|
APPENDIX No: 1 - Analysis of Local Government Reform options in the Northern Sydney Area - Report from Hornsby Council |
|
Item No: GB.1 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council
TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 12 August 2014 AT 7.00pm
Level 3 Council Chambers
Agenda
** ** ** ** ** **
NOTE: For Full Details, See Council’s Website –
www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting
NOTE:
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:
Refer to GB.4 Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study Tender Evaluation
Attachment 1:.. Tender Evaluation Committee Tender Evaluation spreadsheet summary
Attachment 2:.. Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report
Attachment 3: Independent detailed financial and performance assessment by Corporate Scorecard
Address the Council
NOTE: Persons who address the Council should be aware that their address will be tape recorded.
Documents Circulated to Councillors
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs
Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 5
File: S02131
Meeting held 29 July 2014
Minutes numbered 225 to 246
minutes from the Mayor
Petitions
Recommendations from Committee
RC.1 Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee 30
File: CY00022/6
Meeting held 24 July 2014
Minutes numbered KTC.5 to KTC.9.
GENERAL BUSINESS
i. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to have a site inspection.
ii. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to adopt in accordance with the officer’s recommendation allowing for minor changes without debate.
GB.1 Analysis of Local Government Reform options in the Northern Sydney Area - Report from Hornsby Council 37
File: S03288
To provide Council with information and comments on a report prepared for Hornsby Council titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014”.
Recommendation:
That Council note that the report commissioned by Hornsby Council “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014” does not support the case for amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils as the forecast saving is small compared to the risks involved, representing only 1.6% of the combined budgets over 10 years.
GB.2 47 and 49 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble - Supplementary Report 189
File: DA0445/13
To determine development application DA0445/13 for Torrens title subdivision of two lots into three lots.
Recommendation:
That the application be approved.
GB.3 Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group 444
File: S10028
To inform Council of the invitation to nominate for the Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group.
Recommendation:
That a Councillor representative is nominated for the Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group
GB.4 Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study Tender Evaluation 456
File: S10032
To consider the tenders received for the Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study and engage the preferred tenderer.
Recommendation:
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended that Council accept the tender as recommended in the Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report (Attachment A2).
Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting
Motions of which due Notice has been given
NM.1 Offer for Sale to Transport for NSW the Remaining Portion of Culworth Avenue Car Park, 20 - 28 Culworth Avenue Killara 462
File: S10007
Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer and Szatow dated 4 August 2014
On 27 May 2014, Councillors unanimously resolved not to object to the compulsory acquisition of a portion of Council owned land on the Culworth Avenue Car Park Site, to Transport For NSW (TFNSW), under the terms and conditions agreed upon by Council and that state entity.
Given that we are now in a new financial year, it would seem prudent to offer for sale, the rest of the site at 20 – 28 Culworth Avenue to TFNSW, for commuter car parking, on the same terms as previously negotiated for the land previously acquired by TFNSW.
Petitions by residents totaling in excess of 6,500 signatures to date reveal the community’s strong support for the site to remain as a car park and State policy supports strengthening infrastructure to enable commuter access to transport nodes.
We therefore move:
“That Council writes a letter to The State Minister for Transport, The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, requesting that negotiations commence for the sale of the residual of the Culworth Avenue Car Park at 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara, to TFNSW, for continued use by the community as a commuter car park, on the same terms as previously negotiated for the land previously acquired by TFNSW.”
NM.2 Propose that the General Manager provides a Written Response to Council when Petitions of more than 200 Signatures are received 463
File: S08234
Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer and Szatow dated 4 August 2014
The Council’s current Code of Meeting Practice, in regard to petitions received from the community, is to mark them to the appropriate officer for their attention (3.15.1, 3.15.3 and 3.15.4)
Currently in NSW State Parliament, for each petition of more than 500 signatures, the Minister is required to respond within 35 Calendar Days after its receipt. The Minister’s response is recorded in Hansard and published on Parliament’s website. A copy of the response is also sent to the State Member who presented the petition.
The Local Government Act Practice Note 2.11 states that each Council must decide what to do with petitions and to set this out in its Meeting Code.
We move:
“That for all community petitions of more than 200 signatures, a formal written response is provided by The General Manager, to all Councillors, in regard to the receipt of any petition, within 1 calendar month. This written response will disclose any recommendation or action to be undertaken by Council, in reference to the content of the petition.”
BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS
Questions Without Notice
Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS
** ** ** ** ** **
MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 29 July 2014
|
Present: |
The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) (Roseville Ward) Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward) Councillor D Citer (Gordon Ward) Councillor C Berlioz (St Ives Ward) Councillor D Armstrong (Roseville Ward) Councillors C Fornari-Orsmond & 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) Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan) Minutes Secretary (Sigrid Banzer) |
The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm
The Mayor offered the Prayer
|
225 |
File: S02194
Councillor David Ossip tendered an apology for non-attendance [holiday leave] and requested leave of absence.
Councillor Cheryl Szatow tendered an apology for non-attendance (illness) and requested leave of absence.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Citer/Pettett)
That the apologies from Councillors Ossip and Szatow be accepted and leave of absence granted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
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.
No Interest was declared.
The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the Agenda:
M Inglis - Marian Street Theatre
Father K Dalby - Pozières Memorial Service
D Burges - Marian Street Theatre
M McCrae - Marian Street Theatre
W Blaxland - Marian Street Theatre
P Wass - Marian Street Theatre
DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS
The Mayor adverted to the documents circulated in the Councillors’ papers and advised that the following matters would be dealt with at the appropriate time during the meeting:
|
Late Items: |
Refer GB.3 – Council Advisory / Reference Committees Guideline – Memorandum from Director Corporate dated 28 July 2014 advising of amendments to the guidelines.
|
|
Memorandums: |
Refer GB.1 - Communications and Consultation Strategy for Gordon Golf Course Masterplanning project – Memorandum from Director Community dated 25 July 2014 advising Councillors of feedback and requests from residents of North Turramurra to be included in notification of the project and to accommodate the request, an addendum to the report has been made to include in the Phase 1 – Informing the community section.
Refer GB.3 – Council Advisory / Reference Committees Guideline – Memorandum from Director Corporate dated 29 July 2014 advising of amendments to the guidelines.
|
|
Councillors Information: |
828
Pacific Highway Gordon – Timeframes and Budget - Memorandum from
Director Strategy and Environment dated
|
|
Late Confidential Councillors Information: |
Gordon Golf Course – Minutes of Meeting relating to the Newly Adopted Regional Park – Memorandum from Director Operations dated 22 July 2014 with an attachment which includes confidential parts relating to commercial information under Section 10A(2)(d) in answer to a Question Without Notice by Councillor Fornari-Orsmond raised at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 15 July 2014 for Councillors ONLY. |
|
228 |
File: CY00455/2 Vide: MM.1
|
|
|
It is with great sadness that I advise my Councillor
colleagues and the community of the passing of one of Ku-ring-gai’s most
devoted volunteers – Ken Ewen OAM, at
Ken – or as he was fondly called by many generations of scouts - ‘Kenya’ – was a stalwart of the local scouting movement. He was a trusted guide and mentor for literally thousands of children who passed through the East Roseville Scout Group, of which Ken was the undisputed head.
Ken literally gave a lifetime to the scouting movement – 79 years in total, of which 52 were spent with the East Roseville troop. The original 1st East Roseville hall, ‘Kalloona’ was opened in 1949. When fire burnt the hall down in 1964, Kenya managed to rebuild Kalloona Scout Hall by December of the same year. At the dedication of the ‘Kenya Room’ in 2008 at ‘Kalloona’, a special guest was Dick Smith – a former Queens Scout who was mentored by Ken.
One of Ken’s proudest moments was being awarded the Order of Australia Medal in 1989, ‘in recognition of service to youth’. Ken still had another 25 years of service left in him!
In addition to his lifelong commitment to the scouting movement, Ken was a valuable and dedicated volunteer for a host of other community and charity based organisations on the north shore.
Ken was an active member of Chatswood Rotary and instrumental in the development and construction of the grandstand at Chatswood Rotary Athletics Field, which opened in 2001.
More recently Ken was an enthusiastic supporter of the Men’s Shed movement, both in Willoughby and elsewhere, using the craft skills that he had honed during his many years with the Scouts.
Ken was also a lifelong resident of East Roseville, living in the same house in Griffith Avenue for 65 years which he built himself. Here, he raised his family of three children – Garry, Judi and Jan - with devoted wife Billie, whom he married in 1946.
Ken saw active service in New Guinea and Borneo during the Second World War, but whatever hardship and horror he had to endure during that service, it never dimmed his love of life and his desire to help others.
He was an inspirational yet gentle and unassuming man, who will be greatly missed in our community - and by his loving family.
|
|
|
A. That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.
B. That we stand for a minute’s silence to honour Ken Ewen.
C. That the Mayor writes to Mr Ewen’s family and encloses a copy of this Mayoral Minute.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items
where there are speakers first after a
Motion moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Armstrong
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
236 |
Council Advisory / Reference Committees Guideline
File: S10078 Vide: GB.3
|
|
|
To advise Council of a revised Council’s Advisory / Reference Committees Guideline.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Fornari-Orsmond)
That the revised Advisory / Reference Committees Guideline, as amended, be adopted with the deletion of the sentence “If the mayor is appointed to the committee then the mayor is an automatic appointment to the role of chairperson” from page 7, Point 2.5 – Chairperson of Section 2: Membership – Advisory / Reference Committees from the guideline.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald and Fornari-Orsmond
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 CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion. The Original Motion was:
(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Berlioz)
A. That the revised Advisory / Reference Committees Guideline, as amended, be adopted with the deletion of the sentence “If the mayor is appointed to the committee then the mayor is an automatic appointment to the role of chairperson” from page 7, Point 2.5 – Chairperson of Section 2: Membership – Advisory / Reference Committees from the guideline.
B. That a Charter be prepared and brought back to Council as soon as possible for the Economic and Social Development Advisory Committee.
|
|
237 |
Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2014
File: S02046/7 Vide: GB.5
|
|
|
To advise Councillors that the Local Government NSW Conference will be held at the C.ex Coffs (formerly the ExServices Club) Coffs Harbour from Sunday, 19 October to Tuesday, 21 October 2014.
|
|
|
(Moved: Mayor, Councillor J Anderson/Councillor Fornari-Orsmond)
That the following motion be submitted to the Conference:
That the Local Government NSW Annual Conference supports the creation of a uniform national Register of Lobbyists and Code of Conduct for Lobbyists who act on behalf of third party clients to lobby Local Government officials.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter GB.9 – Tender T05/2014 – Golden Jubilee Sports Field Site Power Upgrade in accordance with section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it. This resolution was moved by Councillors Berlioz and Fornari-Ormond and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of information about
GB.9 – Tender T05/2014 – Golden Jubilee Sports Field Site Power Upgrade outweighs the public interest in maintaining openness and transparency in Council decision-making because the disclosure of this information would
reveal confidential financial information from the tenderer, thereby prejudicing the
commercial position of the tenderer.
Council resolved to return to Open Council
after a Motion moved by Councillors Berlioz and Fornari-Orsmond
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
238 |
Tender T05/2014 - Golden Jubilee Sports Field Site Power Upgrade
File: S10120 Vide: GB.9
|
|
|
To consider the tenders received for the Power Upgrade to Golden Jubilee Sports Field Site, Wahroonga, and appoint the preferred tenderer.
|
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/McDonald)
A. That Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the power upgrade work to Golden Jubilee Sports Field Site, Wahroonga.
B. That Council approve the balance of funds required to be transferred from Section 94 funds to the project.
C. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.
D. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.
E. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
|
239 |
File: S10095 Vide: QN.1
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald
Would Staff please confirm why the 4 speakers on behalf of Marian Street Theatre for Young People (MSTYP) is still adamant they were forced to leave Marian Street Theatre on the grounds other than health and safety matters?
Answer by Director Community
Unfortunately a lot of what has being said in public, access is not correct. We have also, when Marian Street Theatre for Young People started to say this, the Consultant actually told them the facts and they continued to do it. I don’t know that there is a great deal that we can do about the fact that there. It is not just hearing Councillors, it is throughout the community as well, so unfortunately, I don’t think there is a great deal that we can do anything about it but a lot of the things they are saying are not correct.
|
|
240 |
Crossing Gilroy Lane Turramurra
File: 88/06294/01 Vide: QN.2
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald
Access for elderly people to Meals on Wheels is via crossing Eastern Road walkway along Gilroy Lane and then access into the Meals on Wheels building. Cars are regularly cutting the corners, often speeding to enter the back entrance of the Turramurra Car Park via Gilroy Lane. We need a suitable crossing mechanism to allow elderly people to rest halfway and to try and slow down cars from cutting those corners.
Answer by Director Operations
I’ll take that on notice but we will obviously go and do some counts to see if it needs or warrants action.
|
|
241 |
Culworth Avenue Car Park – Questions by CARPARK (Citizens Against Reduced Car Parking at Railway Killara)
File: S09768 Vide: QN.3
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Citer
On 26 May 2014, the CARPARK Group (Citizens Against Reduced Car Parking at Railway Killara) asked 4 questions pertaining to the Public Consultation and Public Hearing relating to the Culworth Avenue Car Park. These questions have been repeatedly copied to the Gordon Ward Councillors and all other Councillors.
Can you indicate if you now feel an appropriate course of action has been taken by staff to answer these questions and are you able to provide responses to these questions which can be copied to all Councillors?
Answer by General Manager
I will begin with what I have been involved in and Mr Watson might help me. One of the questions has been – when will the public submissions to the Hearing be available. I replied to Mr Watson today to reinforce that we were working through those submissions now because there is obviously some redactions in terms of personal information, anything that is defamatory, etc, so Council staff have to work through that and I have said the appropriate time when they will be made available is in when we actually make them available to Councillors as an attachment to that report.
In relation to the other 3 questions – I don’t know if Director Watson can help me on what they actually were, if not I will have to take those on notice.
Answer by Director Strategy and Environment
I can’t recall them, but there has been answers provided to all of them. It’s just that CARPARK doesn’t want the answers they have been getting.
Question by Councillor David Citer
So does that mean the other 3 you will take on notice?
|
|
242 |
File: S10082 Vide: QN.4
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Armstrong
With the EIS now for the North Connex Tunnel now out, what is the Council’s view and when will the report that Council’s Consultants bring back the report and will the Council be running any community discussion evenings regarding the dangerous exhaust tunnel stacks in the residential area of Wahroonga?
Answer by Director Operations
At the last meeting, there was a report that went to Council about doing a submission. We are in the process of engaging consultants to undertake various aspects of that. Once the consultants are engaged, we will more than likely hold sessions with the local community around that area for them to put their views to the consultants and to Council’s staff who are doing the submission. The submission is due on 12 September so the report will be coming back to Council on 9 September.
|
|
243 |
15 Normac Street Roseville - STEP - Building Works encroaching Bushland Reserve
File: CY00133/6 Vide: QN.5
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Armstrong
I refer to a letter sent to
you by STEP on 30 April 2014 by e-mail in regards to
I was just wondering if any replies has been sent?
Answer by General Manager
I will have to take that on notice because I am not familiar with that piece of correspondence at this point.
|
|
244 |
Speakers Addressing Council Meetings
File: CY00438/2 Vide: QN.6
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki
Does Council need to hear the same speakers, meeting after meeting, making comments we all know to be untrue?
We are merely providing them with a forum and an opportunity for publicity and is it not time to withdraw the opportunity for a platform?
Answer by General Manager
The issue that you allude to, Councillor Malicki, is covered under the Agenda item of General Business and I am quite happy to bring back a report to Council as to the pros and cons of whether we continue to have a General Address section in Council in the future as part of our formal meetings.
|
|
245 |
Council Car Park – St Ives – Shopping Trolleys
File: S02125 Vide: QN.7
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Christiane Berlioz
There is a space on Council’s Car Park at the entrance of St Ives Shopping Centre, Woolworths level entrance that contains 14 rows of trolleys, lines of trolleys. Has Council approved the occupation of these spaces?
Answer by Director Development and Regulation
Will take that on notice.
|
|
246 |
Canoon Road Netball Courts – Response to North Shore Times
File: S09042 Vide: QN.8
|
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki
Is a formal response going to the North Shore Times to the Peter Sinclair letter last week about moving the Canoon Road Netball Courts to the Gordon Golf Course?
Answer by General Manager
We are happy to provide that to the North Shore Times, Councillor Malicki.
|
The Meeting closed at 9.18 pm
The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 29 July 2014 (Pages 1 - 25) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 12 August 2014.
__________________________ __________________________
General Manager Mayor / Chairperson
MINUTES OF Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
HELD ON Thursday, 24 July 2014
|
Present: |
Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Christiane Berlioz, Chairperson) Roads & Maritime Services (Ms Kathryn Hawkins) Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore (A/Sgt Craig Tonks) Representing Member for Davidson (Mr Michael Lane) |
|
|
|
|
Staff Present: |
Manager Traffic and Transport (Mr George Koolik) Strategic Traffic Engineer (Mr Joseph Piccoli) |
|
|
|
|
Others Present: |
Representing Bike North (Mr John Turton) |
|
|
|
|
Apologies: |
Director Operations (Mr Greg Piconi) Representing Police Local Area Command Kuring-gai (Snr Const Narelle Tomich) Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai (Ms Mary O’Dea) Traffic Team Leader (Mr Deva Thevaraja) Representing Fire & Rescue NSW (Inspector Trent Lawrence) Representing Forest Coach Lines (Mr Richard Bowron) |
The Meeting commenced at 9.00am
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interest was declared.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs
|
|
Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
File: CY00022/6 |
|
|
Meeting held 20 February 2014 Minutes numbered KTC01 to KTC04
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Representative for the Member for Davidson asked for clarification regarding item KTC04, Proposed Cycleway – Gordon 3. When discussing the item in February, Strategic Traffic Engineer agreed to inspect the Rosedale Road section of cycleway between Minns Avenue and Park Avenue, Gordon, with the Representative of Bicycle North, to consider design issues and whether the cycleway should be on the footpath or road pavement. The Strategic Traffic Engineer confirmed that the meeting has been held and that a shared path would be expected to cost up to $90,000. The Committee discussed the alternative on-street option and noted that this proposal would result in the loss of approximately seven commuter parking spaces. The Committee confirmed that a decision on this ‘missing link’ not be made until after the commuter car park at Gordon is completed, while the remainder of the route is completed. In the interim, the road shoulder would be marked with bicycle logo stencils, so that parking would not be prohibited.
|
|
|
The Committee Recommends:
That Minutes numbered KTC01 to KTC04 were received and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the meeting. |
GENERAL BUSINESS
|
KTC05 |
General Matter Items Under Delegated Authority
File: S02738 Vide: GB.1
|
|
|
Advice on matters considered under Delegated Authority.
|
|
|
That the information regarding traffic facilities approved during February to June 2014 be noted.
|
|
KTC06 |
General Matter - Knox Garden Day 2014
File: S02250 Vide: GB.2
|
|
|
To consider a request from the Knox Parents’ Association (KPA) of Knox Grammar School to hold its 56th annual Knox Garden Day in Braeside Street, Wahroonga, on Friday 5 September 2014.
