Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Present:

The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) (Roseville Ward)

Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillor C Berlioz (St Ives Ward)

Councillor D Armstrong (Roseville Ward)

Councillor D McDonald (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (Greg Piconi)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Acting Manager Governance (Lisa Guildea)

Minutes Secretary (Christie Spry)

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

131

Apologies

File: S02194

Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond tendered an apology for non-attendance [business commitments] and requested leave of absence.

Councillor David Ossip tendered an apology for non-attendance [business commitments] and requested leave of absence.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Armstrong)

That the apologies from Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Ossip be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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.

The Mayor, Councillor Jennifer Anderson declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in Item MM.1 – Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter – Hornsby Shire ClubGRANTS Donation Scheme 2014 (she advised that she is a member of the Steering Committee) and there is no need for her to leave during debate and voting of the item.

132

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/8

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Szatow)

A. 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 the following confidential Notice of Motion and its respective attachments:

C.1 Review Panel to Carry Out the General Manager’s Performance Reviews

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

B. 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 report:

GB.4 Transport for NSW Future Commuter Car Park - Culworth Avenue Killara Car Park

Attachment 2: . C2 Heads of Agreement - Culworth Car Park

Attachment 3: C3 Valuation Report - Culworth Avenue Car Park

and that confidential Attachment 1: C1 Culworth Car Park – potential site areas and dimensions of the above report be released from confidential as it was determined that it would not prejudice Council’s commercial interests.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Address the Council

The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the Agenda:

R Bergen – Gordon Golf Course and Club

M Inglis - Marian Street Theatre

R Magee – Gordon Golf Course

Father Dalby – Gordon Golf Course

M Kearney – Marian Street Theatre

J Hooke – Council Processes

B Watson on behalf of CARPARK – Public Hearing set down for 26 May 2014 regarding Culworth Avenue Car Park
(20-28 Culworth Avenue) and 17 Marian Street Killara

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 Item:

Refer GB.6 – Renewable Energy Target View

Memorandums:

Refer PT.1 - Petition to STOP Culworth Avenue Car Park being SOLD for High Rise Residential Development by Council – (Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty-Two [5,422] Signatures) – Memorandum to Councillors and Directors from Acting Manager Governance dated 12 May 2014 advising Councillors that the item was erroneously included on the Agenda as the signatures on the item were a copy previously presented to Council as part of various petitions and that the documents were intended to be a submission on the Proposed Reclassification of Council-owned lands at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara.

Refer GB.3 – Minor Amendment to Sports Facilities Plan of Management – Memorandum to Councillors from Director Strategy and Environment dated 13 May 2014 advising of additional matters that would involve more substantial amendments to the Plan of Management and consider that the matter be deferred pending a further report from Staff.

Refer GB.4 – Transport for NSW Future Commuter Car Park – Culworth Avenue Killara Car Park – Memorandum to Councillors and Directors from Director Strategy and Environment dated 13 May 2014 referring to the status of confidentiality of Attachment 1 to the report to be made public.

828 Pacific Highway Gordon – Memorandum to Councillors and Directors from Manager Integrated Planning, Property and Assets dated 13 May 2014 in answer to a Question Without Notice raised by Councillor Cheryl Szatow at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 29 April 2014.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

133

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 29 April 2014

Minutes numbered 114 to 130

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/McDonald)

That Minutes numbered 114 to 130 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

minutes from the Mayor

134

Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter - Hornsby Shire ClubGRANTS Donation Scheme 2014

File: S08654

Vide: MM.1

In recent months, a steering committee has been formed to co-ordinate the establishment of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter. I was invited to join this committee and have actively participated in meetings held to date.

The aim of this project is to establish a safe house for women in crisis. Women’s homelessness is a significant issue in the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai area, due to a range of factors including domestic violence, sexual abuse, mental illness, family breakdown, lack of affordable housing, etc. While women’s homelessness is particularly difficult to measure, it is estimated that up to 90 women are homeless in the Upper North Shore area. Currently there is no crisis accommodation available between Lane Cove and the Central Coast.

The Women’s Shelter, once established, will provide supported temporary accommodation for women in crisis and assist them to take control of their lives. In addition, this service will advocate on behalf of women for improved access to resources, refer clients to family support services, counselling, police or hospitals, and ensure they can live their lives safe and free from fear.

The Women’s Community Shelters Limited, which is the official founder of this project, has successfully operated a women’s shelter in Manly for the past 3 years. They have made a commitment to underwrite a significant proportion of the required funds in the first 3 years, and are seeking the support of a large cross section of our local community for this new initiative. It is estimated that the total running cost of the service will be $400,000 per annum once it becomes fully operational. The Fundraising Committee for the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter has been very active over the past 4 months and has already collected more than $29,000 through fundraising and donations.

The Steering Committee is seeking letters of support from Members of Parliament, local groups and Councils for their grant submission under the Hornsby Shire ClubGRANTS Donation Scheme 2014. The $30,000 sought from the ClubGRANTS Donation Scheme will enable this service to secure premises, purchase much needed furnishings, install a security system and implement other safety related measures.

Resolved:

A. That Council confirms its support for the establishment of a Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women’s Shelter.

B. That Council write a letter supporting the establishment of a Women’s Shelter in the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai area.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITIONS

135

Petition to STOP Culworth Avenue Car Park being SOLD for High Rise Residential Development by Council – (Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty-Two [5,422] Signatures)

File: S10083

Vide: PT.1

“We the undersigned residents of Ku-ring-gai strongly oppose Council's planned rezoning/ reclassification of 20 - 28 Culworth Avenue. This will result in high rise residential development within a local, heritage conservation area; and the loss of 204 commuter car park spaces at Killara Station within a large area of declared biologically significant open space.”

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/McDonald)

That Council note that the petition was placed on the Agenda in error and refer the document containing the list of signatures to the Chairperson as a submission to the Public Hearing on the Proposed Reclassification of Council owned lands
20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

136

Petition to Stop Culworth Avenue Car Park being Sold for High Rise Residential Development by Council - (One Hundred and Fifty-Seven [157] Signatures) making a total of Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Three [6,303] signatures to date

Files: S09768, S10083

Vide: PT.2

The following petition was presented by Councillor David Citer:

“We, the undersigned, petition Ku-ring-gai Council to STOP Culworth Avenue Car Park being SOLD for High Rise Residential Development by Council. By signing this petition we are indicating our strong opposition to Ku-ring-gai Council’s planned rezoning / reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue. This will result in high rise residential development within a local heritage conservation area; and the loss of 204 [174] commuter car park spaces at Killara Station within a large area of declared biologically significant open space.”

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Armstrong)

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

137

42 Sylvan Avenue East Lindfield - Alterations and Additions including First Floor Addition, Carport, New Deck and Spa

File: DA0332/13

Vide: GB.1

Alterations and additions, including first floor addition, new deck and spa.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Armstrong/Malicki)

That consideration of DA0332/13 for alterations and additions including first floor addition, carport, new deck and spa at 42 Sylvan Avenue East Lindfield be deferred pending a site inspection.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

138

Minor Amendment to Sports Facilities Plan of Management

File: S06604/2

Vide: GB.3

To rectify an anomaly in the Sports Facilities Plan of Management to bring the permitted hours of clubhouse use in line with the permitted hours of sportsground use so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the Plan of Management.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Pettett)

That consideration of the matter be deferred pending a further report from Council staff.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

139

Northern Sydney Regional Waste Project

File: S10045

Vide: GB.5

To seek Council’s approval to enter into a Participation Agreement for joint waste disposal and processing with North Sydney, Willoughby, Ryde, Lane Cove, and Hunters Hill Councils and to determine the tender using Local Government Procurement Pty Ltd.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/McDonald)

A. That subject to the consent from the Minister for Local Government, Council resolves to participate in the Northern Sydney Waste Services Alliance with the participating Councils including North Sydney, Willoughby, Ryde, Lane Cove, and Hunters Hill Councils by entering into a Participation Agreement which sets out how the Councils will make decisions in relation to the procurement and management of a joint Municipal Solid Waste processing and disposal Contract;

B. That Council agrees to be party to engaging Local Government Procurement Pty Ltd through the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils to conduct the procurement process, as allowed for under section 55 (3) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 - Regulation 163 (1A) and to determine the Tender in accordance with the agreed evaluation criteria.

C. That Council agrees to the evaluation criteria for determining the tender under the process set out in the Participation Agreement being the tenderer’s costs to Councils, track record in delivering services, capability to deliver services, risk allocation acceptance and resource recovery performance.

D. That Council delegate to the General Manager approval to execute the Contract for a Waste Disposal and Processing Contract as determined under the Participation Agreement.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

140

Renewable Energy Target Review

File: S09069/4

Vide: GB.6

To seek endorsement of the proposed recommendations in a submission to the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Review Expert Panel on a review of the RET.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Berlioz)

A. That Council endorses the inclusion of the contents of this report as Council’s submission to the RET Review Expert Panel, including the key points and recommendations labelled a) to h) in the summary section of the report.

B. That Council provides a submission to the RET Review Expert Panel by 5pm on
16 May 2014.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items
for which there are speakers first after a
Motion moved by Councillors Szatow and Armstrong
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

141	Transport for NSW Future Commuter Car Park - Culworth Avenue Killara Car Park File: S08130/5 Vide: GB.4
	The following member of the public addressed Council: H Loughnan
	To seek Council approval to progress negotiations with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for the future divestment of a portion of Council owned land for construction as a commuter car park.
	During discussion, Council resolved into Closed Session to the Ante Room after a Motion moved by Councillors Szatow and Berlioz For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Armstrong, Berlioz, Citer, McDonald and Szatow Against the Motion: Councillors Pettett and Malicki Council resolved to return to Open Council after a Motion moved by Councillors Szatow and McDonald was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors McDonald/Citer) A. That Council write to Transport for New South Wales and confirm its intention to divest a portion of its land known as Culworth Avenue Car Park to Transport for NSW. B. That the divestment of a portion of the Culworth Avenue Killara to Transport for NSW is subject to the reclassification of the land to Operational Land. C. That upon reclassification of the land a further report be brought back to Council detailing the potential divestment of a portion of the Culworth Avenue Car Park to Transport for NSW for commuter parking. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

142

Nominations for Joint Regional Planning Panel Members

File: S08316

Vide: GB.2

To appoint Council members to the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Szatow)

That the matter be deferred until the next meeting of Council when all Councillors are in attendance.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald and Szatow

Against the Resolution: Councillors Armstrong, Berlioz, Pettett and Malicki

The voting being EQUAL,

the Mayor exercised her Casting Vote

IN FAVOUR of the Motion

The above Resolution was subject to an Amendment which was LOST. The Lost Amendment was:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Berlioz)

The present membership of the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) remains until the implementation of the planning review or 2 years, whichever comes first.

For the Amendment: Councillors Armstrong, Berlioz, Pettett and Malicki

Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald and Szatow

The voting being EQUAL,

the Mayor exercised her Casting Vote

AGAINST the Amendment

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

A personal explanation was provided by Councillor Malicki advising the meeting that she did take the point that Councillors made about her anticipating the voting and that she notes that it is absolutely spot on. She was going on past experience with this same matter, nothing else.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

143

General Manager’s Performance Review

File: CY00254/6

Vide: QN.1

Questions Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki

1. When is the Performance Review from last December coming to Council for ratification? As she understands it, it was due as soon as possible after the Panel Meeting.

Answer by the Mayor

I will check on that and get back to you.

2. When is the yearly Performance Review which is due in May going to take place, as we have not had a date?

Answer by the Mayor

I am in the process of organising that with the consultant.

Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

An Inspections Committee will take place to view the following property:

2 Sylvan Avenue East Lindfield

Councillors will be advised of the date and time of the Inspections Committee.

Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter -

C.1 – Review Panel to Carry Out the General Manager’s Performance Reviews in accordance with section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of information that would, if disclosed, relate to the discussion of personnel matters concerning particular individuals. This resolution was moved by Councillors Citer and Berlioz and was

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

144

Review Panel to Carry Out the General Manager’s Performance Reviews

File: CY00254/6

Vide: C.1

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(a), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Section 10A(2)(a) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors).

Confidential Notice of Motion from Councillor Elaine Malicki dated 5 May 2014.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Szatow)

That the matter be deferred to the next available Ordinary Meeting of Council.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald and Szatow

Against the Resolution: Councillors Armstrong, Berlioz and Pettett

Councillor Malicki left the room during debate

and was not present for the vote

To Open Council

The Mayor adverted to the consideration of the matter referred to in the Minute numbered 144, and to the resolution contained in such Minute.

The Meeting closed at 8.50pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 13 May 2014 (Pages 1 - 11) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 27 May 2014.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.4 / 43

Item GB.4	S08023/6
	29 April 2014

2013 - 2014 Budget Review -
3rd Quarter ended March 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To inform Council of the results of the 3^rd quarter budget review of 2013/14 and seek approval to adjust the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2013 to a31 March 2014.

background:	Section 203(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that provides the latest estimate of Income and Expenditure for the current (2013/14) financial year.

comments:	Council’s operating surplus (including capital income) has decreased by $1.7m compared to budget. This is primarily due to deferral of asset sales to fund West Pymble Aquatic Centre. The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2014 will increase to $4.64m, $137k above the long term financial plan’s target.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the March 2014 Quarterly Budget Review and that the recommended changes to the 2013/14 Budget be adopted.

Purpose of Report

To inform Council of the results of the 3^rd quarter budget review of 2013/14 and seek approval to adjust the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2013 to a31 March 2014.

Background

In accordance with Part 9, Division 3, Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (“The Regulation”):

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

The Division of Local Government has developed a set of minimum requirements that assists councils in meeting their obligations as set out in legislation.

At the Council meeting held on 25 June 2013, Council adopted the 2013-2017 Delivery Program & Operational Plan, which incorporated the annual budget for 2013/2014.

Comments

This review analyses Council’s financial performance for the 3rd quarter of 2013/14 by comparing actual income and expenditure against budget, and forecasts an end of financial year position.

