Many of the houses on the Ku-ring-gai side of Boundary Street have responded to the issues resulting from the high traffic volume. This includes paving their front gardens to create a large turning area so they can safely exit their properties and enter the busy road, as well as high fences for noise abatement. The loss of front fences and the visual connection with the houses has diminished their significance and it is not reasonable to expect that in the long term these owners will return their paved yards into gardens and lower the noise abatement fence so the community can see the house and garden. On the balance of planning considerations other than heritage, the houses on Boundary Street should not be included in the HCA, and it is not recommended to amend the boundary. The heritage items will remain as items. Under a DA, development in the vicinity of a heritage item or a HCA requires consideration be given to retaining and not diminishing the significance of the heritage item or the HCA. The zoning of the area remains at R2. Development is therefore limited to single residential dwelling with a maximum height of 2 storeys. It is agreed that 39 Victoria Street and 26 Lord Street should be included in a HCA and this is discussed above.	Investigate amending Schedule 5 and the heritage map to include 39 Victoria Street and 26 Lord Street Roseville in draft HCA 32 – Clanville Conservation Area.
Amend C34 – Archbold Farms HCA	Request from several residents to remove Park Avenue from the HCA. Request based on the degree of change that has occurred in the street, including new 2 storey houses, which has rendered the street no longer of heritage significance.	A review of the street did find that substantial change has occurred. Since the field work had been undertaken in 2010 and prior to the exhibition of draft LEP 218, 4 complying development certificates were issued for the street. Other houses had existing development approvals and work was commenced which substantially changed the appearance of buildings. The street has been significantly impacted by the changes, especially the change from the original single storey character to the new two storey dwellings. The new houses have a detracting impact on the remaining contributory houses. The contributory houses are also clustered, so while the majority of buildings are contributory, the detracting effect is compounded by the clusters of new buildings which are in greater concentration at the western end of the street. It is agreed that the recent changes have degraded the aesthetic significance of Park Avenue. It is recommended to amend C34 and remove the houses on Park avenue from the HCA.	Amend the heritage map to remove 1A-39 and 14-38 Park Avenue, Roseville from C34 – Archbold Farms Conservation Area.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.5 / 188

Item GB.5	S09400
	24 September 2012

Planning Proposal to Rezone Land at
35 Water Street, Wahroonga from Special Uses 5(a) to Residential under the KPSO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Council of the independent consultant’s review on a Planning Proposal to rezone 35 Water Street, Wahroonga from 5(a) Special Uses - Hospital to Residential under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO).

background:	The Planning Proposal, lodged on 10 July 2012, seeks rezoning of the site to enable residential subdivision and restoration of Rippon Grange. A consultant team engaged by Council assessed the Planning Proposal and its suitability to be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination. On 29 October 2012 Council received a further letter from the applicant requesting that an E4 Environmental Living zone and the Conservation Incentives clause, both under the Standard Instrument, be applied to the site under the Planning Proposal.

comments:	Council’s independent review puts forward changes needed for the Planning Proposal to meet the statutory requirements, prior to submission for a Gateway Determination. Council staff had some concerns regarding biodiversity issues on the site. These have now been addressed by the applicant’s recent letter and inclusion of the E4 Environmental Living zone across the site.

recommendation:	That the current proposed E4 Environmental Living zone and the NSW standard LEP Conservation Incentives clause be supported in principle, and that the applicant be advised to amend their Planning Proposal as per the Consultant’s review and Council’s report and that the amended Planning Proposal be prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager prior to being forwarded for a Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

To inform Council of the independent consultant’s review on a Planning Proposal to rezone
35 Water Street, Wahroonga from 5(a) Special Uses - Hospital to Residential under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO).

Background

The property at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga, known as Rippon Grange, was constructed in 1898 as a grand residence and subdivided to its current site structure in the 1920s. The site was converted in 1951 by the NSW State Government to hospital use. This ceased in 2004.

A 2006 development application to construct medium density seniors development (78 units in 8 buildings) on the land was refused by Council and the refusal was subsequently upheld in the Land and Environment Court (L&E Court). The two key drivers for the L&E Court ruling were the protection of the Blue Gum High Forest on the site, and the preservation of the site’s heritage significance.

In 2010 consent was granted by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 to develop the site as a private hospital. This approval has not been acted on and expires in 2015.

The property at 35 Water Street is significant for two primary reasons as confirmed by the above L&E Court ruling:

1. Heritage value

The site is listed as a heritage item of local significance under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO). This includes the heritage house Rippon Grange, its gardens, ancillary buildings and structures, mostly located to the north of the site on cleared land.

The significance of the heritage aspect of the site was addressed in the mapping of Council’s recently exhibited Draft LEP 218 - Biodiversity and Riparian Land and Heritage Conservation Areas which includes the site within a draft Heritage Conservation Area. The Draft LEP also proposes to amend the KPSO to incorporate the Standard Instrument LEP heritage provisions, including the Conservation Incentives clause.

The draft Heritage Conservation Area that covers this site has also been included in the Council’s planning proposal for the new Principal LEP which is to replace the KPSO. A gateway determination has been issued for the Principal LEP Planning Proposal and is due for Council consideration for exhibition in the near future.

2. Ecological value

The south and east of the site contains areas of Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), a critically endangered ecological community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The court ruling referred to above delineated a line showing the extent of the ecological community that was to be protected on this site.

The biodiversity on this site was addressed in the mapping of Council’s exhibited Draft LEP 218 - Biodiversity and Riparian Land and Heritage Conservation Areas which mapped an Area of Biodiversity Significance within this site.

Based on this mapping, the Principal LEP Planning Proposal put forward a zoning on the subject land of part R2 (Low Density Residential) to the predominantly cleared parts of the site, and part E4 (Environmental Living) under the Standard LEP Instrument, with a minimum lot size for the E4 zone of 1500sqm, to that part of the site with significant ecological value.

Given the level of vegetation on the site, Council has expressed concern regarding the possible threat to life by bushfire. In light of this, Council has lodged an amendment to the Bushfire Prone Lands Map to include the Blue Gum High Forest area of the site and surrounding area. The amendment was supported by the local Rural Fires Service, but is still awaiting the decision on certification by the Commissioner.