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Committee agreed that recent Knox Garden Days had been held without incident and expressed no objection to the 2014 proposal.
|
|
|
That approval be given to KPA of Knox Grammar School to close a section of Braeside Street, Wahroonga, to conduct the 56th annual Knox Garden Day on Friday 5 September 2014, subject to the following conditions:
A. Braeside Street between Eastern Road and Wahroonga Avenue be fully closed between 6.30am and 3pm.
B. The Roads and Maritime Services approving the Traffic Management Plan submitted by Adams Traffic Management Pty Ltd on behalf of KPA of Knox Grammar School.
C. Adams Traffic Management Pty Ltd implementing the Traffic Management Plan concurred to by the Roads and Maritime Services and LAC Kuring-gai in accordance with Australian Standards.
D. Detour arrangements as detailed in the Traffic Control Plan submitted by Adams Traffic Management be implemented. Access is to be maintained for residents and emergency vehicles at all times.
E. The closure of Braeside Street being advertised by Council as required by Section 116 of the Roads Act 1993.
F. Residents of Braeside Street and other streets in the vicinity being informed of the event, via letterbox drop, undertaken by the KPA of Knox Grammar School.
G. The event organiser provides adequate RMS accredited traffic controllers at appropriate positions to control traffic and parking in the event area, as suggested in the traffic study /TCP submitted by the applicant. Any directions given by the Police Service be followed promptly.
H. Appropriate advance signs to warn drivers about the road closure and the presence of traffic controllers.
I. All barricades and signs to be provided in accordance with Australian Standards.
J. The Local Area Commander Kuring-gai be requested to patrol the area and monitor traffic conditions during the event.
K. The event organiser liaising with Council’s Manager Waste, Drainage and Cleansing Services in regard to sanitation provisions, the provision of adequate rubbish receptacles and cleaning of the area at the conclusion of the event. The applicant is advised that costs associated with the provision of those services will apply.
L. A Council Regulatory Officer visiting the site throughout the day to ensure Council’s conditions of approval are being observed. The Officer is to report any traffic congestion or other safety issues to Council’s Director Operations within 30 days of the event.
M. Barricades are removed at the end of the event.
N. The KPA of Knox Grammar School responding in writing to Council by 22 August 2014, confirming its acceptance of Council’s decision for conducting the 2014 Knox Garden Day.
|
|
KTC07 |
2015/2016 Federal Black Spot Program
File: S06118/8 Vide: GB.3
|
|
|
To consider sites for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Federal Black Spot Program.
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Committee discussed the proposed Burns Road/Clissold Road Black Spot nomination and its safety record. There was some discussion regarding design issues, including linemarking and warning signs. The Representative for the Member of Davidson queried safety on Burns Road with the narrowing of the eastbound through lane because of the proposed linemarking.
The Strategic Traffic Engineer tabled a submission from Ms Debby Backhouse regarding use of Burns Road by cyclists and the impact on cyclists by proposed RRPMs on the edge of the pavement, she requests a safe bicycle lane through the intersection. The Strategic Traffic Engineer commented that cyclist safety would be considered during the design phase of this project.
|
|
|
That application be made to the 2015/2016 Federal Black Spot Program for the project at Burns Road near Clissold Road, Wahroonga
|
|
KTC08 |
File: TM11/06 Vide: GB.4
|
|
|
To consider a request from The Historic Houses Trust of NSW, to conduct the Fifties Fair at Rose Seidler House on Sunday 24 August 2014.
|
|
|
That Council
approve the Fifties Fair at Rose Seidler House in Wahroonga on Sunday,
A. The Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) approving the Traffic Management Plan submitted by the Who Dares Pty Ltd for the 2014 Fifties Fair at Rose Seidler House in Wahroonga.
B. The Historic Houses Trust of NSW implementing the RMS-approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan to alleviate traffic congestion during the event, and to address the traffic impacts that may result from the proposed traffic management in the area.
C. The proposed partial road closures being advertised by Council as required by Section 116 of the Roads Act 1993.
D. That temporary ‘No Parking’ restrictions be imposed on both sides of Burns Road through the usage of bollards and tapes, as shown on the Traffic Control Plan – refer to Plan No. Clissold/KTC/07/14.
E. Residents in the affected area being informed by a letter, via letterbox drop, undertaken by The Historic Houses Trust of NSW, of Council’s decision.
F. The Local Area Command Kuring-gai be requested to patrol the area and monitor traffic conditions during the event.
G. The
organiser supplying 20 million dollars Public Liability Insurance cover,
naming
H. A Regulatory Officer visiting the site throughout the day to ensure Council’s conditions of approval are being observed.
I. The Historic Houses Trust of NSW responds in writing to Council by 15 August 2014, confirming its acceptance of Council’s decision for conducting the Fifties Fair at Rose Seidler House in Clissold Road, Wahroonga.
|
|
KTC09 |
File: TM8/06 Vide: GB.5
|
|
|
To further consider traffic conditions in Park Avenue, Roseville.
|
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Representative for LAC North Shore informed the Committee that Police enforcement in Park Avenue has been undertaken on four separate occasions in the last fortnight and that two drivers were infringed for driving at 80 km/h or higher, and one over 70 km/h. He noted that both Park Avenue and Earl Street are morning peak period ‘rat runs’ and that with enforcement in Park Avenue volumes seemed to have increased in Earl Street.
The Representative for RMS advised the Committee that RMS’s Road Safety Section has considered the feasibility of installing a permanent speed camera in Park Avenue, but has determined that due to lack of a crash history, Park Avenue does not meet the warrant for a permanent speed camera. She also advised that the existing signal phasing at Archbold Road and Boundary Street has been considered by Network Operations and Network & Safety Services which comments that the intersection already exceeds its capacity during peak periods and that the system is finely tuned to achieve the best balance between competing approaches.
The Committee also noted that there have been further representations from some residents in the street.
|
|
|
A. That updated traffic speed and volume data, and resident responses disagreeing with the proposed traffic management device in the sag in Park Avenue be noted.
B. That consideration of providing traffic management treatment in Park Avenue be deferred for a site inspection with interested residents and Members of the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee.
|
general discussion
The Representative of RMS responded to an enquiry from Council regarding the use of solid and dashed yellow kerbside linemarking to designate No Stopping and No Parking restrictions. While such linemarking is widely used on State roads, the question relates to use of such linemarking by councils on council-controlled roads. She informed the Committee that Road Rules allow councils to use such linemarking instead of signs, but she also commented that they are not used widely by most other councils on their roads. The Committee considered that Council could consider trialling such linemarking together with limited signage, in a new subdivision off Barwon Avenue, South Turramurra, or in long continuous sections of No Parking or No Stopping restrictions.
The Strategic Traffic Engineer informed the Committee of positive feedback received from Bike North regarding the Roseville to Gordon cycle facility. The Representative of Bike North informed the Committee that Bike North’s goal is to eventually have a cycling facility linking Hornsby to the City, on council roads.
The Representative of LAC North Shore informed the Committee that LAC Kuring-gai now undertakes Highway Patrol duties covering the whole of Ku-ring-gai. He expects that this change in duties will result in improved Police Highway Patrol coverage and enforcement within Ku-ring-gai.
The Chairperson informed the Committee of representations she has received from Fernbank regarding parking in Kitchener Road, near the upper driveway into Fernbank. She asked that Council staff meet Fernbank representatives on-site to investigate concerns by Fernbank residents.
The Meeting closed at 10.10am
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 August 2014 |
GB.1 / 35 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.1 |
S03288 |
|
|
21 July 2014 |
Analysis of Local Government Reform
options in the Northern Sydney Area -
Report from Hornsby Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To provide Council with information and comments on a report prepared for Hornsby Council titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014”. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
Council’s adopted position in relation to amalgamation (13 August 2013) is “That Council not proceed with discussions on amalgamation as the disadvantages for Ku-ring-gai residents far outweigh any perceived advantages”. The Local Government Review Panel completed its final report in October 2013 and released it to local government in January 2014. The State Government is yet to respond to the Review Panel’s report. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The report commissioned by Hornsby Council does not support the case for amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils as the forecast saving is small compared to the risks involved. The forecasts utilise simplistic assumptions based on anecdotal evidence, do not take into account the increased rates for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to the redistribution of the rates burden from areas of lower land value (Hornsby) to areas of higher land value (Ku-ring-gai), nor do they address the significant financial liability for the Hornsby Quarry. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council note that the report commissioned by Hornsby Council “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014” does not support the case for amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils as the forecast saving is small compared to the risks involved, representing only 1.6% of the combined budgets over 10 years.
|
Purpose of Report
To provide Council with information and comments on a report prepared for Hornsby Council titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014”.
Background
The Independent Local Government Review Panel was appointed by the Minister for Local Government in March 2012.
By April 2013 the Review Panel had released its report “Future Directions for NSW Local Government - Twenty Essential Steps” for consultation with Councils.
On 13 August 2013, Ku-ring-gai Council resolved as follows:
A. That Council not proceed with discussions on amalgamation as the disadvantages for Ku-ring-gai residents far outweigh any perceived advantages.
B. That we encourage and participate with NSROC in investigating opportunities to increase the range of resource and services sharing
The Review Panel completed its final report in October 2013 and released it to local government in January 2014 with formal responses from councils to the State Government required by 4 April 2014. In the Review Panel’s report titled “Revitalising Local Government”, the following options for Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai councils were listed, with their preferred option identified in the report in bold:
• Amalgamate or
• Combine as strong Joint Organisation and
• Boundary with Parramatta shifted to M2
The rationale for the Review Panel’s recommendation for Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai was brief, as follows:
• Projected 2031 population 348,800 (would be reduced somewhat by boundary change)
• See comments above re Parramatta boundary change
• Strong socio-economic and urban links
Recommendation 41 of the Review Panel’s report was:
41. Seek evidence-based response from metropolitan councils to the Panel’s proposal for mergers and major boundary changes, and refer both proposals and responses to the proposed Ministerial Advisory Group (section 18.1) for review, with the possibility of subsequent referrals to the Boundaries Commission (13.3).
Ku-ring-gai Council’s response to the State Government on the Review Panel’s report was adopted at the Ordinary Meeting on 25 March 2014. Council’s response to Recommendation 41 was as follows:
This Recommendation is not supported. The Panel has not substantiated why it has put forward the various proposals for mergers and boundary changes. It has provided no quantification, nor evidence, as to the benefits or costs. The panel has simply drawn lines on a map and now seeks evidence-based responses from the affected councils. The panel should fully justify its proposals, including quantification of costs and benefits, before councils incur substantial costs and disruption to the conduct of ordinary service provision in order to prepare a response.
In proposing a merger of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils, the Panel has ignored the impact on ratepayers, amongst other things. In particular, Ku-ring-gai residents would be cross-subsidising the residents of Hornsby. This is because Council rates are based on land values and the residential land values in Ku-ring-gai are on average 50% higher than in Hornsby. If the two Council areas merged the rates paid in the Ku-ring-gai area are likely to increase substantially.
The State Government is yet to respond to the Review Panel’s report.
On 18 June 2014 a letter was received from the General Manager of Hornsby Council bringing to Council’s attention a Hornsby Council Resolution from its Ordinary Meeting on 11 June 2014, as follows:
THAT:
1. KPMG’s “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area” report be made available on Council’s website and a copy sent to the Minister for Local Government and The Hills and Ku-ring-gai Councils.
2. The NSW Government be encouraged to facilitate local government reform having regard to the research undertaken for Council by KPMG, PWC and Crosby Textor; and the recommendations made by the ILGRP and the LGAT.
3. The Hills and Ku-ring-gai Councils be requested to provide their comments on the reform options outlined by KPMG.
4. When the NSW Government releases its responses to the recommendations made by the ILGRP and the LGAT, a further report be prepared for Council’s consideration incorporating any feedback received from The Hills and Ku-ring-gai Councils about the KPMG reports
Attached to the correspondence was a copy of a report prepared for Hornsby Council by KPMG titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014”.
A copy of this KPMG Report is attached to this report.
Comments
The KPMG Report looked at a range of options for amalgamation, including between Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils. The overall saving as a result of an amalgamation between Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils was forecast as follows:
· a total saving of $50.4 million over 10 years. Out of a total combined revenue budget of approximately $3.1 billion over that period this equates to a 1.6% saving.
The assumptions behind these forecasts are somewhat simplistic and based on comparisons of limited relevance. The main reasons for the predicted savings are a reduction in “Salary and Wages Expenditure”, “Materials and Contracts” and “Other Expenses”, as set out in Table B.2 of the KPMG Report and summarised as follows:
· “Salary and Wages Expenditure”: KPMG forecast overall staffing efficiencies of between 4% pa and 7% pa of the establishment, based on their “insights from the comparative study”. The “comparative study” was a “literature scan to identify post-reform evaluations of instances of boundary reform in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States”. A number of studies are briefly listed in the report however it is not clear how the figure of 4% to 7% staffing efficiencies was determined in relation to the KPMG forecasts.
· “Materials and Contracts”: KPMG forecast savings of 3% pa, based on the “Auckland experience from the comparative study”. This refers to the amalgamation of Auckland’s eight city, regional and district councils into a single Auckland Council, with a population of around 1.5 million people. The 3% pa saving was based on that Council’s reported savings in only one year (being the first year). The relevance of this comparison is questionable due to the large difference in the scale and range of services offered.
· “Other Expenses”: The forecast of a 3% pa saving for other expenses was also based on the “Auckland experience from the comparative study”, as outlined above.
The “Upfront costs” to implement an amalgamation including redundancies, staff retraining, facility consolidation and modification, IT and business information system consolidation, consulting studies and the implementation of collective agreements, were estimated to be a once off total cost of 4.7% of annual expenditure, as set out in section E.2.1 of the KPMG Report and based on the “Toronto experience discussed in the comparative study”. Toronto has a population of 2.6 million people, a budget of $6 billion pa and 20,000 employees. Again, the relevance of this comparison is questionable due to the large difference in the scale and range of services offered. For Ku-ring-gai Council, 4.7% of annual expenditure is approximately $5 million. This would appear to be a very low once off amount to cover all of the transition costs outlined above.
The KPMG Report also forecast savings in a shared services model, where the councils would share an Infrastructure and Recreation Division. The savings for a shared Infrastructure and Recreation Division between Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai councils were forecast as follows:
· a saving of $10.5 million over 10 years (out of a total combined budget of approximately $3.1 billion over that period)
The assumptions underlying the shared services model are not readily apparent from the KPMG report. The report states:
For the purposes of modelling the shared services options, there was insufficient data to estimate the impacts of individual benefit and cost streams, as was undertaken for boundary reform options. Therefore, assumptions were made with respect to the aggregate benefits and costs based on the outcomes of the desktop research, comparative study, and consultations with Hornsby Shire Council.
It is not clear what this means and details of the assumptions leading to the forecast savings are not provided.
Care must be taken to ensure that the benefits of amalgamation are not overstated while underestimating the costs. There is concern that the KPMG Report does not sufficiently substantiate the forecast savings and transition costs. That said, the report forecasts a saving of only 1.6% of the combined budgets of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils over 10 years, a relatively small amount given the risks involved in an amalgamation. A minor change in the assumptions could quickly erode the forecast savings and result in net additional costs.
Distributional Impacts on Rates Revenue
The KPMG Report acknowledges the issue of rates revenue redistribution resulting from amalgamation as follows:
The financial analysis only considered whole-of-council level impacts. It is noted that there may be some distributional impacts as part of reform options, in particular in relation to rate revenue. For example, the aggregate rate revenue would be expected to be unchanged by reform options, however, potential differentials in property values may mean that individual rate liabilities are impacted by reform.
This means that because council rates are based on land values, an amalgamation of two council areas would result in changes to the amount of rates paid by all properties.
As the Local Government Act only allows for one Residential Rate across the whole of an urban council area, the status quo cannot remain and a new Residential Rate covering the amalgamated council area would need to be implemented.
The residential land values in Ku-ring-gai are on average 50% higher than in Hornsby. The total residential land value in Ku-ring-gai is $23.3 billion (for approx. 39,500 properties) while in Hornsby it is $20.7 Billion (for approx. 54,000 properties). If the two Council areas merged the rates paid in the Ku-ring-gai area would increase and the rates paid in the Hornsby area would decrease. Ku-ring-gai residents would be cross-subsidising the residents of Hornsby.
Assuming the total rates raised for an amalgamated Council remained the same as the sum of the rates raised by the individual councils, preliminary calculations indicate that the rates for properties in the former area of Ku-ring-gai could increase by up to 17% in an amalgamation with Hornsby. Even if the Ku-ring-gai rates increased by a more modest amount of 10% in an amalgamation, this would result in an additional $5 million pa or $57.5 million additional rates paid by Ku-ring-gai ratepayers over ten years. These additional rates are more than double Ku-ring-gai Council’s $25 million ‘share’ of the hypothetical savings forecast by KPMG in an amalgamation with Hornsby (KPMG forecast total savings of $50.1 million over 10 years).
Hornsby Quarry
Hornsby Council acquired the Hornsby Quarry from CSR in 2002. A report by Parsons Brinckerhoff in October 2004 identified Hornsby Quarry as being located adjacent to residential development to the north, Hornsby TAFE and public recreation facilities to the east, bushland in public ownership and residential development to the south (Dural Street, Rosemead Road) and Berowra Valley Regional Park to the west. It is located within 500 metres of the Hornsby town centre.
Hornsby Quarry is a large site with area of approximately 23 hectares. There are various concerns about the quarry including its stability. The quarry is fenced off and warning signs are erected to prevent entry by the public.