Council’s operating surplus (including capital income) has decreased by $1.7m compared to budget. This is primarily due to deferral of asset sales to fund the West Pymble Aquatic Centre. These sales are now forecast to occur in 2014/15. The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2014 will increase to $4.64m, $137k above the long term financial plans target.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS)

The Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) as prescribed by the DLG guidelines are composed of the following budget review reports:

· Income and Expenses Budget Review Statement

· Capital Budget (Expenditure and Funding) Budget Review Statement

· Proposed Operating Budget Adjustments by Resource Group

· Proposed Capital Budget Adjustments by Resource Group

· Income and Expenses Statement by Theme

· Cash and Investments position

· Contracts and Consultancy Expenses

· Capital & Operational Projects Summary

· Major Capital Works Update

· Statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer

These statements are shown below.

Proposed Budget Adjustments

The table below lists the proposed budget adjustments, including comments for the March Quarterly Budget Review.

Attachment A2 summarises all proposed budget adjustments for Projects.

The table below splits the current budget by six themes identified within Council’s Delivery Program 2013 – 2017. These themes are used as a platform for planning our activities to address the community’s stated needs and aspirations.

Cash and Investments position

Restricted funds are invested in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. Total investments portfolio as per the March Investment Report is $83.85m.

A detailed Restricted Assets Report as at March 2014 (Actual) is shown in Attachment A1

Contracts and Consultancy Expenses

Capital & Operational Projects Summary

Actual expenditure for capital & operational projects for the period ending 31 March 2014 is $38.95m against the YTD budget of $33.23m, resulting in an unfavourable variance of $5.7m. This variance is mainly due to timing differences between the actual expenditure incurred against the budget forecast of projects for the quarter.

The table and chart below shows the YTD actual projects expenditure against YTD budget for the quarter ended March 2014.

The proposed budget changes to projects total $3.1m. The most significant projects proposed for adjustment are as follows:

· North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) was ahead of schedule ($1.350m) and settlement of claim for additional costs for the Landfill rehabilitation ($650k). $1.652m is funded from S94 and $302k is funded from DWM.

· Allan Small Oval upgrade additional funds of $220k from Section 94 required for landscape works.

· Increase in funds received from grants for “Waste Less Recycle More Program” - $298k.

· Additional funds of $60k required for Curtilage Park - $60k funded from Section 94.

All Proposed Budget adjustments for each Project and explanation for the changes is detailed in Attachment A2 – Summary of Capital and Operational Project Budget Adjustments

Major Capital Works Update

Operations Projects

Work is nearing completion on capital projects allocated to Operations. The status of various projects and reviews of programs is covered in the commentary below:

· Buildings

The upgrade to a number of toilet upgrades at Kendall Street Tennis and the Allan Small Amenities are now complete. It is proposed to install a new public toilet in Bancroft Park near the Arts Centre in June 2014. Work is soon to start on the upgrade to public toilets at St Ives Showground.

· Roads

The roads program at the end of the third quarter was more than 80% complete and it is planned to complete the roads program by early June 2014. Testing for works to start in July 2014 is underway.

· Footpaths

New footpaths are complete at Doncaster Avenue, The Chase Road, Koola Avenue and Vale Street. Work has started at Bowes Avenue and all projects should be complete by the end of June 2014.

· Drainage

Quotes have been called for works at 10 Doncaster Avenue, West Pymble and 5 Cassandra Avenue, St Ives following extensive consultation with the directly affected residents. Other works are progressing but there have been delays associated with utility relocations at Oliver Road, Roseville.

· Playgrounds

Work has started at Wahroonga Park on the playground upgrade and work is likely to be completed by July 2014. Work is now complete on the new park in Bruce Avenue, Killara.

The new playground at Curtilage Park is now complete.

· Sportsfields

Work is now complete on Allan Small Oval upgrade with the tennis courts nearly complete. Work on the car park upgrade is to start in June 2014. Golden Jubilee Oval No. 2 is now complete but awaiting upgrading of the electricity supply for the lighting.

· Sports Courts

Repairs to Roseville Park Tennis courts are now complete and work is nearing completion on the other court upgrades.

Strategy Projects

Updates of significant projects are provided below:

· Sale of 9 Havilah lane, Lindfield

On 21 November 2013 Council divested a car park at 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield by way of public auction for a sale price of $4,550,000.00. This was well in excess of valuation at the time of $2.4 Million. Settlement is at the end of May 2014.

At its meeting of 9 April 2013 Council resolved, in part:

C. That, in the event that, following this reclassification process, there is a future divestment of Lot 21 DP 713207 known as 9 Havilah Lane Lindfield, that any proceeds from such a sale be held as a restricted asset and directed to the project budget for the provision of underground car parking and a civic square / village green precinct in Lindfield east of the railway line in the immediate environs of this site.

· St Ives Girl Guides and Scouts Relocations and St Ives Village Green Master Plan

During the second quarter of 2013/14 the accessible shower and toilet extension to the existing club house at Warrimoo Oval for the future use of St Ives Girl Guides got underway and will be completed during the fourth quarter, after which the St Ives Girl Guides group will be relocating from St Ives Village Green to the renovated facility.

St Ives North Scouts have also received development consent for alterations and additions to the Warrimoo Oval Scout Hall and a builder commenced works in November 2013. Upon completion of the scout hall works, the St Ives North Scout Group will move out of St Ives Village Green and consolidate all of their activities at the Warrimoo Oval hall.

A development application demolition of the Scouts and Guides halls at the Village Green has been approved. After the two groups have relocated to Warrimoo Oval the Village Green halls will be demolished and implementation of the St Ives Village Green Masterplan will get underway, commencing with the expanded children’s playground and new youth precinct, including the new Skate & Bike Park, basketball court and performance space, picnic and BBQ facilities. The following years will see other parts of the master plan being implemented, including a perimeter exercise path, terraced seating around William Cowan Oval, relocation of the tennis courts to be adjacent to the bowling club, additional car parking in Cowan Road and Memorial Avenue, and an additional footpath on the park side of the Village Green. This path will provide much improved safety and access to and around the park.

· Koola Park Redevelopment, East Killara

The first two stages of the redevelopment of this significant recreation area have been completed over the last 2 years. These include the stormwater harvesting system from Rocky Creek, a 600,000 litre underground storage tank, the relocation and expansion of cricket practice nets, and a sewer connection to replace the old septic system. In 2014/15 we will see the construction of stages 3 & 4. This includes the additional full size oval, oval levelling, irrigation, drainage, floodlights, outdoor exercise equipment, exercise path, playground and car park works. Tendering for this stage of works is due to commence in the fourth quarter 2014 or the first quarter of 2014/15.

· Golden Jubilee Field No.2 Upgrade, East Wahroonga

Reconstruction and levelling works at this oval were completed during the second quarter of 2013/14. Baseball is now being played as well as the Sunset Soarers model plane flying club and the off-leash dog walkers have access, while soccer also commenced competition games in the 2014 season.

· Wahroonga Park Toilet Block

Design is progressing well with our architecture consultants and community consultation is expected to take place late in the fourth quarter.

· Rotary of Roseville Chase Playground – Malga Avenue and Babbage Road

Designs are almost completed for this new playground in Roseville Chase which will be jointly funded by Rotary ($50K), Council ($50K) and NSW Community Building Partnership

($25K).

· B2 Land Subdivision

The B2 Subdivision is a joint project with the NSW Department of Planning and is one of the major funding sources for the West Pymble Pool. Council resolved to appoint a contractor for the construction of the subdivision in December 2013. As forecasted works commenced on site early in the third quarter and will be completed in the first quarter of 2014-15.

· West Pymble Pool

It is anticipated that construction of the base building will be finished in the first quarter 2014-2015. Council is working with the appointed operators, the YMCA NSW, to integrate fitout works with the current construction program. As previously flagged, some potential cost overruns shall be determined through the dispute resolution process. Upon the completion of this process, when costs can be fully quantified a report shall be brought to Council.

· NTRA

§ The project is ahead of schedule and hence the partial bringing forward of next year’s funding.

§ Rehabilitation of the former landfill site including slope stabilisation of Slope A Slope B and Slope C and associated leachate treatment facilities is 95% complete.

§ Stage 1 Civil Works for the first of five new golf holes comprising seal bearing layer (SBL), landfill capping material (LCM), stormwater drainage and base design levels is complete.

§ Stage 2 Civil Works for the next five new holes comprising Seal Bearing Layer (SBL), landfill capping material (LCM), stormwater drainage and base design levels is 90% complete.

§ Stage 1 Golf Course Finishing Works are 80% complete. Landscaping works and turf laying are also 80% complete.

§ The early release of Stage 2 B and C Finishing Works, to ensure existing golf course continuity for golfers during the remainder of the works, is currently 60% complete.

§ Stage 2 Finishing Works commenced February 2014 and are due for completion in February 2015.

§ The recent dispute with the head contractor has been mutually resolved.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

It is my opinion that the Quarterly Budget Review Statement for Ku-ring-gai Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2014 indicates that Council’s projected financial position at 30 June 2014 will be satisfactory, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

One of Council’s key performance indicators in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is to provide for a minimum available working capital balance of $4.5m. As a result of the March Review the forecast of available working capital at 30 June 2013 will increase by $35k to $4.64m.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme: Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L2.1 Council rigorously manages its financial resources and assets to maximise delivery of services.

L2.1.2 Council’s financial services provide accurate, timely, open and honest advice to the community.

Manages financial performance to achieve targets as defined in the Long Term Financial Plan.

Governance Matters

Not applicable.

Risk Management

Income and expenditure is managed through the quarterly budget review process. Although some income and expenditure cannot be directly controlled, it can be monitored and action taken to mitigate potential financial or budgetary risk. Further, Council staff utilise monthly management reporting for managing operational and project income and expenditure, and any budget variations are reported to the Director. The executive team are also provided with monthly financial reports that allow Directors to make informed decisions and plan ahead to ensure budget targets are met.

Financial Considerations

Should Council adopt the recommendations of this report, Council’s working capital forecast for the March Review will increase by $35k compared to the original budget.

Council’s total working capital as at 1 July 2013 was $5.97m and is forecast to be $4.64m at 30 June 2014 an increase of $137k on the LTFP target of $4.50m. This movement is shown in the table below.

Social Considerations

Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations

Not applicable.

Community Consultation

Not applicable.

Internal Consultation

Finance met with each Director as part of the Quarterly Business Review to ensure departmental budget target reflects current forecasts. Comments from Directors have also been included as part of this report.

Summary

Council’s operating surplus (including capital income) has decreased by $1.7m compared to budget. This is primarily due to a deferral of asset sales to fund West Pymble Aquatic Centre. These sales are now forecast to occur in 2014/15. The forecast working capital balance at 30 June 2014 will increase to $4.6 m, $137k above the long term financial plans target.

Recommendation:

That Council receive and note the March 2013 Quarterly Budget Review and adopt the recommended changes to the 2013/14 budget.

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

David Marshall

Director Corporate

Attachments:	A1 View	Restricted Assets Report - March 2014		2014/117625
	A2 View	Summary of Capital and Operational Project Budget Adjustments - March 2014		2014/118868

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.7 / 148

Item GB.7	DA0111/14
	7 April 2014

development application

Summary Sheet

Report title:	100 Eton Road, Lindfield - Land Subdivision of Precinct 1 into 13 Lots
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.7

Application No:	DA0111/14
Property Details:	100 Eton Road, Lindfield – UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus Lot & DP No: Lot 1, DP 1151638; Proposed Lot 6 DP 270770 Site area: 1.89ha Zoning: R1 – General Residential; R2 – Low Density Residential
Ward:	Roseville
Proposal/Purpose:	The purpose of the report is to determine the subdivision of Precinct 1 into 13 lots, consistent with the development pattern envisaged under MP06_0130.
Type of Consent:	Integrated – S.100B Rural Fires Act 1997
Applicant:	Defence Housing Australia
Owner:	Defence Housing Australia
Date Lodged:	1 April 2014
Recommendation:	Approval

Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to determine the subdivision of Precinct 1 into 13 lots, consistent with the development pattern envisaged under MP06_0130. It should be noted that Council previously approved an identical subdivision under DA0442/12 on 5 February 2013. However, that consent lapsed, as the applicant failed to satisfy the terms of the deferred commencement consent within the specified time frame (being that the subdivision associated with DA0677/11 had to be finalised and registered with the Department of Lands within 12 months). As the previous approval has lapsed, a new development application was lodged with Council.

integrated planning and reporting

PLACES, SPACES & INFASTRUCTURE

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai

Applications are assessed in accordance with State and local plans

Assessments are of high quality, accurate and consider all relevant legislative requirements

Executive Summary

In 2008, the NSW Minister for Planning under the now repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 granted consent for a Concept plan that facilitated redevelopment of the UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus for medium density residential development of up to 345 dwellings in the form of apartments, attached dwellings (townhouses) and detached single dwellings.

Council at its meeting of 26 June 2012, determined DA0677/11 which represented the first application for development on site, pursuant to the development scheme envisaged under Concept Approval MP06_0130. Subsequent to DA0677/11, Council also approved a DA for a residential flat building on site being DA0270/12.

The application before Council seeks to further subdivide an allotment of land created under the initial subdivision of the site under DA0677/11. Precinct 1 (or Lot 6 in the subdivision of DA0677/11) in the Concept Approval contains lots for the following:

· 10 dwelling houses

· 2 storey residential flat building

· 12 small dwelling houses

This subdivision application seeks to create the 10 lots for the dwelling houses, a dedicated allotment for the residential flat building, a ‘super lot’ for the future small lot dwelling houses and a dedicated lot for the road. Precinct 1 will be a Community Subdivision arrangement and the roadway servicing the allotments will be a private road.

The proposed development is assessed as being satisfactory for the site and is generally consistent with the Part 3A Concept Approval as required.

History

Site

In 1967, work began on the initial stages of what is today UTS Ku-ring-gai. Following construction in several stages, the site reached its current capacity and configuration in the mid 1980’s.

After failed rezoning attempts in the early parts of the 2000’s, the Minister for Planning announced on 12 December 2005 that the NSW Department of Planning would consider the subject site as a state significant site and on 14 June 2007 declared a Major Project under the now repealed Part 3A of the EP&A Act for the site’s redevelopment. A Concept plan for the site’s redevelopment was subsequently lodged. On 11 June 2008, the Minister for Planning approved Concept plan MP06_0130 and at this time also gazetted amendments to Schedule 3 of SEPP (Major Development) 2005 which established the necessary planning framework for the redevelopment of the UTS Ku-ring-gai site.