Comments

Ku-ring-gai Council received a Planning Proposal on 10 July 2012 from Ingham Planning Pty Ltd, on behalf of Mr Peter Borbilas, to rezone land at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga. The site is currently zoned 5(a) Special Uses - Hospital under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO). The site (Lot 1 D.P. 375262) is listed as Heritage Item under Schedule 7 of the KPSO.

The Planning Proposal as originally lodged sought a 2(c) Residential zoning under the Ku-ring-gai KPSO to enable the subdivision of the land for dwellings and enable the restoration of the heritage item for use as a residence. The full planning proposal, including appendices, has been provided for Councillors information in the Councillors’ room. See Attachment A1 for applicant’s planning proposal without appendices.

Town planning consultant Sue Haertsch Planning, with specialist assistance from John Oultram Heritage & Design (heritage) and Eco Logical Australia (ELA )(biodiversity and bushfire), was commissioned by Council to provide an independent review of the Planning Proposal. The purpose of the independent review was to make recommendations to Ku-ring-gai Council on the suitability of the Planning Proposal to be referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) for a formal gateway determination and to advise on the integration of this application with Council’s Principal LEP Planning Proposal which has received a gateway determination from DoPI.

The Consultant team have based their review on the legislative and technical requirements for planning proposals. Their analysis has included specialist assessment of the two key elements of this site, its heritage value and its biodiversity value. See Attachment A2 for the full Consultant’s review report.

On 29 October 2012, Council received a further letter from the applicant, Ingham Planning Consultants, requesting an E4 Environmental Living zone and the Conservation Incentives clause, both under the Standard Instrument, be included in the assessment of their Planning Proposal. Since the consultant’s review was completed prior to the receipt of this letter, this matter has been considered in this report. See Attachment A3 for Applicant’s letter.

What is the Planning Proposal seeking to do?

The Planning Proposal, as originally lodged, proposed a rezoning of the land at 35 Water Street from 5(a) Special Uses – Hospital to 2(c) Residential under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO). The purpose of the rezoning is to enable residential subdivision of the land and facilitate restoration of the existing building, Rippon Grange, which is identified as a heritage item.

The Planning Proposal is based on a preliminary subdivision layout that proposes five lots. Rippon Grange would be retained on a 1.5 hectare lot and returned to use as a single dwelling. The other lots vary in size from 937m2 (Lot 3) to 2,422m2 (Lot 2).

The applicant has indicated that the consent for a private hospital development on this site would be surrendered if the rezoning proceeds. This would require a legal agreement between the applicant and Council.

Heritage considerations

John Oultram Heritage & Design’s review confirms that Rippon Grange is a place of high heritage significance and that the rezoning to a residential zone is an appropriate change for the site provided that it leads to outcomes listed below with further assessments:

· conservation of Rippon Grange, its immediate gardens and significant built and landscape elements (significant items assessment would be required);

· retention of an appropriate curtilage for the house (curtilage assessment would be required);

· appropriate treatment of any archaeological remains (archaeological assessment would be required);

· low key development of the site for residential use (plans of the proposed works to Rippon Grange and the garden elements associated with its lot together with a detailed schedule of conservation works to the house and grounds prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant would be required); and

· retention of the Blue Gum High Forest as an important garden backdrop to this property. (Fencing and new buildings designed to ensure the backdrop to the heritage house is in keeping with its character).

John Oultram’s assessment expressed a preference for a community title subdivision rather than a formal subdivision of the land. This would allow Rippon Grange to continue to read as a single site with new and old buildings dotted into the landscape, and maintaining the visual connections with significant items in the grounds which would otherwise be cut off from the house by subdivision fencing.

Although John Oultram’s Heritage Report suggests an approximate curtilage, curtilage is not part of the consideration for this Planning Proposal. It should be noted, however, that Council’s Heritage Advisors are not in agreement with the suggested curtilage which separates the stables from Rippon Grange. In addition, the existing Conservation Management Plan for the site also delineates a different curtilage extent. Therefore a more detailed curtilage study would need to be conducted to formulate a fixed curtilage line, justifying the inclusion and exclusion of significant items. This matter will be dealt with as part of a subsequent development application.

The applicant’s recent letter requests inclusion of the Standard Instrument Conservation Incentives clause (cl 5.10(10)). This clause has been included in Council’s Draft LEP 218 and would enable development to a heritage item which is otherwise not permitted within the zoning. A typical example would be the strata subdivision of a large heritage house into a number of apartments which have communal use of the heritage gardens. The Planning Proposal would need to stipulate how the KPSO would be amended to include the Incentives Clause in a similar manner to that in the planning proposal prepared for the Draft LEP 218.

The Conservation Incentives clause requires assessment against a ‘heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority’. The applicant will need to prepare this in the form of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) that sets out what is significant on the site, what policies are appropriate to enable that significance to be retained in its future use and development, and the provision of a guide to future care and use of the site, including new development. The CMP would need to be submitted and reported to Council for approval prior to the use of the Incentives Clause.

Biodiversity considerations

The Ecological consultant ELA validates the mapping of BGHF endorsed in the court proceedings and used in the Planning Proposal’s UBM report; however, their primary concern is the subdivision of land within the BGHF mapped area.

ELA’s assessment disagrees with the Planning Proposal in that the assessment has not considered indirect impacts/edge effects in each of the relevant factors of the Assessment of Significance for the BGHF on the site. For example, it underestimates the removal and direct impact from the indicative subdivision layout because it does not appear to have taken into consideration construction areas for the access road and building works. In addition, ELA question how utilities (water, telecommunications and electricity) will supply the proposed lots and the impact of such works on the vegetation, and that the indirect impacts associated with edge effects such as changes to hydrology and ongoing activity associated with an occupied dwelling do not appear to have been included.

Although the indicative subdivision layout locates the building footprints predominantly outside the BGHF area, the review notes that it is impractical to attempt to control activities within private gardens in a residential setting through a vegetation management plan. As such, ELA concludes that there is a potential significant impact on BGHF as a result of the indicative subdivision layout that would result from the Residential 2(c) zoning being sought.

The ELA review concludes that a 2(c) or R2 Low Density zone would be incompatible with that part of the site that contains BGHF because of concerns about direct and indirect impacts on the sensitive habitat. The 930sqm minimum lot size would facilitate development at a density that would result in potentially significant impacts on a critically endangered ecological community.