The Hornsby Council website describes the environmental concerns for the Quarry as follows:
The rehabilitation of the Quarry and the adjacent degraded open space is paramount. There is a need to stabilise the Quarry, manage and restore the bushland, and resolve the future use of open space, existing buildings and roads. To do nothing is not an option because the quarry is a risk to public safety and has the potential to further degrade the natural environment. The roads are an erosion hazard and the buildings contain fibro and remnant fuel storage facilities which are potential sources of contamination. There is a need to ensure that the site is made safe and managed in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The Hornsby Council website also provides numerous consultant reports dating back to 2004 that deal with issues such as the geotechnical and hydrogeological constraints, and options to fill the Hornsby Quarry.
In 2009, Hornsby Council resolved to fill Hornsby Quarry with Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM). At its meeting on 19 June 2013, Council considered a report concerning the findings of the Hornsby Quarry Land Filling Preliminary Impact Assessment prepared by Cardno Pty Ltd. Amongst other things, this report identified that the cost of filling the quarry with VENM could be up to $200 million. At this meeting Hornsby Council resolved that:
1. Council defer consideration of the proposal to fill Hornsby Quarry with off site Virgin Excavated Natural Material at this time.
2. Council investigate alternate options for the long term management and stabilisation of the Quarry including filling the Quarry with water.
The potential liability associated with the Hornsby Quarry is significant in the context of any proposal to amalgamate. If Ku-ring-gai Council amalgamated with Hornsby Council, the ratepayers from the Ku-ring-gai area would take on approximately 50% of this liability. If the cost of filling the Hornsby Quarry did cost $200 million, this equates to a liability of approximately $2,500 per Ku-ring-gai ratepayer.
The most recent published Financial Statements for Hornsby Council, for the 2012/13 financial year, do not recognise any liability for the Hornsby Quarry stabilisation/remediation, rather there is a disclosure as follows:
Provisions for close down, restoration and for environmental clean up costs – including Tips and Quarries
Close down and restoration costs are a normal consequence of tip and quarry operations, and the majority of close down and restoration expenditure is incurred at the end of the life of the operations. Council has resolved to fill Hornsby Quarry with virgin excavated natural material and has engaged consultants to seek appropriate planning and environmental approvals. In the absence of reliably estimated costs no provision has been made in Council’s books.
The KPMG Report did not take the liability for the Hornsby Quarry into account when assessing the financial impacts of amalgamation.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
A shared long-term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement. |
Council's responses to government policy and reforms are guided by and aligned with the adopted Community Strategic Plan 'Our Community Our Future 2030'. |
Analyse and provide appropriate submissions to government proposals affecting the local government industry. |
Governance Matters
Ku-ring-gai Council’s position on amalgamation, adopted on 13 August 2013, is:
That Council not proceed with discussions on amalgamation as the disadvantages for Ku-ring-gai residents far outweigh any perceived advantages.
Hornsby Council commissioned a report titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014” and has provided a copy for Ku-ring-gai Council’s comment.
Risk Management
An amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai Council with Hornsby Council would expose Ku-ring-gai Council to a wide range of risks including:
· Reduced representation and less say in decision making for the local area; the risk of decisions about the Ku-ring-gai area being made by a majority of councillors elected from the Hornsby area due to a larger population
· Increased rates for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to redistribution of the rates burden from areas of lower land value (Hornsby) to areas of higher land value (Ku-ring-gai)
· Unknown financial liabilities such as for the rehabilitation of the Hornsby Quarry
· Impact on the composition, quality and quantity of services due to the rationalisation of facilities and services
· Disruption to service provision, loss of skilled workers, fall in staff morale and productivity loss
· Utilising simplistic assumptions based on anecdotal evidence from the KPMG Report could lead to increased costs rather than savings
· Forecast financial savings are small in comparison to the substantial risks and disruption from amalgamation.
Financial Considerations
The KPMG Report forecasts a saving of only 1.6% of the combined budgets of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils over 10 years in an amalgamation. This is a relatively small amount given the risks involved in an amalgamation and if the assumptions proved to be incorrect the forecast saving could well be eroded and result in net additional costs.
There is concern that the KPMG Report does not sufficiently substantiate the forecast savings and transition costs. The forecasts are based assumptions drawn from a “literature scan to identify post-reform evaluations of instances of boundary reform in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States”. Case studies used include the amalgamation of Auckland’s eight city, regional and district councils into a single Auckland Council, with a population of around 1.5 million people and Toronto which has a population of 2.6 million people, a budget of $6 billion pa and 20,000 employees. The relevance of these comparisons are questionable due to the large difference in the scale and range of services offered.
Based on the Toronto experience, the upfront costs to implement an amalgamation between Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils, including redundancies, staff retraining, facility consolidation and modification, IT and business information system consolidation, consulting studies and the implementation of collective agreements, were estimated to be a once off total cost of 4.7% of annual expenditure. For Ku-ring-gai Council, 4.7% of annual expenditure is approximately $5 million. This would appear to be a very low once off amount to cover all of the transition costs outlined above.
Because Council rates are based on land values, an amalgamation of the two council areas would result in an increase in rates for properties in Ku-ring-gai (higher land values) and a decrease in rates for properties in Hornsby (lower land values). It is estimated that this would result in an increase of $57.5 million in residential rates for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers over 10 years, an amount that is more than double the share of forecast savings in an amalgamation.
The potential liability associated with the Hornsby Quarry is significant in the context of any proposal to amalgamate. If Ku-ring-gai Council amalgamated with Hornsby Council, the ratepayers from the Ku-ring-gai area would take on approximately 50% of this liability, an amount reported as being up to $200 million.
Social Considerations
The KPMG Report provides the average number of residents per council across capital cities in Australia in 2011 at Table 2.2. The average for Sydney is 106,408, Melbourne is 131,517, Perth 56,535, Adelaide 66,882, Hobart 42,941 and Darwin is 42,500 (Brisbane follows a different centralised local government model and has a much larger population). With the exception of Brisbane, compared to Australian capital cities Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils are already reasonably large by population. If Ku-ring-gai (population 114,000) and Hornsby (population 157,000) were to amalgamate the resulting population of 271,000 would be one of the largest in Australia, with an area of some 594 square kilometres.
An amalgamation with Hornsby Council would necessarily result in a loss of local councillor representation as there would be a similar number of councillors representing more than double the population. In addition, Ku-ring-gai residents would have fewer councillor representatives compared to Hornsby residents, based on overall population size, as the population of Hornsby is 40% greater than Ku-ring-gai.
There are significant differences in the profiles of the Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby council areas. For example, while the land use of the Ku-ring-gai Council area is predominantly residential, Hornsby Council is a predominantly rural and residential area. Agricultural land use makes up 31% of the Hornsby area, while residential is 11% with the remainder being largely parkland.
Hornsby Council stretches as far as Wisemans Ferry to the north and takes in Brooklyn, Arcadia, Berowra, Mount Colah, Canoelands, Fiddletown, Milsons Passage and Dangar Island. There are many villages, islands and river communities.
Balancing councillor representation, along with varied planning issues and contrasting service delivery requirements, from the rural community of Wisemans Ferry in the north through to the urban area of Roseville some 65 kilometres to the south, would be operationally difficult, socially challenging and politically complex.
Environmental Considerations
There are various environmental concerns regarding the Hornsby Quarry including its stability and potential sources of contamination. The rehabilitation of the Hornsby Quarry has been reported to Hornsby Council as costing up to $200 million.
Community Consultation
The local government reform process has involved ongoing discussions with the Independent Local Government Review Panel, industry bodies and representatives of other councils. There have been information sessions and briefings. Council has previously submitted formal responses to the Local Government Review Panel.
Internal Consultation
The General Manager and Directors have been involved in analysing the issues contained in this report.
Summary
Council’s adopted position in relation to amalgamation (13 August 2013) is “That Council not proceed with discussions on amalgamation as the disadvantages for Ku-ring-gai residents far outweigh any perceived advantages”. The Local Government Review Panel completed its final report in October 2013 and released it to local government in January 2014. The Panel’s preferred option in relation to Ku-ring-gai Council was amalgamation with Hornsby Council. The State Government is yet to respond to the Review Panel’s report.
Hornsby Council commissioned a report titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014”. This report forecasts a small saving in an amalgamation with Ku-ring-gai Council compared to the risks involved. The forecasts utilise simplistic assumptions based on anecdotal evidence, do not take into account the increased rates for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to redistribution of the rates burden from areas of lower land value (Hornsby) to areas of higher land value (Ku-ring-gai), nor do they address the significant financial liability for the Hornsby Quarry.
|
That Council note that the report commissioned by Hornsby Council “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014” does not support the case for amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils as the forecast saving is small compared to the risks involved, representing only 1.6% of the combined budgets over 10 years. This forecast:
i. Is based on simplistic assumptions derived from case studies of Council amalgamations of much larger scale and range of services offered.
ii. Is likely to be optimistic and does not include an adequate allowance for transition costs.
iii. Does not provide an adequate return for the substantial risks and disruption involved in an amalgamation.
iv. Does not take into account the impact on Ku-ring-gai ratepayers in sharing in substantial costs to rehabilitate and stabilise the Hornsby Quarry.
v. Does not take into account the impact of rates redistribution on Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to higher land values, resulting in an increase in rates likely to be much greater than the forecast savings from amalgamation.
vi. Does not address the loss of councillor representation, nor the operational difficulties, social challenges, town planning issues and political complexities in managing an amalgamation of two large, diverse council areas that stretch from the rural locality of Wisemans Ferry through to the urban suburb of Roseville, some 65 km to the south.
|
|
David Marshall Director Corporate |
John McKee General Manager |
|
A1View |
Analysis of Local Government Reform options in the Northern Sydney Area - Report from Hornsby Council |
|
2014/191530 |
|
APPENDIX No: 1 - Analysis of Local Government Reform options in the Northern Sydney Area - Report from Hornsby Council |
|
Item No: GB.1 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 August 2014 |
GB.2 / 187 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.2 |
DA0445/13 |
|
|
28 July 2014 |
47 and 49 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble - Supplementary Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To determine development application DA0445/13 for Torrens title subdivision of two lots into three lots. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
An assessment report which recommended approval of the application was considered by Council on 15 July 2014 where Council resolved to defer determination pending a site inspection. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The site inspection was held on Thursday 24 July 2014. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That the application be approved. |
Purpose of Report
To determine development application DA0445/13 for Torrens title subdivision of two lots into three lots.
Background
An assessment report and recommendation was considered by Council at its meeting on 15 July 2014. Council resolved to defer determination of the application pending a site inspection. The site inspection took place on 24 July 2014. During the site inspection a number of questions were answered by staff. No further issues or questions were taken on notice.
Comments
The site inspection took place on 24 July 2014 and commenced at approximately 3.30pm. During the site inspection a number of questions were answered by staff. No further issues or questions were taken on notice. The site inspection concluded at approximately 4.00pm
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces & Infrastructure
|
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 is achieved in new development.
|
Assessment of applications is consistent with Council’s adopted LEPs and DCPs.
|
|
A. THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards to Clause 58B (3) minimum lot width of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case, AND
B. THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to DA0445/13 is consistent the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA0445/13 Torrens title subdivision of 2 lots into 3 lots on land at 47 & 49 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble, for a period of two [2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
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:
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.
3. No demolition of extra fabric
Alterations to, and demolition of the existing building shall be limited to that documented on the approved plans (by way of notation). No approval is given or implied for removal and/or rebuilding of any portion of the existing building which is shown to be retained.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the development consent.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
4. Asbestos works
All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie. Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
5. Notice of commencement
At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
6. Notification of builder’s details
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
7. Dilapidation photos (public infrastructure)
Prior to the commencement of any works on site the applicant must submit to Ku-ring-gai Council and the Principal Certifying Authority a photographic record on the visible condition of the existing public infrastructure over the full site frontage (in colour - preferably saved to cd-rom in ‘jpg’ format). The photos must include detail of: · The existing footpath · The existing kerb and gutter · The existing full road surface between kerbs · The existing verge area · The existing driveway and layback where to be retained · Any existing drainage infrastructure including pits, lintels, grates Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording any pre-developed damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development (which is not to be repaired by the Applicant as part of the development). The developer may be held liable to all damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded and demonstrated under the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of any works.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
8. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)
Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:
The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.
In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.
Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.
9. Geotechnical report
Prior to the commencement of any bulk excavation works on site, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority, the results of the detailed geotechnical investigation as recommended in the Geotechnical Assessment by Geotechnique, Ref. 12884/1-AA, dated 30 April 2013. The report is to address such matters as:
· appropriate excavation methods and techniques · vibration management and monitoring · dilapidation survey · support and retention of excavated faces · hydrogeological considerations
The recommendations of the report are to be implemented during the course of the works.
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
10. Access through public reserve not permitted
Access for construction purposes shall not be gained through the adjoining public reserve. Should no alternative access exist, an application for access to the construction site via the public reserve shall be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of works.
Reason: To protect public reserves.
11. Sediment controls
Prior to any work commencing on site, sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed along the contour immediately downslope of any future disturbed areas.
The form of the sediment controls to be installed on the site shall be determined by reference to the ‘NSW Department of Housing manual ‘Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’. The erosion controls shall be maintained in an operational condition until the development activities have been completed and the site fully stabilised. Sediment shall be removed from the sediment controls following each heavy or prolonged rainfall period.
Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.
12. Erosion and drainage management
Earthworks and/or demolition of any existing buildings shall not commence until an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan shall comply with the guidelines set out in the NSW Department of Housing manual "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction" certificate. Erosion and sediment control works shall be implemented in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan.
Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.
13. Tree protection fencing
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy is fenced off at the specified radius from the trunk/s to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
14. Tree protective fencing type galvanised mesh
The tree protection fencing shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metre spacing and connected by securely attached chain mesh fencing to a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height prior to work commencing.
Reason: To protect existing trees during construction phase.
15. Tree protection signage
Prior to works commencing, tree protection signage is to be attached to each tree protection zone, displayed in a prominent position and the sign repeated at 10 metres intervals or closer where the fence changes direction. Each sign shall contain in a clearly legible form, the following information:
Tree protection zone.
· This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing environment both above and below ground and access is restricted. · Any encroachment not previously approved within the tree protection zone shall be the subject of an arborist's report. · The arborist's report shall provide proof that no other alternative is available. · The Arborist's report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for further consultation with Council. · The name, address, and telephone number of the developer.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
16. Ground protection - avoiding soil compaction
To preserve the following tree/s and avoid soil compaction, no work shall commence until temporary measures to avoid soil compaction (eg rumble boards) are installed within two metres of the stormwater pit, within the canopy spread of the following tree/s,
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
17. Tree fencing inspection
Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority is required to verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
18. Project ecologist
A Project Ecologist shall be commissioned prior to the release of the subdivision Certificate to ensure all bushland/environmental protection measures are carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.
The Project Ecologist shall have a minimum qualification of TAFE Certificate III in Bush Regeneration or Conservation and Land Management - Natural Area Restoration. He/she shall have at least four years experience in the management of native bushland in the Sydney region. Details of the arborist including name, business name and contact details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with a copy to Council.
Reason: To ensure the protection of existing biodiversity values of the site
19. Nest boxes
Prior to works commencing and/or tree removal works being undertaken six nest boxes comprising of two small mammal, two microbat & two medium mammal, shall be installed within the retained trees within the site. The nest boxes shall be constructed of durable wood material (marine ply) and installed at a minimum height of six metres from the ground and positioned under the direction of a qualified ecologist.
The qualified ecologist must hold an Animal Ethics Permit from the Office of Environment & Heritage and a wildlife licence under section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage.
Reason: To ensure protection of fauna species.
20. Fauna protection
Prior to works commencing and/or tree removal works a qualified ecologist shall investigate all trees for fauna occupation. In accordance with appropriate licensing requirements the ecologist shall supervise the relocation of any fauna found within the trees approved for removal.
The qualified ecologist must hold an Animal Ethics Permit from the Office of Environment & Heritage and a wildlife licence under section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 issue by the Office of Environment and Heritage.
Evidence of engagement of the qualified ecologist and the required licensing must be provided to the Private Certifying Authority with a copy to Council prior to the trees being removed.
Reason: To ensure protection of fauna species.
21. Amendments to approved engineering plans
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved engineering plan(s), 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:
The above engineering plan(s) shall be amended as follows:
A handrail shall be provided at the top of the excavation for the parking slab.
Note: An amended engineering plan, prepared by a qualified engineer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
22. Long service levy
In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act a Construction Certificate shall not be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
23. Excavation for services
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) unless previously approved by conditions of consent, are located beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order, located on the subject allotment and adjoining allotments.
Note: A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under the Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.
24. Driveway crossing levels
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, driveway and associated footpath levels for any new, reconstructed or extended sections of driveway crossings between the property boundary and road alignment must be obtained from Ku-ring-gai Council. Such levels are only able to be issued by Council under the Roads Act 1993. All footpath crossings, laybacks and driveways are to be constructed according to Council's specifications "Construction of Gutter Crossings and Footpath Crossings".
Specifications are issued with alignment levels after completing the necessary application form at Customer Services and payment of the assessment fee. When completing the request for driveway levels application from Council, the applicant must attach a copy of the relevant development application drawing which indicates the position and proposed level of the proposed driveway at the boundary alignment.
This development consent is for works wholly within the property. Development consent does not imply approval of footpath or driveway levels, materials or location within the road reserve, regardless of whether this information is shown on the development application plans. The grading of such footpaths or driveways outside the property shall comply with Council's standard requirements. The suitability of the grade of such paths or driveways inside the property is the sole responsibility of the applicant and the required alignment levels fixed by Council may impact upon these levels.
The construction of footpaths and driveways outside the property in materials other than those approved by Council is not permitted.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
25. Utility provider requirements
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
26. Infrastructure restorations fee
To ensure that damage to Council Property as a result of construction activity is rectified in a timely matter:
a) All work or activity taken in furtherance of the development the subject of this approval must be undertaken in a manner to avoid damage to Council Property and must not jeopardise the safety of any person using or occupying the adjacent public areas.
b) The applicant, builder, developer or any person acting in reliance on this approval shall be responsible for making good any damage to Council Property, and for the removal from Council Property of any waste bin, building materials, sediment, silt, or any other material or article.
c) The Infrastructure Restoration Fee must be paid to the Council by the applicant prior to both the issue of the Construction Certificate and the commencement of any earthworks or construction.
d) In consideration of payment of the Infrastructure Restorations Fee, Council will undertake such inspections of Council Property as Council considers necessary and also undertake, on behalf of the applicant, such restoration work to Council Property, if any, that Council considers necessary as a consequence of the development. The provision of such restoration work by the Council does not absolve any person of the responsibilities contained in (a) to (b) above. Restoration work to be undertaken by the Council referred to in this condition is limited to work that can be undertaken by Council at a cost of not more than the Infrastructure Restorations Fee payable pursuant to this condition.
e) In this condition:
“Council Property” includes any road, footway, footpath paving, kerbing, guttering, crossings, street furniture, seats, letter bins, trees, shrubs, lawns, mounds, bushland, and similar structures or features on any road or public road within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) or any public place; and
“Infrastructure Restoration Fee” means the Infrastructure Restorations Fee calculated in accordance with the Schedule of Fees & Charges adopted by Council as at the date of payment and the cost of any inspections required by the Council of Council Property associated with this condition.
Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.
27. Section 94 development contributions - other than identified 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:
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 may vary at the time of payment 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.
Conditions to be satisfied during the demolition, excavation and construction phases:
28. Road opening permit
The opening of any footway, roadway, road shoulder or any part of the road reserve shall not be carried out without a road opening permit being obtained from Council (upon payment of the required fee) beforehand.
Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.
29. Prescribed conditions
The applicant shall comply with any relevant prescribed conditions of development consent under clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the following conditions are prescribed in relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work:
· The work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia · In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any works commence.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
30. Hours of work
Demolition, excavation, construction work and deliveries of building material and equipment must not take place outside the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12 noon Saturday. No work and no deliveries are to take place on Sundays and public holidays.
Excavation or removal of any materials using machinery of any kind, including compressors and jack hammers, must be limited to between 7.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday, with a respite break of 45 minutes between 12 noon 1.00pm.
Where it is necessary for works to occur outside of these hours (ie) placement of concrete for large floor areas on large residential/commercial developments or where building processes require the use of oversized trucks and/or cranes that are restricted by the RTA from travelling during daylight hours to deliver, erect or remove machinery, tower cranes, pre-cast panels, beams, tanks or service equipment to or from the site, approval for such activities will be subject to the issue of an "outside of hours works permit" from Council as well as notification of the surrounding properties likely to be affected by the proposed works.
Note: Failure to obtain a permit to work outside of the approved hours will result in on the spot fines being issued.
Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.
31. Approved plans to be on site
A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
32. Site notice
A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works period.
The site notice must:
· be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the site for the purposes of informing the public that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted · display project details including, but not limited to the details of the builder, Principal Certifying Authority and structural engineer · be durable and weatherproof · display the approved hours of work, the name of the site/project manager, the responsible managing company (if any), its address and 24 hour contact phone number for any inquiries, including construction/noise complaint are to be displayed on the site notice · be mounted at eye level on the perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted
Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.
33. Further geotechnical input
The geotechnical and hydrogeological works implementation, inspection, testing and monitoring program for the excavation and construction works must be in accordance with the report by Geotechnique dated 30 April 2013 and the report submitted prior to commencement of works, as required by another condition of this consent. Over the course of the works, a qualified geotechnical engineer/ engineering geologist must complete the following:
· further geotechnical investigations and testing recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary · further monitoring and inspection at the hold points recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary · written report(s) including certification(s) of the geotechnical inspection, testing and monitoring programs
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
34. Compliance with submitted geotechnical report
A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee excavation.
Geotechnical aspects of the development work, namely:
· appropriate excavation method and vibration control · support and retention of excavated faces · hydro-geological considerations
must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnique dated 30 April 2013, and the report submitted prior to commencement of works, as required by another condition of this consent. Approval must be obtained from all affected property owners, including Ku-ring-gai Council, where rock anchors (both temporary and permanent) are proposed below adjoining property(ies).
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
35. Use of road or footpath
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.
Reason: To ensure safety and amenity of the area.
36. Guarding excavations
All excavation, demolition and construction works shall be properly guarded and protected with hoardings or fencing to prevent them from being dangerous to life and property.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
37. Toilet facilities
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, toilet facilities are to be provided, on the work site, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
38. Construction signage
All construction signs must comply with the following requirements:
· are not to cover any mechanical ventilation inlet or outlet vent · are not illuminated, self-illuminated or flashing at any time · are located wholly within a property where construction is being undertaken · refer only to the business(es) undertaking the construction and/or the site at which the construction is being undertaken · are restricted to one such sign per property · do not exceed 2.5m2 · are removed within 14 days of the completion of all construction works
Reason: To ensure compliance with Council's controls regarding signage.
39. Road reserve safety
All public footways and roadways fronting and adjacent to the site must be maintained in a safe condition at all times during the course of the development works. Construction materials must not be stored in the road reserve. A safe pedestrian circulation route and a pavement/route free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to any public access ways fronting the construction site. Where public infrastructure is damaged, repair works must be carried out when and as directed by Council officers. Where pedestrian circulation is diverted on to the roadway or verge areas, clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with AS1742-3 (1996) “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained across the site frontage, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may undertake proceedings to stop work.
Reason: To ensure safe public footways and roadways during construction.
40. Services
Where required, the adjustment or inclusion of any new utility service facilities must be carried out by the applicant and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant utility authority. These works shall be at no cost to Council. It is the applicants’ full responsibility to make contact with the relevant utility authorities to ascertain the impacts of the proposal upon utility services (including water, phone, gas and the like). Council accepts no responsibility for any matter arising from its approval to this application involving any influence upon utility services provided by another authority.
Reason: Provision of utility services.
41. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
The applicant must obtain a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994. An application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. The applicant is to refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au <http://www.sydneywater.com.au> then the “e-develop” icon or telephone 13 20 92. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
42. Arborist’s report
The trees to be retained shall be inspected and monitored by an AQF Level 5 Arborist in accordance with AS4970-2009 during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the project arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work, including date, brief description of the works inspected, and any mitigation works prescribed.
All monitoring shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
· All works as recommended by the project arborist are to be undertaken by an experienced arborist with a minimum AQF Level 3 qualification.
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
43. Treatment of tree roots
If tree roots are required to be severed for the purposes of constructing the approved works, they shall be cut cleanly by hand, by an experienced Arborist/Horticulturist with a minimum qualification of Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
44. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site. Tree numbers refer to arborist report prepared by Abel Ecology dated 14/03/14.
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
45. Hand excavation
All excavation within the specified radius of the trunk(s) of the following tree(s) shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
46. No storage of materials beneath trees
No activities, storage or disposal of materials shall take place beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council's Tree Preservation Order at any time.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
47. Removal of refuse
All builders' refuse, spoil and/or material unsuitable for use in landscape areas shall be removed from the site on completion of the building works.
Reason: To protect the environment.
48. On site retention of waste dockets
All demolition, excavation and construction waste dockets are to be retained on site, or at suitable location, in order to confirm which facility received materials generated from the site for recycling or disposal.
· Each docket is to be an official receipt from a facility authorised to accept the material type, for disposal or processing. · This information is to be made available at the request of an Authorised Officer of Council.
Reason: To protect the environment.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate:
49. Certification of drainage works and retaining walls
Prior to issue of the Final Certificate of Compliance, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:
· the stormwater drainage works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans · the retaining walls, driveway and parking slab have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans
Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Final Certificate of Compliance.
Reason: To protect the environment.
50. Construction of vehicular crossing
Prior to issue of the Final Certificate of Compliance, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that he or she has received a signed inspection form from Council which states that the following works in the road reserve have been completed:
· new concrete driveway crossing in accordance with levels and specifications issued by Council · full repair and resealing of any road surface damaged during construction · full replacement of damaged sections of grass verge to match existing
This inspection may not be carried out by the Private Certifier because restoration of Council property outside the boundary of the site is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
All works must be completed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued until all damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works on the subject site (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub-contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council. Repair works shall be at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect the streetscape.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Subdivision certificate:
51. OSD positive covenant
The applicant shall create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the on-site stormwater detention facilities on site. The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to appendices of Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47). The location of the on-site detention facilities is to be noted on the final plan of subdivision.
Reason: To ensure maintenance of on site stormwater detention facilities.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Issue of Subdivision Certificate
The Subdivision Certificate must not be issued until all conditions of development consent have been satisfied and a Final Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed prior to transfer of responsibility for the site and development to another person.
55. 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 two (2) 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.
56. Submission of plans of subdivision (Torrens Title)
For endorsement of the subdivision certificate, the applicant shall submit an original plan of subdivision plus 2 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 at the time of lodgement b) the 88B instrument plus 2 copies c) all surveyor’s and/or consulting engineers’ certification(s) required under this subdivision consent d) The Section 73 (Sydney Water) Compliance Certificate for the subdivision. e) Proof of payment of S94 contribution
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.
57. 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 the Principal Certifying Authority.
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.
Conditions to be satisfied at all times:
58. Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)
The following three Vegetation Management Plans, prepared by Abel Ecology, dated 14 March 2014, are endorsed in their entirety.
· All weeding removal, weed techniques, environmental protection measures and ongoing maintenance works are to be carried out in accordance with the VMP.
· All noxious and environmental weeds are to be removed from the within the site.
· All vegetation works are to be conducted by a suitably qualified bush regenerator. The minimum qualifications minimum qualifications and experience (for bush regenerator) are a TAFE Certificate 2 in Bushland Regeneration and one year demonstrated experience (for other personnel). In addition the site supervisor is to be eligible for full professional membership of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators (AABR).
· The deletion of all subsections within the VMP’s relating to “Bushfire hazard reduction” and “Emergencies”.
Reason: To ensure the protection and enhancement of ecological values within the site.
59. Aboriginal relics
Should any Aboriginal ‘objects’ or ‘deposits’ be uncovered during works on the site, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the Aboriginal Heritage Officer and or the Office of Environment and Heritage is to be informed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (as amended). Aboriginal ‘objects’ or ‘deposits’ must be managed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) and the NSW Heritage Act (1977).
INTEGRATED REFERRAL CONDITIONS:
60. Rural Fire Service conditions
This response is to be deemed a bush fire safety authority as required under section 100B of the 'Rural Fires Act 1997' and is issued subject to the following numbered conditions:
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 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 for the existing dwellings is to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.
Design and construction The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:
3. The existing buildings are required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. Where applicable, this includes any sub floor areas, openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.
Landscaping 4. Landscaping to the entire site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.
General advice - consent authority to note This approval is for the subdivision of the land only. Any further development application for class 1,2 & 3 buildings as identified by the 'Building Code of Australia' may be subject to separate application under section 79BA of the EP & A Act and address the requirements of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.”
Reason: Bushfire safety.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Janice Buteux-Wheeler Development Assessment Officer |
Richard Kinninmont Team Leader- Development Assessment - Central |
|
Corrie Swanepoel Manager Development Assessment Services |
Michael Miocic Director Development & Regulation |
|
A1View |
Original report to Council |
|
2014/136103 |
|
|
|
A2View |
Location Sketch |
|
2014/164337 |
|
|
A3View |
Zoning Extract |
|
2014/164336 |
|
|
A4View |
Subdivision Plans |
|
2014/073598 |
|
|
A5View |
Drainage Plans |
|
2014/073592 |
|
|
A6View |
Landscape Plans |
|
2014/073588 |
|
|
A7View |
Driveway Plans |
|
2013/294932 |
|
|
A8View |
Tree Canopy Plan |
|
2013/294890 |
|
|
A9View |
Arborist Report |
|
2014/073571 |
|
|
A10View |
Envrionmental Site Management Plan |
|
2014/073583 |
|
|
A11View |
Vegetation Management Plan 49 Minnamurra Avenue |
|
2014/073563 |
|
|
A12View |
Vegetation Management Plan 47 Minnamurra Avenue |
|
2014/073559 |
|
|
A13View |
Vegetation Management Plan 34A Kiparra Street |
|
2014/073552 |
|
|
A14View |
Geotechnical Report |
|
2013/294926 |
|
|
A15View |
Flora and Fauna Report |
|
2013/294922 |
|
|
A16View |
Planning Circular |
|
2014/164409 |
|
|
Item No: GB.2 |
development application
Summary Sheet
|
Report title: |
47 & 49 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble - Torrens Title subdivision of two residential lots into three residential lots |
|
ITEM/AGENDA NO: |
GB.3 |
|
Application No: |
|
|
Property Details: |
47 & 49 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble Lot & DP No: Lot 26 & Lot 27 DP26057 Site area (m2): 3415 m2 Zoning: Residential 2 (c) |
|
Ward: |
Gordon |
|
Proposal/Purpose: |
To determine Development Application No 0445/13, which proposes Torrens title subdivision of two lots into three lots. |
|
Type of Consent: |
Integrated |
|
Applicant: |
Mr Ramon Gardiner |
|
Owner: |
Ramon Gardiner, Linda Yeates, Michael Gardiner |
|
Date Lodged: |
15 November 2013 |
|
Recommendation: |
Approval |
To determine Development Application No 0445/13 which seeks consent for the Torrens title subdivision of two lots into three lots.
This application is reported to Council in accordance with the Department of Planning Circular PS08-14 (attached) which does not permit development applications that propose variations to development standards in excess of 10% to be determined under delegated authority. Each lot within the proposed subdivision incorporates a variation to the minimum lot width development standard prescribed by Clause 58B (3) of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.
The proposed development would result in a 36% variation for Lot 1, a 16.6% variation for Lot 2, and an 8.3% variation for Lot 3.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces & Infrastructure
|
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 a high quality, accurate and consider all relevant legislative requirements
|
Executive Summary
Issues: SEPP 1 Objection, vegetation impacts, bushland corridor, proximity to bushland reserve, bush fire mitigation impacts, SEPP 1 – lot width
Submissions: One submission received
Land & Environment Court Appeal: N/A
Recommendation: Approval
History
Site
13 May 2011 Development Application DA0233/11 lodged with Council seeking consent for Torrens title subdivision of two lots into three lots.
6 September 2011 DA0233/11 refused by Council. Reasons for refusal included significant issues inadequately addressed by the applicant, including but not limited to: streetscape impacts, vegetation impacts, inconsistency with existing character of the area, preservation of the bushland corridor, proximity to bushland reserve, bush fire impacts and bush fire mitigation impacts.
21 August 2012 Pre-DA consultation. The proposal was similar in content to the previous development refused (DA0233/11), but amended to address the reasons for refusal.
DA History
15 November 2013 Application was lodged.
20 November 2013 The application was notified to neighbouring property owners for a period of 14 days. One submission was received.
21 December 2013 A letter was sent to the applicant seeking additional information and advising of outstanding issues relating to:
· further arboricultural assessment
· further stormwater detail
· biolink planting detail
23 March 2014 Amended plans and additional information were lodged
30 April 2011 Amended vegetation management plans were lodged.
The Site
Site description
The site comprises two lots:
The first lot at 47 Minnamurra Avenue (34A Kiparra Street) is 1814m2 and contains a dwelling house. The site has a fall to Minnamurra Avenue of approximately 30 metres and has a number of rock outcrops, including a rock ledge approximately 3 metres in height parallel to and at the location of the Minnamurra Avenue boundary of the allotment. The allotment is heavily vegetated.
The second lot at 49 Minnamurra Avenue is 1601m2 and is wedge shaped, with a 48.77 metres frontage to Blackbutt Reserve. The site also contains a dwelling house.
Surrounding development
The site is located in a 1945-1968 visual character study area and is characterised by natural features such as rock outcrops, creek lines and native vegetation. The area is also characterised by streetscapes with detached residences on single lots varying in size from 929m2 to 1562m2. Properties surrounding the site consist of regular shaped allotments, accessed from the Minnamurra Avenue cul-de-sac and Kiparra Street.
The Proposal
The proposal includes the Torrens title subdivision of two existing lots into three new lots, in the following manner:
Existing Lot 26 DP 26057, 47 Minnamurra Avenue (34A Kiparra Street) Pymble:
Site area: 1814.0m2
Frontage: 10.67m (cul-de-sac) to Minnamurra Avenue
Vehicular access is provided via the formed public pathway to Kiparra Street
Existing Lot 27 DP 26057, 49 Minnamurra Avenue Pymble:
Site area: 1601.0m2
Frontage: 9.15m (cul-de-sac) to Minnamurra Avenue
Vehicular access is provided via a driveway off Minnamurra Avenue
Combined lot size = 3415m2
Creation of three new lots:
New Lot 1
Site area: 953 square metres
Frontage: 5.7 metres to formed public pathway off Kiparra Street
Width: variable (triangular shaped)
The lot would contain the existing dwelling house and carport. The existing vehicular access, via the existing roadway from Kiparra Street, would be maintained.
New Lot 2
Site area: 1171 square metres
Frontage: 10.67 metres to Minnamurra Avenue
Width: 15 metres at 12.2 metre depth (cl.58 (b)(3))
The lot would be vacant. Concept drawings indicate that vehicular access is proposed via a hardstand/garage space at the Minnamurra Avenue boundary with access via Minnamurra Avenue.
New Lot 3
Site area: 1291 square metres
Frontage: 9.145 metres to Minnamurra Avenue
Width: 16.3 metres at 12.2 metre depth (cl.58 (b)(3))
The lot would contain the existing dwelling house, garage and two studios. The existing vehicular access, via a driveway off Minnamurra Avenue, would be maintained.
Consultation
Community
In accordance with Development Control Plan No. 56, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response, submissions from the following were received:
1. Suzanne Y. O'Reilly and Bill Griffin, 45 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble
The submission raised the following issues:
Lack of (and loss of) on street parking.
Council’s Development Engineer did not raise any concerns with regard to the proposal’s impact on street parking. Council’s Traffic Section have not had cause to investigate parking in the cul de sac. There were two cars parked on the road at the time of site inspection and it is reasonable to assume that the parking situation at the existing residence on proposed Lot 3 will continue until such time as that property is redeveloped.
The proposed two off-street parking spaces for new Lot 2 would make that lot compliant with Council’s DCP 43 Car parking. The proposed driveway and parking area are acceptable on engineering grounds.
Both lots with frontage to Minnamurra Avenue will have adequate space for the placement of bins without encroaching into the neighbour’s frontage.
Lack of detail with regard to relocation of the sewer main.
Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal with regard to relocation of the sewer main. The driveway is proposed to be located over the 150mm diameter sewer main. Sydney Water has its own requirements for building over or adjacent to its mains, and Water Servicing Co-ordinators are the consultants designated to administer these requirements. Therefore the letter from K. R. Stubbs & Associates, confirming that the sewer main can be adjusted to accommodate the driveway excavation, is sufficient for Council’s assessment of the application.
Concern regarding the composition of rock being excavated, and its structural abilty for retaining land.