The Concept Approval (Annexure B) has undergone 4 modifications, with these modifications mostly addressing errors within the Concept Approval’s conditions. Although the second and third modifications to the Concept Approval addressed errors, it also changed to a degree the approved concept, including the reconfiguration of Precincts 2 & 3, facilitated the retention of the University’s gym and footbridge and also included the realignment of zone boundaries to improve the future configuration of the development. The changes also included amendments to SEPP (Major Development) 2005 to enable demolition and subdivision on site that had otherwise been overlooked by the Department. The most recent modification considered by the Department redistributed dwelling yields throughout the site and re-aligned building footprints to be consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines.

To that end, the Concept Approval currently consents to the following:

· retention and adaptive reuse of the main campus building for either an educational or commercial use, subject to separate approval

· provision of a 9,800sqm soccer field and 300sqm of community space to be dedicated to Ku-ring-gai Council

· dedication of 34,570sqm of bushland to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service

· new residential development ranging from detached single dwellings to 5 storey residential flat buildings for a maximum of 345 dwellings. The ratio of this is broken down into 10 single lot dwellings, 25 integrated dwellings (or townhouses) and 310 apartments

· a street and pedestrian network that extends and integrates with the existing streets and footpaths

· asset protection zones for bushfire management

The current application is derived from the development scheme within the Concept Approval. As the Minister’s Approval is for a concept only, the detail necessary to successfully realise a large scale brown field development of this capacity necessitates a series of further development applications. Council has the delegation to determine these under the provisions of the Concept Approval and the special development provisions of the KPSO (which were recently migrated to it from the Major Development SEPP by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure).

It should be noted that Council previously approved to an identical subdivision under DA0442/12 on 5 February 2013. However, that consent has lapsed and a new development application was lodged with Council.

An assessment of the current Development Application against the Concept Approval is provided in this report.

Pre-DA

No Pre-DA was held in respect of this application.

DA History

1 April 2014 – Application lodged

4 April 2014 – Application notified

14 May 2014 – RFS concurrence issued

The Site

Site description

Visual character study category:	Post 1968
Easements/rights of way:	Yes – various drainage easements and rights of way
Heritage Item:	Yes – Local
Heritage conservation area:	No
In the vicinity of a heritage item:	No
Bush fire prone land:	Yes
Endangered species:	Yes – Darwina biflora; Red Crowned Toadlet
Urban bushland:	Yes
Contaminated land:	No

The subject site is known as 100 Eton Road, Lindfield (comprising Lot 1 DP 1151638), known commonly as UTS Ku-ring-gai. The University still occupies and operates from the site.

The UTS Ku-ring-gai campus is a 20.8ha parcel of land which is bounded by the Lane Cove National Park to the east, south and west and residential development in the suburb of Lindfield to the north.

The portion of the site being redeveloped is the northern section of the site, with the existing university buildings to remain. The resultant developable portion of the site is 13.68ha and includes bushland which surrounds the UTS campus buildings, car parking areas dedicated to the campus, sporting facilities (including oval and tennis courts), a childcare centre as well as associated internal roads.

The site is located within the catchments of College, Sugarbag and Blue Gum Creeks, which are tributaries of the Lane Cove River, flowing into Sydney Harbour. Topographically, the already developed portions of the site are on sandstone plateaus, which fall away to steep, heavily vegetated gullies. Vegetation communities vary with the topography and aspect of the site and include vegetation communities of Heath-leaved Banksia / Scribbly Gum closed bushland; Sydney Red Gum Forest; Sydney Red Gum / Sydney Peppermint Forest / Red Bloodwood Open Forest. These communities support known threatened species including Darwina biflora, Pseudophyrne australis – Red crowned toadlet and Ninox strenua – Powerful owl.

The developable portion of the site has been broken up into a series of land zonings under KPSO to facilitate its redevelopment. Attachment A highlights the various zones established by the KPSO (derived from the Major Development SEPP), as well as the site’s spatial setting.

The aerial photograph below details the part of the site being subdivided under this application:

Surrounding Development

The UTS Ku-ring-gai site is located on the periphery of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area and is bounded, with the exception of the northern part of the site, by the Lane Cove National Park. The land to the north of the site accommodates low density residential development located along Winchester, Lyle and Kimo Streets. The Film Australia site (101 Eton Road) is located in the middle of the UTS site and effectively divides the north into two blocks. Historically, surrounding development has been undertaken to respond to the varying topography of the surrounding area. The aerial photograph below (Figure 1) highlights surrounding development patterns within the vicinity of the UTS Ku-ring-gai site.

Figure 1

The Proposal

The development proposed is for a ‘paper subdivision’ to create the following lots under a community title scheme:

· Lot 1 – for the community road servicing Precinct 1

· Lots 2 to 11 – for the detached housing within Precinct 1

· Lot 12 – for the residential flat building approved under DA0270/12

· Lot 13 – super lot for the future small lot housing within Precinct 1.

The subdivision does not include any physical works, as these were all undertaken as part of the works associated with DA0677/11, which are now been completed.

The extract from the submitted plans details the lots to be created:

Consultation

Community

The application was notified to surrounding residents for a period of 14 days (4 April to 18 April 2014), as required by Council’s Notification DCP 56. No submissions were made to Council during the notification period.

Within Council

Engineering:

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer. Due to the minor nature of the subdivision and that no physical works were proposed, no issues were raised with the proposal, subject to conditions (Conditions 4, 6 and 10).

Landscaping:

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer. The following comments were provided:

Site characteristics

The site falls to the north and west from the existing carpark. The site supports an area of bushland that back onto residential properties. Lot 2 adjoins the Asset Protection Zone (APZ). Lot 11 adjoins Screen Australia

Tree impacts

No physical works are proposed as part of this development.

Bushfire

All lots are required to be maintained as Inner Protection Areas in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Conclusion

The proposal is considered acceptable. No landscape conditions are required.

Ecology:

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer considered the proposed subdivision, as well as the associated management plans from the Concept Approval. In the case of the identified areas of Darwina Biflora and habitat for the red-crowned toadlet, the management and protection practices proposed are assessed as being satisfactory and consistent with the framework established as part of the Major Project assessment.

Outside Council

Rural Fire Service:

As the proposed development application represents subdivision of bushfire prone plan, pursuant of S.100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, the development is integrated development. The application was referred to the Rural Fire Service, who provided concurrence, subject to the following conditions being imposed (Condition 3):

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel

loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

1. At the issue of subdivision certificate and in perpetuity the entire property of Precinct 1 shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the risk of fire to a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

2. Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for

Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Access

The intent of measures for public roads is to provide safe operational access to structures and water supply for emergency services, while residents are seeking to evacuate from an area. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

3. Public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Statutory Provisions

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19- Urban Bushland

The provisions of SEPP 19 require consideration of the impact of development, where development adjoins a bushland reserve for public open space purposes, as is the case in this instance.

In accordance with SEPP 19 (clause 9), the consent authority must not grant consent on land unless it has taken into account:

(c) the need to retain any bushland on the land,

(d) the effect of the proposed development on bushland zoned or reserved for public open space purposes and, in particular, on the erosion of soils, the siltation of streams and waterways and the spread of weeds and exotic plants within the bushland, and

(e) any other matters which, in the opinion of the approving or consent authority, are relevant to the protection and preservation of bushland zoned, or reserved for public open space purposes

The bushland areas on site are for the purposes of SEPP 19 urban bushland areas.

The Concept Approval assessment and its accompanying conditions placed an important emphasis upon the retention of bushland on site, which required the preparation and implementation of detailed landscape, threatened species, weed, vegetation and bushfire management plans. Having these plans in place for perpetuity will ensure the integrity of the remaining bushland which will adjoin the Edgelea development once completed. In this regard, the development is assessed as satisfying the matters for consideration called up by SEPP 19.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

Matters for consideration under SEPP 2005 include biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection, public access to and scenic qualities of foreshores and waterways, maintenance of views, control of boat facilities and maintenance of a working harbour. The proposal is in close proximity to and in view of the Lane Cove river, however, adequate measures have been incorporated into the Concept Approval to ensure that the ecological and biodiversity values of the site are protected and that the scenic quality of the site when viewed from the river is maintained. This includes the protection of significant vegetation upon the site and carefully considered placement of built form.

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

The UTS Ku-ring-gai site is burdened below ground by a land dedication for the Epping to Chatswood rail line. This rail line is contained within a tunnel that extends up to 90 metres below the surface of the site.

Clause 86 of the Infrastructure SEPP requires that where development is proposed within 25 metres (horizontally) of the rail corridor (which is the case in this instance), if excavation associated with the development is to extend 2 metres below ground level, the development is to be referred to Railcorp for its consideration and concurrence.

Works associated with the subdivision do not involve excavation below ground level of more than 2m within 25 metres of the rail corridor. In this respect, the development does not trigger referral to Railcorp under the SEPP.

Further, the development is otherwise satisfactory with regard to the considerations prompted by the SEPP.

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance

In its declaration as a Major Project and issue of a Concept Approval, the redevelopment of the UTS Ku-ring-gai was also supported by a series of controls and zoning pursuant of SEPP (Major Development) 2005. At the time, the site was declared a State Significant Site. Schedule 3, Part 30 of the SEPP dealt specifically with the UTS Ku-ring-gai site, establishing a series of controls for this site. However, on 21 December 2012, the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure approved an amendment to the KPSO which migrated these controls from the SEPP to the KPSO.

The following Clauses of the KPSO are relevant to the assessment of the application:

26W Application of Part

(1) This Part applies to the land identified on the Land Application Map, referred to in the Part as the UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus site.

(2) No other provisions of this Ordinance apply to the UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus site.

The application has only been considered against the specific controls for the UTS Ku-ring-gai campus site and not the rest of the controls and considerations of the KPSO.

26ZH – Subdivision-consent requirements

Land within the UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus site maybe subdivided, but only with development consent.

Subdivision is being sought, subject to consent being issued, satisfying the requirements of Clause 26ZH.

Draft Ku-ring-gal Local Environmental Plan 2013

The Draft Ku-ring-gal Local Environmental Plan 2013 essentially seeks to convert the controls of the KPSO into a format and structure consistent with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Standard Instrument template.

As the redevelopment of the UTS site is facilitated through a Part 3A Concept Approval, the site benefits from specialist planning controls that apply only to the site. As mentioned earlier, these controls originated in the Major Projects SEPP and were migrated to the KPSO.

These controls and the extent of development facilitated by them carry over to the draft KLEP. Subsequently, the proposed subdivision is assessed as being satisfactory and consistent with the controls of the draft KLEP.

Concept Approval MP06_130

The function of the Concept Approval is to give in-principle approval for the redevelopment of the UTS Ku-ring-gai site. This approval gives the developer certainty with regards to the redevelopment potential of the site, what portions of the site are developable and what further work needs to be done to realise the development envisaged under the Concept Approval.

The Concept Approval requires that the final composition of the development be generally consistent with the terms of the Concept Approval as well as the preparation of specific management plans and further studies, the timing of which is dependant on the delivery of the development.

The subdivision of the site at this time essentially prepares the site for development consistent with the Concept Approval, however as it is the first stage of the development, certain conditions of the Concept Approval are to be satisfied with, or prior to the first development application. In this regard, the following conditions of the Concept Approval are relevant:

Schedule 2 – Terms of approval and modifications – UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus

A1. Development description

(1) Except as modified by this Consent, Concept Plan approval is granted only to the carrying out of development solely within the Concept Plan area as described in the document titled Preferred Project Report and Statement of Commitments UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus Lindfield, SEPP Major Projects and Concept Plan Volumes 1 and 2 dated February 2008 and prepared by JBA Planning Consultants and DEM Architects.

The proposed subdivision creates residential lots consistent with the layout for residential lots shown on the Concept Approval. This application is considered to be in accordance with the terms of Condition A1.

A2. Development in accordance with plans and documentation

(1) Except as modified by this approval, the development shall generally be in accordance with the following plans and documentation (including any appendices therein):

(a) Preferred Project Report and Statement of Commitments UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus Lindfield, SEPP Major Projects and Concept Plan Volumes 1 and 2 dated February 2008 and prepared by JBA Planning Consultants and DEM Architects;

(b) Modification report by JBA Urban Planning Consultants dated February 2010 and its revised appendices, including University of Technology Sydney Ku-ring-gai Campus State Significant Site Amendment Concept Plan, DEM, April 2010, letter from JBA Urban Planning Consultants dated 24 March 2010 and its attachments; and

(c) Modification report by JBA Urban Planning Consultants dated 26 July 2011 and its appendices.

The application to Council was considered against the plans and associated documentation listed within Condition A2. Of particular note is satisfaction of the proposed development (and application) with the matters specified within the Statement of Commitments. Council‘s assessment of the development against the relevant sections of the Statement of Commitments concludes that the proposal is consistent with the commitments made by the proponent at the time that the Concept Approval was granted. A detailed assessment of the proposed development against the required criteria is provided in Annexure C.

B13. Contributions

(1) The Proponent shall enter into arrangements for the transfer of that land identified in the additional commitments provided by the Proponent by letter dated 13 May 2008 in accordance with those commitments, including:

(a) a minimum 9,800sqm of land for an adult sized soccer field and curtilage to Council;

(b) 300sqm for a community facility to Council is to be located in the Zone RE1 Public Recreation within the site as agreed with Council; and

(c) land zoned E1 to DECC

Note: these items will be in lieu of s.94 Contributions in future applications

(2) The land identified in B13(1)(a),(b) and (c) above is to be transferred to the State or Council (as indicated above) at no cost to Council.

(3) Arrangements for the transfer of land identified in:

(a) B13(1)(a) is to occur in accordance with the provisions in the Voluntary Planning Agreement between the landowner and Council;

(b) B13(1)(b) is to occur in accordance with the provisions in the Voluntary Planning Agreement between the landowner and the Council; and

(c) B13(1)(c) is to occur prior to or with the first application for development on the site.

(4) Internal roads must be dedicated to Council, in the event that Council are unwilling to accept this dedication, a positive covenant must be placed on the title of that land to allow public access.

(5) The dedication referred to in (4) above shall not apply to the internal roads associated with the curtilage of the existing educational establishment, if used for continual educational purposes, as reflected in documentation referred to in condition A2(1)(b) Part A, Schedule 2 of this approval.