ELA’s assessment considers the larger lot sizes associated with an E4 zone would enable future development without compromising the long‐term viability of the BGHF vegetation, provided rigorous and effective development conditions are imposed to protect and restore the vegetation. An effective, well-resourced restoration program for the BGHF habitat is required alongside a future Vegetation Management Plan

ELA advises that the proposed 2(c)/R2 zone is considered appropriate across the remainder of the site to the north, provided a setback or buffer of 10m is achieved from the mapped BGHF area. The consultant recommends the buffer area be revegetated with BGHF species.

The applicant’s recent letter requests their Planning Proposal zoning be changed from Residential 2(c) to E4 Environment Living under the Standard instrument. The E4 zone enables residential development within ecologically significant areas. The Planning Proposal would need to stipulate how the KPSO would be amended to include the E4 Environment Living zone as indicated in the Principal LEP Planning Proposal.

Bushfire considerations

ELA concluded that the remnant area of BGHF on the site is not considered to be a bushfire hazard significant enough to require an assessment of asset protection zones or building construction standards under PBP or AS 3959-2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas because of the size and shape of the BGHF on the site and the site’s separation from Turiban Reserve or the bushland within the Wahroonga School grounds to the north. The bushland within the school grounds is classified as low hazard as it is remnant area that is less than 1 hectare and forms a corridor less than 50m in width parallel to the site.

ELA consider that the Bushfire Risk Assessment does not recognise the implications of the Wahroonga School grounds as a low hazard area. Similarly, the report does not consider the potential threat of the BGHF on the site. This has implications to potential future development on the site but does not materially affect the outcomes or recommendations for the Planning Proposal.

ELA recommend that the bushland within the school grounds be mapped as Bush Fire Prone Vegetation Category 2 but not the BGHF on the site. The site would still be considered bush fire prone land and property as it would be within 30m of the Category 2 vegetation on the Wahroonga School grounds. Future development on the site would need to consider bushfire hazards within the grounds of the Wahroonga Primary School as this is the only hazard within 100m of the site.

Legislative and technical considerations

The consultant review found that the Planning Proposal does not satisfy the legislative and technical requirements of Section 55 of the EPA Act or the requirements of the Department of Planning’s Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals; and that in its current form it is not suitable to be referred to the DoPI for a formal gateway determination.

The primary reasons for the Consultant’s conclusion are outlined below, with all details provided in the attached Consultant’s report.

1. Compliance with Ministerial Directions (s.117 Directions)

The Planning Proposal has not demonstrated consistency with all relevant Ministerial Directions. Whilst it has considered five relevant Directions, it has omitted consideration of two key Directions:

i. Direction 2.1 (Environment Protection Zones) is relevant given that it is accepted that the site has biodiversity value. This is reinforced by the previous Court decision and the mapping accompanying Draft LEP 218. The Direction requires planning proposals to include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas and not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land. The Planning Proposal needs to address the suitability of the proposed 2(c) zone in relation to the environment protection measures proposed by Draft LEP 218 and the interrelationship between the two instruments.

The applicant’s latest request to change their zoning application from 2(c) to E4 will support their response to this requirement.

ii. Direction 6.3 (Site Specific Provisions) does not allow planning proposals to refer to drawings of particular developments. As a result, the Planning Proposal cannot directly link the preliminary subdivision plan to potential outcomes of the new zone.

The structure of the Planning Proposal is not considered suitable as it does not adequately separate the indicative subdivision layout and potential future development from the change of zoning. The proposal needs to justify the new zone on its merits without reference to the indicative subdivision layout. The primary address of the planning proposal should be the suitability of the proposed zone and consistency of the proposed change to the strategic context. The Planning Proposal needs to be revised to remove references to the design of the proposed future development from the technical component of the report.

2. Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

The Planning Proposal identifies SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land and notes a potential asbestos hazard arising from demolition of existing structures, however it states that there is “no evidence of any contamination hazard that would preclude rezoning the land for residential purposes” and that “Council can require submission of detailed contamination assessment with the future development application for subdivision”.

Given that the site was used as a hospital from 1952 until 2004, there is a high potential for contamination on the site, including asbestos. The Planning Proposal needs to be revised to include an updated statement in relation to the likely contamination issues present at the site to satisfy the provisions of SEPP 55 Clause 6. The statement should identify buildings and structures that are intended to be demolished and provide a strategy for managing potential risks.

3. Consideration of strategic context

The Planning Proposal is potentially inconsistent with the environmental objectives and actions of the North Subregion Strategy and needs to be updated to include a response. Action E2.2 to protect Sydney’s unique diversity of plants and animals requires LEPs to be informed by regional biodiversity matters. The action acknowledges the importance of the challenge to ensure that development retains bushland in sustainable configurations, including the remaining Blue Gum High Forest areas.

In addition, the Planning Proposal states that “Ku‐ring‐gai Council does not have a Strategic Plan relating to land use planning and development” and therefore only responds to the KPSO. This aspect of the Planning Proposal is not acceptable as it does not acknowledge or fully consider the strategic context, including the draft Heritage and Biodiversity LEP (218) and the Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP Planning Proposal. As a result, the report does not provide adequate justification for how the proposed zone will adequately protect the biodiversity values of the site or why the rezoning should proceed in advance of the Principal LEP.

The Planning Proposal needs to be revised to consider the implications of the above strategic documents.

The applicant’s latest request to change their zoning application from 2(c) to E4 will support their response to this requirement.

4. Spot rezoning and creation of precedent

The Planning Proposal includes an assessment against the Department of Planning’s LEP Pro-forma Evaluation Criteria for Spot Rezonings. A key issue arising from the spot rezoning criteria is whether the resulting LEP for this site is likely to create a precedent, or create or change the expectations of the landowner or other landowners.

Although the Planning Proposal indicates that the proposed change will not create a precedent on the grounds that the circumstances of the site are unique, the response does not consider implications of the proposal’s potential inconsistency with Draft LEP 218 and the approach proposed by the Principal LEP Planning Proposal. Both issues are relevant and potentially create precedents about the appropriate zoning approach for residential development within environmentally sensitive land. The Planning Proposal needs to demonstrate why it would not create a precedent in terms of the potential inconsistency with Draft LEP 218 and the Planning Proposal for the Ku‐ring‐gai Principal LEP for environmentally sensitive land.