The geotechnical report recommends a detailed geotechnical investigation for design of retaining structures. This is included in the recommended conditions. If the investigation encounters shale layers or other conditions which would mean that a vertical cut in the rock would not be suitable, then a retaining structure would be required, which would need to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans for the subdivision. (Condition 33 and 34).
Concern regarding the setback of the four metres cut for the driveway in relation to the easement and the north-western boundary. For safety reasons it may be necessary to require a safety barrier.
The proposal includes a driveway and two car parking spaces within the front setback of Lot 2, which will necessitate approximately four metres of excavation inside the property. The driveway has been assessed against the applicable provisions of AS2890.1:2004. A geotechnical report has been provided by the applicant as part of the development application, the recommendations of which are to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer. A handrail is required to be provided via a condition of consent (Condition 21).
Concern regarding groundwater impacts for areas of cut.
The geotechnical report recommends a detailed geotechnical investigation for design of retaining structures. This is included in the recommended conditions. If the investigation encounters shale layers, or other conditions which would mean that a vertical cut would not be suitable, then an alternative retaining structure would be required, which would need to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans for the subdivision. (Condition 9, 33 and 34).
Technical inaccuracies and inconsistencies across submitted documentation.
The documents submitted with the development application have been comprehensively assessed by Council staff, drawing upon specialised technical knowledge. In this respect, the submitted documentation is sufficient to allow assessment and determination of the development application, and is accurate to the extent required to be relied upon for development consent.
Within Council
Heritage
Council’s Heritage Advisor commented on the proposal as follows:
“The existing site of No 47 Minnamurra Avenue has primary access from a driveway off Kiparra Avenue and the existing house is close to the access driveway at the western end of its site. The Minnamurra Avenue frontage appears to be largely undisturbed although it would have been partially disturbed during road works forming Minnamurra Avenue and works for the sewer line.
The existing house and studio at No 49 Minnamurra Avenue is accessed off Minnamurra Avenue and substantial disturbance to the site at its Minnamurra Avenue frontage would have occurred during its construction. The area of the site that will for the new lot 2 is less disturbed, is steep and appears to contain rock outcrops and thus has some potential for Aboriginal objects or deposits given its location adjoining Blackbutt Reserve and being relatively close to Blackbutt Creek.”
A condition to manage any disturbed Aboriginal objects or deposits in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Act is recommended. (Condition 59).
Landscaping
Council's Landscape Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:
“Site characteristics
All three proposed lots adjoin Blackbutt Creek Reserve to the south. The site is predominantly bushland with large rock outcropping and sandstone floaters. The trees on the site form part of a bushland corridor that links from Blackbutt Creek Reserve to the north. The site is mapped as having biodiversity significance (Draft Ku-ring-gai LEP 2013).
Tree impacts
An arborist report, prepared by Abel Ecology, has been submitted with the application. All references to tree numbers are consistent with the arborist report. The following abbreviations have been used to describe the size of existing trees: height (H), canopy spread (S), diameter at breast height (DBH), tree protection zone (TPZ) and structural root zone (SRZ).
A map prepared by Urakawa Jenkins, dated 24/10/13, has been submitted indicating trees to be retained and removed across the entire site.
Trees to be removed
The report recommends the removal of twenty nine trees. This number includes one exempt tree, however it excludes six Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum), described as an invasive native (Tree 35). Of the twenty eight trees to be removed, seventeen are considered significant. Of these significant trees, seven are to be removed for the dwelling and ten are to be removed for the required bush fire mitigation Asset Protection Zone (APZ).
Trees to be retained
Five trees near the proposed driveway and dwelling are proposed to be retained and protected.
Tree 9/ Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) is a mature tree located in the front setback of the site. The proposed driveway will encroach within 11% of the tree protection zone. The indicative building footprint is approximately four metres from the tree. As the dwelling footprint is indicative, its’ encroachment within the tree protection zone has not been included in the encroachment calculation for the subdivision application.
Tree 13/ Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) is a mature tree located in the front setback of Lot 3. The proposed driveway will encroach within 5% of the tree protection zone. The proposed stormwater drainage line is located within the structural root zone however it is proposed to be located within an existing open stormwater drain. The impact is considered acceptable.
Tree 27/ Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) is a mature tree located in the front setback of the site. The proposed driveway will encroach within 9% of the tree protection zone. The indicative building footprint is approximately four metres from the tree. As the dwelling footprint is indicative, its’ encroachment within the tree protection zone has not been included in the encroachment calculation for the subdivision application.
Vegetation Management Plan
A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for each of the proposed lots has been submitted. The VMP identifies three management zones all of which are to be maintained as an Inner Protection Area (IPA).
A biolink/APZ buffer to Blackbutt Reserve is to be maintained along the southern boundary ‘of all lots where no exotic or non-local species are to be planted. ’ (Section 5.3, VMP, Abel Ecology, 11/11/13).
Stormwater plan
There are no landscape objections to the stormwater plan.
Site planning - private open space
The proposed private open space for the new lot is split between the front setback and the rear. The front space has poor privacy and is entirely within the canopy spread of Trees 9 and 27. The rear area is preferable for use as private open space with minor ground modifications.
Fire
The site is within the Category 1 and buffer zone area of Council’s Bushfire Prone Land Map. The whole site is to be managed as an asset protection zone with vegetative matter reduced as described as an Inner Protection Area (IPA).
Conclusion
The proposal is supported, subject to conditions.”
Engineering
Council's Development Engineer commented on the proposal as follows:
"The application includes design details for interallotment drainage and carparking, geotechnical assessment and advice regarding sewer main adjustments.
The proposal includes a driveway and two car parking platforms within the front setback of Lot 2, which will necessitate excavation inside the property to a depth of approximately four metres, increasing to six metres where the detention tank is located beneath the parking slab. These works form part of the subdivision application.
Water management
A proposed new interallotment drainage system conveys roofwater from the existing dwelling on Lot 1 to Minnamurra Avenue, together with discharge from the new on site detention tank on Lot 2.
The longitudinal section of the interallotment drainage pipe shows the ground surface level at a uniform grade, but it is actually a series of boulders. Although the longitudinal section has a note “Drainage line to be bored through rock”, the arborist report first recommends various trenching methods for pipe installation near trees, none of which appear suitable for excavation in rock. The flora and fauna report contains identical recommendations. If boring is proposed, which seems most likely, the location of the launch pits must be shown on the drawings. It would be prudent to also show the significant trees to be certain of achieving the 750mm required between the bore and the surface level.
The plans indicate turf-lined surface drains along the rear boundaries of proposed Lots 2 and 3. The uneven topography of the site, with outcropping boulders, means that the construction of these drains could be problematic and the use of turf has been questioned by Landscape Services. From a technical point of view, it is considered that these drains could be deleted, as there are no works proposed behind the existing dwelling on Lot 3 and cut off drains could be accommodated in the design of the new dwelling on Lot 2, in accordance with the Australian Geomechanics Society guidelines as recommended in the geotechnical assessment.
Off-street parking
It is noted that the existing residence at 49 Minnamurra Avenue only has a single garage, contrary to the requirements of Council’s DCP 43 Car parking for two off-street spaces for a residential dwelling.
Parking in the cul de sac has been raised as an issue in a submission. Council’s Traffic Section have not had cause to investigate parking in the cul de sac. There were two cars parked at the time of site inspection. It is considered reasonable that the parking situation at the existing residence may continue until such time as that property is developed.
The proposed two off-street parking spaces for new Lot 2 would make that lot compliant with Council’s DCP 43 Car parking. There are no technical reasons why the proposed driveway and parking area would not be supported.
Both lots with frontage to Minnamurra Avenue will have adequate space for placement of bins without encroaching into the neighbour’s frontage.
Geotechnical assessment
The report, which is based on a walkover site survey, discusses such matters as excavation into rock for the driveway, parking slab and detention tank, as well as geotechnical aspects of the proposed dwelling construction.
The report recommends dilapidation reporting of nearby structures. Recommended conditions include structures of 45 Minnamurra Avenue in this reporting, as the residence is relatively close to the proposed excavation.
The civil design drawings show a vertical cut in rock, however the geotechnical report does not identify the depth to medium to high strength sandstone (which can be cut vertically) but recommends a detailed geotechnical investigation for design of retaining structures. If a vertical cut is not suitable, then a retaining structure would be required, to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans for the subdivision. Any handrail required at the top of the excavation shall be shown on the Construction Certificate design.
Sewer main
The proposed driveway appears to be over the 150mm diameter sewer main. Sydney Water has its own requirements for building over or adjacent to its mains, and Water Servicing Co-ordinators are the consultants designated to administer these requirements. Therefore the letter from K. R. Stubbs & Associates, confirming that the sewer main can be adjusted to accommodate the driveway excavation, is sufficient for Council’s assessment of the application.”
Council's Development Engineer provided the following further comment in response to the amended plans and documentation:
“The applicant has submitted amended plans and documentation. The application is supported on engineering grounds, subject to conditions.
Sheets D01 and D03 of the stormwater management design by NB Consulting Engineers have been amended, however the originally submitted Sheets C01 and C02, driveway and retaining wall details, and Sheet D02, the drainage section and details, remain current. These drawings are all satisfactory .
The Landscape Development Officer believes that the drainage lines can be installed without adverse impacts on trees and vegetation.
The turf-lined surface drains which were considered impractical, have been removed from the drawings. Surface drainage around the two existing residences will remain and it is expected that site conditions would be considered in the design of any new dwelling on Lot 2 at that time.”
Ecology
Council's Ecological Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:
“Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland a non-threatened community is identified as present within the majority of the site. Suitable foraging habitat for threatened fauna including the Powerful Owl, Grey-headed Flying-fox and microbat species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 is identified within the site. A high diversity of native flora species was recorded within the site.
Ecological constraints/environmental controls
The native vegetation (Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest) within the site occurs primarily adjacent to the Blackbutt Creek Reserve and has been mapped as category 1 core biodiversity significance under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan No. 218 (2013).
A small area of the site is also mapped as containing a category 1 riparian corridor which occurs on the lower north-eastern portion of the site. In accordance with Council‘s Riparian Policy the category 1 watercourse requires a 40 metres core riparian zone (CRZ). The proposed subdivision will result in the modification of a small area of vegetation within the category 1 watercourse.
Note: The management of vegetation that is identified as biodiversity significant and riparian land for bush fire purposes would be required as a fire protection measure for the existing dwellings upon Lots 1 & 3, irrespective of the proposed subdivision to create an additional lot (Lot 2).
A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared which addresses the required fire protection management of the identified biodiversity and riparian significant land. The VMP ensures that the ecological values of the biodiversity and riparian areas as defined under LEP 218 are maintained and are not likely to be detrimentally affected by the proposal. Ecological values are maintained, primarily through weeding works which will enhance the native understorey but more specifically mechanisms such as carefully selected removal of native vegetation to achieve fire protection. The site contains extensive rock outcropping which helps achieve the desired management of the ground layer as an Inner Protection Area (IPA) due to the limited opportunity for fuel loading.
Environmental controls
The native vegetation within the site has been mapped as “biodiversity significance” under the KLEP 218 (2013).
The arborist report indicates impacts upon native trees, being nine trees proposed to be removed for the driveway, dwelling and garage. Eighteen trees have been recommended for removal for asset protection bush fire management.
The flora and fauna assessment indicates a level of survey effort to detect threatened flora and fauna species in accordance with the Introduction and Amphibians by DECCW (April 2009) and the Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Development and Activities - Working Draft by DEC (November 2004).
The flora and fauna assessment, prepared by Abel Ecology, has adequately assessed the proposal in accordance with section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal will not significantly affect habitat for threatened fauna species which are known to reside within the locality of the site e.g. Grey-headed Flying-fox.
KLEP 218 (2013) Biodiversity significance and vegetation management plan
The proposal will result in the removal, of a total of twenty-eight native trees and partial removal of native ground vegetation.
Note: Of the twenty-eight native trees proposed for removal thirteen trees within Lot 3 (T14, T15, T25, T60, T61, T65, T67, T70, T71, T73 & T75) and two trees within Lot 1 (T5 & T36) are required for removal for fire protection to the existing dwellings.
The new dwelling will result in the removal of ten native trees. Three of these are small sub-canopy trees (Sweet pittosporum). One of these trees is dead. The six remaining native trees to be removed are not significantly prominent in stature; the maximum diameter of the largest tree to be removed is 38cm and its height is 17m.
Ongoing management within lots
The submitted Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) addresses the required management of the area of land identified as biodiversity significance with regard to fire protection. The VMP ensures that the ecological values of the biodiversity area as defined under KLEP 218 are maintained and are not likely to be detrimentally affected by the proposal. Ecological values are maintained, primarily through weeding works which will enhance the native understorey but more specifically mechanisms such as selected removal of native vegetation to achieve fire protection. In short, not all vegetation will be removed as a result of the proposal.
The site contains extensive rock outcropping which helps achieve the desired management of the ground layer as an Inner Protection Area (IPA) due to limited fuel loading.
The VMP is sufficient to ensure the enhancement, protection and ensure the long-term viability of the SSGF community/vegetation upon the site. The VMP demonstrates compliance with proposed Asset Protection Zones and demonstrates the retention of vegetation to ensure compliance with Council’s LEP 218 (2013) Biodiversity Land controls.
The VMP has selected appropriate species which are to be planted that are representative of SSGF community within the rear of Lot 2, soft (Non-sclerophyllic) species have been selected to be planted over sclerophyllic species as they have a lower combustion.
The VMP describes each task necessary for the implementation of the plan, the duration and priority. Maps, diagrams and plant species lists are contained within the plan. The VMP describes the existing vegetation and natural features to be retained, proposed vegetation, sediment and erosion control and land stabilisation works.
SEPP 19 Urban Bushland
A two metres buffer ”where no exotic or non-local species are to be planted” is proposed along the southern boundary which adjoins Blackbutt Reserve.
The potential for the maintenance of vegetation for asset protection within the new configuration of lots to result in the establishment of weeds within Blackbutt Reserve has been considered.
Weed management and suppression will be undertaken through the implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan which has been prepared for the proposal.
As the reserve is upslope of the dwelling and associated landscape areas, Blackbutt Reserve is unlikely to be impacted upon by weeds associated with nutrient loading or other impacts. The area of land within the eastern portion of the newly created Lot 2 immediately adjacent to Blackbutt Creek has a high proportion of sandstone and limited soil which is not beneficial in supporting weed growth, therefore it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to adversely affect the SEPP 19 bushland area to the east.
Impacts to biolinkages corridors
The arborist report has recommended the removal of nine trees for the driveway, dwelling and garage. Eighteen trees are proposed for removal for bush fire management asset protection works. The vegetation within the site forms part of a vegetated corridor biolink which connects Blackbutt Reserve to Yarran Street Reserve. The proposal will result in the removal of primarily small trees.
The proposal will result in partial canopy fragmentation the tree corridor between these reserves. It is important to note that the greater majority of the tree removal occurring within the site would occur irrespective of the proposal for protection to existing dwellings upon Lot 1 and Lot 3. Despite tree removal occurring within the site, the remaining canopy cover will still be sufficient to support species such as possums and birds which are likely to be utilising the site as a corridor.
Due to the presence of extensive rock within the site and weeds within the southern area of proposed Lot 2, the ground cover vegetation would require minimal modification to comply with the required fire protection. Therefore, it is considered the proposal is unlikely to reduce the biolinkage at the ground layer between Blackbutt Creek Reserve and Yarran Street Reserve.
Conclusion
The application is supported.”
Outside Council
NSW Rural Fire Service
Under the provisions of section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is Integrated Development on the basis that a bush safety authority from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service is required under the provisions of s.100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, due to the proposal involving subdivision of bush fire prone land for residential purposes.
Accordingly, the development was referred to the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service and the following comment was received:
“Integrated Development for 47-49 Minnamurra Avenue Pymble NSW 2073
I refer to your letter dated 19 November 2013 seeking general terms of approval for
the above Integrated Development in accordance with Section 91 of the 'Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979'.This response is to be deemed a bush fire safety authority as required under section 100B of the 'Rural Fires Act 1997' and is issued, subject to the following numbered conditions:
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 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 for the existing dwellings is to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.
Design and construction
The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:
3. The existing buildings are required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. Where applicable, this includes any sub floor areas, openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.
Landscaping
4. Landscaping to the entire site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.
General advice – consent authority to note
This approval is for the subdivision of the land only. Any further development application for class 1,2 & 3 buildings as identified by the 'Building Code of Australia' may be subject to separate application under section 79BA of the EP & A Act and address the requirements of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.”
Planning Comment:
The impacts of the Rural Fire Service Bush Fire Safety Authority, particularly with regard to vegetation works required to achieve the Inner Protection Area landscape outcome, have been considered by Council’s Landscape Development Officer and Ecologist and are acceptable. The RFS conditions are included in Condition 60.
NSW Office of Water
The site is located within 40m of a “river” as defined under the Water Management Act 2000. Council considered the proposal to be a Controlled Activity and as such integrated development requiring a Controlled Activity Approval under Part 3 of the Water Management Act 2000.
Accordingly, the development was referred to NSW Office of Water and the following comment was received:
“Integrated Development - 47-49 Minnamurra Avenue Pymble - Subdivision of two lots into three lots
The Office of Water has reviewed documents for the above development application and considers that, for the purposes of the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act), a controlled activity approval is not required and no further assessment by this agency is necessary for one of the following reasons:
The proposed activity is exempt from section 91 E (1) of the WM Act in relation to controlled activities specified in clause 39 of Subdivision 4, and Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2011 that are carried out in, on or under waterfront land.“
Planning Comment:
Council staff have met the statutory obligations with regard to integrated development for this application. The Office of Water has considered the development and has not elected to impose conditions.
Statutory Provisions
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Rural Fires Act 1997
Under the provisions of section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is Integrated Development on the basis that a bush safety authority from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service is required under the provisions of s.100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, due to the proposal involving subdivision of bush fire prone land for residential purposes.
Water Management Act 2000
Under the provisions of section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is also considered Integrated Development on the basis that a Controlled Activity Approval is required under the provisions of Part 3 of the Water Management Act 2000, due to the proposal involving subdivision of land within 40 metres of a water canal.
State Environmental Planning Policies
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)
The intent of SEPP 1 is to allow flexibility in the application of a development standard, particularly where strict application of the standard would unreasonably constrain appropriate development.
Clause 58B (3) of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance stipulates a minimum lot width of 18 metres at a distance of 12.2 metres from the street boundary for residential lots on land zoned Residential 2(c). Clause 58B (3) constitutes a development standard which may only be varied by way of an objection made pursuant to SEPP1.
