Agenda of General Meeting

Hornsby Shire Council Agenda and Summary of Recommendations

Page 1

AGENDA AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

PRESENT

NATIONAL ANTHEM

OPENING PRAYER/S

Pastor Karina Kreminski from Community Life Church, Cherrybrook, will open the meeting in prayer.

Acknowledgement of RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

Statement by the Chairperson:

"We recognise our Shire's rich cultural and religious diversity and we acknowledge and pay respect to the beliefs of all members of our community, regardless of creed or faith."

ABORIGINAL RECOGNITION

Statement by the Chairperson:

"We acknowledge we are on the traditional lands of the Darug and Guringai Peoples. We pay our respects to elders past and present."

AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETING

Statement by the Chairperson:

"I advise all present that tonight's meeting is being audio recorded for the purposes of providing a record of public comment at the meeting, supporting the democratic process, broadening knowledge and participation in community affairs, and demonstrating Council’s commitment to openness and accountability. The recordings of the non-confidential parts of the meeting will be made available on Council’s website once the Minutes have been finalised. All speakers are requested to ensure their comments are relevant to the issue at hand and to refrain from making personal comments or criticisms."

APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE

political donations disclosure

Statement by the Chairperson:

“In accordance with Section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, any person or organisation who has made a relevant planning application or a submission in respect of a relevant planning application which is on tonight’s agenda, and who has made a reportable political donation or gift to a Councillor or employee of the Council, must make a Political Donations Disclosure Statement.

If a Councillor or employee has received a reportable political donation or gift from a person or organisation who has made a relevant planning application or a submission in respect of a relevant planning application which is on tonight’s agenda, they must declare a non-pecuniary conflict of interests to the meeting, disclose the nature of the interest and manage the conflict of interests in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct.”

declarations of interest

Clause 52 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (Section 451 of the Local Government Act, 1993) requires that a councillor or a member of a Council committee who has a pecuniary interest in a matter which is before the Council or committee and who is present at a meeting of the Council or committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable. The disclosure is also to be submitted in writing (on the form titled “Declaration of Interest”).

The Councillor or member of a Council committee must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or committee:

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

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

Clause 51A of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice provides that a Councillor, Council officer, or a member of a Council committee who has a non pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable. The disclosure is also to be submitted in writing (on the form titled “Declaration of Interest”).

If the non-pecuniary interest is significant, the Councillor must:

a) remove the source of conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

b) have no involvement in the matter by absenting themself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions of Section 451(2) of the Act apply.

If the non-pecuniary interest is less than significant, the Councillor must provide an explanation of why they consider that the interest does not require further action in the circumstances.

confirmation of minutes

THAT the Minutes of the General Meeting held on 15 May, 2013 be confirmed; a copy having been distributed to all Councillors.

Petitions

presentations

Rescission Motions

ITEMS PASSED BY EXCEPTION / CALL FOR SPEAKERS ON AGENDA ITEMS

Note:

Persons wishing to address Council on matters which are on the Agenda are permitted to speak, prior to the item being discussed, and their names will be recorded in the Minutes in respect of that particular item.

Persons wishing to address Council on non agenda matters, are permitted to speak after all items on the agenda in respect of which there is a speaker from the public have been finalised by Council. Their names will be recorded in the Minutes under the heading "Public Forum for Non Agenda Items".

GENERAL BUSINESS

· Items for which there is a Public Forum Speaker

· Public Forum for non agenda items

· Balance of General Business items

General Manager's Division

Nil

Corporate Support Division

Page Number 1

Item 1 CS23/13 Local Government Acts Taskforce - Discussion Paper - A New Local Government Act for NSW

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the responses to the Local Government Acts Taskforce’s proposals, as detailed in Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS23/13, form the basis of a Council submission to the Taskforce.

Page Number 19

Item 2 CS24/13 Investments and Borrowings for 2012/13 - Status for Period Ending 30 April 2013

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS24/13 be received and noted.

Page Number 22

Item 3 CS25/13 Outstanding Council Resolutions - Period Until 28 February 2013

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the contents of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS25/13 be received and noted.

Page Number 25

Item 4 CS26/13 Adoption of Council's Community Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Delivery Program 2013-17, and Operational Plan including Budget, Rating Structure and Fees and Charges 2013-14

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1 Adopt Your Community Plan 2013-2023, Delivery Program 2013-17, Operational Plan including the Budget, Rating Structure and Fees and Charges 2013-14, incorporating the amendments to the documents recommended in Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

2. Make and levy the Ordinary Rates for 2013-14 in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

3. Make and levy the Catchments Remediation Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

4. Make and levy the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

5. Continue to provide eligible pensioners with a $10 concession in respect of the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate, represented by a reduction in the Base amount.

6. Continue to provide eligible pensioners with an additional $20 concession in respect of the rate variation represented by a reduction in the Base amount.

Page Number 36

Item 5 CS27/13 Pecuniary Interest and Other Matters Returns - Disclosures by Councillors and Designated Persons

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council note the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests and Other Matters Returns recently lodged with the General Manager have been tabled as required by the Local Government Act.

Page Number 39

Item 6 CS28/13 Debts To Be Written Off - 30 June 2013

RECOMMENDATION

THAT for 2012/13, and in accordance with Clause 213 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, Council:

1. Write off debts considered bad totalling $75,430 (as detailed in Schedule A attached to Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS28/13).

2. Note debts considered bad totalling $2,301 which will be written off under the General Manager’s delegated authority (as detailed in Schedule B attached to Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS28/13).

Page Number 42

Item 7 CS22/13 Independent Local Government Review Panel - Consultation Paper - Future Directions for NSW Local Government - Twenty Essential Steps

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the responses to the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s Key Proposals and Options, as detailed in Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS22/13, form the basis of a Council submission to the Panel.

Environment and Human Services Division

Page Number 58

Item 8 EH7/13 T11/2013 - Cleaning and Repair of Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQIDs) Within Hornsby Shire

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council accept the tender from Envirocivil Pty Ltd for Tender T11/2013 – Cleaning and Repair of Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQIDs) within Hornsby Shire for a period of three years with a further option of one year subject to satisfactory performance commencing on 1 July 2013.

Page Number 62

Item 9 EH8/13 T12/2013 - Landscape Maintenance and Bush Regeneration of Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQIDs) Within Hornsby Shire

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council accept the tenders for Tender T12/2013 – Landscape Maintenance and Bush Regeneration of Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQIDs) within Hornsby Shire for a period of two years with a further option of one year subject to satisfactory performance commencing 1 July 2013 as follows:

· Dragonfly Environmental Pty Ltd (Wetland Contract)

· Sydney Bush Regeneration Company Pty Ltd (Southern Sector)

· Toolijooa Pty Ltd (Northern Sector)

Page Number 66

Item 10 EH9/13 T7/2013 Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples Collected by Hornsby Shire Council

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council accept the tender from Sydney Water for Tender T7/2013 – Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples Collected by Hornsby Shire Council for a period of three years commencing on 1 July 2013 with the option of a one year extension subject to satisfactory performance.

Planning Division

Page Number 70

Item 11 PL40/13 Development Application - Five Storey Residential Flat Building - 9, 11 and 15 Balmoral Street, Waitara

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. 1369/2012 for demolition of existing structures and construction of two detached, five storey residential flat buildings comprising 60 units and basement car parking at Lot B DP 343526, Nos. 9, 11 and 15 Balmoral Street, Waitara be approved as a deferred commencement subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No.PL40/13.

Page Number 114

Item 12 PL50/13 Development Application - Subdivision of One Allotment into Five Lots - 16 Nalya Road, Berowra Heights

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. 902/2012 for subdivision of one allotment into five lots at Lot 102 DP 771576, No. 16 Nalya Road, Berowra Heights be refused for the reasons of refusal detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL50/13.

Page Number 130

Item 13 PL51/13 Development Application - Dwelling House - 36 Millstream Grove, Dural

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and approve Development Application No. DA/356/2013 for the erection of a dwelling-house at Lot 4 DP 270704, No. 36 Millstream Grove, Dural, subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report PL51/13.

Page Number 145

Item 14 PL53/13 Development Application - Dwelling-House - 49 Brooklyn Road, Brooklyn

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. 1318/2012 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling-house and swimming pool at Lot 4 Sec A DP 5527, No. 49 Brooklyn Road, Brooklyn be approved subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL53/13.

Page Number 171

Item 15 PL45/13 Further Report - Animal Boarding or Training Establishment - 21 Geelans Road, Arcadia

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. DA/763/2012 for the use of the site as an animal boarding and training establishment and construction of a dressage arena at Lot 11 DP 217208, No. 21 Geelans Road, Arcadia be approved as a deferred commencement subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL45/13.

Page Number 200

Item 16 PL59/13 Further Report - Subdivision of Two Lots into Three and Demolition of an Existing Dwelling - 12 and 12B Surrey Street, Epping

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Application No. 1398/2011 for the Torrens Title subdivision of two allotments into three lots and the demolition of a dwelling house Lot 1 DP 503987, Lot 2 DP 503987, Nos. 12 and 12B Surrey Street, Epping be approved as a deferred commencement subject to the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of Group Manager’s Report No. PL38/13.

Page Number 233

Item 17 PL43/13 Hornsby Quarry Land Filling Assessment

RECOMMENDATION

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.

Page Number 244

Item 18 PL39/13 Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031

RECOMMENDATION

THAT a submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure indicating Council’s general support for the draft Metropolitan Strategy subject to the Department addressing the major issues for Hornsby Shire identified in Group Manager’s Report No. PL39/13, including:

1. ensuring the potential long term provision of commercial development in the commercial core of Major Centres (including Hornsby) and Specialised Precincts;

2. clarifying whether “Strategic Investigation Sites” (including “South Dural”) will be incorporated into the revised Land Release Policy or the draft Metropolitan Strategy;

3. ensuring the number of new dwellings that the North Subregion will be required to contribute towards any revised target (expressed as a percentage) is not increased;

4. clarifying why the employment target for Hornsby Centre is being reduced having regard to its classification as a “Major Centre”;

5. mapping productive agricultural and resource lands parallel to preparing the new Land Release Policy;

6. supporting a North Subregion comprising Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, Manly, Warringah, Pittwater, Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, North Sydney, Ryde, Willoughby and Mosman; and

7. supporting the priority transport and infrastructure improvements for the North Subregion.

Page Number 262

Item 19 PL47/13 NSW Planning System Review - White Paper Reforms

RECOMMENDATION

THAT a submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure indicating Council’s general support for the White Paper Reforms subject to the Department addressing the issues for Hornsby Shire identified in Group Manager’s Report No. PL47/13 including:

1. Community Participation in relation to the preparation of Community Participation Plans and the delivery of the e-planning solution by councils and the State;

2. Strategic Planning Framework in relation to the funding and operation of Subregional Delivery Boards, the preparation of Subregional Delivery Plans by the Boards and the prescriptive versus performance based approach to Development Guides;

3. Development Assessment in relation to the complexity of Complying Development, status of Development Guides in Local Plans and the role of Strategic Compatibility Certificates;

4. Infrastructure in relation to the delivery of ‘basic community facilities’, deferral of payments, benchmarking and exemption thresholds; and

5. Building Certification in relation to occupation certification, damage to council infrastructure and certification of compliance regarding food premises, landscaping works and the like.

Page Number 283

Item 20 PL56/13 Hornsby Shire Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council endorse the draft Hornsby Shire Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program attached to Group Manager’s Report No. PL56/13 for public exhibition on Council’s website and in local newspapers for a period of 28 days.

2. A further report be presented to Council on submissions received in response to the exhibition of the draft Program.

3. To implement the Program, funding up to $150,000 be allocated to the Planning Division 2013/14 budget to cover the cost of employing additional staff as the need for resources arises.

4. Council write to the Minister for Local Government and Local Government NSW raising concern that the regulated swimming pool inspections fees results in unnecessary cost shifting onto local councils.

5. A Motion be prepared for consideration at the 2013 Local Government NSW Conference on the matter.

Infrastructure and Recreation Division

Page Number 289

Item 21 IR10/13 Tender T26/2012 - Bulk Landscaping Materials

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council accept the tenders of Australian Native Landscapes, Benedict Sand and Gravel, SITA Organics and Thomson Landscape Supplies as Council’s preferred suppliers for Tender T26/2012 - Bulk Landscaping Materials for a period of two years with a further option of one year subject to satisfactory performance.