The applicant’s latest request to change their zoning application from 2(c) to E4 addresses these issues; nevertheless, the Planning Proposal needs to be amended to remove this now redundant section within the document.

Discussion

Whilst the consultant’s review suggests that residential development would suit this site and its context, it is the degree of residential development and its impact on the site’s acknowledged asset of biodiversity and heritage that is being questioned. The concern has been twofold: That the permitted lot sizes under Residential 2(c) are not conducive to the integrity of the BGHF area and that the Planning Proposal cannot bind a subdivision plan to it and therefore the location and number and size of future lots on this site is able to change.

The applicant’s recent letter changing the zoning from 2(c) to E4 across the entire site will address this issue through the provision of larger residential lot sizes on the site, allowing the integrity of the BGHF to be retained.

The value of the E4 Environmental Living zone on this site

Environmental Living (E4) is a means of enabling residential development to occur within ecologically significant areas. It is a middle ground between an area being zoned Environmental Conservation (E2) where no residential development is permitted, and Residential (R2) permitting single dwellings on lots with little to no significant site features. The main advantage of the E4 Environmental Living zone is illustrated in the table below:

	*R2 Low Density Residential*	*E4 Environmental Living*
Objective of zoning type	Encourage the provision of facilities or services that meet the day‐to‐day needs of residents.	Land with special environmental or scenic values where residential development can be accommodated.
Biodiversity value	Compromised due to forced encroachment and close proximity of buildings and garden structures within lot sizes too small to protect significant proportions of biodiversity areas.	Less encroachment by buildings and garden structures due to larger lot sizes allowing residential activity to occur without changing the ecology of the entire area within the lot boundary.
Heritage value	Reinstated with residential development adjacent to its curtilage.	Reinstated with lower density residential development adjacent to its curtilage.
Subdivision lot size permitted	Minimum lot size of 930sqm.	Minimum lot size of 1500sqm.
Residential single dwelling type	Permitted under this zoning.	Permitted under this zoning.
Hospital Development type	Permitted under this zoning.	Not permitted under this zoning.

Governance Matters

A planning proposal was lodged by the applicant on 10 July 2012. An amendment to the planning proposal was made by letter dated 26 October 2012. An independent review was commissioned by Council and forms part of this report. If Council adopts the planning proposal to be formally submitted to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting a gateway determination, then there will be a series of further consultations and final report back to Council.

Risk Management

Council now is in a position to make a formal determination on whether the planning proposal should be formally submitted to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting a gateway determination. If a timely decision is not made on this matter, is it understood the applicant may have recourse to a further review under the proposed amendments to the Local Plan making process under the EP&A Act and EP&A Regulations recently announced by the NSW Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

Financial Considerations

In submitting their application for this Planning Proposal, the Applicant paid the required fee rezoning fees. To date these funds have been allocated towards the engagement of Council’s independent consultant, to a further staff review of the Planning Proposal and will cover the next stages in the process if it progressed through the formal gateway process.

Social Considerations

In the past the site has catered for specialist health services provided to the community. The site current has a limited 5(a) Special use zoning applying to the site under the KPSO. The site has remained vacant and redundant for several years. A new contemporary zoning should provide for future additional uses including residential, the adaptive reuse of the heritage buildings on the site, whilst recognising the environmental significance of the site. This should result in better use of the site and its current infrastructure.

Environmental Considerations

Due to the significant biodiversity and presence of critically endangered BGHF on the site, a specialist ecological and bushfire consultant was engaged to review the Planning Proposal. Their reports are attached and findings are discussed above.

Community Consultation

A number of letters have been received in support of placing residential development on this site as a means of preventing a hospital development. Should the Planning Proposal be progressed, notification and exhibition would occur in line with the requirements of the gateway determination. This would give the community and interested groups complete information regarding the site, including the heritage and biodiversity significance, and the opportunity to then formally comment on the proposal.

Internal Consultation

Council’s biodiversity, bushfire and heritage advisors were consulted in the preparation of this report.

Summary

Whilst it is agreed that both the site and the local context would benefit from a residential development on the site reinstating the heritage value of the site, it is evident that the biodiversity value of the site will be compromised by a Residential 2(c) zoning. This concern has now been addressed by the applicant’s recent amendment which seeks an E4 Environmental Living zone across the site which will allow a form of residential development that is able to protect the valuable site ecology as well as the heritage asset.

The review finds that the current Water Street Planning Proposal, for some aspects is not in a suitable form to be referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a formal gateway determination. For it to be acceptable, the Planning Proposal would need to be revised in accordance with the findings of the Consultant’s Review and the requirements of Council’s Report. In addition, the applicant would need to enter into a legal agreement with Council to provide certainty that the Part 3A hospital consent would be surrendered and Rippon Grange would be restored.

Recommendation:

A. That the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to rezone the property at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga from Special Uses 5(a) to zone E4 Environmental Living and to incorporate the NSW Standard Instrument LEP Conservation Incentives clause be supported in principle .

B. That the applicant be advised to amend their Planning Proposal as per the Consultant’s Review and this report as follows:

i) Amend the planning proposal so as to seek an E4 Environmental Living zone across the site.

ii) Stipulate how the KPSO would be amended to include the E4 (Environmental Living) zone and Conservation Incentives clause to align with Council’s Draft LEP 218 and the Planning Proposal for the Ku‐ring‐gai Principal LEP.

iii) Review and confirm the objectives or intended outcomes for the planning proposal particularly in relation to permissibility of future health/hospital uses.

iv) Revise the justification of the planning proposal to:

a) Justify the proposed new zone on its merits without reference to the indicative subdivision layout.

b) Include consideration of Draft LEP 218 and the planning proposal for the
Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP.

v) Include consideration of environmental objectives and actions of the Metropolitan Plan and North Subregion Strategy.

vi) Provide updated advice or information about contamination issues affecting the site in response to Clause 6 of SEPP 55.

vii) Provide an updated review of relevant Ministerial Directions including consideration of Direction 2.1 (Environment Protection Zones) and Direction 6.3 (Site Specific Provisions) and a checklist of all Ministerial Directions.

viii) Amend the section referring to assessment against the Department of Planning’s LEP Pro-forma Evaluation Criteria for Spot Rezonings to demonstrate why the planning proposal would not create a precedent in terms of the potential inconsistency with Draft LEP 218 and the planning proposal for the Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP for environmentally sensitive land.