The proposed development would result in a lot with a width of 11.5 metres to Lot 1, a width of 15 metres to Lot 2 and a width of 16.5 metres to Lot 3. Accordingly, a SEPP 1 objection has been lodged, which is considered below.
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas
The application has been considered in accordance with the requirements of Clause 9 - Land adjoining land zoned or reserved for public open space –
The public authority shall not carry out that development or grant the approval or development consent 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 vegetation within the site forms part of a vegetated corridor “biolink” which connects Blackbutt Reserve to a Yarran Street Reserve. Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has assessed the development proposal (including the Vegetation Management Plan) in this regard and finds it acceptable in terms of potential impacts to adjoining reserves. Refer to comments of Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer above.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River
SREP 20 applies to land within the catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River. The general aim of the plan is to ensure that development and future land uses within the catchment are considered in a regional context. The Plan includes strategies for the assessment of development in relation to water quality and quantity, scenic quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.
A small area of the site is also mapped as containing a category 1 riparian corridor which occurs on the lower north-eastern portion of the site. Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has assessed the development proposal (including the Vegetation Management Plan) in this regard and finds it acceptable in terms of potential impacts to water quality and riparian matters and is consistent with the objectives of SREP 20.
Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO)
Permissibility
Subdivision within the Residential 2(c) zone is permissible under Clause 23 of the KPSO. Clause 58A of the KPSO provides that a person shall not subdivide land to which the Ordinance applies except with the development consent.
Clause 58B sets out the subdivision requirements for dwelling house lots and provides the following minimum requirements for Residential 2(c) subdivisions:
Part A: Development standards
|
Development standard |
Proposed |
Complies |
|
Subdivision for dwelling houses |
|
|
|
Site area: 929m2 (min)
|
Lot 1:953m2 Lot 2: 1171m2 Lot 3: 1291m2
|
YES YES YES |
|
Site width: 18m (min) at a distance of 12.2m from the street alignment
|
Lot 1:11.5m Lot 2: 15m Lot 3: 16.5m
|
NO NO NO |
|
Access handle width: |
Lot 1 is not subject to an access handle, and is accessed via a formed public pathway that is owned by Council.
|
N/A |
|
Built upon areas 60% max Lot 1 - (571.8m2)(max)
Lot 2 – (702.6m2)(max)
Lot 3 – (774.6m2)(max) |
Existing dwelling retained – 27.54% BUA
No built upon area proposed
Existing dwelling retained – 25.49% BUA
|
YES
N/A
YES |
Lot width
Each of the proposed lots has a frontage that breaches the prescribed development standard set out under Clause 58B (3) of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance, the extent of the breaches is as follows:
Lot 1 – lot width = 11.5m, variation = 6.5m or 36%
Lot 2 – lot width = 15m, variation = 3m or 16.6%
Lot 3 – lot width = 16.5m, variation = 1.5m or 8.3%
The applicant has lodged a SEPP1 objection which is assessed against the following provisions:
whether the planning control to be varied is a development standard
Clause 58B (3) of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance stipulates a minimum lot width of 18 metres at a distance of 12.2 metres from the street alignment for residential lots on land zoned Residential 2(c). The Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is a planning instrument and Clause 58B (3) constitutes a development standard as defined by Section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
the underlying objective or purpose of the standard
The Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance does not provide specific objectives for the minimum lot width requirement of Clause 58B (3), however it does provide aims and objectives for residential zones under Schedule 9 as follows:
Aims:
(a) to maintain and, where appropriate, improve the existing amenity and environmental character of residential zones; and
(b) to permit new residential development only where it is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality and has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development
Objectives:
(c) any building or development work shall maintain or encourage replacement of treecover whenever possible to ensure the predominant landscape quality of the Municipality is maintained and enhanced; and
(d) any building or development work on a site avoids total or near total site utilisation by maintaining a reasonable proportion of the site as a soft landscaping area; and
(e) all new dwelling-houses and additions to existing dwelling-houses are of a height, size and bulk generally in keeping with that of neighbouring properties and, where larger buildings are proposed, they are designed so as not to dominate and so far as possible to harmonise with neighbouring development; and
(g) all new dwelling-houses and additions provide reasonable space on the site for the forward entrance and exit of vehicles;
whether compliance with the standard is consistent with the aims of the policy and whether compliance hinders the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
The aim of SEPP 1 is to:
Provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
In this regard, the objects of Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act are:
(a) To encourage:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment;
(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land
The applicant has adequately addressed the likely impacts of the development upon the environment within the development application submission documents and, as such, has demonstrated consistency with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case
The following provides a summary of the arguments provided by the applicant within the submitted SEPP 1 objection seeking support for the variation to the development standard:
· compliance with the lot width standard is unnecessary to ensure the achievement of an appropriate urban form and residential dwelling
· the proposed subdivision does not alter the current lot widths to the streets measured at a distance of 12.2m from the street frontage
· 34A Kiparra Street and 49 Minnamurra Avenue already accommodate dwellings on the existing lot widths without adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwellings or the standard of accommodation provided
· compliance with the standard is unreasonable in the circumstances given the proposed variation to the lot widths as measured under clause 58B does not result in significant adverse amenity impacts on adjoining residential development in terms of privacy overshadowing and view loss
· the resulting lots are of a size, configuration and width consistent with the pattern of development that prevails in the locality; and
· compliance with the lot width development standard would not result in any discernible benefits to the community given that no significant adverse impacts arise from the non-compliance of the proposal
The proposed development would result in three lots that breach the prescribed development standard by a range of 8.3% to 36%. The supporting documentation and Council’s assessment of the development indicates acceptable streetscape, amenity and environmental impacts as stated previously in this report and, as such, strict compliance with the minimum lot width development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.
whether the objection is well founded
For the reasons outlined above, the SEPP1 objection is considered to be well founded. The objection has demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. The application demonstrates that the non-complying development satisfies the underlying objective of the standard (Schedule 9) and that compliance would hinder attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
whether the proposed variation is of regional or state significance
The context and situation in which the departure from the development standard is proposed is not considered to have any regional or state significance. The variation to the standard is an existing situation that applies to this site and the departure would not hinder the application of the development standard for lot width elsewhere in the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.
the public benefit in maintaining the planning controls under the environmental planning instrument
The variation to minimum lot width is an existing situation upon the site. Compliance cannot be achieved within the existing subdivision arrangement. No discernible public benefit is gained from requiring compliance with the development standard to an existing situation that is characteristic of the Minnamurra streetscape.
Part B: Aims and objectives for residential zones
The development is satisfactory having regard to the following aims of the KPSO:
(i) The application has demonstrated that the development will maintain the amenity and environmental character of the residential zone.
(ii) The development adequately responds to the unique features and constraints of the site and the associated issues that stem from those constraints. As such, the application demonstrates that the development is compatible with the character of the area, is sympathetic and harmonious in its relationship with adjoining development.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern. The surrounding lots range in size from 929m2 to 1562m2, with an average lot size of 1252m2. The existing subdivision pattern contains regularly configured allotments with some having direct frontage to Minnamurra Avenue or Kiparra Street and others accessed via an access handle.
The existing subdivision pattern is typified by larger allotment sizes (usually wedge shaped) to those properties that have a reduced street frontage, generally located to cul-de-sac and battleaxe arrangements. Further, those lots that are considerably constrained by access, slope and vegetation are much larger than the minimum lot size prescribed by Clause 43 of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance. All lots proposed as part of this application exceed the minimum lot size (area) provisions of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.
Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance – LEP 218 Biodiversity and Heritage
Cl.61L Biodiversity protection
The subject site is mapped as an area of Biodiversity Significance and, as such, the biodiversity protection provisions of the LEP apply.
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has provided an assessment of the proposed development against the biodiversity lands controls in accordance with the KLEP 218 2013. The proposal is acceptable in this regard. Refer to comments above.
Cl.61M Riparian land and waterways
The subject site is mapped as an area of Natural Resources Riparian Land and, as such, the riparian land and waterways provisions of the LEP apply.
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has provided an assessment of the proposed development against the riparian lands controls in accordance with the KLEP 218 2013. The proposal is acceptable in this regard. Refer to comments above.
Cl.61D Heritage conservation
The subject site is not mapped on the Heritage Conservation Areas Map and, as such, the heritage conservation LEP provisions do not apply.
The subject site directly adjoins Blackbutt Reserve and was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment in relation to Aboriginal archaeology (above).
Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013
The draft comprehensive Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (DLEP) seeks to replace the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance by bringing the principal planning instrument of the LGA in line with the standard instrument. The draft LEP was exhibited from 25 March 2013 to 6 May 2013. The particular aims of the draft LEP are to guide the future development of land and the management of environmental, social, economic, heritage and cultural resources within Ku-ring-gai. The subject site is located within an area identified on the statutory maps and as such the draft LEP forms a consideration for the assessment of this application.
As a result of the plan, the subject site is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living and the development is permissible within this zoning. The objectives of the zone are as follows:
· to provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values
· to ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values
· to ensure development does not result in further fragmentation of ecological communities, biodiversity corridors or other significant vegetation or habitat
The subject proposal is compatible with the existing low density character of the area. The vegetation within the site forms part of a vegetated corridor “biolink” which connects Blackbutt Reserve to Yarran Street Reserve. A small portion of the site is also mapped ‘riparian vegetation’. Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has assessed the development proposal (including the Vegetation Management Plan) in relation to impacts of the development on ecology of the site and nearby reserves and impacts to the vegetation corridor and found it acceptable. The proposal meets the objectives of the draft zone.
The proposal results in non-compliances with the draft minimum lot size (1500m2) lot width (18m) and lot depth for bush fire prone land (55m) provisions of the draft LEP. Nonetheless the lot sizes and widths proposed are consistent with those of the immediate locality and maintain the existing prevailing low density subdivision character of the area.
4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size
The proposal meets the objectives of the clause, being;
“(a) to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions are able to accommodate development consistent with relevant development controls
(b) to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features including heritage items, remnant vegetation, habitat and waterways, and provide for generous landscaping to support the amenity of adjoining properties and the desired character of the area
(c) to ensure that subdivision of low density residential sites reflects and reinforces the predominant subdivision pattern of the area”
Clause 4.1(3) specifies a minimum lot size of 1500m2.
Clause 4.1(3A) requires a minimum dimension of 18 metres in width at 12 metres from the street frontage of the lot.
The applicant has addressed the non-compliances to the lot size and area provisions in the following manner:
“In support of the proposed subdivision of the land, the width of the proposed allotments are considered suitable for the following reasons:
· No change to the allotment configurations measured 12 metres from the street alignment are proposed;
· The creation of the additional lot maintains the current presentation to Minnamurra Avenue to the existing two (2) allotments of land;
· The proposed allotment configuration in size and shape to that adjoining at 43 and 45 Minnamurra Avenue and 30 and 34 Kiparra Street (refer Figure 10);
· It is evident that the existing residential use of the land – dwelling houses, car port and open space areas for the existing dwellings - functions properly and provides appropriate amenity without effectively relying upon the areas utilised by the proposed new Lot 2. The proposed Lot 2 will not change this satisfactory circumstance; and
· Proposed Lots 1 and 3 exceed the minimum lot size requirements of KPSO and are not adversely affected by the area of proposed Lot 2. “
4.1A Minimum lot depth for subdivision of bush fire prone land
The proposal meets the objectives of the clause, being; to ensure that lot depths allow for adequate setbacks to a bushfire hazard to minimise risk to life, property and the environment from bushfire events and bushfire management measures. The proposal will not significantly alter the treed landscape of the area beyond what is anticipated due to bush fire mitigation measures for the existing dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 3. The applicant has addressed the non-compliances with the draft minimum lot depth standard in the following manner:
“The clause imposes minimum lot depths depending upon site slope. The bush fire assessment (Attachment 6) identifies that the slope is dependent upon the direction of measurement, but confirms that the effective slope is 7 degrees downslope. On this basis, the depth of the lot from the fire hazard should be 65 metres.
The new lot and building platform is downslope from the fire hazard. Taking into account the relevant guidelines of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (PBP 2006) the hazard assessment has confirmed that the new lot includes a minimum 24 metres APZ which provides suitable defendable space to the proposed building platform.
While the numerical depth requirement of clause 4.1A is not achieved, the performance objective of providing defendable space to the bushfire hazard is achieved. Similarly, the lot size of 1,500m2 is an anomaly for the locality and no existing lots are of this size. The consideration of the lot size under the KPSO is appropriate and consistent with the application of the Savings Provision at clause 1.8A.”
It is agreed that the objective of the clause, being:
“(a) to ensure that lot depths allow for adequate setbacks to a bushfire hazard to
minimise risk to life, property and the environment from bushfire events and
bushfire management measures”
has been met. The NSW Rural Fire Service has provided a Bush Fire Safety Authority for the proposal. The impacts of the requirements of the Rural Fire Service Bush Fire Safety Authority, particularly with regard to vegetation works required to achieve the Inner Protection Area landscape outcome, have been considered by Council’s Landscape Officer and Ecological Assessment Officer and are acceptable.
With regard to the provisions of Clause 4.1 and 4.1A, the following assessment of the subdivision character of the area is provided:
An analysis of the existing subdivision pattern has been undertaken. The area that was surveyed was based to an extent on the proposed E4 zoning of the surrounding land. A summary of the site areas is included within Figure 1. The extent of variation from the proposed minimum of 1500m2 for the surrounding land has been converted into percentages for comparative purposes.
|
|
||
|
Street no. |
Existing lot area |
Draft KLEP (1500m2) (extent of variation) |
|
37 Minnamurra Ave 39 Minnamurra Ave 41 Minnamurra Ave 43 Minnamurra Ave 30A Kiparra St 45 Minnamurra Ave 34 Kiparra St 51 Minnamurra Ave 38 Minnamurra Pl 36 Minnamurra Pl 34 Minnamurra Pl 32 Minnamurra Pl
|
1277m2 1372m2 1467m2 973.8m2 1041m2 929m2 1260m2 1562m2 1518m2 1404m2 1214m2 1012m2 |
NO (14.8%) NO (8.5%) NO (2.2%) NO (35%) NO (30.6%) NO (38.1%) NO (16%) YES (0%) YES (0%) NO (6.4%) NO (19%) NO (32.5%) |
Figure 1 – extent of lot size variation from Draft KLEP provisions
Figure 2 – subdivision pattern in surrounding E4 zoned land Draft KLEP
It is apparent from this analysis that the minimum site areas of properties within the vicinity of the subject site on average fall below the 1500m2, with only two noted exceptions at 51 Minnamurra Avenue and 38 Minnamurra Place.
The proposal would still result in larger lot sizes in comparison to the adjoining R2 zone and does not abandon the primary objectives of the proposed zone in terms of the form of development compatible with the desired character of the area and in protecting ecological diversity and compliance with Bushfire management requirements.
Consequently, the proposed subdivision is considered to be consistent with both the prevailing and future intended subdivision pattern of the immediately surrounding area and would not represent an undesirable nor adverse planning precedent inconsistent with Council’s new planning regime for this locality.
The subject proposal is compatible with the existing low density character of the area, maintains the important ecological value of the site and has regard for the neighbouring bushland reserve. Therefore, the proposal meets the objectives of the draft zone.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the draft instrument in all other respects.
Policy Provisions
Development Control Plan No. 43 – Car Parking
The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines for the design of parking and service areas and demonstrates safe and efficient vehicular access, consistent with the desirable characteristics and environmental standards expected in the Ku-ring-gai area.
The proposed subdivision maintains Ku-ring-gai’s established landscape character. The proposed parking area for Lot 2 does not detract from the visual quality of the area. This is of particular importance for the subject site, being located in an area which is distinctive in terms of streetscape quality. Part 4.4 of the DCP specifies that best practice should be the maintenance and conservation of the existing vegetation on the site, wherever possible. It is considered that the development achieves this aim to a practical level.
Development Control Plan No. 38 - Ku-ring-gai Residential Design Manual (DCP 38)
The existing dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 3 are compliant with regard to floor space ratio, built upon area and building height provisions of DCP 38. The applicant has nominated suitable open space areas for these lots. A compliance table for the existing dwellings on Lots 1 and 3 is provided following:
|
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
|||
|
Development Control |
Complies |
Comment |
|
|
Streetscape: |
|||
|
Building setbacks |
YES |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing relationship of the dwellings on Lots 1 and 3 to front or side boundaries. The subdivision to create Lot 2 would result in new boundaries that would change the rear setbacks to both existing dwellings. Both existing dwellings would retain a minimum rear setback of12m. In this regard the proposed subdivision does not hinder the ability of each lot to achieve compliant setbacks in future development of the lots.
|
|
|
Front fences |
N/A |
Existing Lots 1 and 3 do not contain front fencing.
|
|
|
Side & rear fences |
N/A |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing situation with regard to the existing partial fencing of Lots 1 and 3. |
|
|
Building form |
|||
|
FSR |
YES |
The dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3 meet the floor space area provisions of the DCP.
|
|
|
Height of building |
YES |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing situation with regard to building height for dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3.
|
|
|
Building height plane |
YES |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing situation with regard to building height plane for dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3.
|
|
|
Built-upon area |
YES |
The dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3 meet the built-upon area provisions of the DCP.
|
|
|
Solar access |
YES |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing situation for dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3 with regard to solar access.
|
|
|
Cut & fill |
YES |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing situation for dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3 with regard to cut and fill. |
|
|
Open space & landscaping: |
|||
|
Soft landscaping area |
YES |
The dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3 meet the soft landscape area provisions of the DCP.
|
|
|
Tree replenishment |
YES |
No tree replenishment is required.
|
|
|
Useable open space |
YES |
The applicant has nominated suitable open space areas for all lots. |
|
|
Privacy & security: |
|||
|
Privacy |
YES |
The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing situation for dwellings located on Lots 1 and 3 with regard to privacy. A dwelling may be located on the proposed Lot 2 that will preserve privacy amenity to existing dwellings on Lots 1 and 3 in a manner expected within a low density residential environment.
|
|
|
Access & parking: |
|||
|
No. of car parking spaces |
NO |
The dwelling on Lot 3 has a single garage, and is not compliant with the DCP. This is an existing situation. The proposed subdivision does not alter the configuration of the lots at the Minnamurra Street frontage. In this regard the proposed subdivision does not hinder the ability of Lot 3 to achieve compliant car parking in future development of the lot. |
|
|
Water management: |
|||
|
|
YES |
The proposed subdivision includes the provision of storm water management for the existing dwelling on Lot 1. Lot 3 retains existing storm water infrastructure. |
|
It is considered that the existing dwellings achieve acceptable outcomes against the development controls for low density residential development.