Page Number 293

Item 22 IR13/13 Review of 2011 Tree Preservation Order

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the list of tree species at Attachment 1 of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. IR13/13 be publicly exhibited for inclusion in an amended Tree Preservation Order and a further report be brought to Council reporting on the results of the public exhibition.

Page Number 297

Item 23 IR15/13 Hayes Oval, Galston Recreation Reserve - Licence for Club Meeting Room

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the draft lease attached to Deputy General Manager’s Report No. IR15/13 allowing the Hills Hawks Football Club Inc. access of a meeting room at Hayes Oval, Galston Recreation Reserve be forwarded for approval by the Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services.

Page Number 300

Item 24 IR17/13 NSROC Regional Shared Services and Regional Waste Project

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council agrees:

1. To participate in preparations to go to tender for the procurement of waste disposal/processing services for NSROC Councils for a contract commencing in 2014, noting that a further report on tender criteria will come to Council in July-August 2013 for a final agreement as to participation in the tender.

2. To be part of an application for authorisation (through revocation and substitution of 2003 authorisation) from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for group purchasing of waste disposal services.

3. To participate in formal participation arrangements with NSROC Councils as shown diagrammatically at Figure One of the attachment, and to contribute to the costs of establishing partnership arrangements for shared services procurement and management by NSROC Councils, on a case-by-case basis, commencing with the waste disposal tender.

4. To contribute to the governance structure establishment costs on an equal basis amongst all NSROC Councils, and the tender preparation costs, in line with volumes participation in the waste contract.

Page Number 305

Item 25 IR18/13 Tender T5/2013 - Demolition and Construction of Rural Fire Station on Dangar Island

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council accept Castlereagh Construction Group Pty Ltd as preferred supplier for Tender T5/2013 - Demolition and Construction of a Rural Fire Station on Dangar Island.

Page Number 309

Item 26 IR19/13 Tender T13/2013 - Supply and Deliver Precast Concrete Drainage Products

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council not accept any tender for all works under Tender No. T10/2013 - Supply and Delivery of Precast Concrete Drainage Products and invite fresh open tenders for these works.

PUBLIC FORUM – NON AGENDA ITEMS

Questions of Which Notice Has Been Given

Mayor's Notes

Page Number 312

Item 27 MN6/13 Mayor's Notes from 1 to 31 May 2013

Mayoral Minutes

Page Number 314

Item 28 MM8/13 Metropolitan Mayors' Association

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council write to the President of NSROC advising that Council will not be joining the Metropolitan Mayors’ Association.

Notices of Motion

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

MATTERS OF URGENCY

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Deputy General Manager's Report No. CS23/13

Corporate Support Division

Date of Meeting: 19/06/2013

1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS TASKFORCE - DISCUSSION PAPER - A NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT FOR NSW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· The Local Government Acts Taskforce has released a discussion paper titled “A New Local Government Act for NSW”. The paper explores potential reforms to the Local Government Act and the City of Sydney Act in four main areas - the guiding principles for local government in NSW; a strategic framework for local government in NSW; Council operations; and Tribunals and Commissions.

· The Taskforce’s view is that the integrated planning and reporting process should form the central theme for the new Local Government Act. It believes that there are many areas where the integrated planning and reporting provisions can be utilised to remove much of the prescription in the current Act and reduce red tape. As such, it has proposed that integrated planning and reporting be elevated to form a central plank of the new Act as the primary strategic tool which enables councils to fulfil their leadership role and deliver infrastructure services and regulation based on community priorities which have been identified by working in partnership with the community, other councils and the State.

· The discussion paper seeks information and feedback from the public on a number of other specific areas which were raised during stage one of the Taskforce’s work. These include: updating and renaming the charter contained in the current Act; public land management; capital expenditure framework; appointment and management of staff; use of technology; and approvals, orders and enforcement.

· In terms of Council responding to the Taskforce’s discussion paper, a table is provided in the Report which details a summary of the Taskforce’s proposals together with a draft response to each which is based on feedback that has been received from the Councillors at informal briefings on the matter and comments from relevant managers/staff from across the organisation.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the responses to the Local Government Acts Taskforce’s proposals, as detailed in Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS23/13, form the basis of a Council submission to the Taskforce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with details of the Local Government Acts Taskforce’s latest discussion paper titled “A New Local Government Act for NSW” and to develop a Council response to the key proposals made by the Taskforce in that paper.

BACKGROUND

Following the Dubbo conference, the Division of Local Government (DLG) released a Destination 2036 Outcomes Report and set out the proposed process and timeframe for consultation and preparation of a related Action Plan. This included the setting up of an Implementation Steering Committee (ISC) to oversee the process. When the ISC was set up, it comprised the Chief Executive of the DLG; the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA); and the President of the NSW Local Government Managers’ Australia (LGMA).

In December 2011, the ISC released a draft Destination 2036 Action Plan and sought comments from interested stakeholders up until 15 February 2012. Following the public exhibition period, minor changes were made by the ISC to the Action Plan and it was approved by the Minister for Local Government. The Plan also referenced the Minister’s establishment of an Independent Local Government Review Panel who would assume responsibility for some of the key actions.

The Destination 2036 key actions were grouped under the following initiatives:

· establish local government as an employer of choice;

· encourage and facilitate innovation;

· ensure the Local Government Act supports stronger local government;

· ensure strong and effective local governance;

· review the revenue system to ensure greater flexibility and self reliance;

· develop strategies that maximise opportunities to secure funding from other levels of government;

· establish a range of funding models to enable the long term maintenance, replacement and creation of different classes of assets;

· develop a number of different structural models of local government;

· more clearly define the functions, roles and responsibilities of local and State Government; align State and local government planning frameworks;

· negotiate a new inter-governmental agreement; and

· recognise local government as a legitimate and important sphere of government

Each of the key actions, which were grouped under the above initiatives, had an expected completion date and a coordinating agency responsible for their achievement. Those agencies included the DLG, LGMA, LGSA and the Independent Review Panel. Progress updates for each of the key actions are being reported quarterly on the DLG website.

In August 2012, the Minister for Local Government also announced that the legislative framework for local government in NSW was to be rewritten and modernised. He appointed a Local Government Acts Taskforce to make recommendations in respect of this process. As a consequence, the Taskforce took on the key actions from Destination 2036 associated with the amendment of the Local Government Act and the City of Sydney Act. The Taskforce was charged with the task of ensuring that new legislation meets the current and future needs of local government; is streamlined and designed so as to strengthen local government so that it can deliver to its community in an efficient and effective manner; is modern and written in plain language, and while providing a comprehensive framework, unnecessary red tape is avoided; and recognises the diversity of local government in NSW. The Taskforce is due to report to the Minister in September 2013.

(N.B. The Independent Local Government Review Panel, which was launched in May 2012, was originally scheduled to present its final report to the State Government in July 2013 - see diagram above. That timeline has recently been extended until September 2013 which is in line with the reporting requirements of the Local Government Acts Taskforce.)

The Local Government Acts Taskforce is chaired by Mr John Turner who was a Councillor on Cessnock City Council between 1981 and 1987 prior to being elected to the NSW Legislative Assembly in 1988. He was chair of the Local Government Legislation Committee who oversaw the development of the 1993 Local Government Act. The other members of the Taskforce are Ms Gabrielle Kibble AO - who was a Chief Executive of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, an administrator of Liverpool and Wollongong Councils and is currently the chair of the NSW Planning Assessment Commission; Mr Stephen Blackadder – who was the General Manager of Rockdale and Warringah Councils and is now the Executive Director of Blackadder Associates (who in 2012 undertook a review of Hornsby Shire Council’s external services); and Dr Ian Tiley – who has had over 49 years’ experience in local government, including as a Shire Clerk for 15 years and as the Mayor of the former Maclean Shire Council prior to being the first Mayor of the Clarence Valley Council

In an initial round of workshops across NSW, the Taskforce heard from councillors and council officials who work within the framework of the Local Government and City of Sydney Acts on a regular basis. The workshops were held to allow the Taskforce to gather ideas about: what principles should underpin a new Local Government Act; what in the current Local Government Act works well and what needs to be changed or removed from the Act; and how new legislation could enable councils to better deliver services and infrastructure efficiently

Five questions were raised by the Taskforce in its “Preliminary Ideas Paper” and were designed to gather information and ideas that would assist the Taskforce to develop a framework for the new legislation, following which a more detailed examination of the content of the new legislation could occur. The questions were:

· What top five principles should underpin the content of the new Local Government Act?

· What is currently working well in the Local Government Act and why, and should be retained in the new Act?

· Are there areas in the Local Government Act that are working well but should be moved to another Act or into Regulations, Codes or Guidelines?

· What is not working well in the Local Government Act (barriers and weaknesses) and should either be modified or not carried forward to the new Act?

· Should the City of Sydney Act be retained and if so, how can it be improved?

Council provided its response to those questions through the attendance by the General Manager and Deputy General Manager, Corporate Support at a workshop held at Willoughby on 14 November 2012 – refer Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS33/12 submitted for Council’s consideration at the 19 December 2012 General Meeting. Following on from its initial consultations, the Taskforce has now released a further discussion paper which is the subject of this Report. In this regard, the diagram below illustrates how the discussion paper is included in Stage 2 of the Taskforce’s brief.

DISCUSSION

Potential reforms to the Local Government Act and the City of Sydney Act have entered the second stage with the release of a discussion paper by the Local Government Acts Taskforce. The Taskforce has indicated that it has undertaken extensive consultation and engagement with the local government community over a number of months and with the information gained, submissions received and its own research and deliberations, has produced the discussion paper which is titled “A New Local Government Act for NSW”. The discussion paper (a copy of which is attached) explores four areas of reform - the guiding principles for local government in NSW; a strategic framework for local government in NSW; Council operations; and Tribunals and Commissions.

The Taskforce’s view is that the integrated planning and reporting process, as the primary strategic tool which supports councils delivering to their communities, should form the central theme for the new Local Government Act. The Taskforce notes that integrated planning and reporting was introduced into the Local Government Act in 2009 as a strategic tool to help councils to implement their leadership, advocacy and service roles in local communities.

The Taskforce believes that there are many areas where the integrated planning and reporting provisions can be utilised to remove much of the prescription in the current Act and reduce red tape. It has proposed that integrated planning and reporting be elevated to form a central plank of the new Act as the primary strategic tool which enables councils to fulfil their leadership role and deliver infrastructure services and regulation based on community priorities which have been identified by working in partnership with the community, other councils and the State.

The discussion paper seeks information and feedback from the public on a number of other specific areas which were raised during stage one of the Taskforce’s work. These include: updating and renaming the charter contained in the current Act; public land management; capital expenditure framework; appointment and management of staff; use of technology; and approvals, orders and enforcement.

As a means of developing a Council submission on the discussion paper, a table is provided below which details a summary of the Taskforce’s proposals (see pages 6 to 10 of the attached document) along with a draft response to each which is based on feedback that has been received from Councillors at informal briefings on the matter together with comments from relevant managers/staff from across the organisation. It is proposed that the Council responses form the basis of a submission to the Panel which is due to the Panel by 28 June 2013.

Local Government Acts’ Taskforce Proposal

Council’s Response

Approach and Principles for the Development of the New Act

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) A flexible, principles based legislative framework, avoiding excessive prescription, written in plain language and in a logical form. The new Act should be confined to setting out the principles of how councils are established and operate. When further detail or explanation is required as to how these principles are to be achieved then regulations, codes and guidelines will be used where appropriate.

(ii) a more consistent approach be taken to the use and naming of the regulatory and other instruments, noting that there is inconsistent use of mandatory and discretionary codes, section 23A guidelines, practice notes, discretionary guidelines and the like.

Supported.

Purposes of the Local Government Act

(i) The Taskforce proposes the following draft Purposes of the Act

“the purpose of this Act is to provide

(1) a legal framework for the NSW system of local government in accordance with section 51 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW)

(2) the nature and extent of the responsibilities and powers of local government

(3) a system of local government that is accountable, effective, efficient and sustainable.”

Supported.