C. That the amended Planning Proposal be prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager and then be forwarded to the DoPI for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations.

D. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.

E. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

Rthna Rana

Urban Planner

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1 View	Planning Proposal - Ingham Planning (without appendices)	2012/268962
	A2 View	Consultant Review - Sue Haertsch Planning	2012/259855
	A3 View	Letter - Planning Proposal Amendment - Ingham Planning	2012/262593

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.6 / 300

Item GB.6	S07023
	23 October 2012

Planning Proposal to rezone land at

39, 41, 43 and 51 Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider a Planning Proposal to amend the draft KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 and to rezone land at 39, 41, 43 and 51 Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield to permit mixed use and high density residential development.

background:	Council has received a Planning Proposal on behalf of WZRM Pty Ltd to rezone land at 39, 41, 43 and 51 Lindfield Avenue from 3(a)-(A2) Business and Residential 2(d) to a combination of B2 – Local Centre and R4 – High Density Residential. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the provisions for the subject properties contained in the exhibited version of the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012.

comments:	The Planning Proposal has been assessed by Council staff against the requirements of Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), including A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals. While this study has identified a justifiable planning need to rezone the subject properties, the planning proposal, as submitted, is not considered to be in an appropriate form to be referred to the State Government’s LEP Panel for a Gateway Determination.

recommendation:	That Council agree in principle to the submission of a Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination to amend the draft KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 to zone the land at 39, 41, 43, 51 and 55 Lindfield Avenue consistent with the provisions for the subject properties contained in the exhibited version of the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012. That the applicant be advised to amend their Planning Proposal to adequately address all relevant requirements of A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals. That the amended Planning Proposal be prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager prior to being forwarded for a Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider a Planning Proposal to amend the draft KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 and to rezone land at 39, 41, 43 and 51 Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield to permit mixed use and high density residential development.

Background

Council has received a Planning Proposal on behalf of WZRM Pty Ltd to rezone land at 39, 41, 43 and 51 Lindfield Avenue from 3(a)-(A2) Business and Residential 2(d) to a combination of B2 – Local Centre and R4 – High Density Residential to permit the site to be developed for mixed use and high density residential purposes. The Applicant’s report is included as Attachment A1

There has been a long planning background for this site, the key stages are set out below:

· On 15 January 2009 the subject properties, along with adjoining lands, were declared to be a site to which Part 3A of the EP&A Act applied as it was identified in Clause 15 in Schedule 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (Major Development SEPP), entitled “Housing in Ku-ring-gai”.

· The Director General’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (DGRs) for the Project Application were issued on 19 February 2009.

· The site (including the properties which are the subject of this report) were also previously identified development for the purpose of multi-unit housing on sites within the Ku-ring-gai area listed in Schedule 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy 53 Metropolitan Residential Development (SEPP 53) as a Major Development to be assessed under Part 3A of the EPA Act.

· The Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Town Centres) 2010 (Town Centres LEP) was made on 25 May 2010 and included zoning and development standards for the site that reflected the development potential for the site that previously applied under SEPP 53. The Town Centres LEP also repealed SEPP 53 from applying to the land. SEPP 53 was subsequently amended on 25 June 2010 to reflect the provisions of the Town Centres LEP.

· On 28 July 2011 the Land and Environment Court declared that the Town Centres LEP had been made contrary to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The Town Centres LEP was declared void and therefore of no legal force or effect. This meant that the subject site reverted back to their previous zoning, pursuant to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO).

· A project application was approved for a mixed use residential and retail development at 23‑37 Lindfield Avenue and 11 Havilah Lane (not including 2 Kochia Lane) by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), as a delegate of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, on 27 January 2012. The approval is for a 6-8 storey development comprising over 100 apartments, a small supermarket and retail shops as well as associated basement car parking.

· In December 2011 Council resolved to commence the preparation of a new Local Centres LEP. Council undertook a preliminary (non-statutory) consultation process during December 2011 through to March 2012.

· On 7 May 2012 Council was Granted Gateway approval to place the draft KLEP 2012 on exhibition. The Plan was exhibited from 21 May 2012 to 18 June 2012. The exhibited plan, in relation to the subject sites, was consistent with both the Town Centres LEP and SEPP 53 in terms of development standards.

· On 31 July 2012 Council adopted the draft KLEP 2012. The adopted version of the LEP was different to that which was exhibited, for the subject properties, and was not consistent with the recommendations of Council staff. The development standards were significantly reduced at the Council meeting, without debate or specific reference to any formal planning justification or supporting documentation.

· The adopted draft KLEP 2012 is currently with the Minister for Planning for his consideration and potential gazettal.

The relevant documents are:

· Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO).

· Gateway Determination – Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 and dated 7 May 2012.

· Council report – Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Planning Proposal – post exhibition prepared for OMC 31 July 2012.

· Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 as adopted by Council on 31 July 2012.

· Planning Proposal – Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Local Environmental Plan prepared by Ku‑ring-gai Council and dated April 2012.

Comments

The Planning Proposal has been reviewed by Council staff. This review has assessed the Planning Proposal against the requirements of Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the relevant Department of Planning Guidelines including A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals issued under section 55(3) of the Act.

The Planning Proposal, as submitted by the applicant, addresses the broad requirements under section 55(2) of the Act. In doing so, it seeks to rely on, by general reference rather than detailed analysis, the Planning Proposal prepared by Council for the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP. The applicant’s planning proposal does not address all requirements in A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals, particularly the questions that need considering when demonstrating justification under 2.3(a) of the Guidelines.

Reliance on the Planning Proposal prepared by Council is not considered appropriate going forward. Council’s Planning Proposal was for a comprehensive LEP covering six centres whereas the applicant’s planning proposal is for a spot rezoning. To proceed, the applicant’s planning proposal needs to be a standalone proposal that justifies the strategic merit of the rezoning in the context of Council’s adopted draft Local Centres LEP and the specific issues relating to the subject site.