Development Control Plan No. 47 – Water Management (DCP 47)
Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the development against the provisions of DCP 47 and has indicated the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Refer to comments above.
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010
The proposal is subject to Council’s Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010. Pursuant to the plan, the consolidation of two (2) lots and subdivision to three (3) lots would attract a contribution for the creation of one (1) additional lot being $20,932.14.
Key Community Infrastructure Amount
Local parks and Local sporting facilities $17,678.26
Local recreational and cultural, Local social facilities $3,253.88
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS $20,932.14
Likely Impacts
All likely impacts have been considered in the assessment of the application. The likely cumulative impacts of the proposed subdivision have been addressed through appropriate management strategies to ensure the preservation of the environmental value of this site adjoining Blackbutt reserve. The proposed vehicular access and accommodation to Lot 2 will not result in unacceptable impacts on the Minnamurra Avenue streetscape.
Suitability of the Site
The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.
Public Interest
The approval of the application is considered to be in the public interest.
Conclusion
Having regard to the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory. Therefore, it is recommended
that the application be approved.
|
Recommendation:
THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards to Clause 58B (3) minimum lot width of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case.
AND
THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to DA0445/13 is consistent the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA0445/13 Torrens title subdivision of 2 lots into 3 lots on land at 47 & 49 Minnamurra Avenue, Pymble, for a period of two [2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
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:
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.
3. No demolition of extra fabric
Alterations to, and demolition of the existing building shall be limited to that documented on the approved plans (by way of notation). No approval is given or implied for removal and/or rebuilding of any portion of the existing building which is shown to be retained.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the development consent.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
4. Asbestos works
All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie. Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
5. Notice of commencement
At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
6. Notification of builder’s details
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
7. Dilapidation photos (public infrastructure)
Prior to the commencement of any works on site the applicant must submit to Ku-ring-gai Council and the Principal Certifying Authority a photographic record on the visible condition of the existing public infrastructure over the full site frontage (in colour - preferably saved to cd-rom in ‘jpg’ format). The photos must include detail of: · The existing footpath · The existing kerb and gutter · The existing full road surface between kerbs · The existing verge area · The existing driveway and layback where to be retained · Any existing drainage infrastructure including pits, lintels, grates Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording any pre-developed damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development (which is not to be repaired by the Applicant as part of the development). The developer may be held liable to all damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded and demonstrated under the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of any works.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
8. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)
Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:
The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.
In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.
Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.
9. Geotechnical report
Prior to the commencement of any bulk excavation works on site, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority, the results of the detailed geotechnical investigation as recommended in the Geotechnical Assessment by Geotechnique, Ref. 12884/1-AA, dated 30 April 2013. The report is to address such matters as:
· appropriate excavation methods and techniques · vibration management and monitoring · dilapidation survey · support and retention of excavated faces · hydrogeological considerations
The recommendations of the report are to be implemented during the course of the works.
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
10. Access through public reserve not permitted
Access for construction purposes shall not be gained through the adjoining public reserve. Should no alternative access exist, an application for access to the construction site via the public reserve shall be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of works.
Reason: To protect public reserves.
11. Sediment controls
Prior to any work commencing on site, sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed along the contour immediately downslope of any future disturbed areas.
The form of the sediment controls to be installed on the site shall be determined by reference to the ‘NSW Department of Housing manual ‘Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’. The erosion controls shall be maintained in an operational condition until the development activities have been completed and the site fully stabilised. Sediment shall be removed from the sediment controls following each heavy or prolonged rainfall period.
Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.
12. Erosion and drainage management
Earthworks and/or demolition of any existing buildings shall not commence until an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan shall comply with the guidelines set out in the NSW Department of Housing manual "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction" certificate. Erosion and sediment control works shall be implemented in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan.
Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.
13. Tree protection fencing
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy is fenced off at the specified radius from the trunk/s to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
14. Tree protective fencing type galvanised mesh
The tree protection fencing shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metre spacing and connected by securely attached chain mesh fencing to a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height prior to work commencing.
Reason: To protect existing trees during construction phase.
15. Tree protection signage
Prior to works commencing, tree protection signage is to be attached to each tree protection zone, displayed in a prominent position and the sign repeated at 10 metres intervals or closer where the fence changes direction. Each sign shall contain in a clearly legible form, the following information:
Tree protection zone.
· This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing environment both above and below ground and access is restricted. · Any encroachment not previously approved within the tree protection zone shall be the subject of an arborist's report. · The arborist's report shall provide proof that no other alternative is available. · The Arborist's report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for further consultation with Council. · The name, address, and telephone number of the developer.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
16. Ground protection - avoiding soil compaction
To preserve the following tree/s and avoid soil compaction, no work shall commence until temporary measures to avoid soil compaction (eg rumble boards) are installed within two metres of the stormwater pit, within the canopy spread of the following tree/s,
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
17. Tree fencing inspection
Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority is required to verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
18. Project ecologist
A Project Ecologist shall be commissioned prior to the release of the subdivision Certificate to ensure all bushland/environmental protection measures are carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.
The Project Ecologist shall have a minimum qualification of TAFE Certificate III in Bush Regeneration or Conservation and Land Management - Natural Area Restoration. He/she shall have at least four years experience in the management of native bushland in the Sydney region. Details of the arborist including name, business name and contact details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with a copy to Council.
Reason: To ensure the protection of existing biodiversity values of the site
19. Nest boxes
Prior to works commencing and/or tree removal works being undertaken six nest boxes comprising of two small mammal, two microbat & two medium mammal, shall be installed within the retained trees within the site. The nest boxes shall be constructed of durable wood material (marine ply) and installed at a minimum height of six metres from the ground and positioned under the direction of a qualified ecologist.
The qualified ecologist must hold an Animal Ethics Permit from the Office of Environment & Heritage and a wildlife licence under section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage.
Reason: To ensure protection of fauna species.
20. Fauna protection
Prior to works commencing and/or tree removal works a qualified ecologist shall investigate all trees for fauna occupation. In accordance with appropriate licensing requirements the ecologist shall supervise the relocation of any fauna found within the trees approved for removal.
The qualified ecologist must hold an Animal Ethics Permit from the Office of Environment & Heritage and a wildlife licence under section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 issue by the Office of Environment and Heritage.
Evidence of engagement of the qualified ecologist and the required licensing must be provided to the Private Certifying Authority with a copy to Council prior to the trees being removed.
Reason: To ensure protection of fauna species.
21. Amendments to approved engineering plans
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved engineering plan(s), 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:
The above engineering plan(s) shall be amended as follows:
A handrail shall be provided at the top of the excavation for the parking slab.
Note: An amended engineering plan, prepared by a qualified engineer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
22. Long service levy
In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act a Construction Certificate shall not be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
23. Excavation for services
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) unless previously approved by conditions of consent, are located beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order, located on the subject allotment and adjoining allotments.
Note: A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under the Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.
24. Driveway crossing levels
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, driveway and associated footpath levels for any new, reconstructed or extended sections of driveway crossings between the property boundary and road alignment must be obtained from Ku-ring-gai Council. Such levels are only able to be issued by Council under the Roads Act 1993. All footpath crossings, laybacks and driveways are to be constructed according to Council's specifications "Construction of Gutter Crossings and Footpath Crossings".
Specifications are issued with alignment levels after completing the necessary application form at Customer Services and payment of the assessment fee. When completing the request for driveway levels application from Council, the applicant must attach a copy of the relevant development application drawing which indicates the position and proposed level of the proposed driveway at the boundary alignment.
This development consent is for works wholly within the property. Development consent does not imply approval of footpath or driveway levels, materials or location within the road reserve, regardless of whether this information is shown on the development application plans. The grading of such footpaths or driveways outside the property shall comply with Council's standard requirements. The suitability of the grade of such paths or driveways inside the property is the sole responsibility of the applicant and the required alignment levels fixed by Council may impact upon these levels.
The construction of footpaths and driveways outside the property in materials other than those approved by Council is not permitted.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
25. Utility provider requirements
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
26. Infrastructure restorations fee
To ensure that damage to Council Property as a result of construction activity is rectified in a timely matter:
a) All work or activity taken in furtherance of the development the subject of this approval must be undertaken in a manner to avoid damage to Council Property and must not jeopardise the safety of any person using or occupying the adjacent public areas.
b) The applicant, builder, developer or any person acting in reliance on this approval shall be responsible for making good any damage to Council Property, and for the removal from Council Property of any waste bin, building materials, sediment, silt, or any other material or article.
c) The Infrastructure Restoration Fee must be paid to the Council by the applicant prior to both the issue of the Construction Certificate and the commencement of any earthworks or construction.
d) In consideration of payment of the Infrastructure Restorations Fee, Council will undertake such inspections of Council Property as Council considers necessary and also undertake, on behalf of the applicant, such restoration work to Council Property, if any, that Council considers necessary as a consequence of the development. The provision of such restoration work by the Council does not absolve any person of the responsibilities contained in (a) to (b) above. Restoration work to be undertaken by the Council referred to in this condition is limited to work that can be undertaken by Council at a cost of not more than the Infrastructure Restorations Fee payable pursuant to this condition.
e) In this condition:
“Council Property” includes any road, footway, footpath paving, kerbing, guttering, crossings, street furniture, seats, letter bins, trees, shrubs, lawns, mounds, bushland, and similar structures or features on any road or public road within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) or any public place; and
“Infrastructure Restoration Fee” means the Infrastructure Restorations Fee calculated in accordance with the Schedule of Fees & Charges adopted by Council as at the date of payment and the cost of any inspections required by the Council of Council Property associated with this condition.
Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.
27. Section 94 development contributions - other than identified 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:
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 may vary at the time of payment 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.
Conditions to be satisfied during the demolition, excavation and construction phases:
28. Road opening permit
The opening of any footway, roadway, road shoulder or any part of the road reserve shall not be carried out without a road opening permit being obtained from Council (upon payment of the required fee) beforehand.
Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.
29. Prescribed conditions
The applicant shall comply with any relevant prescribed conditions of development consent under clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the following conditions are prescribed in relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work:
· The work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia · In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any works commence.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
30. Hours of work
Demolition, excavation, construction work and deliveries of building material and equipment must not take place outside the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12 noon Saturday. No work and no deliveries are to take place on Sundays and public holidays.
Excavation or removal of any materials using machinery of any kind, including compressors and jack hammers, must be limited to between 7.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday, with a respite break of 45 minutes between 12 noon 1.00pm.
Where it is necessary for works to occur outside of these hours (ie) placement of concrete for large floor areas on large residential/commercial developments or where building processes require the use of oversized trucks and/or cranes that are restricted by the RTA from travelling during daylight hours to deliver, erect or remove machinery, tower cranes, pre-cast panels, beams, tanks or service equipment to or from the site, approval for such activities will be subject to the issue of an "outside of hours works permit" from Council as well as notification of the surrounding properties likely to be affected by the proposed works.
Note: Failure to obtain a permit to work outside of the approved hours will result in on the spot fines being issued.
Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.
31. Approved plans to be on site
A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
32. Site notice
A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works period.
The site notice must:
· be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the site for the purposes of informing the public that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted · display project details including, but not limited to the details of the builder, Principal Certifying Authority and structural engineer · be durable and weatherproof · display the approved hours of work, the name of the site/project manager, the responsible managing company (if any), its address and 24 hour contact phone number for any inquiries, including construction/noise complaint are to be displayed on the site notice · be mounted at eye level on the perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted
Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.
33. Further geotechnical input
The geotechnical and hydrogeological works implementation, inspection, testing and monitoring program for the excavation and construction works must be in accordance with the report by Geotechnique dated 30 April 2013 and the report submitted prior to commencement of works, as required by another condition of this consent. Over the course of the works, a qualified geotechnical engineer/ engineering geologist must complete the following:
· further geotechnical investigations and testing recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary · further monitoring and inspection at the hold points recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary · written report(s) including certification(s) of the geotechnical inspection, testing and monitoring programs
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
34. Compliance with submitted geotechnical report
A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee excavation.
Geotechnical aspects of the development work, namely:
· appropriate excavation method and vibration control · support and retention of excavated faces · hydro-geological considerations
must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnique dated 30 April 2013, and the report submitted prior to commencement of works, as required by another condition of this consent. Approval must be obtained from all affected property owners, including Ku-ring-gai Council, where rock anchors (both temporary and permanent) are proposed below adjoining property(ies).
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
35. Use of road or footpath
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.
Reason: To ensure safety and amenity of the area.
36. Guarding excavations
All excavation, demolition and construction works shall be properly guarded and protected with hoardings or fencing to prevent them from being dangerous to life and property.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
37. Toilet facilities
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, toilet facilities are to be provided, on the work site, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
38. Construction signage
All construction signs must comply with the following requirements:
· are not to cover any mechanical ventilation inlet or outlet vent · are not illuminated, self-illuminated or flashing at any time · are located wholly within a property where construction is being undertaken · refer only to the business(es) undertaking the construction and/or the site at which the construction is being undertaken · are restricted to one such sign per property · do not exceed 2.5m2 · are removed within 14 days of the completion of all construction works
Reason: To ensure compliance with Council's controls regarding signage.
39. Road reserve safety
All public footways and roadways fronting and adjacent to the site must be maintained in a safe condition at all times during the course of the development works. Construction materials must not be stored in the road reserve. A safe pedestrian circulation route and a pavement/route free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to any public access ways fronting the construction site. Where public infrastructure is damaged, repair works must be carried out when and as directed by Council officers. Where pedestrian circulation is diverted on to the roadway or verge areas, clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with AS1742-3 (1996) “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained across the site frontage, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may undertake proceedings to stop work.
Reason: To ensure safe public footways and roadways during construction.
40. Services
Where required, the adjustment or inclusion of any new utility service facilities must be carried out by the applicant and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant utility authority. These works shall be at no cost to Council. It is the applicants’ full responsibility to make contact with the relevant utility authorities to ascertain the impacts of the proposal upon utility services (including water, phone, gas and the like). Council accepts no responsibility for any matter arising from its approval to this application involving any influence upon utility services provided by another authority.
Reason: Provision of utility services.
41. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
The applicant must obtain a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994. An application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. The applicant is to refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au <http://www.sydneywater.com.au> then the “e-develop” icon or telephone 13 20 92. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
42. Arborist’s report
The trees to be retained shall be inspected and monitored by an AQF Level 5 Arborist in accordance with AS4970-2009 during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the project arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work, including date, brief description of the works inspected, and any mitigation works prescribed.
All monitoring shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
· All works as recommended by the project arborist are to be undertaken by an experienced arborist with a minimum AQF Level 3 qualification.
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
43. Treatment of tree roots
If tree roots are required to be severed for the purposes of constructing the approved works, they shall be cut cleanly by hand, by an experienced Arborist/Horticulturist with a minimum qualification of Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
44. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site. Tree numbers refer to arborist report prepared by Abel Ecology dated 14/03/14.
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
45. Hand excavation
All excavation within the specified radius of the trunk(s) of the following tree(s) shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
46. No storage of materials beneath trees
No activities, storage or disposal of materials shall take place beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council's Tree Preservation Order at any time.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
47. Removal of refuse
All builders' refuse, spoil and/or material unsuitable for use in landscape areas shall be removed from the site on completion of the building works.
Reason: To protect the environment.
48. On site retention of waste dockets
All demolition, excavation and construction waste dockets are to be retained on site, or at suitable location, in order to confirm which facility received materials generated from the site for recycling or disposal.
· Each docket is to be an official receipt from a facility authorised to accept the material type, for disposal or processing. · This information is to be made available at the request of an Authorised Officer of Council.
Reason: To protect the environment.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate:
49. Certification of drainage works and retaining walls
Prior to issue of the Final Certificate of Compliance, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:
· the stormwater drainage works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans · the retaining walls, driveway and parking slab have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans
Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Final Certificate of Compliance.
Reason: To protect the environment.
50. Construction of vehicular crossing
Prior to issue of the Final Certificate of Compliance, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that he or she has received a signed inspection form from Council which states that the following works in the road reserve have been completed:
· new concrete driveway crossing in accordance with levels and specifications issued by Council · full repair and resealing of any road surface damaged during construction · full replacement of damaged sections of grass verge to match existing
This inspection may not be carried out by the Private Certifier because restoration of Council property outside the boundary of the site is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
All works must be completed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued until all damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works on the subject site (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub-contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council. Repair works shall be at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect the streetscape.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Subdivision certificate:
51. OSD positive covenant
The applicant shall create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the on-site stormwater detention facilities on site. The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to appendices of Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47). The location of the on-site detention facilities is to be noted on the final plan of subdivision.
Reason: To ensure maintenance of on site stormwater detention facilities.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Issue of Subdivision Certificate
The Subdivision Certificate must not be issued until all conditions of development consent have been satisfied and a Final Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed prior to transfer of responsibility for the site and development to another person.
55. 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 two (2) 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.
56. Submission of plans of subdivision (Torrens Title)
For endorsement of the subdivision certificate, the applicant shall submit an original plan of subdivision plus 2 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 at the time of lodgement b) the 88B instrument plus 2 copies c) all surveyor’s and/or consulting engineers’ certification(s) required under this subdivision consent d) The Section 73 (Sydney Water) Compliance Certificate for the subdivision. e) Proof of payment of S94 contribution
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.
57. 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 the Principal Certifying Authority.
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.
Conditions to be satisfied at all times:
58. Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)
The following three Vegetation Management Plans, prepared by Abel Ecology, dated 14 March 2014, are endorsed in their entirety.
· All weeding removal, weed techniques, environmental protection measures and ongoing maintenance works are to be carried out in accordance with the VMP.
· All noxious and environmental weeds are to be removed from the within the site.
· All vegetation works are to be conducted by a suitably qualified bush regenerator. The minimum qualifications minimum qualifications and experience (for bush regenerator) are a TAFE Certificate 2 in Bushland Regeneration and one year demonstrated experience (for other personnel). In addition the site supervisor is to be eligible for full professional membership of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators (AABR).
Reason: To ensure the protection and enhancement of ecological values within the site.
59. Aboriginal relics
Should any Aboriginal ‘objects’ or ‘deposits’ be uncovered during works on the site, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the Aboriginal Heritage Officer and or the Office of Environment and Heritage is to be informed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (as amended). Aboriginal ‘objects’ or ‘deposits’ must be managed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) and the NSW Heritage Act (1977).