Role and Principles of Local Government

(i) the Taskforce proposes the inclusion of a new Role of Local Government and a set of Principles for Local Government that will replace the charter in the new Act as follows:

“Role of Local Government

The role of local government is to lead local communities to achieve social, economic and environmental wellbeing through:

i) utilising integrated strategic planning

ii) working in partnership with the community, other councils, State and Commonwealth governments to achieve outcomes based on community priority as established through integrated Planning and Reporting

iii) providing and procuring effective, efficient and economic infrastructure, services and regulation

iv) exercising democratic local leadership and inclusive decision-making

Principles of Local Government

Principles to be observed by local government are to:

i) provide community-based representative democracy with open, unbiased and accountable government

ii) engage with and respond to the needs and interests of individuals and diverse community groups

iii) facilitate sustainable, responsible management, development, protection and conservation of the natural and built environment;

iv) diligently address risk and long-term sustainability;

v) achieve and maintain best practice public governance and administration, and to act fairly, responsibly, ethically, and in the public interest, and

vi) optimise technology, and foster innovation and flexibility.”

Supported.

Integrated Planning and Reporting

The Taskforce proposes that:

(i) IPR be elevated to forma central ‘plank’ of the new Act as the primary strategic tool to enable councils to fulfil their leadership role and deliver infrastructure, services and regulation based on community priorities identified by working in partnership with the community, other councils and the State Government.

(ii) other provisions of the Act be drafted so as to better support IPR including accountability to the community, financial sustainability and partnership with the State and others to deliver community outcomes.

(iii) where possible relevant provisions from other sections of the Act be incorporated into IPR to reduce duplication. For example, capital planning and expenditure approval provisions could be moved to the IPR resourcing strategy provisions; and community consultation processes should reflect IPR community engagement principles and need not be repeated throughout the Act.

(iv) the IPR provisions be simplified to increase flexibility for council to deliver IPR in a way that is locally appropriate.

Supported.

Community Consultation and Engagement

The Taskforce proposes the following set of principles to guide councils regarding how consultation and engagement might occur:

· commitment to ensuring fairness in the distribution of resources (equity); rights are recognised and promoted (rights); people have fairer access to the economic resources and services essential to meet their basic needs and to improve their quality of life (access); and people have better opportunities to get involved (participation)

· ensuring that persons who may be affected by, or have an interest in, a decision or matter should be provided with access to relevant information concerning the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decision(s) to be taken

· ensuring that interested persons have adequate time and reasonable opportunity to present their view to the council in an appropriate manner and format

· ensuring that the views presented to the council will be given due consideration

· ensuring that council, in exercising its discretion as to how consultation will proceed in any particular circumstance, has regard to the reasonable expectations of the community, the nature and significance of the decision or matter, and the costs and benefits of the consultation process

· arranging for special consultative procedures in particular instances.

Supported, on the basis that there is consistency with the requirements of other Acts under which Council has to operate e.g. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Any amendments should also be consistent with any requirements for community consultation introduced as part of the NSW State Government’s review of the planning system as outlined in the White Paper.

Technology

The Taskforce proposes that:

(i) as a general principle the Act should support the optimal and innovative use of technology by councils to promote efficiency and enhance accessibility for the benefit of constituents.

(ii) the Act allow each council to determine the most appropriate use of technology taking into account the principles for local government and community engagement through the IPR framework discussed above.

Supported.

Elections

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) use of postal voting at all council elections as a means of increasing efficiency and voter participation and reducing council election costs.

(ii) the following possible improvements to electoral provisions:

· the most appropriate voting system – exhaustive preferential; optional preferential; proportional, or first past the post

· the option of utilising electronic voting in the future

· mechanisms for removing the need for by-elections, when a vacancy occurs either in the first year following an ordinary election or up to 18 months prior to an ordinary election

· half term elections for councillors, similar to Senate elections

· the ward system being abolished

· improving the adequacy of and access to candidate information prior to elections

· the enrolment process and maintenance of the non-residential roll, particularly in the city of Sydney

Supported.

Not supported. This would place an increased cost on Council in respect of elections and may impact on the continuity of Council decision making.

Not supported. This recommendation is contradictory to the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s recommendations regarding Governance (which Council supports).

Supported.

Meetings

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) the provisions relating to council meetings be:

· reviewed, modernised and any unnecessary prescription and red tape removed,

· designed to facilitate councils utilising current and emerging technologies in the conduct of meetings and facilitating public access; and

· consolidated into a generic mandatory Code of Meeting Practice that may if necessary be supplemented to meet local requirements, provided the amendments are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and standard Code of Meeting Practice.

Supported.

Appointment and Management of Staff

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) the strategic responsibilities of the council be clearly separated from the operational responsibilities of the general manager in determining the council’s structure and be aligned with IPR by:

· the general manager being responsible for determining the organisation structure and for recruiting appropriately qualified staff necessary to fulfil each role within the structure

· the council being responsible for determining those services and priorities required and to provide the resources necessary to achieve the Council’s Delivery Program, and

· the general manager being responsible for the employment of all staff and there be no requirement for the general manager to consult with the council in relation to appointment and dismissal of senior staff.

(ii) all positions meeting the criteria as a senior staff position be treated as such, appointed under the prescribed standard contract for senior staff, identified as a senior staff position within the organisation structure, and the remuneration be reported in the council’s annual report.

(iii) in line with the principle of reducing prescription:

· each council to determine how it deals with regulatory responsibilities that fall outside of the Local Government Act, rather than prescribe the appointment of a Public Officer, and

· the EEO provisions be incorporated with the IPR processes and procedures

(iv) the current prescription in the Act relating to the advertising of staff positions and staff appointments be transferred to regulation or to the relevant industrial award.

Supported.

Supported on the basis that the term “resources” is clarified in the Act. In this regard, it may be clearer if the relevant section requires that council determine the financial resources (but not the human or material resources - which are more appropriately management's responsibility) that should be supplied and apportioned through approval of the budget in order to achieve the Delivery Program. It is recommended that this dot point proposal be amended to read "....provide the financial resources necessary...".

Supported. Consideration should be given to legislatively enshrining the principles of natural justice in the termination provisions within the standard contact for general managers, especially where the general manager can be terminated without reason, e.g. under clauses 10.3.5 or 11.3.

Supported. In respect of the determination of senior staff positions, this should not be solely based on remuneration of the position but should have regard to where the position is placed within the structure of the organisation. In this regard, it is proposed that in addition to general managers, all level 2 managers (i.e. director/divisional level reporting to the general manager) should be automatically senior staff regardless of the council size or the remuneration level. Level 3 managers (i.e. those reporting to level 2 managers) who meet the existing criteria could be senior staff, but that should be at the discretion of the general manager.

Supported

Support transfer to regulation but not to a relevant industrial award as these awards are subject to the risk of industrial negotiation every three years.

Formation and Involvement in Corporations and Other Entities

The Taskforce proposes to defer further consideration of this component of the legislation until the work of the Independent Panel is completed.

Supported.

Code of Conduct

The Taskforce is not proposing any changes to the conduct provisions of the Act.

Supported.

Pecuniary Interest

The Taskforce proposes that:

(i) the pecuniary interest provisions be reviewed to ensure they are rewritten in plain language, easily understood and any unnecessary red tape removed.

(ii) consideration be given to utilising available technology to assist with the submission and maintenance of pecuniary interest disclosures and to facilitate appropriate access to this information.

Supported.

Delegations

The Taskforce proposes that the provisions in the Act relating to delegations be reviewed to ensure they are streamlined; written in plain language; and are reflective of the roles and responsibilities of the council and the general manager to facilitate the efficient, effective and accountable operation of local government.

Supported.

Financial Governance

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) there be greater scope for a focus on principles and the definition of financial systems/minimum standards within a new legislative framework and for assimilation with the mechanisms of IPR in line with frameworks proposed for other parts of the legislation.

(ii) there be rebalancing of the regulatory focus of the legislative framework towards systems and risk management rather than process prescription.

(iii) to await the Independent Panel work on many of the issues associated with fiscal responsibility including; rating issues; asset and financial planning; rates and charges; management of expenditure; and audit practices before recommending legislative positions on these matters.

Supported.

Procurement

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) the adoption of a more principles-based enabling approach to procurement combined with a medium level of regulation designed to ensure support of the principles of value for money, efficiency and effectiveness, probity and equity, and effective competition.

(ii) in relation to the current tendering threshold of $150,000 rather than the legislation setting a dollar value threshold a more flexible principles-based approach be taken to councils setting the threshold based on risk assessment of the proposed procurement.

(iii) the delegations section of the Act be reviewed to facilitate councils entering into collaborative procurement arrangements such as via ROCs and allowing councils to delegate procurement to general managers with a ‘report back’ mechanism.

(iv) any regulation of council procurement support councils utilising available technologies that can assist with efficient, effective and economic procurement processes that are accessible to all relevant stakeholders and are fair, open and transparent.

Supported.

Capital Expenditure Framework

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) that a capital expenditure and monitoring framework be developed to enable the appropriate management of risk by councils. This framework should be tailored to risk levels, including significance of the project (including materiality and whole of life costs) and not based on arbitrary monetary thresholds or procurement vehicles.

The current capital expenditure guidelines provide a general overview of the capital expenditure review process but lack detailed explanation of appropriate economic and financial appraisal methodology. Many councils may not have the expertise in house to enable reviews to be completed with confidence and often employ consultants at additional cost. However, Council staff still need sufficient knowledge to understand the process so that they can review an external consultant’s appraisal in a confident manner.

The NSW Treasury Policy and Guidelines Papers are general principles which agencies should apply to their particular situation and develop procedures for undertaking appraisals in their field of operation in consultation with Treasury. These principles are based on the utilisation of economic and financial appraisal techniques to ensure the efficient allocation of resources. A framework should be developed which is consistent with the Treasury Guidelines and makes it mandatory for all NSW councils to apply a consistent financial methodology to all significant capital projects.

It may be appropriate that an independent level of review be obtained either from NSW Treasury, DLG or alternative external organisation that can confirm these financial assessments for high value projects.

Public Private Partnerships

The Taskforce proposes that PPP projects continue to be subject to regulation and aspects that could be streamlined or simplified be identified and mechanisms for ensuring PPPs be considered for inclusion in the IPR framework.

Supported in principle subject to an evaluation of the details when available.

Acquisition of Land

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) no change at this time to the acquisition of land provisions as they remain essential to council’s continued service and infrastructure deliver, are generally working well and there are no strong reasons to support change.

(ii) council plans for the acquisition of land be linked with the IPR processes, and in particular the expressed opinion of the community in the community strategic plan on the need for additional public land or the sale of public land, be included in Delivery Program provisions.

Council believes that change is needed to address the risks associated with VG valuations. Decisions to acquire land should have reference to the 'value for money' principles and proper market value. Most procedures in government require two valuations, as valuations are not scientific (like engineering), but opinion based. In order to make informed decisions about acquisitions, the VG should have to provide a pre-acquisition "appraisal" and/or "valuation", depending on the circumstances, and should be accountable for the advice. The acquiring authority could then make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed.

There should also be a right for council to ask for second opinion of valuation. Currently the VG issues a valuation for compensation. Only the dispossessed owner has the right to object, which protects against an undervaluation. However, there is no protection for the acquiring authority for an over valuation. The only opportunity for the authority is opened up when the dispossessed owner objects, then the authority can seek a different valuation, however it comes at significant cost. Proceeding to the Land and Environment Court is costly, risky, time consuming and not socially ideal.

There is some risk if planned acquisitions (and particularly financials) are identified in the community strategic plan. It potentially precludes free market competitive processes and the opportunity for cost minimisation for Council. It is also noted that opportunities for strategic land acquisition do not always arise in a predictable manner.

Public Land

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) the current processes for council land management, being complex and inconsistent with the Crown Lands regime, be simplified and complementary.

(ii) the Local Government Act:

· require councils to strategically manage council-owned public land as assets through the IPR framework

· balance reasonable protections for public land use and disposal where the land is identified as having significant value or importance

· end the classification regime of public land as either community or operational land and instead, require the council resolution at the time of acquiring or purchasing land to specify the proposed use or uses

· provide that a proposed change in the use or disposal of public land, including consultation mechanisms, should be dealt with through the council’s asset management planning and delivery program

· retain the requirement for a public hearing to be held by an independent person where it is proposed to change the use or dispose of public land identified as having significant value or importance. The results should be reported to and considered by the council before a decision is made and proposals should be addressed through council’s community engagement strategy

· recognise the LEP zoning processes and restrictions applying to council owned public land

· review the prescribed uses to which public land may be applied to accommodate other uses appropriate to the current and future needs of the community

· cease the need for separate plans of management for public land to be prepared and maintained, and in lieu, utilise the asset management planning and delivery program

· cease the need for a separate report to be obtained from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure where proposed leases and licences of public land are referred to the Minister for Local Government for consideration.