Council resolved to enter into the required Voluntary Planning Agreement within DA0677/11, on 26 June 2012, and therefore no Section 94 developer contributions will be payable.

B14. Dedication and management of roads

(1) The proponent is to dedicate, in accordance with any Council requirements, the road entrance to the Site from the end of the public road to the sports oval and car parking area and bus stop to allow for public access.

(2) The dedication referred to in (1) shall be undertaken in accordance with the provision in the Voluntary Planning Agreement between the landowner and the Council.

The subdivision proposed in Precinct 1 will depend on private roads, controlled and managed by the associated Community Subdivision. As Council accepted the required dedication of roads as part of DA0677/11, Condition B14 has already been satisfied and does not form part of this application.

Schedule 3 – Future applications

A1. Further approvals and the carrying out of works / activities

(1) Where future development is subject to Part 4 or Part 5 of the Act, the consent authority must only determine future applications for development where they are consistent with the terms of approval of Concept Plan No. 06_0130 as described in Part A of Schedule 1 and subject to the modifications of approval set out in Part A and B of Schedule 2 and 3.

(2) In accordance with section 75P(2)(a1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, future applications for approval must comply with the following conditions.

A2. Design guidelines

(1) Future development applications are to be in accordance with the design guidelines referred to on page 2 of the revised Statement of Commitments.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines (UDG’s), the assessment against which is contained further in this report.

Edgelea Urban Design Guidelines

Condition B1 of the Concept Approval required prior to the first application being determined by Council that the applicant, to Council’s satisfaction, prepared detailed design guidelines to be used to inform and guide the development of the site. The UDG’s have been prepared and adopted by Council. The following assessment against the relevant sections of the UDG’s is provided:

2.3.1 Site layout and building controls

Controls – Precinct 1

The indicative location of dwelling house types DH1-1 to DH1-3 is shown below in Figure 2.3.1-2. The minimum lot size is to be 583m². The minimum lot frontage is to be 22m excluding corner lots.

The subdivision proposes 13 lots as follows –

· 10 lots for residential development

· 1 super lot for future residential integrated housing (shown above to be indicatively subdivided)

· 1 lot for the residential flat building approved under DA0270/12

· 1 lot for the private road, servicing the proposed allotments.

The submitted subdivision layout for the 13 allotments is consistent with the Edgelea Urban Design Guidelines.

With regard to the other controls of Clause 2.3.1, the 10 dwelling house allotments are ≥ 583m²in area and have frontages (where they are not on a street corner) of ≥ 22m. The development is therefore assessed as satisfying the applicable parts of the Edgelea Urban Design Guidelines.

Process of subdivision:

An important note pertinent to this subdivision is that the lot being subdivided, Lot 6, is yet to be formally registered. Lot 6 exists by virtue of the subdivision approved pursuant of DA0677/11, however has not been formally created as it is not registered with the Department of Lands. Until such time that the lot is formally registered (along with the rest of the lots created under DA0677/11), it will be necessary that this application be approved on a deferred commencement basis requiring proof of registration of the subdivision with the Department of Lands prior to the issue of an operational consent, as land cannot be subdivided that is yet to be legally created, despite the lot to be subdivided existing pursuant of a development consent.

Once this occurs the development consent becomes operable.

Subdivision Code

The allotments created by this application are consistent with the scope of development that is envisaged under the Concept Approval. The allotment boundaries proposed reflect the different development precincts established under the Concept Approval.

The proposed lots will all have access to a private road which has been sized for the likely traffic flows and vehicles likely to access them, including Council’s waste vehicles. The areas of these allotments range from 583m²for the smallest single residential lot to 4,269 m²being the super lot for the future integrated housing (which Council will consider separately). It is noted that the proposed lots are less than the minimum lot sizes specified by Council’s Subdivision Code, however, these lots are consistent with the sizes of the lots for the Concept Plan and consistent with the sizing and layout of the UDG’s.

Similarly, the environmental considerations prompted by Council’s Subdivision Code have been dealt with extensively within the Major Project Assessment, with the protection and enhancement of the environmentally sensitive areas of the site covered in the many associated management plans.

As the subdivision is a ‘paper’ subdivision in that it does not involve any construction or works, no trees are to be removed. Once the lots subject of this subdivision are created, any future development on those lots which requires tree removal will be considered on a case by case basis.

The public reserve requirements of Council’s Subdivision Code have been provided for and accommodated as part of the works associated DA0677/11. As that application (required by the Concept Approval), included the construction of a 9,800m² soccer oval which is dedicated to Council, that oval will serve as a public reserve requirements for the entire UTS redevelopment envisaged by the Concept Plan. In this regard the public reserve requirements of the UDG’s have been satisfied.

The development satisfies the requirements of Council’s Subdivision Code.

Section 94 Plan

Unlike other subdivisions considered by Council, this subdivision or for that matter the entire development does not attract a contribution pursuant of Council’s S94 plan, as the requirements for such are dealt with via Condition B13 of the Concept Approval and the associated Voluntary Planning Agreement (discussed elsewhere in this report). Condition B13 of Concept Approval MP06_0130 states:

…..B13. Contributions

(6) The proponent shall enter into arrangements for the transfer of that land identified in the additional commitments provided by the Proponent by letter dated 13 May 2008 in accordance with those commitments, including:

(a) a minimum 9,800sqm of land for an adult soccer field and curtilage to Council;

(b) 300sqm for a community facility to Council to be located in the Zone RE1 Public Recreation within the site as agreed with Council, and;

(c) land zoned E1 to the DECC

Note: These items will be in lieu of s.94 contributions in future applications……

(3) Arrangements for the transfer of land identified in:

(a) B13(1)(a) is to occur in accordance with the provisions of the Voluntary Planning Agreement between the landowner and the Council;

(b) B13(b) is to occur in accordance with the provisions in the Voluntary Planning Agreement between the landowner and the Council…..

Pursuant to the terms of Condition B13, the appropriate transfer to Council of the required lands has been covered within the associated Voluntary Planning Agreement, which Council resolved to enter into on 26 June 2012. Therefore, the application is not subject to Council’s Contributions Plan.

Likely Impacts

As the proposed development is a ‘paper subdivision’ with no physical works and as it is generated from the development envisaged under Concept Approval MP06_0130, the proposal is assessed as having an acceptable impact upon the surrounding natural, social, economic and built environments.

Suitability of the Site

The site is assessed as being suitable for the proposed development, noting the extent of development facilitated pursuant of Concept Approval MP06_0130.

Public Interest

The approval of the proposed subdivision is considered to be in the public interest as discussed in the body of the report.

Conclusion

Having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is considered satisfactory. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved.

Recommendation:

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant a deferred development consent to DA0111/14, for the community title subdivision of proposed Lot 6 into 13 lots, on land at 100 Eton Road, Lindfield, subject to the matters listed in Schedule A being satisfied within 12 months of a date of determination, and subject to conditions in Schedule B for a period of two (2) years from the date of the satisfaction of Schedule A, consistent with the following:

Schedule A: Deferred Commencement - Terms to be satisfied prior to the consent operating

The following deferred commencement terms must be complied with to the satisfaction of Council within 12 months of the date of this deferred commencement consent, prior to the issue of an operational development consent:

The subdivision created pursuant of DA0677/11 shall be registered with the Department of Lands. Proof of registration of this subdivision with the Department of Lands shall be provided to Council prior to the issue of an operational consent.

Schedule B: Conditions of development consent

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
Draft Precinct 1 Surveyors Ref: G243-DP2	Peter William Vandergraaf	27.08.2012

Document(s)	Dated
Bush fire risk assessment and certification, prepared by Ecological - Precinct 1B only	25 October 2012

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

2. Inconsistency between documents

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Subdivision certificate:

3. Rural Fire Service requirements

Asset Protection Zones

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

Water and Utilities

2. Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Access

3. Public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

4. Easement for waste collection

Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, an easement for waste collection is to be created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. This is to permit legal access for Council, Council’s contractors and their vehicles over the subject property for the purpose of collecting waste from the property. The terms of the easement are to be generally in accordance with Council’s draft terms for an easement for waste collection and shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer.

Reason: To permit legal access for Council, Council’s contractors and their vehicles over the subject site for waste collection.

5. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate

Prior to release of the linen plan/issue of the subdivision certificate, the Section 73 Sydney Water compliance certificate which refers to the subdivision application must be obtained and submitted to the Council.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

6. Provision of services

Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, separate underground electricity, gas and phone or appropriate conduits for the same, must be provided to each allotment to the satisfaction of the utility provider. A suitably qualified and experienced engineer or surveyor is to provide certification that all new lots have ready underground access to the services of electricity, gas and phone. Alternatively, a letter from the relevant supply authorities stating the same may be submitted to satisfy this condition.

Reason: Access to public utilities.

7. Issue of Subdivision Certificate

The Subdivision Certificate must not be issued until all conditions of development consent have been satisfied.

Reason: To ensure that the development is completed prior to transfer of responsibility for the site and development to another person.

8. Submission of 88b instrument

Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the applicant must submit an original instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act with the plan of subdivision, plus six (6) copies to Council. Ku-ring-gai Council must be named as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify the burdens.

Reason: To create all required easements, rights-of-carriageway, positive covenants, restrictions-on-use or other burdens/benefits as may be required.

9. Submission of plans of subdivision

For endorsement of the subdivision certificate, the applicant shall submit an original plan of subdivision plus 6 copies, suitable for endorsement by Council. The following details must be submitted with the plan of subdivision and its copies:

a) the endorsement fee current a the time of lodgement

b) the 88B instrument plus 6 copies

c) a copy of the final compliance certificate issued for DA0677/11

d) all surveyor’s and/or consulting engineers’ certification(s) required under this subdivision consent

e) The Section 73 (Sydney Water) Compliance Certificate for the subdivision.

Council will check the consent conditions on the subdivision. Failure to submit the required information will delay endorsement of the linen plan and may require payment of rechecking fees. Plans and copies of subdivision must not be folded. Council will not accept bonds in lieu of completing subdivision works.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

10. General easement/R.O.W. provision and certification

Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, a registered surveyor is to provide details to Council that all physical structures are fully contained within the proposed allotments or will be fully covered by the proposed burdens upon registration of the final plan of subdivision. Alternatively, where the surveyor is of the opinion that creation of burdens and benefits is not required, then proof to this effect must be submitted to Council.

This condition includes the interallotment stormwater drainage easement along the rear of Lots 5 to 11.

Reason: To ensure that all physical structures are fully contained within the proposed allotments or will be fully covered by the proposed burdens upon registration of the final plan of subdivision.

Adam Richardson

Executive Assessment Officer

Selwyn Segall

Team Leader - Development Assessment North

Corrie Swanepoel

Manager Development Assessment Services

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:	A1 View	A1 - Zoning Map	2014/105116
	A2 View	A2 - Submittors Map	2014/105114
	A3 View	B - Concept Approval	2012/147981
	A4 View	C - Statement of Commitments	2012/308526
	A5 View	D - Plan of Subdivision	2014/080584

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.8 / 195

Item GB.8	MOD0152/13
	24 April 2014

development application

Summary Sheet

Report title:	3-7 Porters Lane St Ives - Modification to DA0178/10 proposing amendments to approved residential flat building including four additional units
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.8

Application No:	MOD0152/13
Property Details:	3-7 Porters Lane St Ives Lot & DP No: Lot 1 DP 1182462 Site area (m²): 4258m² Zoning: R4 High Density Residential
Ward:	St Ives
Proposal/Purpose:	Modifications to DA0178/10 for a residential flat building, including provision of four additional units.
Applicant:	Dugald Mackenzie
Owner:	New Hong Kong Macau Australian Pty Ltd
Date Lodged:	16 September 2013
Recommendation:	Approval

Purpose of Report

To determine Section 96 Modification No. 152/13 for modifications to Development Consent No. 178/10 for a residential flat building, including provision of four additional units.

This matter has been called to full Council for determination by Councillor Ossip.

Executive Summary

Issues:	Urban design

Submissions:	Five (5) submissions received

Land and Environment Court:	N/A

Recommendation:	Approval

History

Site

The site was previously zoned ‘Residential 2(c)’ under the KPSO.

On 25 May 2010, Ku-ring-gai LEP (Town Centres) 2010 was gazetted, rezoning the site to R4 – High Density Residential.

In July 2011 LEP (Town Centres) 2010 was declared invalid and the relevant Planning Instrument reverted back to the KPSO.

Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 was gazetted and became effective 8 February 2013. Under Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012, the site was rezoned to R4 – High Density Residential.

On 7 June 2013, Local Centres DCP came into effect.

Development application history:

DA0178/10

Development Application No. 178/10 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a five storey residential flat building was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on 22 December 2010.

The approved residential flat building comprises 57 units and two levels of basement car parking. The car parking comprises 85 spaces in total (70 resident spaces and 15 visitor spaces). The approved residential flat building consists of two “wings”, with a centrally located breezeway through the ground and first floors.

Vehicular access to the development is via Porters Lane. Pedestrian access is via a single pathway from Porters Lane, with two separate entrances to wings A and B within the undercroft area.

The approved development includes communal open space within the undercroft area and in the rear south-western corner of the site.

Pre-DA

No pre-lodgement meeting concerning the proposed modifications was held.

S96 Application History

· 16 September 2013 – The application was lodged with Council.

· 24 September – 23 October 2013 – The application was notified to the owners and occupants of surrounding properties.

· 24 September 2013 – The applicant was asked to provide additional information concerning owner’s consent.

· 27 September 2013 – Clarification concerning owner’s consent was received.

· 28 November 2013 - The applicant was asked to provide amended plans addressing the following matters: unit labelling, glazing of balconies, design of studies, storage areas, details of timber shade structure, inconsistencies in plans, location of lifts, principle and ground floor entries, external finishes, tree impacts, BASIX, landscape details, car parking numbers and driveway ramp details.

· 27 February 2014 – Amended architectural, landscape and BASIX plans were received.

· 26 March 2014 – The applicant was asked to provide amended plans concerning the following matters: accessibility, light and ventilation to lobbies, number of adaptable units, inconsistencies in plans and shade structure details.

· 15 April 2014 – Amended architectural plans were received.

· 24 April 2014 – The applicant was asked to provide amended plans due to a conflict between the proposed visitor spaces and the on-site detention system in the basement.

· 6 May 2014 – Amended architectural plans were received.