It is also noted that the version of Council’s Planning Proposal attached to the application is that which was submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination. It was not the final revised version which accompanied Council’s final adopted Draft LEP.

A report from Council staff on the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is included as Attachment A2. While this study has identified a justifiable planning need to rezone the subject properties, the Planning Proposal, as submitted, is not considered to be in an appropriate form to be referred to the State Government’s LEP Panel for a Gateway Determination. The applicant should be requested to modify the planning proposal to address all relevant requirements of A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals, particularly those under section 2.3(a) in order to present the necessary information to demonstrate the strategic merit of the proposal.

It is also noted that should the Planning Proposal proceed, the property at No. 55 Lindfield Avenue would be left with the provisions under draft KLEP 2012, as submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This property would be left isolated by the planning proposal if it were to proceed without its inclusion which is an unsatisfactory planning outcome. The properties at Nos 51, 55 and 55A Lindfield Avenue should be viewed as having potential to be amalgamated into one development site for high density residential. As such, No. 55 Lindfield Avenue should be incorporated into the Planning Proposal with the same zoning and provisions as No. 51 Lindfield Avenue.

Governance Matters

The subject properties at 39, 41, 43 and 51 Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield were included in the Ku‑ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Town Centres) 2010 (KLEP 2010). When the KLEP 2010 was declared invalid by the NSW Land & Environment Court on 28 July 2011, the planning controls for the site reverted back to the provisions of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971.

The KPSO zoning, building height and FSR provisions for the sites represent a poor planning outcome and are inconsistent with the objectives of the EP&A Act.

Ku-ring-gai Council has provided new and updated planning controls for the subject site as well as other land in the Ku-ring-gai town centre areas. On 31 July 2012 Council adopted the draft KLEP (Local Centres) 2012. This study has found however that the planning provisions for the subject sites still represent a poor planning outcome and is inconsistent with the objects of the EP&A Act. The adopted version of the LEP was different to that which was exhibited, for the subject properties, and was not consistent with the recommendations of Council staff. The development standards were significantly reduced at the Council meeting, without debate or specific reference to any formal planning justification or supporting documentation.

The adopted draft KLEP 2012 is currently with the Minister for Planning for his consideration and potential gazettal. It is now in Ku-ring-gai Council’s domain to further consider a revised set of planning provisions for the subject sites.

The planning process will be governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993 (where relevant).

On 29 October 2012 Council was advised by the NSW Department of Planning about new delegations and independent reviews related to plan-making under Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This new administrative review processes consist of:

Pre-gateway reviews – which may be requested by a proponent before a planning proposal has been submitted to the department for a gateway determination. These reviews are informed by advice from joint regional planning panels (regional panels) or the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). The proponent may ask for a pre-gateway review if:

a) the council has notified the proponent that the request to prepare a planning proposal is not supported, or

b) the council has failed to indicate its support 90 days after the proponent submitted a request, accompanied by the required information.

And

Gateway reviews – which may be requested by a council or proponent following a gateway determination, but before community consultation on the planning proposal has commenced. These reviews are informed by advice from the PAC.

Risk Management

Not proceeding with the planning proposal for these sites will put at risk further investment in the precinct.

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner. The proponent may have recourse to the new independent plan making review system (see governance section of this report).

Financial Considerations

The Planning Proposal submitted by WZRM Pty Ltd was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges 2011-12. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal was covered by the application fee.

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal submitted by WZRM Pty Ltd did not include information relating to the social and economic effects for the rezoning of the subject sites.

Generally, the rezoning and future redevelopment in the centres can have a positive economic and social impact through local employment growth, centre revitalisation, community infrastructure and improved local housing choice.

Negative social impacts may relate to the proposed increase in building heights on Lindfield Avenue and the potential for increased urban densities and congestion.

Environmental Considerations

The site is affected by some biodiversity constraints. The properties 51 and 55 Lindfield Avenue support a small patch of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest identified in the KLEP 2012 Natural Resources - Biodiversity Map

55A Lindfield Avenue, which Council has proposed as an R4 zone with building heights of 6 storeys, also supports a small patch of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest identified in the KLEP 2012 Natural Resources - Biodiversity Map

No.43 Lindfield Avenue is a service station and is identified as a contaminated site.

Environmental considerations would need to be addressed during the assessment of any Development Application on the site.

Community Consultation

Should the Planning Proposal receive a favourable Gateway Determination, it will be exhibited in accordance with the Department’s Gateway Determination requirements. This will involve appropriate notification and receipt of submissions on the draft plan from the relevant State agencies and the general community.

Internal Consultation

Councillors were invited to attend an on-site meeting attended by representatives from WRZM Pty Ltd and their planning consultant. Two Councillors attended along with urban planning staff.

Other relevant departments of Council will be consulted in the preparation of the planning proposal and on submissions received should it proceed to public exhibition.

Summary

Recent planning history for the site has been complex as the site has been the subject of State Government planning policy including SEPP 53 and Part 3A. Since about 2005 there has been an expectation for the subject sites and adjoining lands that mixed use and high density residential development was permissible up to heights of between 6 and 7 levels. This changed when KLEP (Town Centres) 2010 was declared invalid by the NSW Land & Environment Court on 28 July 2011. At that time the planning controls for the site reverted back to the provisions of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971.

On 27 January 2012 a project application was approved for a mixed use residential and retail development at 23-37 Lindfield Avenue and 11 Havilah Lane, immediately adjoining the subject properties (also a former Part 3a site), by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), as a delegate of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The approval is for a 6-8 storey development comprising over 100 apartments, a small supermarket and retail shops as well as associated basement car parking.

On 31 July 2012 Council adopted the draft KLEP (Local Centres) 2012. The development standards were significantly reduced for the subject sites (when compared to the prior controls under Part 3a, and to those that were publicly exhibited) on the night of the Council meeting. The adopted draft KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 is currently with the Minister for Planning for his consideration and potential gazettal.