Supported.

Support the end of the classification regime but not the requirement for council resolution at the time of acquiring land. Instead it is proposed that the resolution occur as part of the IPR process which is in line with central plank of the new Act as proposed by the Taskforce.

Supported.

Not supported. This matter is addressed through the community consultation charter for the Local Environmental Plan process and does not require a separately mandated public hearing process.

Supported.

Approvals, Orders and Enforcement

The Taskforce proposes:

(i) regulatory provisions be reviewed to ensure that the Act provides guidance on regulatory principles but contains flexibility and less prescription in their implementation, with statutory minimum standards or thresholds the council must meet, and council’s discretionary ‘on-the-ground’ functions.

(ii) within this framework, the prescriptive processes of approvals and orders be streamlined and, subject to risk assessment, be placed into regulations where possible, allowing the Act to focus on high priority areas and principles.

(iii) certain approvals be repealed or transferred to other legislation, such as the installation of manufactured homes and the operation of caravan parks and camping grounds. Installation of domestic oil and solid fuel heating appliances should be transferred to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act; approvals for filming activities on public land be deleted or transferred to other legislation; approvals for amusement devices be transferred to health and safety legislation; and approvals for engaging in activities on public roads be transferred to roads and transport legislation.

(iv) given that maximum penalties have not increased since 1993, penalties for offences in the Act and Regulation be reviewed to ensure they are proportionate to the seriousness and nature of the offence, and act as a deterrent to re-offending.

(v) to have regard to the findings and recommendations of the reports by IPART as they affect local government that are due mid-2013.

The Taskforce invites comments as to whether there are currently activities requiring approval that are low-risk or redundant and therefore can be removed from the legislation.

Supported.

Water Management

The Taskforce will await the report and recommendations of the Independent panel on water management so that the regulation of water by local government in NSW can be further considered. This will involve the determination of appropriate governance structures for water and sewerage delivery in those areas currently serviced by LWUs and water county councils. It will also resolve whether the constitutional and regulatory arrangements for new structures should remain in the Act or relocated into a more appropriate integrated legislative framework.

Supported in principle, however, it is noted that non metropolitan councils are in a better position to inform the Taskforce on this matter.

Performance of Local Government

The Taskforce will await the report and recommendations of the Independent Panel before considering any legislative provisions but invites submissions on whether the performance of local government and its constituent entities should be further monitored and reported.

Supported.

City of Sydney Act

The Taskforce proposes that a separate Act for the City of Sydney be retained (pending the report and recommendations of the Independent Panel) noting that the Council is also subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act.

Supported in principle, noting that Sydney City Council is in the best position to inform the Taskforce on this matter.

CONSULTATION

This Report in part details the consultation that has occurred as a consequence of the local government reform process. As such, there have been ongoing discussions with the Local Government Acts Taskforce, the Independent Local Government Review Panel, industry bodies and representatives of other councils.

BUDGET

There are no budgetary implications associated with this Report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

CONCLUSION

The local government reform process is entering a critical stage in the lead up to the release of final reports to the State Government by the Independent Local Government Review Panel and the Local Government Acts Taskforce. The Taskforce’s latest discussion paper titled “A New Local Government Act for NSW” provides an opportunity for the local government industry to have a say about the Taskforce’s latest thinking prior to the release of its final report in September 2013. In terms of Council responding to the discussion paper, a table has been provided in this Report detailing a summary of the Taskforce’s proposals together with a draft response to each which is based on feedback that has been received from Councillors and relevant managers/staff from across the organisation. It is proposed that those responses form the basis of a submission to the Taskforce.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Deputy General Manager, Corporate Support Division – Gary Bensley- who can be contacted on 9847-6605.

Gary Bensley

Deputy General Manager

Corporate Support Division

Scott Phillips

General Manager

General Manager's Division

Attachments:

1.View

Local Government Acts Taskforce - A New Local Government Act for NSW - Discussion Paper

File Reference: F2009/00463

Document Number: D02175339

Deputy General Manager's Report No. CS26/13

Corporate Support Division

Date of Meeting: 19/06/2013

4 ADOPTION OF COUNCIL'S COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN 2013-2023, DELIVERY PROGRAM 2013-17, AND OPERATIONAL PLAN INCLUDING BUDGET, RATING STRUCTURE AND FEES AND CHARGES 2013-14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· Council’s draft 10 year Community Strategic Plan (known as Your Community Plan 2013-2023), and its draft Delivery Program 2013-17 and draft Operational Plan 2013-14, were adopted for public exhibition by Council at its 17 April 2013 General Meeting. The draft Operational Plan includes the Budget, Rating Structure and Fees and Charges for 2013-14.

· The draft documents were publicly exhibited from 18 April until 17 May 2013 and submissions invited. Eleven submissions were received which are summarised in Table 1A of this Report. Table 1B contains a summary of administrative changes requested by internal Divisions of Council.

· Each submission has been reviewed by appropriate Council staff, and while some minor changes are supported, no material changes to the publicly exhibited documents are recommended.

· It is noted that Council received information from other levels of government during the exhibition period which have no material effect on the publicly exhibited documents.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

2. Make and levy the Ordinary Rates for 2013-14 in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

3. Make and levy the Catchments Remediation Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

4. Make and levy the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate on all rateable land in the Shire, in accordance with the table shown in the Rates section of Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS26/13.

5. Continue to provide eligible pensioners with a $10 concession in respect of the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate, represented by a reduction in the Base amount.

6. Continue to provide eligible pensioners with an additional $20 concession in respect of the rate variation represented by a reduction in the Base amount.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with information and recommendations regarding the submissions received in respect of the public exhibition of Your Community Plan 2013-2023, Delivery Program 2013-17, and Operational Plan including Budget, Rating Structure and Fees and Charges 2013-14.

BACKGROUND

By 30 June in the year following local government elections, all councils are required to develop a 10 year community strategic plan, a four year delivery program and a one year operational plan as well as a resourcing strategy aligned to an integrated planning framework. The purpose is to identify the main priorities and aspirations for the future of the area and the resources required to move to the preferred future.

The Division of Local Government has mandated an integrated planning framework which approaches business planning based on community aspirations and preferences. It requires that the community be presented with the key issues and challenges facing the Shire in order that the community can have deliberative input into how Council, other government agencies and the community will respond to those issues and challenges.

At the General Meeting held on 17 April 2013, Council considered Deputy General Manager’s Report No. CS12/13 and resolved that:

1. Council adopt for public exhibition and make available for public comment from 18 April to 17 May 2013, the draft Community Strategic Plan 2013-2023, the draft Delivery Program 2013-17 and the draft Operational Plan 2013/14 which includes the draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Rating Structure.

2. Council note that the rating information contained in the draft Operational Plan 2013/14 is in line with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s approval for Council (i.e. a 3.9% increase for 2013/14).

3. Following the public exhibition period, and before 30 June 2013, a further report be prepared which provides details of any submissions received and recommends the adoption of a final Operational Plan 2013/14 which includes the Budget, Fees and Charges and Rating Structure for that year.

DISCUSSION

Consultation on the Documents

During the exhibition period from 18 April 2013 to 17 May 2013, copies of Your Community Plan 2013-2023, the Delivery Program 2013-17, Operational Plan including Budget 2013-14, and Fees and Charges 2013-14 were on display at Council’s reception areas and five libraries and were available electronically on Council’s website. Advertisements advising of their availability were placed in the Shire’s three local newspapers and the newsletter distributed to 46,000 households with the April rates instalment notices.

Submissions

A total of 11 submissions were received during the formal exhibition period including one late submission. Council also received three notifications from other levels of government. None of these have any material impact on the budget.

Of the submissions:

· nine relate to the proposed fee increases at community centres

· one relates to the proposed increase in childcare fees

· one is a late submission giving positive feedback on the suite of documents and drawing attention to projects that impact residents of Dangar Island.

The submissions are summarised below, with staff recommendations in italics.

Table 1A

No.	Centre	Name	Summary of Issues	Staff recommendation
1. 2.	Asquith Community Centre	· Linda Lazenby, ABC Playgroup · Clair Higgins, ABC Playgroup	· Proposed fee increase ($1 per hour increase for regular hirers). · Maintenance of centre.	*Supported* § Recommend that the current fee structure for Asquith Community Centre hirers not be increased in 2013/14. Having regard to a major redevelopment proposed for the centre, maintenance is currently limited to essential works only.
3. 4.	Cherrybrook Community Centre	· Gavin Poole, Pastor Cherrybrook Anglican Church · Thomas Lee, Cherrybrook Table Tennis Club	· Fee increase (Ironbark Room $4 per hour increase for regular hirers; Foyer storeroom $45 per month increase). · Minimum 3 hour booking.	*Partially Supported* § Fees are recommended by Management Committee and are considered reasonable having regard to operational expenses and long term asset management considerations. § Recommend that minimum booking blocks be reduced to 2 hours to ensure consistency with other Council managed centres.
5.	Epping Community Centre	· John Withers, Epping & District Scottish Society Inc	· Fee increase ($1 per hour increase for regular hirers across all hireable spaces; a total increase of $9 (or $1.50 per hour) for functions that use the main hall on Sat night between 6 pm and midnight).	*Not Supported* § Recommended fee increases are considered reasonable having regard to operational expenses and long term asset management considerations.
6. 7. 8.	Mount Colah Community Centre	· Julie Spink · Gael Walker · Jenny Gadd	· Fee increase ($1 per hour increase for regular hirers across all hireable spaces). · Hire charge for storage cupboards. · Minimum 2 hour booking.	*Not Supported* § Recommended fee increases are considered reasonable having regard to operational expenses and long term asset management considerations. § 2 hour minimum booking requirement has not changed from 2012/13.
9.	Pennant Hills Community Centre	· David Pullin, GymbaROO Pennant Hills	· Fee increase (Main hall $1 ph increase for regular hirers). · Maintenance of the centre – specifically an issue with leaks during heavy rain and associated damage to the hall floor.	*Not supported* § Recommended fee increases are considered reasonable having regard to operational expenses and long term asset management considerations. § Routine maintenance undertaken regularly with major re-waterproofing of the roof scheduled to take place in 2015/16.
10.	Child Care	· Laura Brownlee	· Fee increases – no discount for siblings. ($5 per day increase for 0-3 years, $4.50 per day increase for 3-6 years)	*Not Supported* § Recommended fees reflect the cost of delivering the service, including administrative and operating costs.
11.		· Peter Wolfe, Dangar Island League	· Retention of Brooklyn Wharf in public ownership.	*Supported* § There are no plans to privatise Brooklyn Wharf.
			· Ways to assist with health of waterways.	*Supported* § Two key ways to assist is to promote responsible dog ownership to protect local and migratory birdlife especially on Bradleys Beach, and to promote responsible boating to protect seagrass beds and be mindful of the seagrass marker buoys.
			· Heritage – tours and materials more accessible to visitors.	*Supported* § Council pleased to obtain more information re types of heritage events and materials Dangar Island Historical Society wish to promote. Council currently looking to review heritage related material available on its website, where there could be an opportunity to incorporate a link to the Dangar Island Historical Society website.
			· Consultation with League when developing Events Strategy.	*Supported* § Arts and Culture – Council will continue to provide support for Australia Day events through promotion and advertising. Also happy to work with the Dangar Island residents to stage other events that can showcase the thriving arts and culture within the community.
			· Disabled access to public wharves.	*Partially supported* § The League’s request to improve access to the wharves at Dangar Island and Brooklyn is supported. Plans are currently being developed for a new pontoon facility at Dangar Island that will improve disabled access. The situation is more difficult at Brooklyn, but it is Council’s intention to improve disabled access, once funds and a viable layout have been identified. § The Hawkesbury River wharf is a State Government facility. Representations will be made on behalf of the League to the relevant State agency.
			· Reprioritising of toilet refurbishment in Dangar Island Community Centre.	*Partially supported* § The request to reprioritise the refurbishment of the toilet facility at Dangar Island Community centre is noted. Officers of Council will shortly approach the League to discuss the proposal.
			· Parking shortage at Brooklyn.	*Partially supported* § Noted. Council has resolved to undertake a car parking survey in the vicinity of Lower McKell Park. This survey will be useful in determining demand for car parking and is scheduled to be undertaken later in the year.
			· Broadband capacity - ensure Dangar Island enjoys parity with other areas as NBN rolls out. · Hawkesbury River Railway Station access difficult for disabled, ageing and those with young children.	§ NBN rollout is Federal Government initiative. Refer to Senator The Hon Stephen Conroy’s office. § Railway Stations are State Government facilities. Refer to The Hon Gladys Berejiklian’s office.