The Site

Site Description

The site is located on the southern side of Porters Lane, St Ives. The site is irregular in shape, with a frontage of 79.57 metres to Porters Lane and a depth varying between 64.99 metres (western boundary) and 48.77 metres (eastern boundary). The total site area is 4258m².

The site is generally flat, with a crossfall of 1.18 metres from the north-western (front) corner to the south-eastern (rear) corner.

The site contains several dwellings and ancillary structures which have been partially demolished.

Figure 1: Aerial photograph of the subject and surrounding sites

Surrounding Development

The adjoining property to the south (rear) is a battleaxe allotment known as No. 9 Porters Lane, St Ives. This property is listed as an item of local heritage significance under the Local Centres LEP.

The adjoining properties to the west are known as Nos. 169-173 Rosedale Road and contain detached dwelling houses. These sites are zoned Residential R4 – High Density Residential under Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012.

To the south-west of the site is No.165-167 Rosedale Road where a residential flat building is currently under construction.

To the north of Porters Lane (opposite the site) are two storey dwelling houses on land zoned R4 – High Density Residential. This development is known as ‘Eden Brae.’

The Proposal

Under the provisions of section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, approval is sought to modify the approved development as follows:

i. Construction of an additional four units in the central portion of the building, comprising two units at ground floor level and two units at first floor level. The additional units are two bedroom units with associated living and courtyard space on the northern side of the dwelling.

ii. Construction of two pedestrian entry points from Porters Lane with associated entrance paths to the building.

iii. Reconfiguration of the entry foyers and relocation of the lift at all floor levels of the building.

iv. Modification of the windows on all elevations of the building.

v. Provision of separate entrances for ground floor units.

vi. Modifications to the ground floor courtyards.

vii. Creation of additional terrace areas over the roof space.

viii. Internal design changes to various units and modifications to the unit mix

ix. Amendments to the terraces.

x. Provision of an additional car parking space.

Amended plans received 27 February 2014

The amended plans proposed the following changes to the application:

· provision of unit labeling in accordance with the approved development

· provision of details concerning the quantum of storage

· provision of separate entrances to ground floor units

· deletion of doors to studies (as per conditions of consent of Development Application No.0178/10)

· changes to lift design to improve visibility from the entrance door

· provision of notations concerning opaque glazing to south-facing balconies (as per conditions of consent of Development Application No.0178/10)

Amended plans received 6 March 2014

Amended landscape plans were received by Council on 6 March 2014.

Amended plans received 15 April 2014

The amended plans proposed the following changes to the application:

· additional information concerning accessibility and lobby design

· provision of an additional accessible unit

· correction of errors on plans

Consultation

Community

In accordance with the notification provisions of the local centres DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response, submissions from the following were received:

1. Mr J. and Mrs E. Currie – No. 171 Rosedale Road, ST IVES

2. Mrs J. P. Skinner – No. 22 Stanley Close, ST IVES

3. Mr B. P. and Mrs M. R. Hefron – No. 18 Stanley Close, ST IVES

4. Mr R. A. Johnson – No. 24 Stanley Close, ST IVES

5. Neighbourhood Association “Eden Brae” – c/- Mr W. Simpson, Secretary – No. 3 Stanley Close, ST IVES

Objection to additional units

The amended proposal complies with Council’s requirements with regard to floor space ratio, building setbacks and car parking provision. The design of the amended proposal is also considered satisfactory from an urban design perspective.

Additional parking spaces should be provided

The proposed development, as amended, complies with Council’s car parking requirements under Local Centres Development Control Plan.

Existing parking and traffic problems in Porters Lane

Porters Lane is a narrow two-way street. Concern has been raised with regard to the parking which currently occurs within the street. Concern has also been raised with regard to the amount of through traffic which currently utilises Porters Lane.

Council’s Development Engineer has not raised any concerns and is satisfied that the proposal complies with all relevant controls. It should be noted that Council’s long term traffic scheme includes modification to Porters Lane (between Lynbara Avenue and Rosedale Road) so that it becomes one way east- bound. The timing of this will depend on future modification of the intersection of Mona Vale Road/Memorial Avenue/Rosedale Road and will be closely linked to key redevelopments in the St Ives local centre, particularly the shopping centre. These measures will greatly improve traffic and parking in the long term.

Changes to traffic management within the St Ives local centre have also been included in Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan.

Traffic congestion during construction

Construction management was considered during assessment of Development Application No. 178/10. The proposed amendment will not result in any additional traffic impacts during construction. Management of traffic during construction will be controlled by the Construction and Traffic Management Plan which is required to be submitted to Council prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Access to garbage bins in Porters Lane

Concern has been raised that the proposed development will cause overnight parking in Porters Lane and will therefore restrict access to the garbage bins belonging to residents in Eden Brae.

The proposed modification complies with Council’s car parking requirements and contains sufficient on-site car parking for residents and visitors. It is not considered that it will result in an increase in on-street car parking.

Proposal should be lodged as a new development application

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows a consent authority to modify a consent if it is satisfied that consent, as modified, is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

In this instance, the approved development was for a residential flat building. The proposed modifications are for design changes and provision of an additional four units.

The proposed units are within the approved building footprint and do not result in any changes to building setbacks or building height. The proposed modifications will not result in any additional impacts with regard to traffic, privacy, solar access, visual bulk or privacy. The proposed modifications are therefore considered to result in substantially the same development as that which was approved.

Lack of articulation and elimination of breezeway

Council’s Urban Design Consultant has reviewed the proposed development and considers the proposed amendments to be acceptable. The proposed amendments do not result in any increase in building length nor do they alter the height of the building. Further, Council’s Urban Design Consultant supports the provision of two separate building entries and entry paths as this will create more opportunities for engagement with the street.

Amended plans received 27 February, 6 March and 15 April 2014

The amended plans were not notified to owners of surrounding properties as the amendments proposed in these plans would not result in a greater environmental impact than the original proposal.

Within Council

Landscaping

Council's Landscape and Tree Assessment Officer commented on the amended proposal as follows:

Plans/reports sighted

*Plan/document*	*Designer*	*Drawing No.*	*Date*
Architectural	Mackenzie Architects	SK000A- SK007B, SK009A - SK015B	31/01/14
Deep Soil Landscape Diagram	Mackenzie Architects	SD02/A	14/05/13
Survey	Barry Green	8680	4/09/07
Landscape	Conzept Landscape Architects	LPDA14-262/1, LPDA 10-262/2, LPDA 10-235/4C	March 2014
Landscape Basix Plan	Conzept Landscape Architects	LPDA10-235/3F	September 2013
BASIX	Certificate no.	296465M_07	21/02/14
SOEE	Chapman Planning		11/09/13

Additional four units at the central portion of the building including two units at the ground level and first floor level

The modification to the building entrances and addition of two ground floor units has deleted a central common area that linked through to the rear of the site. As part of the assessment under DA0178/10, Council’s Urban Design Consultant required that the building be articulated and ‘densely planted with canopy trees to visually separate the two wings of the building’. The approved design was described by Council’s Urban Design Consultant as follows:

The central entry point, with recessed spaces in the front and rear of the building, creates sufficient articulation of the building to reduce its apparent length to less than 36 metres, in accordance with the DCP.

The two storey arcaded entry responds to the axis of the garden and heritage item to the rear. The view through the arcaded entry to the landscape beyond enhances the space of the garden.

The front area of articulation is proposed on the landscape plans as being used largely for private courtyards. To achieve the densely planted articulation as intended, the central courtyards were set back to create larger areas for shrub planting.

The proposed on-slab paved communal area located at the rear of the building provides effective planting that would assist in achieving building separation. The central planter has been enlarged to support a medium canopy tree.

Creation of two pedestrian entry points from Porters Lane instead of the single entry point

The proposed construction of the entry structure within the structural root zone of Tree 35 is to be supervised by the arborist in accordance with AS4970-2009 protection of trees on development sites. Additional conditions will be recommended to ensure supervision by a qualified arborist.

Creation of additional terrace areas over approved roof space

The proposal includes modification of private terraces on the penthouse level. There is no landscape objection to the modification in this regard.

The proposal also includes modification of private terraces on Level 3. There is no landscape objection to the modification in this regard.

Deep soil landscape area

An amended deep soil plan has been submitted indicating that the development provides 50.66% deep soil landscape area. This complies with the standard deep soil landscape area requirement of minimum 50% of the site area.

Site area = 4258m²

50% of site area = 2129m²

Area provided 50.66% = 2157m²

Areas to be excluded:

· Timber shade structure to BBQ (8m²).

· Proposed 375mm diam pipe to Porters Lane(4.5m²).

Excluding these areas, the proposal will still comply with the minimum deep soil requirement.

Basix

The Basix certificate nominates 200m² common area landscape that is to be indigenous/low water use species. This area of planting along western boundary has been nominated on the landscape plan.

The area of garden for the ground floor units is consistent with the certificate.

Stormwater plan

No changes are proposed to the approved stormwater plans.

Conclusion

The proposed modification is supported, subject to conditions.

Engineering

Council's Development Engineer commented on the proposal as follows:

The applicant has submitted drawings Revision E (except for SK003, still Revision B).

The basement carpark now provides 16 visitor parking spaces (including one accessible), and 70 resident spaces, including 7 accessible spaces. The allocation of spaces appears somewhat random, with some accessible spaces for Block A being adjacent to the Block B lift and vice versa.

To deal with this without the need for further modification, I recommend that Condition 40 be amended as follows:

Car parking allocation

Car parking within the development shall be allocated as shown on approved basement plans SK001E and SK002E, prepared by Mackenzie Architects, dated 28.04.2014, in the following way:

Resident car spaces	70 Residential
Visitor spaces	16 visitor
Total spaces	86 total

Each adaptable dwelling must be provided with car parking complying with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 – parking spaces for people with disabilities.

At least one visitor space shall also comply with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 – parking spaces for people with disabilities.

Consideration must be given to the means of access from disabled car parking spaces to other areas within the building and to footpath and roads and shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

To achieve this, it may be necessary to amend the allocation shown on the approved plans so that accessible spaces for Block A units are near the Block A lift and vice versa for Block B.

Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with federal legislation.

Condition 30 will require amendment to the adaptable unit numbers and Condition 41 to the number of bicycle spaces (now 20).

Urban Design

Council's Urban Design Consultant commented on the original modiification proposal as follows:

Introduction

This SEPP 65 review follows an application for modifications to the existing approved DA0178/10 for a 5-storey residential flat development at 3-7 Porters Lane, St Ives.

The site is within the St Ives Local Centre to the south east of the St Ives Village - a 5 minute level walk away.

Current approval is for the development of 57 units with basement car parking for 85 vehicles.

The sought modifications increase FSR (still within permitted maximums) and increases ground level building bulk but remains within the approved building footprint.

Principle 1 - Context

SEPP 65: Good design responds and contributes to its context

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies.

The modifications do not present any unacceptable impacts to the existing and future context of this precinct within the St Ives Local Centre.

The provision of separate building entries to Porters Lane is supported and will better contribute to the street engagement by spreading opportunities for pedestrian activity across the Porters Lane frontage. More detailed comment on this is made in Principle 7 Amenity as separate unit entries.

Presentation of the building to the street is not altered significantly from the approved development.

According to Council’s Heritage Advisor, the heritage item neighbouring the site to the south at No. 9 Porters Lane will not be impacted by the proposed modifications.

Opportunities to provide direct street entries to ground floor units has not been explored. The RFDC considers the role of direct entries as multi functional - from contributing to the streetscape engagement, adding to a desired urban character p60-61, and safety with opportunities for passive surveillance p56. This is a development that presents prime opportunities for engaging the ground level units to Porters Lane with a long street frontage, level site, northfacing that have not been pursued. In a development of this size with no constraints in this regard, it would be expected that such ground level street engagement would be provided.

Planner’s comment: This issue has been resolved by amended plans showing direct street entries for all north-facing ground floor units.

Principle 2 – Scale

SEPP 65: Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings. Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing transition proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

There are no significant impacts to bulk or height and is satisfactory.

The increase to floor space (344m²) is within permitted FSR of 1.3:1.

There are no issues of scale to the heritage item or to neighbouring properties.

Principle 3 - Built Form

SEPP 65: Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the buildings purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements

The built form is a response to both the regulatory controls and the neighbouring built fabric.

Built form retains the clear articulation of the two wings.

While the building mass has been altered, modifications are within the approved building footprint and are accepted as being appropriate.

The vertical expression of built form is repeated over 4 levels (although internal planning changes from ground to first floor) that results in an ambiguity in expression of the building base differentiated from the middle levels for the Porters Lane elevation. This is due in part to a possible intent to align openings/massing of upper floors with the ground floor layout.

This ambiguity is reinforced with the apparent arbitrary rationale for the placement of materials in the Porters Lane elevation. This results in materials appearing more for pattern-making in a horizontal plane across the facade rather than as an integral component in the compositional order of spatial relationships with internal planning (ground and upper levels) and an hierarchical ordering of architectural elements (living rooms, balconies, bedrooms and service rooms, solids and voids). There are opportunities to group elements vertically that have not been expressed that could have resulted in a more convincing contribution to the streetscape character.

It is to be noted that this has not been an issue this author is aware has been previously raised nor has it any material impact upon consideration of the amendments but should be considered in future proposals and in the preparation of the CC documents that may allow further design development.

Planner’s comment: Amended plans addressing the expression of built form have been submitted to Council. The amended plans incorporate changes to materials used on the lower level balconies, as well on the external wall planes. The proposal as amended better differentiates between the lower and upper levels of the building. The amended plans also show greater articulation of the two building entrances. Metal cladding and larger areas of glazing have been used to emphasise and articulate the building entrances. Council’s Urban Design Consultant has assessed the amended plans and considers them satisfactory in this respect.

Principle 4 - Density

SEPP 65: Good design has a density appropriate to its site and its context, in terms of floor space yields ( or numbers of units or residents)

Numbers of units have been increased with the unit mix slightly changing also. This can be supported.

Proposed floor space ratio is within the permitted 1.3:1 limit.

Principle 5 - Resources, Energy and Water Efficiency

SEPP 65: Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include…layouts and built form, passive solar design principles…..soil zones for vegetation and re-use of water.

The irregular shape of the allotment results in a significant area of the site on the south-west corner available to be allocated to communal open space. This is a rational decision that is supported.