Recommendation:

A. That Council give in principle support to the planning proposal for a planning instrument amending the draft KLEP 2012 as follows:

i. 39 and 41 Lindfield Avenue (retail shops) as B2 – Local Centre zone, maximum building height 26.5 metres, FSR 3.0:1

ii 43 Lindfield Avenue (service station) as B2 – Local Centre zone, maximum building height 26.5 metres, FSR 3.0:1

Iii. 51 and 55 Lindfield Avenue as R4 – high density residential zone, maximum building height 20.5 metres (6 storeys), FSR 1.6:1

B. That the applicant be advised to amend their Planning Proposal so as to:

i. include the property at 55 Lindfield Avenue as R4 – high density residential zone, maximum building height 20.5 metres (6 storeys), FSR 1.6:1; and,

ii. adequately address all relevant requirements of A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals, particularly the questions under section 2.3(a).

E. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Attachments:	A1 View	Planning Proposal - Lindfield Avenue - prepared by Glendinning Minto and Associates		2012/268237
	A2 View	Planning Proposal - Lindfield Avenue - Council Assessment Report		2012/268321

Present:	Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Christiane Berlioz, Chairperson) Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond) Director Operations (Mr Greg Piconi) Roads & Maritime Services (Ms Kathryn Hawkins) Representing Member for Davidson (Mr Robert Forster)

Staff Present:	Manager Traffic and Transport (Mr George Koolik) Traffic Team Leader (Mr Deva Thevaraja) Strategic Traffic Engineer (Mr Joseph Piccoli)

Others Present:	Representing Bicycle NSW (Mr Robert Chambers) Representing Shorelink Bus Company (Mr Paul Kelly)

Apologies:	Representing Fire & Rescue NSW (Supt Kel McNamara)

KTC11	General Matter - Wahroonga Village Fair File: S02454 Vide: GB.2
	To consider a proposal to conduct the annual Wahroonga Village Fair on Sunday, 2 December 2012.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Committee noted that there were no safety related incidents reported at the 2011 Fair and that the Fair is a longstanding event.
	The Committee Recommends: That Council approve the Wahroonga Village Fair 2012 and not object to the temporary closures of Railway Avenue, part of Redleaf Lane, Station Lane between Railway Avenue and Coonanbarra Road, and the use of the north and south-western portions of Council car park (CP 26), except spaces 20 and 21, on Sunday, 2 December 2012 between 5am and 8pm, subject to: A. The Roads & Maritime Services approving the Traffic Management Plan prepared by Council on behalf of the Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce. B. The Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce fully implementing the Roads & Maritime Services-approved Traffic Management Plan to alleviate traffic congestion during the event and to address the traffic impacts that may result from the proposed road closures. C. Council receive no substantial objections to the proposal which cannot be addressed, being received by the closing date of the advertising and the Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce paying Council’s fee of $1,555 for advertising and processing the road closure application. D. The Applicant providing and maintaining all necessary signs, barricades and all other safety equipment at its expense to properly effect the changed traffic conditions. E. The Applicant confirming in writing to Council that it has liaised with the local emergency services regarding occupation of Railway Avenue and other locations, and that such occupation be approved by the emergency services, and that an emergency access corridor be left available during the Fair, in case of an emergency. F. The Applicant providing Council with details of liaison with the Police Local Area Commander Kuring-gai and the State Emergency Service in regard to providing an adequate number of suitable identifiable personnel to control all approved road closures and changed traffic conditions and that these personnel be responsible for monitoring the closures and providing vehicular access to emergency vehicles and residents if such access is required. G. Provision of details and locations of any proposed advertising banners to Council for prior approval. H. Signs being installed on Pacific Highway indicating "Railway Avenue will be closed between Coonanbarra Road and Redleaf Avenue on Sunday, 2 December 2012 for the Wahroonga Village Fair". These signs are to be erected two weeks before the Fair at locations approved by the Roads & Maritime Services and on the day of the Fair the words "will be" on the signs are to be covered or removed. I. Banners may be used in Railway Avenue (but not on Pacific Highway) instead of signposting, to advise motorists of the proposed closure of Railway Avenue, subject to that part of the banners having 150mm black lettering on yellow background reading "Railway Avenue closed to traffic on Sunday, 2 December 2012 for the Wahroonga Village Fair". J. Banners or signs being installed a minimum of two weeks prior to the closure, and that they be properly maintained during the period leading up to the Fair. K. Any activity associated with the Fair, including stalls, not occupying Railway Avenue beyond the respective building alignments at Coonanbarra Road and Redleaf Avenue and not obstructing pedestrian crossings in any way. L. That 'No Parking' restrictions be imposed on the south-western side of Woodville Avenue for the length of the existing weekday restrictions, between Redleaf Avenue and No. 18 Woodville Avenue on Sunday, 2 December 2012 with the Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce obtaining, installing and maintaining appropriate "Clip-on" signs to advise motorists of this alteration. M. That the Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce be permitted to occupy the north and south-western portions of Council's car park (CP 26) off Coonanbarra Road in conjunction with the Fair, excepting spaces 20 and 21, and that only the south-eastern portion of the car park be allowed for parking on the Fair day. Access to this portion to be obtained from the eastern end of Redleaf Lane, off Redleaf Avenue. N. Council’s Regulatory Officer visiting the site throughout the day to ensure Council's conditions of approval are being observed. O. Council's Regulatory Services provide a written report to the Director Operations within 30 days of the Fair on the impact of the Fair on traffic, access, parking and pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the event. P. The concurrence of the Local Area Commander Kuring-gai for Roads & Maritime Services approved marshals to be on duty on the Coonanbarra Road and Redleaf Avenue pedestrian crossings at all times during the Fair and at any other locations in the closure area to supervise pedestrians and to ensure that Fair activities are kept clear of the crossings. Q. The Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce supply 20 million dollars public liability insurance cover, naming Ku-ring-gai Council as principal. A certificate of currency is to be sighted by Council's Director Operations or his delegate before the event will be approved. R. The Wahroonga Chamber of Commerce responds in writing to Council by 16 November 2012, regarding the acceptance of Council's conditions for conducting the Wahroonga Village Fair.