There were also administrative issues identified by staff during the exhibition period regarding changes to priorities, changes to wording for clarity and correction to an incorrectly advertised fee. These are summarised below.

Table 1B

No.	Name	Summary of Issues	Commentary
1b.	Infrastructure and Recreation Division	Forward Capital Works 2014/15 in the Delivery Program (p44) under Aquatic and Recreational Centres – “Brickpit Stadium Thornleigh – replacement of floors (subject to approval)” to be removed. Also reference to same in Operational Plan (p53) to be removed.	§ Advice received from contractor when floors sanded in December 2012 that current flooring has further 10 year lifespan. § Inclusion of project in documents was a copying error.
2b.		Clarification of wording for permanent and casual bookings at Thornleigh Brickpit Stadium.	§ Wording around permanent and casual bookings and badminton confusing – amended for clarity.
3b.		GST incorrectly attributed to some learn-to-swim categories at Hornsby Aquatic Centre	§ GST shown in error. Non holiday learn-to-swim classes do not attract GST. The proposed fee exhibited was ex-GST.
4b.		Forward Capital Works in the Delivery Program: · (p44) Open Space Assets 2014/15 o ‘Ern Holmes Oval – Floodlight replacement’ move to 2015/16 o (replace with) Mark Taylor Oval – ADD ‘replacement lighting’ · (p45) Open Space Assets 2015/16 o delete ‘Thornleigh Oval – Floodlight replacement’ o Ron Payne Park – new description ‘New floodlights’.	§ Based on updated assessment of floodlight condition, and communication with user groups.
5b.	Environment and Human Services Division	Hire charges for the Leisure and Learning Centres should be increased more in line with water/power and garbage removal costs.	§ Council currently working on restructuring the fees and charges for all its community centres, working towards a more balanced schedule of fees based on the centre specifications and facilities within the building and grounds. Important that changes are introduced gradually to ensure regular hirers are not alienated or the centres are not priced out of the target market.
6b.	Environment and Human Services Division	Additional 4 year projects in Delivery Program with linking 1 year Actions in Operational Plan covering sustainability	§ Based on updated assessment of sustainability initiatives.
7b.	Planning Division	Fees and Charges, Cemeteries (p9) ‘Niche plaque – engraved and installed’ fee for 2013/14 – typo resulted in fee being reduced to $195 in 2013/14 from $465 in 2012/13. 2013/14 fee should have read $495.	§ Report to Council 15 May to re-exhibit correct fee ($495). Exhibition closes 13 June. At time of writing no submissions received and recommend Council adopt the correctly readvertised fee effective 1 July 2013. (More detail will be provided in a Late Items Memo)

During the exhibition period, there were further minor changes suggested by Council staff to improve clarity of the information contained in the documents, and those changes will be incorporated in the final versions of the documents.

Information received from other levels of government

1. Supplementary valuations issued by Valuer General

The rates structure included in the draft Delivery Program 2013-17 was based on the general increase of 3.9% (including rate peg and carbon price adjustment of 0.1%) to apply to the Ordinary and Catchments Remediation Rates. The rate increase for the Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate was increased by the ‘rate peg’ determined by IPART for 2013/14 at 3.4%.

The Ordinary, Catchments Remediation and Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate tables (Tables 2, 3. and 4. in the ‘2013/14 Rates’ section below) have been updated after exhibition to take into account supplementary valuations issued by the Valuer General received after initial calculations. This has affected the ‘Rate in the $ (based on land value)’, ‘Yield $’ columns and the overall totals, increasing the total rates levied from $72,097,280 to $72,209,170. There was a comment in the Draft Operational Plan 2013-14 exhibited alluding to this recalculation due to operational needs. There were no submissions received regarding the proposed rates or rating structure.

2. GST on Fees and Charges

The Commonwealth Government has replaced the ‘Division 81 Determination listing’ approach to exempting certain government taxes, fees and charges from goods and services tax (GST) with a new self assessment ‘principles-based’ approach to providing the exemptions. This has therefore required each council to determine the GST status of items currently exempt under the previous ‘Division 81 Determination’ against their status under the new Division 81 self assessment principles.

Council has been part of an industry wide group (120 councils) that has commissioned a Chartered Accounting Firm to review the fees and charges across the sector and submit a class ruling to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). These rulings are progressively being released and may affect the currently stated GST status in Council’s Fees and Charges document. This is likely to have a modest impact on Council’s Fees and Charges for 2013/14, but the full impact is not yet known.

A note has been added to the Fees and Charges 2013/14 document stating that while there may be small changes to the GST status due to the rulings received, in most cases the amount payable will remain as advertised.

In the draft Fees and Charges 2013-14 the GST Status for Learn to Swim group, private and school lessons at Hornsby Aquatic Centre was inadvertently indicated as ‘10%’. The GST Status has now been corrected to ‘Exempt’.

3. Advice on minor traffic facilities project submissions for Federal Government blackspot funding

The Federal Government announced its funding of the Blackspots Program. Council submitted two projects for consideration and one was successful. The successful project is Edgeworth David Avenue and Balmoral Street – traffic signals and median at Parks Avenue. The Wylds Road curve treatment project was unsuccessful.

Submissions have been made to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for 50% matching funding for four projects. Two were included in the exhibition document: Brooklyn cycleway – Stage 1B and Epping Town Centre 40km/h traffic calming. Two further projects have since been submitted: Review of the Hornsby Bike Plan and Upgrade of pedestrian crossing Pacific Highway, Asquith near Asquith Boys High School. Approval of funding is yet to be confirmed by the RMS. The Pacific Highway, Hornsby 40km/h traffic calming project (50% funded by RMS) will commence in 2012/13 for completion in 2013/14. Council’s Operational Plan will be updated to reflect these changes.

The Resourcing Strategy

Council’s Resourcing Strategy addresses long term financial planning, workforce management and asset management, and must be reviewed each four years. It is one of the more challenging documents to prepare because the three components cannot be completed in isolation and must be developed after the Delivery Program and Operational Plan have been developed. Work is underway on reviewing and updating each of the three components that make up Council’s Resourcing Strategy. The Resourcing Strategy 2013-2023 will be available on Council’s website as soon as completed.

2013/14 Rates

On 10 June 2011, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) approved Council’s application for a special rate variation over three years, with a 4% increase (including rate peg) applying to 2013/14.

In 2012/13, IPART granted a 0.4% carbon tax advance. In setting the rate peg for 2013/14, the 4% approved increase has been adjusted down to 3.9% to take into account a partial reduction of the carbon price advance. In 2014/15, the general rate increase set by IPART will be reduced by the remaining 0.3% of the carbon tax advance.

The Ordinary, Catchments Remediation and Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate tables (Tables 2, 3 and 4 below) have been updated after exhibition to take into account supplementary valuations issued by the Valuer General received after initial calculations. This has affected the ‘Rate in the $ (based on land value)’, ‘Yield $’ columns and the overall totals, increasing the total rates levied from $72,097,280 to $72,209,170.

Table 2 - Ordinary Rates

Category	Rate in the $ (based on land value)	Minimum Rate $	Base Amount $	Base Amount %	% of Total Rate	Yield $
Residential	0.00151367		484	46	87.5	57,520,660
Farmland	0.00136317		484	28	0.8	525,901
Business	0.00515695	513			6.8	4,470,169
Business - Hornsby CBD	0.01167239	513			4.9	3,221,152
Total					100	65,737,882

Table 3 - Catchments Remediation Rate

(N.B. There are no minimum or base amounts in respect of this rate)

Category	Rate in the $ (based on land value)	Yield $
Residential	0.00013885	2,873,520
Farmland	0.00009504	26,272
Business	0.00027126	223,310
Business - Hornsby CBD	0.00058524	160,916
Total	3,284,018

Table 4 - Hornsby Quarry Loan Rate

Category	Rate in the $ (based on land value)	Base Amount $	Base Amount %	Yield $
Residential	0.00007461	23	45	2,788,870
Farmland	0.00005213	36	43	25,499
Business	0.00013245	52	50	216,729
Business - Hornsby CBD	0.000317	134	44	156,172
Total	3,187,270

Total Rates Levied $72,209,170

CONSULTATION

Council engaged its community in discussing a preferred future for the Shire which resulted in Council’s first Community Strategic Plan being adopted in 2010. The pages titled ‘Your Involvement’, pp26-27, outline the lengthy consultations undertaken in the preparation of Your Community Plan 2013–2023.

Your Community Plan 2013-2023, Delivery Program 2013-17, Operational Plan including Budget and Fees and Charges 2013-14 have been prepared after detailed discussions with relevant staff, consideration by Council and public exhibition of draft proposals.

Councillors received a briefing on the contents of the draft documents on 27 March 2013.

Publicity included advertisements in the three local papers and the newsletter delivered to 46,000 households with the April rates instalment, as well as prominent signage at Council’s five libraries and Administration Centre reception areas.

All users of Council’s child care services, regular hirers of Council’s community centres and sporting associations were advised of the proposed fee increases for 2013-14.

BUDGET

The publicly displayed draft 2013/14 Annual Budget included an estimated surplus of $355K. This estimated surplus included a reduced level of borrowing for the Hornsby Aquatic Centre capital project of $3 million from earlier forecasts of $6 million.

This reduction in loan borrowing has been achieved by further productivity measures implemented throughout the organisation. This action will result in approximately $281K of reduced debt servicing on a 20 year loan in future year budgets.

Over the past five years, considerable savings have been made by not allowing any increase in non-salary related operating budgets, i.e. no increases in the costs associated with plant, materials, etc. Any increases in these areas have needed to be met by efficiency and other gains across Council in those years.

A review of the classification of costs was undertaken across a large part of the operating and capital budgets for 2013/14. This has resulted in identifying approximately $1.877 million listed as operating expense that when applied to generally accepted accounting principles should be classified as capital expenditure. This change in classification has been made to Council’s budget worksheets. This change does not amend Council’s bottom-line budget result.

Further changes to the budget while on public display include advice that $360K of capital contributions will be received by council towards capital expenditure to be spent on Rural Fire Service projects. A review of drainage and sealed road assets has recommended a small increase to the useful life resulting in a decrease to the non-cash expenditure of depreciation by $1.1 million. These changes have been made to Council’s budget worksheets and do not amend Council’s bottom-line budget result.

A review of Council’s current long term financial plan will commence in August 2013 to include the results from the tender on the management of Aquatic Centre Operations, Storey Park childcare and community centre facility options, Hornsby overhead bridge estimate, asset reviews and the new S94 Plan capital program and cashflow requirements. This document when completed will provide financial direction for the next 10 years.

POLICY

Hornsby Shire’s Community Strategic Plan 2013–2023 describes community aspirations. The Delivery Program 2013-17 is Council’s principal instruction to the organisation.

CONCLUSION

The 10 year Community Strategic Plan, four year Delivery Program and the associated Operational Plan 2013/14 including Budget and Fees and Charges encompass the priorities and expected levels of service voiced by the community. Council will respond by providing services in a prudent and financially viable manner.

Once adopted, the final Your Community Plan 2013-2023, Delivery Program 2013-17, Operational Plan including Budget 2013-14 and Fees and Charges 2013-14 will be distributed electronically and in hard copy to Councillors, staff and interested persons.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officers responsible for the preparation of this Report are the Chief Financial Officer – Glen Magus and the Manager Strategy - Julie Williams - who can be contacted on 9847-6635 and 9847‑6790 respectively.