It also enables an area of deep soil planting that can support large trees and contribute to the curtilage of the adjacent heritage item and assist with surface water management.

The provision of water harvesting and water re-use opportunities does not form part of this application. A general comment is that wherever possible, such initiatives should be implemented in combination with endemic planting (refer RFDC Water Conservation p97).

The site is quite level and has its long axis oriented east-west which optimises opportunities for providing north facing units.

As such, the majority of units are oriented favourably to north or east with an acceptable minority to south that are dual aspect. All single aspect units are oriented to north and consistent with the RFDC.

Proposing two lift lobbies is supported. However, both new lift lobbies are fully internalised with no prospect of natural light or ventilation. Common lift lobbies contribute greatly to the energy demand and life-time running costs of RFBs where 24-hr artificial light and ventilation is necessitated (refer RFDC Energy Efficiency objectives p93 in combination with Building Entries p60-61) and create the desired atmosphere for the development as each unit’s entry.

This is unacceptable in a new development where there are no site constraints that would otherwise prevent achieving natural light and ventilation to common lift lobbies.

Internal unit layouts are generally efficient and will achieve good levels of natural light and ventilation that will assist in reducing likely energy demands. Solar access and shading by balcony zones will also assist in reducing the need for heating and cooling.

Planner’s comment: Amended plans incorporating amendments to the proposed lobbies have been submitted. The amended plans show larger areas of glazing along the external (northern) elevations of the lobbies. The entrances doors are also glazed to allow maximum light penetration. Council’s Urban Design Consultant has assessed the amended plans and considers them satisfactory in this respect.

Principle 6 - Landscape

SEPP 65 : Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

There are excellent opportunities for providing a high quality landscape setting for this development due to the presence of established trees on neighbouring properties to the south and east in particular.

The location of the paved communal area nestled amongst eight bedrooms of 4 different units raises issues of conflicts with noise that potentially affects many units. It is acknowledged that being a south-facing space, it is unlikely to be well used (the larger lawn area being the primary communal space) and may in fact become a quiet contemplative space more defined by the privacy of the bedrooms than its original communal intent.

The generous lawn area to the south-west will be a great asset for future residents. The row of lemon scented gums on the adjoining battle-axe allotment is a landscape feature of significance that is a prized asset providing benefits to both the future residents of the development and existing residents neighbouring on lower zoned residential sites.

The landscape character has the potential to contribute positively to the future character of this precinct.

Principle 7 - Amenity

SEPP 65 : Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts, and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

Generally, internal unit amenity meets SEPP 65 RFDC requirements and will achieve a positive living environment to future residents.

A general comment is that, unless site constraints prevent it, internal planning layouts should locate living room’s backing onto living rooms and bedrooms to bedrooms. While this has been achieved in the majority of cases, there are some instances where this has not occurred (Units A4/A5 and B3/B4 typical). It is to be noted that adequate acoustic privacy is to be achieved within those affected units. While no specific acoustic construction has been proposed within the modification documents, this may have formed the DA submission and would be required for CC.

Acoustic privacy is likely to be an issue between the 8 bedrooms facing the small communal paved area (Units A2, A3 , B5 and B6 typical) on the southern side of the development. The proximity of windows and likelihood of echoing, and ability to open windows in close proximity to neighbouring bedrooms within this space requires further opinion from suitably qualified acoustic consultants to clarify what acoustic strategies will need to be employed. The ground and first floor units of this modification are thus affected.

Visual privacy can be achieved to these units.

Solar access and cross ventilation to units is satisfactory.

Lobbies provide clear sight lines from the lift and fire stairs to unit entries and is supported. However, the natural ventilation and light amenity to the common lift lobbies is poor. It is no longer acceptable to propose internalised common lobbies. The RFDC p60-61 is quite clear in what is required performance of building entry and common lobbies and what is considered unacceptable. It is to be noted that from the building face, the lift is some 14 metres internal to the building and located around a corner. This type of configuration is identified as “undesirable practice” within the RFDC (see Fig 02.47 p61) and is unacceptable.

Planner’s comment: Amended plans addressing concerns relating to sight lines have been received. The amended plans show the entrance doors and lifts to be relocated to eliminate the “dog leg” which was originally proposed. The lift, as amended, is now 5 metres from the entrance door and represents a significant improvement with regard to sight lines. The entrance doors have also been widened to ensure compliance with Australian Standard 4299 – 1994 Adaptable Housing. Council’s Urban Design Consultant has reviewed the amended plans and considers them satisfactory in this respect.

With regard to acoustic privacy between adjacent units (i.e. A4/A5 and B3/B4), this matter will be dealt with by the sound transmission requirements of the BCA. Condition 50 of Development Consent No. 178/10 requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the BCA.

Council’s Urban Design Consultant also raised concern with regard to the acoustic privacy of the bedrooms adjacent to the rear courtyard (units A2, A3, B5 and B6). To ensure there are no adverse impacts between these bedrooms, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring an acoustic consultant to certify that the bedrooms have been designed in accordance with the BCA and the relevant Australian Standard (Condition 45[b].

Principle 8 - Safety and Security

SEPP 65: good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain. This is achieved by maximising activity on the streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

Clear sight lines are achieved from the street to the main building entries and generally from the lift doors to unit entries and within the car park. Sight lines are lost between the building entry and to the lifts which is not supported (see also Principle 7 Amenity).

Ground floor units should have direct street entries from Porters Lane both to maximise the street address, to reinforce the residential interface nature of the site location, and to maximise pedestrian activity that contributes greatly to resident safety.

While not forming any of the sought modifications, this should be considered.

Planner’s comment: Amended plans have been received showing direct street entries for all north-facing ground floor units.

Principle 9 - Social dimensions

SEPP 65 : Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability and access to social facilities. New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood, or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

There are no impacts to social dimension in the application.

Principle 10 - Aesthetics

SEPP 65: Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area

The aesthetic is consistent with many surrounding RFBs in the use of material, colour palette and generally nondescript contemporary architectural character.

As noted in Principle 3 Built Form, the base, middle and roof lacks clarity in the expression of built form, composition of building elements, and importantly how materials have been utilised as expressed in the Porters Lane elevation.

Our review has found there is no clear order that explains why stone cladding has been used in one area and not another, why dark render is used on some spandrels and balconies but stone cladding is used on others. It does not appear to be related to an expression of unit arrangement (differentiating/grouping units/elements) or specifically related to internal layout - living rooms expressed with a particular massing and materials palette, more private bedroom areas and service rooms differentiated by another. Rather the Porters Lane expression appears as a surface application of materials/texture or colour driven by a less clear rationale onto a 3-dimensional form. This approach has missed opportunities to present a high quality aesthetic that could have been achieved with more time being available to spend on design development.

Aesthetic quality is an important principle within the RFDC and needs to be afforded commensurate time in design development as all other design principles.

It is considered the proposal, and thus streetscape character, would benefit from more rigorous design development. The objective of the aesthetics is to clearly demonstrate the architectural, hierarchical order of elements through a clear, cohesive language of materials and 3-dimensional expression that grounds the built form, communicates a pedestrian scale from Porters Lane to the main entries and to ground floor garden units and establishes a defined middle, with the recessed 5th floor and roof that is still engaged with the floors below.

This optimizes the experience of the private/public domain interface see RFDC Facades p88-89.

Planner’s comment: Amended plans have since been submitted to address the external appearance of the building to the satisfaction of council’s Urban Design Consultant. Further, the provision of separate entrances to the ground floor units improves the engagement of the development at a pedestrian scale.

Heritage

Council's Heritage Adviser commented on the original proposal as follows:

Heritage status

The site is not in a HCA but is within the vicinity of two heritage items:

· No. 9 Porters Lane – adjoining to the south; and

· Former Headmasters Cottage and associated buildings at 175 – 177 Rosedale Road and 205 – 207 Mona Vale Road.

Part 5.10 (4) of the Local Centres LEP requires that before granting consent to the proposed works Council must consider the effect of the works on the heritage item, nearby items or conservation area concerned. Clause 61D (5) allows Council to require a HIS before granting consent.

Local Centres DCP – Chapter 7.3 - Development in the vicinity of a heritage item.

Objectives

1. To ensure that new development respects the heritage significance of the adjoining or nearby heritage item;

2. To ensure that new development does not visually dominate a heritage item;

3. To ensure that new development does not reduce the views from or to the heritage items from or to the heritage item from the public realm;

4. To ensure that new development does not impact on the garden setting of the heritage items, particularly in terms of overshadowing the garden of causing physical impacts on important trees.

Comment:

The proposed modifications do not generate any additional heritage impacts. This conclusion has been reached on the basis that the modification is effectively “filling in” the void sections of the building. The footprint is essentially the same. Modifications to the entries, windows, terrace areas and paths have no additional heritage impact on the adjoining or nearby items.

Controls

1. Development in the vicinity of a heritage item is to be sympathetic to the heritage building having regard to:

i) form of the building including height, roofline, setbacks and building alignment;

ii) proportions including door and window openings, bays, floor to ceiling heights and coursing levels;

iii) materials and colours;

iv) setting and orientation;

v) setting and context; and

vi) streetscape patterns.

Comment

The proposed modifications do not result in any additional heritage impact with reference to the above controls.

2. An applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects or HIS must discuss the effect that the proposed development will have on a heritage item, including its garden and setting;

Comment

The applicant has not provided a HIS, but the SEE states that the proposed modifications involve limited change to the building form at the rear of the site ensuring there is no change to the relationship to the heritage building. There is no further reference to heritage.

3. Significant views to and from the heritage items are to be protected.

4. Development in the vicinity of a heritage item must respect the curtilage and setting of that item;

Comment

The views to and from the adjoining and nearby items and their curtilage will remain unaltered largely due to their location and orientation.

5. An application for development in the vicinity of a heritage item must demonstrate that the construction process will not result in damage to the heritage item of its setting.

Comment

The modifications would have no additional impact in this regard.

Conclusions and recommendations

The proposed modifications do not result in additional heritage impact on the adjoining and nearby items due to their location and orientation. No specific heritage concerns are raised with the application.

The conditions in the approved application for archival recording for the buildings to be demolished should be retained in any future consent.

Statutory Provisions

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Part A: Substantially the same development

The development as modified is substantially the same development as that approved. The approved development is a residential flat building. The subject modification is for amendments to the residential flat building and does not transform the character of the approved development. It is substantially the same as the proposed amendment presents no change to the approved building height, landscaped area, setbacks and building envelope. The proposal amendments are largely within the approved building footprint, with no change to the approved deep soil landscape area.

Part B: Notification

The proposed section 96 modification has been notified in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.

Part C: Consultation with the Minister

Consultation with the Minister, public authority or approval body in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent is not required in the circumstances of this case.

Part D: Threatened species

The proposed modification does not relate to a development to which a biobanking statement has been issued under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

The proposed modifications are been considered against the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments, Development Control Plans and other Council Codes, as follows:

Proposed Modification No. 1: construction of an additional four units at the central portion of the building comprising two units and ground floor level and two units at first floor level

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

Clause 4.4 of Local Centres KLEP provides a maximum floor space ratio for the site of 1.3:1. The approved development has an FSR of 1.24:1. The proposed development has an FSR of 1.3:1 and complies with clause 4.4. Further, there is no increase in the height of the approved development.

The proposed amendment results in changes to the approved areas of communal open space. Section 7C.1 of Local Centres DCP requires at least 10% of the site area to be provided as communal open space with a minimum dimension of 5m. Communal open space must be located at ground level and behind the building line.

According to the DCP, the required area of communal open space for the subject site is 425.8m². The approved development included areas of communal open space within the undercroft area and in the south-western corner the site. The amended proposal provides areas of communal open space directly to the rear of the building and within the south-western corner of the site. The total amount of communal open space proposed amounts to 509m² and complies with Council’s requirements.

Proposed Modification No. 2: construction of two pedestrian entry points from Porters Lane and associated entrance paths to the building

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

The approved development provides one centrally located pedestrian entry point from Porters Lane. A single pathway leads to the undercroft area and then splits into separate entries to Wings A and B.

The proposed amendment provides two separate pedestrian entry points from Porters Lane, with separate pathways providing access to wings A and B. The proposal, as amended, complies with Section 7C.8 of the DCP which requires multiple entries for buildings with facades over 18m in length.

Section 7C.8 also states that entry areas must be well lit and designed to avoid concealment or entrapment areas. It states that building entries must be integrated with the façade design. The proposed entries, as amended, feature glazed frontages to reduce reliance on artificial light. Council’s Urban Design Consultant has advised that that the entry areas are sufficiently articulated and integrated with the design of the façade. Council’s Urban Design Consultant also considers the design of the entries to be acceptable with regard to SEPP 65.

Proposed modification No. 3: reconfiguration of the entry foyers and relocation of the lift at all floor levels of the building.

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
N/A	YES	NO	YES	YES

Amended plans incorporating design changes to the proposed lobbies are generally compliant with Council’s controls except for the fact that the upper levels are not naturally ventilated. However, the amended plans show larger areas of glazing along the external (northern) elevation of the ground floor lobbies. The entrance doors are also glazed to allow maximum light penetration. Council’s Urban Design Consultant is satisfied that the lobbies will provide accessible, safe and pleasant circulation spaces for all occupants and users. It is considered that the objectives behind this control have been met and the non-compliance can be supported.

Proposed modification No. 4: modification of the windows on all elevations of the building

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

Various changes to windows have been proposed to suit the proposed internal changes to the building. The proposed modifications to the windows improve the external appearance of the building and are considered satisfactory by Council’s Urban Designer.

An amended BASIX certificate has been submitted.

Proposed modification No. 5: provision of separate entries to ground floor units

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

Separate entries have been proposed to ground floor units A1, A2, A6, B1, B2, B3, B6 and B7. The RFDC encourages the provision of separate ground floor entries where it is desirable to activate the street edge. The proposed amendment is therefore beneficial from an urban design perspective. It also improves residential amenity.

Proposed modification No. 6: modifications to approved ground floor courtyards

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

The subject modification entails changes to various ground floor courtyards. The proposed changes are as follows:

· enlargement of the courtyard to Units B3 and B4

· reduction in garden area for Units A3 and B5 and enlargement of paved area

The proposed changes to Units B4, A3 and B5 are acceptable from a planning and landscape perspective. However, the proposed modification to the courtyard of Unit B3 encompasses the access pits to the on-site detention and is not acceptable. It is recommended that the plans be amended in red to exclude the access pits from this courtyard (Condition 22 (a).