KTC12	Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga File: TM11/04 Vide: GB.3
	To consider modifications to on-street parking in Fox Valley Road as a result of the proposed upgrade to the traffic signals at the intersection of The Comenarra Parkway and Fox Valley Road.
	The Committee’s Comments: The Director Operations discussed the background to the intersection design which assists both traffic flow and pedestrian movements, but to maximise the efficiency of the intersection would impact on two car parking spaces. Strategic Traffic Engineer informed the Committee that he has received positive feedback from local businesses to the changes made to parking at the shops, as well as concerns from a resident, Mr Matthew Peacock, regarding traffic delays. Mr Peacock refers to congestion at the Fox Valley Road and The Comenarra Parkway signals and suggests changes to signal operations. His letter was tabled for review by the Roads & Maritime Services (RMS). The Representative of RMS informed the Committee that RMS is aware of congestion issues at the intersection and is operating the signals to minimise overall queuing lengths.
	The Committee Recommends: A. That approval in principle be given to the revised traffic signal plan for the intersection of Fox Valley Road and The Comenarra Parkway as shown in Plan No. Fox Valley/KTC/10/12. B. That the developer consult with the businesses that occupy the car park to seek their comments on the proposal. C. That Council contact the developer to encourage increased on-site parking of construction employees vehicles. D. That Council’s Rangers be requested to provide increased enforcement of parking restrictions around the site, including at Fox Valley shops.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.1 / 33

Item GB.1	S02167
	19 October 2012

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.2 / 36

Item GB.2	S02046
	22 October 2012

purpose of report:	The Division of Local Government has written a Circular to Councils as a reminder to Councillors of their obligations under the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to the lodgement of the ‘Disclosures by Councillors and Designated Persons Return’.

background:	Section 449 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the lodgement of returns disclosing interests of Councillors and Designated Persons each year.

comments:	Councils are requested to have procedures in place to record the lodgement of returns, to ensure returns are tabled in accordance with the Act and to ensure that all Councillors are provided with a copy of the circular.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the report.

purpose of report:	To provide Councillors information relating to the forming of One Association to represent Local Government in NSW.

background:	The Local Government and Shires Association of NSW have advised that members of the two Associations have now voted in favour of their amalgamation. The amalgamation is expected to take place in March 2013. To fully complete the amalgamation process, an amalgamation of the State registered associations also needs to occur. The executives of both Associations have resolved to seek an exemption from the NSW Industrial Registrar from the requirement to hold a ballot for the amalgamation given the very recent and strong vote in favour of the amalgamation.

comments:	Continued updates on the One Association will be provided to Council as appropriate.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the report.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.7 / 350

Item GB.7	S06413
	5 November 2012

purpose of report:	For Council to consider requesting from the Minister for Environment and Heritage an interim heritage order for 78A Springdale Road, East Killara.

background:	The property at 78A Springdale Road, East Killara is at risk of redevelopment and the heritage values of this property require further assessment.

comments:	If the Minister for Environment and Heritage makes an interim heritage order, appropriate time will be allowed to undertake the assessment of the heritage values of the site.

recommendation:	That Council request the Minister for Environment and Heritage to place an Interim Heritage Order on “Wharncliffe” at 78A Springdale Road, East Killara (Lot 103 DP 859921) as a place of local heritage significance and potential state significance.

Attachments:	A1 View	Historic and recent aerial photographs of 78a Springdale Road East Killara		2012/268714
	A2 View	History of 78a Springdale Road East Killara		2012/268851

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.8 / 358

Item GB.8	PCDC0391/11
	18 September 2012

purpose of report:	To consider a request to extinguish an easement for tennis court over 15 Hastings Road, Warrawee, which benefits Council for drainage purposes.

background:	The site is subject to an easement for a tennis court created in 1986. The terms allow Council access to its stormwater pipe within the subject property. An easement for drainage exists over the Council stormwater pipe. Council, at its meeting of 24 May 2011, resolved to advise the owner it had no objection to the extinguishment of the easement subject to an alternative on site detention system being incorporated in a Development Application for the subject property.

comments:	The tennis court has been demolished and a residence constructed under a Complying Development Certificate (PCDC0391/11). An alternative on site detention system has been provided in conjunction with the construction of the new dwelling.

recommendation:	That Council grant approval for the extinguishment of the easement for a tennis court over 15 Hastings Road, Warrawee (Lot 13 DP16650).

Attachments:	A1 View	Deposited plan 638512	2012/235599
	A2 View	Survey sketch	2012/235597
	A3 View	Design of new on site detention system	2012/235585

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.9 / 364

Item GB.9	S09430/2
	25 September 2012

Project No	Description	Available Funds at October 2012
103186	Gordon Recreational Ground - Fencing	$62,300
103187	Turramurra Park - Upgrade 2 acrylic courts and fencing.	$62,500
103188	Gordon Recreation Ground – Upgrade 2 synthetic grass courts	$62,300
103189	Killara Park – Upgrade 2 synthetic grass courts	$62,300
103190	Queen Elizabeth Reserve – Upgrade 4 acrylic courts	$62,300
	TOTAL	$311,700

Attachments:	A1	Tender Submissions	Confidential
	A2	Evaluation Sheet	Confidential
	A3	Performance and Financial Assessment	Confidential
	A4	Performance and Financial Assessment	Confidential

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.10 / 369

Item GB.10	S09426/2
	9 October 2012

purpose of report:	To consider the tenders received for contract tree works and have a list of preferred contractors for tree works.

background:	In conjunction with Operational staff, contractors are engaged to undertake tree works as part of its overall maintenance program. Funding for this work will come from existing recurrent budgets

comments:	Public tenders were called on 8^th September 2012 and closed on 2^nd October 2012. Council has proposed a term of three (3) years. Tender documents were produced with nine (9) submissions received. The submissions were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the tender submission providing the best value to Council

recommendation:	Acceptance of tenders and the inclusion of tenderers to a list of contractors for a period of three (3) years.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 13 November 2012	GB.11 / 374

Item GB.11	S07618
	29 October 2012

PURPOSE of report:	To advise Council of the notes from the Open Space Reference Committee meeting held on 20 August 2012.

background:	The Committee is working with Council on its forward planning and providing valuable feedback on Council’s current programs for sportsfields, bushland activities and policies.

comments:	The meeting provided the Committee with follow up actions from the previous meeting and presented further matters for feedback on a number of initiatives currently in progress.

recommendation:	That the notes from the Open Space Reference Committee meeting of 20 August 2012 be received and noted.