Gary Bensley

Deputy General Manager

Corporate Support Division

Scott Phillips

General Manager

General Manager's Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2012/00885

Document Number: D02185093

Deputy General Manager's Report No. CS22/13

Corporate Support Division

Date of Meeting: 19/06/2013

7 INDEPENDENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW PANEL - CONSULTATION PAPER - FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR NSW LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TWENTY ESSENTIAL STEPS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· The Independent Local Government Review Panel has released a third consultation paper titled “Future Directions for NSW Local Government – Twenty Essential Steps”. The paper sets out the Panel’s latest thinking as it enters the final three to four months of its work program. It builds on the “Case for Sustainable Change” document that the Panel released in November 2012. The Panel has indicated that its ideas are crystallising but are not set in concrete. A number of research projects are still under way and the Panel wants to discuss the options included in the paper with councils and communities before the release of its final report in September 2013.

· This Report provides background detail in respect of the local government reform process, known as Destination 2036, which has been progressing since 2011. It also summarises the Panel’s latest consultation paper, particularly as it impacts on Council. In this regard, the main recommendation affecting Council is that Hornsby amalgamate with Ku-ring-gai Council. If this proposal is not acceptable to the State Government because of its current policy position of no forced amalgamations, the Panel recommends that the two Councils combine under a strong County Council model. Under this model, the County Council would undertake a broad range of strategic functions to support both Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils.

· Although Council does not as yet have a formal position in respect of the Panel’s proposals and recommendations, it did consider a Notice of Motion at the 5 May 2013 General Meeting and resolved that the General Manager write to adjoining councils in the metropolitan region and invite those councils to participate in preliminary discussions on opportunities to reform local councils consistent with the Panel's recommendations. It also resolved to commission independent research into the Hornsby Shire community's attitude and the attitude of communities in adjoining local government areas towards local government reform consistent with the Panel's recommendations. An update in respect of the actions taken on the Notice of Motion resolution is included in this Report.

· In terms of Council responding to the Panel’s consultation paper, a table is provided in the Report which details a summary of the Panel’s Key Proposals and Options together with a draft response to each which is based on feedback that has been received from the Councillors at informal briefings on the matter and comments from relevant managers/staff from across the organisation..

RECOMMENDATION

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with details of the Local Government Independent Review Panel’s latest consultation paper titled “Future Directions for NSW Local Government – Twenty Essential Steps” and to develop a Council response to the key proposals made by the Panel in that paper.

BACKGROUND

In August 2011, the Mayors and General Managers of all 152 NSW councils and representatives of various local government industry groups met in Dubbo to discuss and plan the future of local government in NSW for the next 25 years. Following the Dubbo conference, the Division of Local Government (DLG) released a Destination 2036 Outcomes Report and set out the proposed process and timeframe for consultation and preparation of a related Action Plan. This included the setting up of an Implementation Steering Committee (ISC) to oversee the process. When the ISC was set up, it comprised the Chief Executive of the DLG; the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA); and the President of the NSW Local Government Managers’ Australia (LGMA).

In December 2011, the ISC released a draft Destination 2036 Action Plan and sought comments from interested stakeholders. Following the public exhibition period, minor changes were made by the ISC to the Action Plan and it was approved by the Minister for Local Government. The Plan also referenced the Minister’s establishment of an Independent Local Government Review Panel who would assume responsibility for some of the key actions.

The Destination 2036 key actions were grouped under the following initiatives: establish local government as an employer of choice; encourage and facilitate innovation; ensure the Local Government Act supports stronger local government; ensure strong and effective local governance; review the revenue system to ensure greater flexibility and self reliance; develop strategies that maximise opportunities to secure funding from other levels of government; establish a range of funding models to enable the long term maintenance, replacement and creation of different classes of assets; develop a number of different structural models of local government; more clearly define the functions, roles and responsibilities of local and State Government; align State and local government planning frameworks; negotiate a new inter-governmental agreement; and recognise local government as a legitimate and important sphere of government

· Develop options and models to enhance collaboration on a regional basis through Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs)

· Undertake research into innovation and better practice in local government in NSW, Australia and internationally

· Examine the current local government revenue system to ensure the system is contemporary, including rating provisions and other revenue options

· Examine the pros and cons of alternative governance models

· Research and develop alternative structural models, identifying their key features and assessing their applicability to NSW

· Identify barriers and incentives to encourage the voluntary amalgamation or boundary adjustment of councils

· Identify those functions that are clearly State or local government responsibility, those that cannot be readily defined and those that have been legislated/regulated as core functions

The Independent Local Government Review Panel, which was launched in May 2012, was originally scheduled to present its final report to the State Government in July 2013 (see above diagram). That timeline has recently been extended until September 2013 which is in line with the reporting requirements of the Local Government Acts Taskforce. The Panel is chaired by Professor Graham Sansom who was a previous Director of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government. The other members of the Panel are Ms Jude Munro (a former CEO of four metropolitan councils across three states – including Brisbane City Council); and Mr Glenn Inglis (who has extensive experience as a Council General Manager in rural and regional NSW).

Apart from considering several actions from the Destination 2036 Action Plan referred to above; the Panel has been examining possible future arrangements for local governance and service delivery in the far western districts of NSW; and proposals to combine the existing 104 council-owned water utilities across non-metropolitan NSW into 32 larger regional operations. The Panel is also following closely the Government’s reform of the land use planning system, and the review of local government compliance and enforcement activities by IPART.

The Panel released an initial Consultation Paper in July 2012 and then held 32 consultation sessions during a Listening Tour around the State. More than 200 submissions were subsequently received by the Panel (including one from Hornsby). As part of its deliberations, the Panel has also been reviewing a wide range of already published research and reports of inquiries into various aspects of local government in NSW, across Australia and internationally. It has released, in November 2012, a paper titled “Better Stronger Local Government – The Case for Sustainable Change”. That paper sets out the Panel’s thinking on some key aspects of local government and its relationship to the State that appears to be in most in need of fresh thinking and new ideas.

As part of “The Case for Sustainable Change” the Panel included “signposts for reform” under the headings of:

· The local government system and challenges faced – understanding the system and defining strategic capacity to deal with future challenges

· Fiscal responsibility and financial management – distribution of Financial Assistance Grants; rate pegging; etc

· Services and infrastructure – whole of government responses; tackling infrastructure backlogs; greater efficiencies; regional collaboration

· Structures and boundaries – shared services models; benefits and drawbacks of amalgamation; consolidation of councils in Sydney; how to support amalgamation process

· Good governance – role and stature of Mayors; working relationships with GM’s; expanded benchmarking and performance reporting

· A compact for change and improvement – arrangements between State and local government

The Panel has commissioned or has been informed by further studies including: an examination of the scope to enhance regional collaboration through ROC’s; a cluster factor analysis to identify types of communities that have similar characteristics and are facing similar challenges; a review of the processes and outcomes of the 2004 amalgamations in NSW; an analysis of a range of opinion polls and resident satisfaction surveys to assess community attitudes towards local government; an examination of the effectiveness of the NSW rating system; an analysis of the financial sustainability of all 152 councils by the NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp); and an assessment of each council’s infrastructure backlog by the DLG.

In respect of the regional collaboration paper, two options were proposed by the Panel. The first was that if the current structure of local government is not changed much, there should be a strengthening of ROC’s and a greater commitment to collaboration between councils in the ROC’s. The second was that if there are extensive changes to the structure, there should be a Council of Mayors which would effectively be a streamlined County Council structure from which there would be a stronger requirement to engage in regional processes.

The main issues/themes that came out of the paper on previous amalgamations were: there needs to be clarity about what any boundary change aims to achieve; there needs to be a recognition about the importance of engaging and communicating with stakeholders at all stages of the process; there is a necessity for detailed planning; the successes of previous structural reforms have been as a result of the commitment of key people rather than the models of decision making at the time. They have been beneficial to communities but at a cost; and for amalgamation to be successful in the future, there needs to be:

· A partnering approach

· A fresh start

· Stakeholder involvement

· Sound planning and implementation

· Removal of barriers (and addition of incentives)

· Transitional arrangements for elected representation

· Independent monitoring and evaluation

The paper dealing with polls and surveys drew on a number of Statewide polls and 22 individual surveys undertaken by councils (one of which was for Hornsby in respect of its rate increase application a few years ago). The paper found that: NSW councils are good at running libraries, collecting waste and looking after parks and sportsgrounds; they are not so good at fixing roads and footpaths or processing development applications; ratepayers are probably willing to pay more rates if local services are maintained and local facilities are improved; local government rated much higher than Federal and State Governments in caring for the community, providing a voice for residents and an opportunity for involvement in decision making (N.B. Local government had a 70% satisfaction rating compared to a less than 16% satisfaction rating for other levels of government); and there has been general support in recent polls for consolidation of councils in the Sydney metropolitan area – but not on what the final or desired number of councils should be.

TCorp’s analysis of the financial sustainability of the 152 councils across NSW provided a Financial Sustainability Rating (FSR) and an Outlook Rating (OR) for each council. In respect of FSR’s, no councils were rated as very strong, two were rated as strong, 32 were rated as sound, 79 were rated as moderate, 34 were rated as weak and five were rated as very weak. For OR’s, five councils outlooks were positive, 74 were neutral and 73 were negative. Hornsby’s FSR rating was moderate and its OR was neutral. The seven key recommendations made by TCorp in respect of Hornsby Council were:

· Council should aim for at least breakeven operating positions each year

· Pricing paths are needed for the medium term

· Rate increases must meet underlying costs

· Asset management planning must be prioritised

· Councillor and management capacity must be developed

· There must be an improved use of restricted funds

· There should be an increased use of debt.

The Panel has now released a further consultation paper which is the subject of this Report. In this regard, the diagram below illustrates how the consultation paper finalises Stage 3 of the Review Panel’s brief.

DISCUSSION

The Independent Local Government Review Panel has released a third consultation paper titled “Future Directions for NSW Local Government – Twenty Essential Steps”. The paper sets out the Panel’s latest thinking as it enters the final three to four months of its work program. It builds on the “Case for Sustainable Change” document released in November 2012, and should be read in conjunction with that document. Copies of both documents are attached to this Report.

The Media Statement that accompanied the release of the latest Consultation Paper details a summary of the Panel’s current thoughts. That summary, particularly as it is applicable to Hornsby, is provided below:

· We have prepared a package of Future Directions for NSW Local Government aimed at transforming its culture, structures, finances and operations, as well as its relations with the State Government. The paper gives councils and the community another opportunity to have their say and inform our ideas before we complete our final report in September. 40 years ago, the Barnett Committee recommended some similar changes for NSW local government, including a reduction in the total number of councils to less than 100. Some of those changes have been implemented but many have not, and new challenges now have to be faced. NSW cannot afford to wait another 40 years for vital improvements to the local government system.

· The Panel’s goal is for a more sustainable system of democratic local government that has added capacity to address the needs of local and regional communities, and to be a valued partner of State and Federal governments. NSW needs more effective local government to harness the skills and resources of local communities, improve quality of life and advance State development. Many councils are performing very well. However, on the whole our investigations and consultations have revealed a local government sector that is weighed down with too many out-of-date ideas, attitudes and relationships. There are many factors involved, but at the heart of the problem we still have too many councils chasing too little revenue.

· As revealed in a TCorp report about the matter, it is “time to act”. TCorp’s results paint a disturbing picture and confirm the Panel’s view that underlying weaknesses in the financial position of NSW local government have been allowed to build up for far too long. In three years time, 48% of councils could have a weak or worse financial sustainability rating. There is no point in seeking to apportion blame: what is needed now is a healthy dose of reality-testing and an acceptance that there are no easy answers. It is clear that the financial base of NSW local government is in urgent need of repair, with many councils facing very serious problems that threaten their sustainability and ability to provide adequate services and infrastructure for their local communities. Addressing the issues will be uncomfortable for all concerned: politicians, senior managers, staff and ratepayers. As TCorp makes clear, a concerted, medium-long term strategy is required.

· Stronger regional and metropolitan governance must be a central plank of local government reform to make better use of scarce resources and to facilitate more efficient and effective State-local relations especially in strategic planning, economic development, infrastructure provision and service delivery. To achieve this in regional NSW, the Panel has proposed the establishment of around 20 “new look”, multi-purpose County Councils. These have been focused on existing or potential major regional centres, which could also be strengthened by some amalgamations with adjoining councils. The paper also proposes extensive restructuring of local government in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, Lower Hunter and Central Coast. This includes in particular:

o A new “global city” of Sydney, encompassing the whole area from the CBD east to the coast and south to Botany Bay. The Panel sees this as vital to create a capital city that, like those of Brisbane, Auckland and many other competitors around the world, will match Sydney’s international status

o Reducing the unnecessary fragmentation of local government in Sydney’s southern suburbs and the inner west, on the north shore and along the northern beaches

o Greatly expanded cities of Parramatta and Liverpool that will have the scale and resources needed to support the regional centres envisaged in the draft Metropolitan Strategy

o A combined city of Newcastle-Lake Macquarie to drive development in the Lower Hunter

o A merger of Gosford and Wyong to provide stronger local government in the Central Coast.