Proposed modification No. 7: creation of additional terrace areas over approved roof space

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
N/A	YES	YES	YES	YES

Additional terrace areas are proposed for Units A28, B30 and B31 at fourth floor level. As the units contain three bedroom’s, the proposed additional terraces will improve the residential amenity of the units by providing larger areas of private open space.

The additional terraces to Units A28 and B31 are internal to the site and feature a 1.5 metres high opaque glass screen along their southern elevations. A screen is also proposed to obscure sight lines between the two balconies. Consequently, the balconies will not result in any adverse privacy impacts to adjoining properties or nearby units.

The proposed additional terrace to Unit B30 is set back 11.3 metres from the eastern side boundary and 9 metres from the southern rear boundary. The setbacks of the terrace are in excess of the minimum requirements contained within section 7A.1 of the DCP and are considered acceptable in this regard. It is also noted that the southern elevation of the terrace will feature frosted glazing, as per Condition No. 23 of Development Consent No. 178/10. This will prevent unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining dwelling at No. 9 Porters Lane.

Proposed modification No. 8: amendments to approved terraces

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
N/A	YES	YES	YES	YES

It is proposed to modify the approved terraces as follows:

· enlarge the approved terraces to units A23, A24, B25 and B26 (third floor)

· enlarge the approved terraces to units A28, A30, B29 and B31 (penthouse floor)

· provide a privacy screen to the northern elevation of the terrace of unit A29

The proposed changes at third floor level involve the enlargement of the approved terraces along the southern elevation. The proposed enlargement of the terraces will improve the residential amenity of the units. As the balustrades to these terraces feature frosted glass, the proposed amendments will not result in any adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining property to the south, No. 9 Porters Lane.

The proposed changes at penthouse level entail the enlargement of various approved terraces. The proposed modifications to the terraces of Units A28 and B31 are on the northern elevation and are not in the vicinity of any adjoining properties. These modifications are acceptable.

The proposed changes to the terraces of Units A30 and B29 involve he enlargement of existing north-facing terraces so that they become “L” shaped terraces which wrap around the western (Unit A30) and eastern (Unit B29) elevations. The modified terrace to Unit B29 overlooks the access handle of No. 9 Porters Lane and will not result in any adverse privacy impacts. However, the modified terrace of Unit A30 overlooks the rear private open space and swimming pool of No. 171 Rosedale Road and concerns are raised with regard to privacy impacts. Given that ample north facing terraces for this unit are provided, it is recommended that the proposed modifications to the terrace of unit A30 be deleted (Condition 22 (a).

The proposed privacy screen to the northern elevation of the terrace of Unit A29 will reduce privacy impacts to Unit A30 and is supported.

Proposed modification No. 9: Internal design changes to various units

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

Internal design changes are proposed as follows:

· relocation of kitchen and bedroom in unit A5

· redesign of kitchen in units A10 and B11

· relocation of kitchen in units A16, A17, B18 and B19

· redesign of units A24 and B25

· modification to unit mix on ground, first and third floors

· provision of one additional adaptable unit

The proposed design changes are considered acceptable from both a planning and urban design perspective. The proposed modifications change the unit mix as follows:

	Approved	Proposed
1 bedroom units	20	16
2 bedroom units	27	38
3 bedroom units	10	7
TOTAL	57	61

The required Section 94 Contributions have been adjusted accordingly. This matter is addressed in the Section 94 section of this report below.

Section 7C.6 of Town Centres Development Control Plan requires one unit to be designed as adaptable housing for every ten units proposed. As the modified development comprises 61 units, seven adaptable units are required. The proposed adaptable units are A7, B14, A14, B21, A21, B28 and A29. It is recommended that Condition 30 be updated to reflect the amended development in this regard.

Proposed modification No. 10: Provision of an additional car parking space

Compliance with SEPPs	Compliance with KLEP	Compliance with DCPs	Maintains residential amenity	Compliance with s.79C EPAA 1979
N/A	YES	YES	YES	YES

Section 7B.1 of Local Centres DCP provides car parking rates based on apartment sizes. The approved development contains 20 x 1 bedroom units, 27 x 2 bedroom units and 10 x 3 bedroom units. The approved development generated a requirement for 82 car parking spaces (67 resident spaces and 15 visitors). However, a total of 85 spaces were provided (70 resident spaces and 15 visitor spaces).

The proposed modification brings the car parking requirement for the development to 86 spaces in total. As an excess of three car parking spaces was provided pursuant to the approved development, only one additional car parking space is required. This has been provided to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer. It is recommended that Condition 40 be modified to ensure the car parking spaces are allocated correctly.

Clause 7B.2 of Local Centres DCP requires the provision of one bicycle space per five units and 1 visitors’ bicycle space per 10 units. The proposed modification requires the provision of two additional bicycle spaces, bringing the required number to 20. It is recommended that Condition 41 be modified to require the provision of the correct number of bicycle spaces.

Section 94 Plan

The approved and proposed unit mix is as follows:

	Approved	Proposed
1 bedroom units	20	16
2 bedroom units	27	38
3 bedroom units	10	7
TOTAL	57	61

Council’s records indicate that the existing buildings comprise 2 x four bedroom dwellings and 1 x five bedroom dwelling.

Development Application No. 178/10 was lodged when Section 94 Contributions Plan 2004-2009 (Amendment 2) was in force. As such, Section 94 Contributions were levied in accordance with this plan. The required Section 94 Calculation under Development Consent No. 178/10 was $1,592,718.

Section 96 Modification No. 183/13 sought to update the required Section 94 Contributions in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contribution Plan 2010, which came into effect three days before Development Application No. 178/10 was determined. Under Section 96 Modification No. 183/13, the required Section 94 Contribution was updated to $1,299,654.14.

The proposed modification entails changes to the approved unit mix, as well as provision of four additional two bedroom units. The revised calculation under Section 94 Contribution Plan is $1,436,791.61. It is recommended that Condition 45(a) be updated to reflect the revised calculation.

Likely Impacts

The proposed modification will not result in any unreasonable streetscape, privacy, parking, or visual bulk impacts to surrounding properties or the locality.

Suitability of the Site

The site is zoned for residential development. The approved development for the site is a residential flat building. The subject modification is for amendments to the approved residential flat building and is considered to be suitable for the site.

Public Interest

All submissions received have been considered in the assessment of this application.

The approval of the application is considered to be in the in the public interest.

Conclusion

Having regard to the provisions of section 96 & 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is satisfactory. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved.

Recommendation:

THAT Council, as the consent authority, approve MOD0152/13 for Modification to DA0178/10 proposing alterations and additions to a residential flat building including four additional units on land at No. 3-7 Porters Lane St Ives for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following new and amended conditions:

Conditions 1, 22, 30, 40, 41, 74 and 89 of the consent are modified as follows:

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (s.96)

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp:

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
SK00 D	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK01 C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK02 C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK03C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10

SK04C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK05C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK06C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK07C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK08C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
Sk09C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK09.01B	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10

SK12D	Mackenzie Architects	25.10.10
SK12.1B	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SK13 – 18C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10

SD01C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SD02C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SD03C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SD04C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SD04.1B	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SD05C	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10
SD06	Mackenzie Architects	15.09.10

LPDA10-235/1E	Conzept Landscape Architects	Sept 2010
LPDA10-235/2C	Conzept Landscape Architects	Sept 2010
LPDA10-235/3E	Conzept Landscape Architects	Sept 2010

DA1.01B	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10
DA1.02B	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10
C2.01C	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10
DA3.01C	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10
DA3.02C	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10
DA3.03C	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10
DA4.01B	Northrop Consulting Engineers	14.09.10

Document(s)	Dated
Colours and finishes schedule Revision C, by Mackenzie Architects	23.09.2010
BASIX Certificate No.296465M_03	15 September 2010
Access report, by Mark Relf	14 September 2010
Solar Impact Report, prepared by PSN Matter Reference: 4181_Solar_Report_100913	13 September 2010
Air conditioning Plan Space Requirements, by Northrop Consulting Engineers	22 April 2010
Photomontages

Except where amended by that work shown in colour and/or amended in red on the S.96 plans endorsed with Council’s stamp, as listed below, and except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

s.96 plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
SK000E Site/roof plan	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK001E Basement level 2	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK002E Basement level 1	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK003B Ground floor plan	Mackenzie Architects	31 January 2014
SK004E First floor plan	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK005E Second floor plan	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK006E Third floor plan	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK007E Penthouse floor plan	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK009E Penthouse floor plan	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK010E Sections	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
SK010.01E Sections sheet 2	Mackenzie Architects	28 April 2014
Landscape plan LPDA 14- 262, sheets 1 and 2	Conzept Landscape Architects	February/March 2014

Document(s)	Dated
BASIX Certificate No.296465M_07	15 September 2010

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

22. Amendments to approved landscape plan

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved landscape plan, listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
LPDA14-262/1, LPDA 10-262/2, LPDA 10-235/4B	Conzept Landscape Architects	March 2014

The above landscape plan(s) shall be amended in the following ways:

a. The following tree removal for site access is to be shown including Trees 19, 20, 21 and 22 and street tree Pistacia chinensis (Pistacia) Tree 51 (4^th from the eastern site boundary) in accordance with the approved Environmental Site Management Plan, dwg SK12/D, Mackenzie Architects, 25/10/10.

b. The courtyard to unit B3 is to be reduced to so that it does not exceed the building setback to the eastern side boundary and does not include the access pits to the ODD tank.

Note: An amended landscape plan is to be prepared by a landscape architect or qualified landscape designer addressing landscape design issues contained in this Condition and must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

Reason: To improve landscape amenity.

30. Adaptable units

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the nominated adaptable units within the development application, (A7, B14, A14, B21, A21, B28 and A29), are designed as adaptable housing in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS4299-1995: Adaptable Housing.

Note: Evidence from an appropriately qualified professional demonstrating compliance with this control is to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: Disabled access & amenity.

40. Car parking allocation

Car parking within the development shall be allocated as shown on approved basement plans SK01C and SK02C, prepared by Mackenzie Architects, dated 15.09.10, in the following way:

Resident car spaces	70 Residential
Visitor spaces	16 visitor
Total spaces	86 total

Each adaptable dwelling must be provided with car parking complying with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 – parking spaces for people with disabilities.

At least one visitor space shall also comply with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 – parking spaces for people with disabilities.

To achieve this, it may be necessary to amend the allocation shown on the approved plans so that accessible spaces for Block A units are near the Block A lift and vice versa for Block B.

Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with federal legislation.

41. Number of bicycle spaces

The basement car park shall be adapted to provide 20 bicycle spaces in accordance with DCP 55. The bicycle parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To provide alternative modes of transport to and from the site.

45(a) Section 94 Contributions - Centres.

(For DAs determined on or after 19 December 2010)

This development is subject to a development contribution calculated in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, being a s94 Contributions Plan in effect under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as follows:

Key Community Infrastructure	Amount
Local parks and local sporting facilities	$811,288.27
Local recreation and cultural facilities; Local social facilities	$102,428.80
Local roads, local bus facilities & local drainage facilities (new roads and road modifications)	$43,523.62
Local roads, local bus facilities & local drainage facilities (townscape, transport & pedestrian facilities)	$479,550.92
Total:	$1,436,791.61

The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.

The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and will continue to be indexed to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index until they are paid in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.

Copies of Council’s Contribution Plans can be viewed at Council Chambers, 818 Pacific Hwy Gordon or on Council’s website at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au.

Reason: To ensure the provision, extension or augmentation of the Key Community Infrastructure identified in Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 that will, or is likely to be, required as a consequence of the development.

74. Arborist’s report

The trees to be retained shall be inspected, monitored and treated by a qualified arborist during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from an AQF 5 arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work:

Schedule
Tree/location	Time of inspection
Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) Trees 2-6, adjoining site	Site Establishment, Demolition, Excavation for basement
Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) Tree 13	Site Establishment, Demolition, Excavation for basement, stormwater trenching
Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Red Ironbark) Tree 26	Site Establishment, Demolition, Excavation for basement
Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) Tree 27	Site Establishment, Demolition, Excavation for basement
Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) Tree 35	Site Establishment, Demolition, Excavation for piered footings for entry structure and front fencing

Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.

89. Compliance with BASIX Certificate

Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate No.296465M_07, dated 15 September 2010, have been complied with

Reason: Statutory requirement.

The following new conditions are included in the development consent:

22(a) Amendments to architectural plans

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, amended architectural plans are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. The plans are to incorporate the following amendments:

a. The courtyard to unit B3 is to be reduced to so that it does not exceed the building setback to the eastern side boundary. The courtyard is not to include the access pits to the OSD tank.

b. The proposed addition to the west of the terrace of unit A30 is to be deleted.

Reason: To maintain residential amenity.

45(b) Acoustic privacy to bedrooms

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, an accredited Acoustic consultant is to provide certification to the Principal Certifying Authority that the proposed bedrooms to units A2, A3, B5 and B6 have been designed in accordance with the BCA and relevant Australian Standard.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of the residents.

Brodee Gregory

Senior Assessment Officer

Selwyn Segall

Team Leader - Development Assessment North

Corrie Swanepoel

Manager Development Assessment Services

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:	A1 View	Zoning Extract	2014/114555
	A2 View	Public opinion	2014/114556
	A3 View	Site/roof plan	2014/115595
	A4 View	Basement Level 2	2014/115597
	A5 View	Basement Level 1	2014/115598
	A6 View	Ground floor plan	2014/115567
	A7 View	First floor plan	2014/115599
	A8 View	Second floor plan	2014/115602
	A9 View	Third floor plan	2014/115604
	A10 View	Penthouse floor plan	2014/115605
	A11 View	Elevations	2014/115606
	A12 View	Sections	2014/115607
	A13 View	Sections sheet 2	2014/115608
	A14 View	Landscape plan	2014/055264

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.9 / 238

Item GB.9	S09989
	19 May 2014

Planning Proposal for
1574-1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider a planning proposal to rezone and amend the heritage listing of land at 1574-1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga.

background:	The planning proposal seeks to rezone the land to part R4 High Density Residential and R2 – Low Density Residential and to amend the extent of the listing of the item of local heritage known as “Rosemoran”. The site is subject to a development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court (LEC) for the purposes of a multi-level seniors living development.

comments:	External planning consultants have been engaged to undertake a detailed independent review and assessment of the Planning Proposal and to make recommendations to Council on its suitability, to be referred to NSW Planning & Infrastructure for a formal Gateway Determination.

recommendation:	That the Planning Proposal to rezone and amend the heritage listing of the land at 1574–1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga be supported subject to amendments.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider a planning proposal to rezone and amend the heritage listing of land at 1574-1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga.