INTEGRATED REFERRAL CONDITIONS:
60. Rural Fire Service conditions
This response is to be deemed a bush fire safety authority as required under section 100B of the 'Rural Fires Act 1997' and is issued subject to the following numbered conditions:
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 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 for the existing dwellings is to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.
Design and construction The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:
3. The existing buildings are required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. Where applicable, this includes any sub floor areas, openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.
Landscaping 4. Landscaping to the entire site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.
General advice - consent authority to note This approval is for the subdivision of the land only. Any further development application for class 1,2 & 3 buildings as identified by the 'Building Code of Australia' may be subject to separate application under section 79BA of the EP & A Act and address the requirements of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.”
Reason: Bushfire safety.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Janice Buteux-Wheeler Development Assessment Officer |
Richard Kinninmont Team Leader- Development Assessment - Central |
|
Corrie Swanepoel Manager Development Assessment Services |
Michael Miocic Director Development & Regulation |
|
Attachments: |
A1 |
Location Sketch |
|
2014/164337 |
|
|
A2 |
Zoning Extract |
|
2014/164336 |
|
|
A3 |
Subdivision Plans |
|
2014/073598 |
|
|
A4 |
Drainage Plans |
|
2014/073592 |
|
|
A5 |
Landscape Plan |
|
2014/073588 |
|
|
A6 |
Driveway Plans |
|
2013/294932 |
|
|
A7 |
Tree Canopy Plan |
|
2013/294890 |
|
|
A8 |
Arborist Report |
|
2014/073571 |
|
|
A9 |
Environmental Site Management Plan |
|
2014/073583 |
|
|
A10 |
Vegetation Management Plan 49 Minnamurra Avenue |
|
2014/073563 |
|
|
A11 |
Vegetation Management Plan 47 Minnamurra Avenue |
|
2014/073559 |
|
|
A12 |
Vegetation Management Plan 34A Kiparra Street |
|
2014/073552 |
|
|
A13 |
Geotechnical Report |
|
2013/294926 |
|
|
A14 |
Flora and Fauna Report |
|
2013/294922 |
|
|
A15 |
Planning Circular |
|
2014/164409 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 August 2014 |
GB.3 / 440 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.3 |
S10028 |
|
|
22 July 2014 |
Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To inform Council of the invitation to nominate for the Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The Local Land Services (LLS) became operational in New South Wales in January 2014, bringing together the former functions of Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs), Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPAs) and the agricultural extension services of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). The Greater Sydney Local Land Services (GS LLS) combines most of the area covered by the former Hawkesbury-Nepean and Sydney Metropolitan CMAs.
The Local Government Advisory Group (LGAG) has been identified by the GS LLS as a key mechanism for establishing effective working partnerships with Local Government.
Ku-ring-gai Council was involved in the former Hawkesbury-Nepean Local Government Advisory Group with ongoing representation from staff and occasional representation from Councillors. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The GS LLS propose to reform the Local Government Advisory Group (LGAG) to provide representation for the 43 Councils in the Greater Sydney region so that local government and the GS LLS can work more effectively on issues of common interest. An invitation to nominate representatives for the LGAG has been received. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That a Councillor representative is nominated for the Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group. |
Purpose of Report
To inform Council of the invitation to nominate for the Greater Sydney Local Land Services Local Government Advisory Group.
Background
The Local Land Services (LLS) became operational in New South Wales in January 2014, bringing together the former functions of Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs), Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPAs) and the agricultural extension services of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). The Greater Sydney Local Land Services (GS LLS) combines most of the area covered by the former Hawkesbury-Nepean and Sydney Metropolitan CMAs.
The former Hawkesbury-Nepean and Sydney Metropolitan CMAs had well established and valued partnerships with councils in their catchments, and the GS LLS wishes to continue a similar relationship with councils in the Greater Sydney region.
The GS LLS has sent an invitation for nominations for the GS LLS Local Government Advisory Group (Attachment A1).
Ku-ring-gai Council was involved in the former Hawkesbury-Nepean Local Government Advisory Group with ongoing representation from staff and occasional representation from Councillors.
Comments
The Local Government Advisory Group (LGAG) has been identified by the GS LLS as a key mechanism for establishing effective working partnerships with Local Government.
The GS LLS propose to reform the LGAG to provide representation for the 43 councils in the Greater Sydney region so that local government and the GS LLS can work more effectively on issues of common interest.
The GS LLS continues to deliver programs for environmental management, working with landholders and key stakeholders such as local government to improve the condition of biodiversity and aquatic systems, assisting farmers to manage their land sustainably and developing the environmental knowledge and skills of the community. The LLS works with lead agencies such as the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Services and Department of Primary Industry to assist with effective responses to emergencies arising from natural disasters and biosecurity threats, as well as continues to manage pest animals in the region.
Active involvement in the proposed LGAG will be beneficial as it will ensure that the biodiversity and natural resource management concerns of Ku-ring-gai are addressed by the GS LLS.
The first meeting of the Greater Sydney LGAG is scheduled for the afternoon of September 17, 2014. Details regarding the venue, time and agenda will be forwarded closer to the date. This meeting will:
1. Approve a model for Council representation on LGAG.
2. Approve the Terms of Reference for the LGAG.
3. Elect a Chair and two Deputy Chairs for the LGAG from councillor representatives.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership & Governance
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
Ku-ring-gai is well led, managed and supported by ethical organisations which deliver projects and services to the community by listening, advocating and responding to their needs. |
Partnerships are established with government agencies, regional and local organisations and community groups and are working to achieve Ku-ring-gai’s community outcomes. |
Pursue priority areas where partnership arrangements will provide tangible benefits to the local area.
|
Governance Matters
The invitation is for each Council to nominate a Councillor, staff member, or both for representation on the GS LLS Local Government Advisory Group.
A draft terms of reference has been prepared for consideration by the LGAG (See Attachment 1). This will be discussed and amended as needed at the first meeting of the LGAG before being ratified.
Nominations are required by Friday 15 August 2014.
Representation on the LGAG is an important step towards effective integration of local government priorities into GS LLS operations and planning.
Council’s Water and Catchments Program Leader will be nominated as the staff representative.
Risk Management
Representation on the LGAG will allow Ku-ring-gai representatives to ensure that local issues are raised with the GS LLS early in policy, strategy and project development.
It will also ensure that any issues raised or projects co-ordinated by the GS LLS are efficiently communicated to Ku-ring-gai Council representatives.
Financial Considerations
There is no indication there will be any fees associated with being a representative on the LGAG.
Anticipated costs relating to representation are limited to transportation to meeting venues and participation time.
Social Considerations
Representation on the LGAG will allow Ku-ring-gai representatives to ensure that local social considerations are raised at the regional level.
Environmental Considerations
The Greater Sydney Local Land Services (GS LLS) are the regional body implementing a range of key state based environmental management programs. These include:
· biodiversity management;
· catchment management;
· natural resource management;
· pest control ; and
· agricultural services.
It is important that Ku-ring-gai is in an effective partnership with the GS LLS to ensure local environmental management issues are addressed.
Community Consultation
The Local Land Services (LLS) are committed to engaging local communities, industry and land manager groups.
Establishing the LGAG is key part of the GS LLS community consultation by providing a formal mechanism for partnership with local government.
The GS LLS will be establishing other mechanisms for consulting with other community groups within the area of operations. This could be in the form of other advisory groups, or on a program or project basis.
Internal Consultation
The invitation was forwarded to representatives from Operations and Strategy and Environment Departments.
Summary
The GS LLS propose to establish a LGAG to provide representation for the 43 councils in the Greater Sydney region so that local government and the GS LLS can work more effectively on issues of common interest.
Nominations for one staff and one Councillor representative from each Council will close on Friday 15 August 2014.
Council’s Water and Catchments program Leader will be nominated as the staff representative and nomination for a Councillor representative is required.
|
That a Councillor representative is nominated for the Greater Sydney Local Land Service Local Government Advisory Group.
|
|
Sophia Findlay Water and Catchments Program Leader |
Marnie Kikken Manager Environment & Sustainability |
|
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
|
A1View |
Attachment 1 - Local Government Advisory Group invitation |
|
2014/176178 |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 August 2014 |
GB.4 / 452 |
|
|
|
|
Item GB.4 |
S10032 |
|
|
21 July 2014 |
Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study Tender Evaluation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
purpose of report: |
To consider the tenders received for the Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study and engage the preferred tenderer. |
|
|
|
|
background: |
The Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study is the second detailed flood study to be undertaken by Ku-ring-gai Council. The flood study is an essential step in the NSW Government’s floodplain risk management process. The majority of funding for this project has been provided by the NSW Government through the 2013/2014 NSW floodplain management program. |
|
|
|
|
comments: |
The tender was advertised from 20 May 2014 to 17 June 2014 with a total of seven submissions received. The Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report (Attachment A2) outlines the assessment process and provides a recommendation for the preferred tenderer. A Floodplain Engineer from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage has been involved in the preparation of the documents and in the tender selection process. |
|
|
|
|
recommendation: |
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended that Council accept the tender as recommended in the Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report (Attachment A2). |
Purpose of Report
To consider the tenders received for the Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study and engage the preferred tenderer.
Background
Council resolved at its meeting of 12 October 2010 to have a flood study carried out as part of the background studies to guide the preparation of the Ku-ring-gai Principal Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Subsequent to this, in 2011, consultants Mott MacDonald Hughes Trueman completed a preliminary flood study for the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA). This study focused on mapping the flood extents for the major drainage lines based on a desktop analysis. The intended uses of the study include guidance for land use planning, flood mitigation measures, emergency management and drainage system upgrade.
The final report included a number of recommendations for the steps that should be undertaken to ensure flood risk assessment, planning and management is undertaken in line with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2005). One of these steps was to undertake more detailed flood studies, including overland flow, to inform the development of a flood risk management plan.
In order to fill the funding gap to enable these more detailed assessments to be undertaken, an application through the 2013/2014 NSW Floodplain Management Program was made to undertake a detailed flood study of the Lovers Jump Creek catchment. The Lovers Jump Creek catchment covers the area north of the Pacific Highway, from South Turramurra and Warrawee to North Turramurra and North Wahroonga, as shown in Figure 1 (over page). This application was successful and in December 2013 Council signed the agreement to secure an additional $110,000 to complement the $55,000 available from catchment management and drainage budgets.
The flood study is an essential step in the NSW Government’s floodplain risk management process.
Comments
The tender for the Lovers Jump Creek Study was advertised from 20 May 2014 to 17 June 2014 with seven submissions received from the following companies:
· Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd
· Haskoning Australia Pty Ltd
· Henry & Hymas
· Jacobs Group (Sinclair Knight Merz)
· Jan General Constructions
· NSW Public Works
· Webb McKeown & Associates
Figure 1: Lovers Jump Creek Catchment Area
A Tender Evaluation Committee consisting of staff from the Operations, Development and Regulation and Strategy & Environment departments was formed to assess the seven tenders received. The evaluation took into account the lump sum fee; additional costs; the modelling, community engagement and proposed study methods; company and staff experience; the ability to provide the full range of services required; previous performance in relation to similar types of work; and the company’s financial capacity.
The confidential attachments to this report include:
· The Tender Evaluation Committee’s tender evaluation spread sheet summary (Attachment A1);
· The Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report (Attachment A2);
· A copy of the independent detailed financial and performance assessment for the successful tenderer which was carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd (Attachment A3).
integrated planning and reporting
Community, People and Culture
|
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
|
An aware community able to prepare and respond to the risk to life and property from emergency events.
|
Plans are developed in partnership with emergency service agencies and key stakeholders and implemented. |
Undertake floodplain risk study in consultation with floodplain risk management committee.
|
Governance Matters
The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of the Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain commercial in confidence information.
Establishment of a Flood Risk Management Committee will again be attempted so that it can provide input and guidance on the progress of the study. The Committee is to be managed by the Strategy and Environment department (as per Council’s resolution of 12 March 2013). Minutes from this Committee will be reported back to Council following Committee meetings throughout the project. It is recommended that this be the primary method by which Council is kept updated on the progress of the Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study.
Risk Management
The recent floods have highlighted the importance and raised public awareness of the need for all councils to provide landowners with the best possible information on the risk of flooding to their property. The preparation of a flood risk management plan would identify areas of both minor and major flooding risk, enabling landowners and Council to make informed decisions and plans when proposing, approving and carrying out development in areas that may be subject to flood events. The use of such information has the potential to significantly reduce the risk to life and property. This flood study is being undertaken as a key part of the flood risk management planning process.
In regards to the appointment of a company to undertake this flood study, two key areas of risk were addressed in relation to the selection of the preferred tenderer:
· that the work needed to be carried out by a suitably qualified company with experience in flood modelling and reporting; and
· that Council should not be exposed to financial risk.
The tender process was undertaken according to Council’s standard Tender and EOI procedures. Each key stage was also revised and endorsed by Council’s Manager Procurement & Contracts.
Financial Considerations
The cost of this study has been primarily seeded by grant funding of $110,000 from the 2013/2014 NSW Floodplain Management Program, administered by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. This is in addition to the $27,500 from Council’s catchment management budget and $27,500 from the drainage budget.
Social Considerations
When established, the Flood Risk Management Committee will be involved in informing the consultants and providing feedback on this project. Ensuring that the flood risk management process is undertaken in a way acceptable to the local community, businesses and emergency service personnel is one of the primary tasks of the Flood Risk Management Committee.
The Terms of Reference for the Committee ensures that there is opportunity for suitably qualified residents and business owners from each ward to be represented on the Committee. This is in addition to representation from Council officers, emergency service personnel and State Government planning, flood and environment representatives.
In addition, the requirements of the study include regular communication and consultation with the local community.
Environmental Considerations
The NSW Flood Prone Land Policy clearly identifies the need for flood risk management to take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and to consider ways of “maintaining and enhancing riverine and floodplain ecology in the development of floodplain risk management plans” (section 1.1.2, NSW Floodplain Development Manual, 2005).
Detailed floodplain risk management plans will be useful for planning environmental remediation and regeneration projects and to ensure that any works are complementary to the flood mitigation measures for the area. This flood study represents the first step for Council in developing these plans.
Community Consultation
The brief for this tender explicitly included the preparation of a community consultation plan. This plan will enable the consultants to collate information from local residents as they undertake the modelling exercise in addition to providing final information to affected residents and businesses.
This will be undertaken in line with advice from the Flood Risk Management Committee and Council’s Community Engagement and Research Planner.
Internal Consultation
The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of staff from the Strategy & Environment, Operations and Development and Regulation departments. A review of all tender documentation was undertaken by Council’s Manager Procurement & Contracts.
Further internal consultation will be undertaken with Council’s Community Engagement and Research Planner when the community consultation tasks of the project are undertaken.
Summary
The Lovers Jump Creek Flood Study Tender was advertised from 20 May 2014 to 17 June 2014 with a total of seven submissions received.
The Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report (Attachment A2) outlines the assessment process and provides a recommendation for the preferred tenderer.
A Flood Engineer from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage has been involved in the selection process for the preferred tenderer, as per the requirements of the grant funding agreement.
|
A. In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, that Council accepts the tender as recommended in the Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report.
B. That the tender documents be referred to Council’s solicitor for the preparation of the contract documents, to protect Council’s interest.
C. That the Seal of Council be affixed to the contract documents and that the Mayor and General Manager are delegated the authority to execute all tender documentation on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.
D. That the name of the successful tenderer and the tender price be appropriately published.
|
|
Sophia Findlay Water and Catchments Program Leader |
Marnie Kikken Manager Environment & Sustainability |
|
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
|
Tender Evaluation Committee Tender Evaluation spreadsheet summary |
|
Confidential |
||
|
|
Tender Evaluation Committee Assessment and Recommendation Report |
|
Confidential |
|
|
|
Independent detailed financial and performance assessment by Corporate Scorecard |
|
Confidential |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 August 2014 |
NM.1 / 458 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.1 |
S10007 |
|
|
4 August 2014 |
Notice of Motion
Offer
for Sale to Transport for NSW the Remaining Portion of Culworth Avenue Car
Park,
20 - 28 Culworth Avenue Killara
Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer and Szatow dated 4 August 2014
On 27 May 2014, Councillors unanimously resolved not to object to the compulsory acquisition of a portion of Council owned land on the Culworth Avenue Car Park Site, to Transport For NSW (TFNSW), under the terms and conditions agreed upon by Council and that state entity.
Given that we are now in a new financial year, it would seem prudent to offer for sale, the rest of the site at 20 – 28 Culworth Avenue to TFNSW, for commuter car parking, on the same terms as previously negotiated for the land previously acquired by TFNSW.
Petitions by residents totaling in excess of 6,500 signatures to date reveal the community’s strong support for the site to remain as a car park and State policy supports strengthening infrastructure to enable commuter access to transport nodes.
We therefore move:
“That Council writes a letter to The State Minister for Transport, The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, requesting that negotiations commence for the sale of the residual of the Culworth Avenue Car Park at 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara, to TFNSW, for continued use by the community as a commuter car park, on the same terms as previously negotiated for the land previously acquired by TFNSW.”
|
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor David Citer Councillor for Gordon Ward |
Councillor Cheryl Szatow Councillor for Gordon Ward |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 12 August 2014 |
NM.2 / 459 |
|
|
|
|
Item NM.2 |
S08234 |
|
|
4 August 2014 |
Notice of Motion
Propose that the General Manager provides a Written Response to Council when Petitions of more than 200 Signatures are received
Notice of Motion from Councillors Citer and Szatow dated 4 August 2014
The Council’s current Code of Meeting Practice, in regard to petitions received from the community, is to mark them to the appropriate officer for their attention (3.15.1, 3.15.3 and 3.15.4)
Currently in NSW State Parliament, for each petition of more than 500 signatures, the Minister is required to respond within 35 Calendar Days after its receipt. The Minister’s response is recorded in Hansard and published on Parliament’s website. A copy of the response is also sent to the State Member who presented the petition.
The Local Government Act Practice Note 2.11 states that each Council must decide what to do with petitions and to set this out in its Meeting Code.
We move:
“That for all community petitions of more than 200 signatures, a formal written response is provided by The General Manager, to all Councillors, in regard to the receipt of any petition, within 1 calendar month. This written response will disclose any recommendation or action to be undertaken by Council, in reference to the content of the petition.”
|
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
|
Councillor David Citer Councillor for Gordon Ward |
Councillor Cheryl Szatow Councillor for Gordon Ward |