· Opponents of amalgamations rely heavily on the argument that local identity will be lost in bigger local government units. However, the Panel can find no evidence that loss of local identity is an inevitable consequence of creating larger local government areas. To assist the transition for councils considering voluntary amalgamation, the Panel proposes a range of ways to ensure local voices are heard. These include place management approaches, use of wards, citizen’s panels and modern customer service systems. We also propose the option of “Local Boards” – a new type of elected, community-based local government unit with limited responsibilities delegated from a local council or County Council. These could be used to replace small rural and remote councils that will not have the resources to continue in their current form, as well as to assist the transition to larger local government areas in the Sydney metropolitan area.

· Amalgamations and boundary changes are not the panacea for local government’s problems. However, many out of date boundaries and structures remain in place today and our terms of reference require that we provide options to address those issues. We believe that amalgamations and boundary changes are an essential element of a wider package of reforms. In doing so, the Panel has kept in mind the Government’s commitment to “no forced amalgamations” and understands that change will require councils and communities to accept the benefits of mergers. Detailed planning and business cases will be needed and further consultation will be required under the provisions of the Local Government Act. The Panel’s report proposes a wide-ranging package of financial and other incentives for voluntary mergers. But in the end, arguments about amalgamations are essentially a distraction from the core issue we need to face, which is how the role and capacity of NSW local government can best be strengthened in the interests of the communities it is expected to represent. We are faced with challenges that demand a fresh look at the system of local government and its relationship with the State, and a willingness to explore new options with an open mind. That is what we will be doing for the remaining four months of the review.

· The Consultation Paper provides a detailed progress report on the Panel’s work to date and provides a basis for further consultation. The Panel’s ideas are crystallising but are not set in concrete. A number of important research projects are still under way and the Panel wants to discuss the options included in the paper with councils and communities. The paper fulfils the Panel’s commitment to ensure that all concerned can discuss the options being considered for its final report, which is now due in September 2013, to give the Panel time to consider the expected significant feedback from the Future Directions stage of the review.

· The Panel’s Future Directions consultation will include visits to 29 regional cities and towns and eight locations in the Sydney metropolitan area from 9 May until 14 June 2013. Councils Workshops will provide the opportunity for Mayors, Councillors and senior staff to discuss the paper and explore the options put forward for their region. Community Hearings will also be held to provide the opportunity for local people and organisations to express their views directly to the Panel and discuss the various ideas and proposals set out in the paper.

(N.B. In respect of the last dot point, Hornsby Council representatives have been invited to attend a Metropolitan Councils Workshop at Chatswood on 14 June 2013, and the General Manager and a number of Councillors have already attended a similar Workshop that was held at Parramatta on 15 May 2013)

Reshaping of Metropolitan Governance

Chapter 15 of the Panel’s “Future Directions for NSW Local Government – Twenty Essential Steps” deals with the reshaping of metropolitan governance and has the most relevance to Hornsby Shire Council at this time. In Chapter 15, the Panel says that for Sydney to remain Australasia’s pre-eminent global city, very substantial changes are needed to the way the region is governed at both local and State levels. The Panel believes that without changes to council boundaries there will be an increasingly severe imbalance in the structures of local government between eastern and western Sydney and that this would be inequitable and impede sound strategic planning and effective State-local collaboration.

The Panel has concluded that the number of local councils in the Sydney basin should be significantly reduced, especially in the inner and eastern suburbs, on the lower North Shore and around Parramatta and Liverpool. In this regard, the Panel’s objectives are to: create high capacity councils that can better represent and serve their local communities on metropolitan issues, and be true partners of State and federal agencies; establish a more equitable pattern of local government across the metropolitan area, taking into account planned development; underpin Sydney’s status as a global city; and support implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy. The Panel’s view is that on balance, looking ahead to the mid-21st Century when Sydney’s population will reach about 7 million, having about 15 councils is appropriate.

The Metropolitan Strategy places particular emphasis on the planning and development of a series of major centres. The Panel has considered the lessons to be learned from the history of efforts over the past 40 years to establish Parramatta as Sydney’s “second CBD”. One of those lessons is that a strong, well-resourced local council is an essential factor: there is little doubt that Parramatta’s development has been hindered by the limited scale and narrow boundaries of the current local government area. The Panel therefore considers that major centres need to be managed by suitably large and capable councils. This requires:

· A major expansion of the City of Parramatta to include Auburn, Holroyd, most or all of Ryde, and areas of Hornsby and The Hills south of the M2. This will create a city with a broad socio-economic mix and with the resources needed to develop a “second CBD”.

· Amalgamation of the local government areas of Liverpool, Fairfield and perhaps Bankstown to support the planned Liverpool “regional city”.

· Amalgamation of local government areas on the lower North Shore, in the inner west, and in the St George area. These amalgamations are also needed to reduce excessive fragmentation into small or relatively small units.

The Panel sees considerable benefits in sharing the wealth and revenue base of the Sydney CBD across a much wider area. The new city would have the capacity to undertake major sub-regional projects, such as light rail and cycleway networks, from its own resources. It may also be able to assume responsibility for some State-managed facilities, such as Centennial Park and the Botanic Gardens, freeing-up funds for allocation to projects in more needy local government areas.

The Panel has indicated that if there is little or no restructuring of existing boundaries in the metropolitan area, then as in the rest of NSW multi-purpose (but in this case sub-regional) County Councils should be established to undertake a wide range of functions on behalf of their members, thus ensuring effective and ongoing collaboration in shared services, strategic planning and advocacy, as well as a basis for partnership with State and federal agencies. If restructuring takes place as preferred by the Panel, sub-regional groupings of councils would be set up for joint strategic planning and implementation with State agencies of proposed Delivery Plans under the Metropolitan Strategy, as well as Regional Action Plans under the State Plan. Sub-regional boundaries have been indicated in the draft Metropolitan Strategy, but may require adjustments in light of the Panel’s proposals.

Direct Implications – Hornsby Shire Council

The specific recommendation in respect of Hornsby Shire Council as contained in Table 4 of the Consultation Paper is that Hornsby amalgamate with Ku-ring-gai Council. If this proposal is not acceptable to the State Government because of its current policy position of no forced amalgamations, the Panel recommends that the two Councils combine under a strong County Council model. Under this model, the County Council would undertake a broad range of strategic functions to support both Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils. The County Council would replace the existing regional organisation (NSROC) with Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai remaining much as they are except that they would “own” and resource the County Council and refer some regional functions to the County Council. The Panel has also recommended, in line with its proposed expansion of the Parramatta City Council boundaries, that Hornsby’s current boundary with Parramatta and/or Ryde Councils be shifted north to the M2.

Although Hornsby Shire Council does not as yet have a position in respect of the Panel’s proposals and recommendations, it did consider Notice of Motion No. NOM3/13 - Independent Local Government Review Panel's Report – “Future Directions for NSW Local Government - Twenty Essential Steps” at the 5 May 2013 General Meeting and resolved that the General Manager:

1. Write to adjoining councils in the metropolitan region and invite those councils to participate in preliminary discussions on opportunities to reform local councils consistent with the Panel's recommendations.

2. Commission independent research into the Hornsby Shire community's attitude and the attitude of communities in adjoining local government areas towards local government reform consistent with the Panel's recommendations.

3. Prepare a report to the June 2013 General Meeting outlining options for Council's response to the Panel's report.

In respect to point 1 of the resolution, the General Manager has written to the General Managers of Ku-ring-gai, The Hills, Parramatta and Ryde Councils issuing an invitation to participate in discussions. A positive response has been received from each of those Councils and discussions are progressing.

In respect to point 2 of the resolution, quotations were sought from organisations who can undertake independent, scientifically robust and informative research that will assist Council in understanding community opinion about the local government reform process as it affects the community. Following an evaluation of the quotations received, Crosby Textor Research Strategies Results Pty Ltd have been contracted to undertake the research. A further report on this research will be submitted for Council’s consideration when the research is complete.

This Report has been prepared to respond to point 3 of the resolution. In this regard, a table is provided below which details a summary of the Key Proposals and Options on page 5 of the Panel’s Consultation Paper along with a draft response to each which is based on feedback that has been received from the Councillors at informal briefings on the matter together with comments from relevant managers/staff from across the organisation. It is proposed that the Council responses in the table form the basis of a submission to the Panel which is due to be submitted by 28 June 2013.

Local Government Review Panel Proposal

Council Response

Sustainability and Finance

· Develop a standard set of sustainability benchmarks; require all councils to appoint a qualified Chief Financial Officer; strengthen the guidelines for councils’ 4-year Delivery Programs; and place local government audits under the oversight of the Auditor General

· Improve the rating system and streamline rate-pegging to enable councils to generate essential additional revenue

· Progressively re-distribute grant funding to provide greater assistance to rural-remote councils with limited rating potential

· Establish a State-wide Local Government Finance Agency to bring down interest costs and assist councils make better use of borrowings

Supported. It is noted that following an organisation restructure in 2012, Council appointed an appropriately qualified Chief Financial Officer.

Supported.

As Council currently receives the minimum Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) entitlement, it would be significantly disadvantaged under this proposal. Council believes that the total pool of FAG funds provided by the Commonwealth Government should be increased, or other specific grant funding be provided to rural-remote councils who have limited rating potential. Alternatively, if the current rate capping restrictions were relaxed, Council would have an opportunity to recoup any lost FAG funding and continue to maintain its services and infrastructure.

Supported. This may involve the restructure and resourcing of the Division of Local Government to provide a “one stop” agency to assist councils.

Infrastructure

· Maintain the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS) for at least 5 years, with a focus on councils facing the most severe problems

· Create a Strategic Projects Fund for roads and bridges to help reduce the infrastructure backlog

· Investigate the Queensland model of Regional Roads Groups, as well as options for cost savings through strategic procurement initiatives

· Require asset and financial management assessments of councils seeking special assistance

Supported.

Supported in principle subject to the process not being onerous on councils.

Productivity and Improvement

· Introduce a requirement for regular ‘best value’ service reviews

· Develop a consistent data collection and performance measurement system for NSW councils, and strengthen internal and performance audit processes

· Commission a review by IPART of the regulatory and compliance burden on NSW local government

Supported in principle subject to the process not being onerous on councils.

Council does not support the compulsory establishment of 'audit, risk and improvement' committees for all councils. The proposition that it should be mandatory for every council to have an unelected body overseeing the allocation of resources is overly bureaucratic and contradictory to the premise on which local government is founded, being a local democracy. Our view is that the responsibility for efficient and effective local government rests solely with the elected Councillors and professional senior management group. Given that a very large number of councils in NSW have been financially constrained for many decades, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of inefficiencies have already been dealt with. The issues confronting most councils are structural issues beyond the capacity of any 'audit, risk and improvement' committee to resolve.

The cost of resources required by each Council to support and sustain a permanent 'audit, risk and improvement' committee structure is not likely to yield proportionate productivity gains year on year. We believe that a better approach to improving governance, risk management and continuous improvement is for the DLG to set aside funds to support the appointment of independent consultants who can be assigned to those councils in most need and provide periodic professional advice in the areas of financial management, corporate risk, good governance and continuous improvement. This would also complement any program undertaken by the Auditor General to conduct issue-based performance audits in key areas of local government activity.

Supported.

Better Governance

· Mandate ongoing professional development for councillors

· Strengthen the authority and responsibilities of mayors and require popular election of mayors in all councils with a population of 20,000 or more

· Provide additional governance options for larger councils, including a mix of ward and ‘at large’ councillors and a ‘civic cabinet’ model

· Take steps to improve Council-Mayor-General Manager relations

Supported.

Supported subject to the separation of powers not being eroded. It is noted that this dot point proposal is inconsistent with the Local Government Act Taskforce recommendations in respect of the Local Government Acts Review.

Supported in principle.

Supported, although it is noted that such relationships at Hornsby Shire Council are strong and productive.