Background

Ku-ring-gai Council received a Planning Proposal by Sydville Pty Ltd on 17 December 2013 to rezone and amend the heritage listing of the land at 1574–1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga. The site is currently zoned Residential 2(c) under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO) and R2 – Low Density Residential under Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The planning proposal seeks to rezone the land to part R4 High Density Residential and R2 – Low Density Residential. The proposal also seeks to amend the extent of the listing of the item of local heritage known as “Rosemoran” at 1574 Pacific Highway. The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a proposed site specific DCP which provides built form envelope controls for the site.

A copy of the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation is included at Attachment A1 – A13.

The site is subject to a development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court (De Stoop v Ku-ring-gai Council [2010] NSWLEC 1019) for the purposes of a multi-level seniors living development. The approved development (not constructed) consists of a 2 to 5 Storey building containing 33 independent living units and basement parking for 46 vehicles. The heritage item “Rosemoran” is to be retained and adapted to provide community facilities on the ground floor and 2 units on the first floor.

Comments

Council staff considered the zoning of this site at1574-1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga and provided advice and recommendations to Council as part of Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan process in 2013. Given how recently this matter was considered by Council staff, it was considered appropriate to have this Planning Proposal assessed externally. To this end, City Plan Services have been engaged to undertake a detailed independent review and assessment of the Planning Proposal and to make recommendations to Council on its suitability, to be referred to NSW Planning & Infrastructure for a formal Gateway Determination.

City Plan Services have reviewed the Planning Proposal and supporting information as submitted by Sydville Pty Ltd, giving consideration to the following aspects:

· The degree to which the Planning Proposal satisfies the requirements of s. 55 of the EP&A Act and complies with the requirements of A guide to preparing a planning proposal (Department of Planning July 2009).

· Compliance with relevant Planning Directions under s. 117 of the EP&A Act, LEP Practice Notes and Planning Circulars issued by the Department of Planning.

· The adequacy and consistency of the supporting studies and assessments.

· Identify any additional studies or information that should be prepared prior to the planning proposal proceeding to a gateway determination.

· Assess the Planning Proposal against the draft Ku-ring-gai LEP 2013, and determine whether the Planning Proposal meets the criteria for development of that site with particular attention given to zone interface impacts on adjoining land.

· Whether the Planning Proposal adequately considers the heritage issues on this site and to those it is in the vicinity of, and the impact of any development on those issues.

· Whether the site specific DCP provisions and accompanying concept plan adequately address the built form for the site, impacts on the heritage significance of “Rosemoran” and impacts on adjoining land.

· Preparation of a final report in a format that can be presented to Council with a recommendation on whether the planning proposal should proceed to a gateway consideration, and if so in what format it should proceed.

A copy of the report on the Independent Assessment of Planning Proposal by City Plan Services, including the heritage review of the undertaken by City Plan Heritage, is contained at Attachment A14.

integrated planning and reporting

P2 Managing Urban Change

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai.

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development.

Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.

P3 Quality Urban Design and Development

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P3.1 The built environment delivers attractive, interactive and sustainable living and working environments.

A high standard of design quality and building environmental performance achieved in new development.

Monitor design quality standards in councils LEP and DCPs.

Governance Matters

The planning process will be governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993 where applicable.

On 29 October 2012, Council was advised by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure about new delegations and independent reviews of related to plan-making under Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These new administrative review processes enable a proponent to request a pre-gateway review 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.

Also a gateway review 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.

The ninety days in respect of this planning proposal expired on 18 March 2013.

Finally, Council should seek the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal. This involves Council taking on the Director General’s function under s59(1) of the Act in liaising with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required local environmental plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal as well the Minister’s function under s59(2) of the Act in making the Plan.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council needs to determine its position on the matter and provide this to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration for 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

There are no direct financial implications for Council arising from this Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by the application fee.

Social Considerations

The planning proposal is not considered to have any adverse social impacts. The proposed rezoning would contribute to additional housing choice in Wahroonga.

Environmental Considerations

There are no significant environmental impacts envisaged by the planning proposal. The subject site has not been identified as biodiversity significant or contains riparian lands.

Community Consultation

In the event the Planning Proposal is granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the draft amendments will be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the gateway determination.

Internal Consultation

The planning proposal has been reviewed by an external consultant. As such, no internal consultation was undertaken.

Summary

Council has received a Planning Proposal to rezone and amend the heritage listing of the land at 1574–1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga. The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the land to part R4 High Density Residential and R2 – Low Density Residential and to amend the extent of the listing of the item of local heritage known as “Rosemoran”. The site is subject to a development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court for the purposes of a multi-level seniors living development.

External planning consultants, City Plan services, have been engaged to undertake a detailed independent review and assessment of the Planning Proposal and to make recommendations to Council on its suitability, to be referred to NSW Planning & Infrastructure for a formal gateway determination.

City Plan Services has recommended that Council supports the Planning Proposal subject to the following:

A. That the lot and zone boundary between proposed Lot A and Lot B is adjusted to be consistent with the “heritage curtilage” for “Rosemoran” described in this report, and all associated mapping updated accordingly;

B. That proposed Lot B (as adjusted) is zoned "R4 Residential High Density" under the Draft LEP;

C. That the Maximum Height Map to the Draft LEP is amended to show Lot B (as adjusted) with a height of 16 metres.

D. That the FSR Map to the Draft LEP is amended to show Lot B (as adjusted) with a FSR of 1:1;

E. That prior to proceeding to Gateway determination the format of the PP is otherwise altered to address the matters raised in this report, as summarised at Table 1;

F. That should the PP proceed to public exhibition, that the site specific DCP (as amended to be consistent with the Draft LEP height and FSR standards) is publicly exhibited concurrently with the PP.

Table 1 referred to in part E of the recommendation identifies the following matters that are to be addressed in the Planning Proposal submission prior to Council referring it to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination:

· Address Council's "Interface Planning Study Part 1: Impact Assessment" including a discussion as to how the concept plan for the residential flat building will ensure that amenity issues for adjacent site are able to be properly managed.

· Include a project timeline as required by Part 6 of the DOPI guidelines.

· Address how the new title description for Lot A ("Rosemoran") can be included in the DKLEP ahead of registration of the subdivision required to give effect to the PP scheme.

· Amend the plan of subdivision, zone maps and heritage maps to reflect the identified changes to the location of the boundary between Lots A and B necessary to achieve a suitable heritage outcome for "Rosemoran". Also show that any future building on Lot B is shown to be located 1.5m - 2.0m from the new position of that boundary or otherwise provide a stepped building form to provide a suitable transitional element;

· Redraft proposed amendments to the KPSO as noted at section 6.2 of this report.

The following matters are also identified to be addressed post Gateway but prior to public exhibition of the Planning Proposal:

· Provide a Conservation Management Plan for the use of "Rosemoran" as a single residence, with appropriate management guidelines and necessary conservation works essential to ensure protection of its heritage values and guide its future management.

· Amend the site specific DCP to remove any inconsistencies with the identified changes to DKLEP 2013 in terms of height and FSR. Ensure that the section dealing with building height includes references in metres, and not just RLs.

· In the DCP nominate that the creation of the associated Trust fund for the conservation of "Rosemoran" is tied to a condition of consent requiring it to be in place prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate for the creation of proposed Lots A and B.

· In relation to No. 3 Gilda Avenue and the adjacent heritage conservation area, provide a section with existing and proposed building heights with the concept plan design documentation, and ensure the Statement of Heritage Impact assesses the impact of the proposed development to these elements.

· Amend the site specific development control plan to incorporate appropriate heritage matters as discussed at sections 4.3 and 4.4.and also include a discussion on how the design and siting of any future building on Lot B will manage interface impacts for adjacent sites.

· Amend the site specific DCP as necessary to ensure consistency with all outcomes from the determination of DA 0652/07 and any associated modifications in relation to tree retention/protection and stormwater disposal.

· Prepare a traffic and parking report to confirm that an RFB development of the size contemplated by the PP/DCP is suitable on traffic and parking grounds

Recommendation:

A. That the Planning Proposal to by Sydville Pty Ltd to rezone and amend the heritage listing of the land at 1574–1578 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga be supported subject to the following amendments:

i. That the lot and zone boundary between proposed Lot A and Lot B is adjusted to be consistent with the “heritage curtilage” for “Rosemoran” described in the report by City Plan Services, and all associated mapping updated accordingly;

ii. That proposed Lot B (as adjusted) is zoned "R4 Residential High Density" under the Draft LEP;

iii. That the Maximum Height Map to the Draft LEP is amended to show Lot B (as adjusted) with a height of 16 metres.

iv. That the FSR Map to the Draft LEP is amended to show Lot B (as adjusted) with a FSR of 1:1;

v. That prior to proceeding to Gateway determination the format of the Planning Proposal is otherwise altered to address the matters raised in the report by City Plan Services, as summarised at Table 1;

vi. That should the Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition, that the site specific DCP (as amended to be consistent with the Draft LEP height and FSR standards) is publicly exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

B. That the amended Planning Proposal be prepared to the satisfaction of the General Manager and then be forwarded to NSW Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations.

C. That Council request the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act for this planning proposal.

D. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the Proponent be requested to provide the additional supporting information identified in the report by City Plan Services prior to public exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

E. 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.

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1 View	Planning Proposal 1574-1578 Pacific highway Wahroonga - Covering Letter	2013/324523
	A2 View	Planning Proposal 1574-1578 Pacific Highway Wahroonga	2013/324799
	A3 View	PP Appendix 1 - Pre Da meeting Notes	2013/324770
	A4 View	PP Appendix 2 - Site Photographs	2013/324773
	A5 View	PP Appendix 3 - Court Approved plans	2013/324774
	A6 View	PP Appendix 4 - Letter of advice re: Commencement	2013/324775
	A7 View	PP Appendix 5 - Concept Plans	2013/324776
	A8 View	PP Appendix 6 - Updated Heritage Report	2014/006569
	A9 View	PP Appendix 7 - Residential Flat Design Code Assessment	2013/324779
	A10 View	PP Appendix 8 - Draft Development Control Plan	2013/324780
	A11 View	PP Appendix 9 - Colliers International Report	2013/324795
	A12 View	PP Appendix 10 - Alternative Development Options	2013/324796
	A13 View	PP Appendix 11 - LEC Judgement: De Stoop v Ku-ring-gai Counciol [2010] NSWLEC 1019	2013/324797
	A14 View	City Plan Services Report - Assessment of Planning Proposal for 1574 - 1578 Pacific Highway Wahroonga	2014/077465

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.1 / 17

Item GB.1	S03158/2
	7 May 2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.2 / 31

Item GB.2	CY00431/2
	11 April 2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.3 / 35

Item GB.3	S05273
	7 May 2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.5 / 81

Item GB.5	S05273
	23 April 2014

Financial year	Number of appeals received (whole year)
2009/2010	54
2010/2011	38
2011/2012	33
2012/2013	25
2013/2014 (as at 31 March 2014)	12

purpose of report:	To determine the Mayor and Councillor fees payable effective on and from 1 July 2014.

background:	Pursuant to section 241 of the Local Government Act 1993, The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal determines in each category of council, the maximum and minimum amount of fees to be paid to mayors and councillors of councils.

comments:	The Tribunal has determined that mayor and councillor fees may be increased by no more than 2.5 per cent.

recommendation:	That effective on and from 1 July 2014 the Councillor fee be set at $17,930 per annum, and the Mayor fee be set at $39,110 per annum in addition to the Councillor fee.

purpose of report:	To report to Council on the contractual conditions of senior staff in accordance with section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993.

background:	Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993 states: The General Manager must, at least once annually, report to Council on the contractual conditions on senior staff.

comments:	This report provides Council with details regarding the contractual conditions of senior staff, namely, the five (5) Directors and the position of General Manager.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note this report.

Position	Present Incumbent
General Manager	John McKee
Director Community	Janice Bevan
Director Corporate	David Marshall
Director Development & Regulation	Michael Miocic
Director Operations	Greg Piconi
Director Strategy & Environment	Andrew Watson

purpose of report:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for April 2014.

background:	Council’s investments are reported monthly to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to April 2014 was $3,223,000 against a revised budget of $3,167,000, giving a YTD favourable variance of $56,000.

recommendation:	That the summary of investments performance for April 2014 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and report adopted.

purpose of report:	To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the nine months ended 31 March 2014.

background:	A person may commence proceedings in the Land and Environment Court in relation to a development application which has either been refused by Council or is deemed to have been refused. An appeal may also be commenced in relation to conditions of development consent and the issue of building certificates and orders

comments:	For the nine months ended 31 March 2014, Council’s legal and associated payments in relation to Land and Environment Court were $270,508. This compares with the annual budget of $1,067,110.

recommendation:	That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the six months ended 31 March 2014 be received and noted.

Land & Environment Court Costs 2010/2011 - 2013/2014
*Financial Year*	*Total Costs*	*1st quarter September*	*2nd quarter December*	*3rd quarter March*	*4th quarter June*
2010/2011* (38 appeals lodged)	$1,297,458	$333,219	$271,232	$256,486	$436,521
2011/2012* (33 appeals lodged)	$1,396,006	$183,714	$314,271	$333,656	$564,365
2012/2013* (25 appeals lodged)	$827,038	$172,245	$322,751	$180,126	$151,916
2013/2014 (12 appeals lodged)	$270,508	$42,412	$124,001	$104,095

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 May 2014	GB.6 / 92

Item GB.6	S08316
	1 May 2014

Attachments:	A1 View	Letter from the Minister of Planning dated 28 July 2009	2012/239899
	A2 View	Regional Panels Code of Conduct September 2012	2013/170162
	A3 View	Regional Panels Operational Procedures September 2012	2013/170164
	A4 View	Letter from the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure received 27 June 2013	2013/159269