Structural Reform

· Establish a network of around 20 ‘new look’, multi-purpose County Councils to undertake regional-level functions outside the Sydney metropolitan area

· Introduce the option of Local Boards to service small communities and to ensure local identify and representation in very large urban councils

· Encourage voluntary amalgamations of smaller rural councils to improve their sustainability, and convert small (in population) councils (generally less than 5,000) to Local Boards

· Promote a series of voluntary amalgamations in the Lower Hunter and Central Coast regions, including Newcastle-Lake Macquarie and Gosford-Wyong

· Seek to reduce the number of councils in the Sydney basin to around 15, and create major new cities of Sydney, Parramatta and Liverpool, each with populations of 600-800,000

· Introduce a package of incentives for voluntary mergers that offers a higher level of support to ‘early movers’

Supported in principle, however, it is noted that non metropolitan councils are in a better position to inform the Panel on this matter.

Supported. The Independent Panel, together with work undertaken by T-Corp on the financial sustainability of local government, have made a strong case for boundary changes in the metropolitan area to strengthen the strategic capacity of councils.

Council has taken a proactive stance to the reform debate and has not limited its consideration of the reforms to the recommendations contained in the Panel’s report. In evidence of this, at its 5 May 2013 General Meeting, Council resolved in part that the General Manager:

It is anticipated that the results of the community polling will be complete by mid July 2013, which will inform further discussion with neighbouring councils and allow Hornsby Council to further consider its position.

The Panel’s recommendation is welcomed and supported. Based on experience in other jurisdictions, it is recognised that any council amalgamation would initially require additional resources and support to aid in the transition process. In the event that Council does move towards an amalgamation with one or more councils, Council would pursue this recommendation with the Government.

Western NSW

· Establish a Western Region Authority to provide a new governance and service delivery system for the far west of NSW, based on a partnership between local, State and Federal governments and Aboriginal communities

Supported in principle, however, it is noted that Western Region councils are in a better position to inform the Panel on this matter.

Implementation

· Appoint a Local Government Development Board for a maximum period of 4 years with a brief to drive and support a concerted program of reform

· Build on the new State-Local Government agreement to secure increased collaboration and joint planning between councils and State agencies

· Strengthen recognition of elected local government in the NSW Constitution

· Focus Local Government NSW (the new single association of councils) and the Division of Local Government on sector improvement.

Supported.

Supported in principle.

Supported.

CONSULTATION

This Report in part details the consultation that has occurred as a consequence of the local government reform process. As such, there have been ongoing discussions with the Independent Local Government Review Panel, the Local Government Acts Taskforce, industry bodies and representatives of other councils.

BUDGET

There are no budgetary implications associated with this Report.

POLICY

There are no policy implications associated with this Report.

CONCLUSION

The local government reform process is entering a critical stage in the lead up to the release of final reports to the State Government by the Independent Local Government Review Panel and the Local Government Acts Taskforce. The Independent Panel’s latest consultation paper titled “Future Directions for NSW Local Government – Twenty Essential Steps” provides an opportunity for the local government industry to have a say about the Panel’s latest thinking prior to the release of its final report in September 2013. In terms of Council responding to the consultation paper, a table has been provided in this Report detailing a summary of the Panel’s Key Proposals and Options together with a draft response to each which is based on feedback that has been received from Councillors and relevant managers/staff from across the organisation. It is proposed that those responses form the basis of a submission to the Independent Panel.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Deputy General Manager, Corporate Support Division – Gary Bensley - who can be contacted on 9847 6605.

Gary Bensley

Deputy General Manager

Corporate Support Division

Scott Phillips

General Manager

General Manager's Division

Attachments:

1.View	Future Directions for NSW Local Government – Twenty Essential Steps - April 2013
2.View	Better, Stronger Local Government - The Case for Sustainable Change – November 2012

File Reference: F2004/07217

Document Number: D02175330

Group Manager’s Report No. PL40/13

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 19/06/2013

11 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - FIVE STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING - 9, 11 AND 15 BALMORAL STREET, WAITARA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/1369/2012 (Lodged 21 December 2012)
Description:	Demolition of existing structures and construction of two detached, five storey residential flat buildings comprising 60 units and basement car parking
Property:	Lot B DP 343526, Nos. 9, 11 and 15 Balmoral Street, Waitara
Applicant:	Balmoral Street Developments Pty Ltd
Owner:	Ian Alexander Groves Dong Yao Zheng and Yu Wu Farsad Safaie-Zadeh and Noushin Kebrit
Estimated Value:	$10,800,000
Ward:	B

· The application proposes the demolition of existing structures and construction of two detached, five storey residential flat buildings comprising 60 units and basement car parking.

· The proposal generally complies with the Hornsby Shire LEP 1994, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development and the Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy DCP.

· Nineteen submissions have been received to notification of the initial application. Nine submissions have been received in response to notification of amended plans.

· It is recommended that the application be approved as a deferred commencement.

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND

The subject land was rezoned from Residential A (Low Density) to Residential C (Medium-High Density) on 2 September 2011 as part of Council’s Housing Strategy.

SITE

The site comprises Nos. 9, 11 and 15 Balmoral Street, Waitara. The site has an area of 3,367 square metres and is located on the western side of Balmoral Street. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Balmoral Street of 49.99 metres and a depth of 67.35 metres. The site has a cross fall towards the rear, north western corner of the site with an average grade of 4%.

Each allotment comprising the development contains a dwelling-house of brick and tile roof construction. A number of trees are located within the development site, each has not been identified as significant.

The site forms part of the Housing Strategy ‘Balmoral Street, Waitara precinct’ bounded by Balmoral Street, Alexandra Parade, Park Avenue and Edgeworth David Avenue.

The surrounding development within the rezoned precinct includes low density dwelling houses. The eastern side of Balmoral Street was not included in the Housing Strategy and remains as land zoned Residential A (Low Density).

The site is located approximately 240m east of Waitara Railway Station and approximately 700m from Hornsby Town Centre. A small shopping centre is located in Edgeworth David Avenue, approximately 400m north of the site.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the demolition of three existing dwelling-houses, construction of two detached, five storey residential flat buildings comprising 60 dwellings and basement car parking.

The unit configuration includes 6 x 1 bedroom units, 40 x 2 bedroom units and 14 x 3 bedroom units. The units include balconies fronting the street, rear and side setbacks.

The development would be accessed from Balmoral Street via a driveway located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. A separate pedestrian entry to each building is located on the Balmoral Street frontage of the site. A total of 60 residential spaces and 12 visitor’s parking spaces are proposed in a single basement level.

ASSESSMENT

The development application has been assessed having regard to the ‘Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031’, the ‘North Subregion (Draft) Subregional Strategy’ and the matters for consideration prescribed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The following issues have been identified for further consideration.

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031 and (Draft) North Subregional Strategy

The (Draft) Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2031 is a broad framework to provide for Sydney’s growth to help plan for housing, employment, transport, infrastructure, the environment and open space. It outlines a vision for Sydney to 2031; the challenges faced, and the directions to follow to address these challenges and achieve the vision.

The North Subregion comprises Hornsby, Kuring-gai, Manly, Warringah and Pittwater Local Government Areas. The Draft North Subregional Strategy acts as a framework for Council in its preparation of the Comprehensive LEP by the end of 2013.

Within the North Subregion, the Draft Metropolitan Strategy proposes:

· Population growth of 81,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 529,000

· Housing growth of 37,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 204,000

· Employment growth of 39,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 186,000

The proposed development would be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031 by providing an additional 57 dwellings and would contribute to housing choice in the locality.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 79C(1)(a) requires Council to consider “any relevant environmental planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments, development control plans, planning agreements and regulations”.

2.1 Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994

The subject land is zoned Residential C (Medium/High Density) under the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 (HSLEP). The objectives of the zone are:

(a) to provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area.

(b) to promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a medium to high density residential environment.

(c) to provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a medium to high density residential environment.

The proposed development is defined as ‘multi-unit housing’ under the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

Clause 15 of the HSLEP prescribes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of development within the Residential C zone. Subclause (5) of clause 15 states that “This clause does not apply to land shown edged heavy black on diagrams 1-8 in Schedule BB.” The site is identified in Diagram 4 of Schedule BB of the HSLEP. Therefore, clause 15 does not apply to the subject site.

Clause 15A of the HSLEP prescribes that the maximum building height within the area detailed under Schedule BB is not to exceed 17.5 metres. The proposed building complies with this requirement.

Clause 18 of the HSLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire. The site is not in the vicinity of a heritage item or conservation area and is not subject to consideration for heritage conservation. Therefore, no further assessment in this regard is necessary.

2.2 Draft Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan

The draft Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (DHLEP) was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 19 December 2012 to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to be made. In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Plan has been submitted to the Department for finalisation. The draft HLEP essentially reiterates the current land use zoning and height control applicable to the site as outlined below:

2.2.1 Zoning

The site would be zoned R4 (High Density Residential) zone pursuant to the Land Use Table of the draft HLEP. The proposed development is defined as a ‘residential flat building’ and would be a permissible use in the zone with Council’s consent.

2.2.2 Height of Building

Clause 4.3 of the draft HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site is 17.5 metres. The proposal complies with this provision.

2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55) requires that Council must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated or requires remediation for the proposed use.

The site has been used for residential purposes and is unlikely to be contaminated. No further assessment is considered necessary in this regard. A condition is recommended should any contamination be found during construction.

2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The Policy provides for design principles to improve the design quality of residential flat development and for consistency in planning controls across the State.

The applicant has submitted a design verification statement prepared by a qualified designer stating how the proposed development achieves the design principles of SEPP 65. The design principles of SEPP 65 and the submitted design verification statement are addressed below.

2.4.1 Principle 1 - Context

Design Principle 1 is as follows:

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The subject site is located within a precinct zoned for five storey residential flat buildings in close proximity to Edgeworth David Avenue and Hornsby Westfield Shopping Centre. The desired future character of the area, as outlined in Council’s Housing Strategy Development Control Plan, is that of a high density residential precinct incorporating five storey developments in garden settings with parking in basements.

A ‘Design Verification Statement’ in response to the SEPP 65 was submitted with this application that indicates the proposal responds to the desired future character of the precinct as envisaged by Council. Once the development of the precinct is completed, the proposal would integrate with the surrounding sites and would be in keeping with the desired urban form. It is considered that the proposed building would contribute to the identity and future character of the precinct.

2.4.2 Principle 2 - Scale

Design Principle 2 is as follows:

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.

Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

The scale of the development is in accordance with the required building height and setbacks for the precinct and provides an architectural composition that achieves the required pavilion built forms to minimize bulk and scale. The scale of the development is considered appropriate for the site and consistent with the desired future character of the precinct.

2.4.3 Principle 3 – Built Form

Design Principle 3 is as follows:

Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements.

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscape and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The proposed five storey development would be the first of its kind on Balmoral Street within the precinct rezoned under Council’s Housing Strategy. The buildings are appropriately articulated to minimise the perceived scale and to add to the visual interest of the development. The proposed development presents a distinct architectural design which would set an appropriate precedent for the locality and is considered acceptable in terms of built form.

2.4.4 Principle 4 – Density

Design Principle 4 is as follows:

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

The HSLEP does not incorporate floor space ratio requirements for the site. The density of the development is governed by the height of the building and the required setbacks. The proposed density is considered to be sustainable as it responds to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality and is considered acceptable in terms of density.

2.4.5 Principle 5 – Resource, Energy and Water Efficiency

Design Principle 5 is as follows:

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction.

Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

The applicant has submitted a BASIX Certificate for the proposed development. In achieving the required BASIX targets for sustainable water use, thermal comfort and energy efficiency, the proposed development achieves the design criteria and is considered acceptable in this regard.

2.4.6 Principle 6 – Landscape

Design Principle 6 is as follows:

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

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbour’s amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The application includes a landscape concept plan providing landscaping along the street frontage and side and rear boundaries. Large trees proposed along the frontage would soften the appearance of the development when viewed from the street. Deep soil zones are provided around the building envelope which would enhance the development’s natural environmental performance and provide an appropriate landscaped setting.

2.4.7 Principle 7 – Amenity

Design Principle 7 is as follows:

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

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

The proposed units are designed to achieve natural ventilation, solar access and acoustic privacy. All units incorporate balconies accessible from living areas and privacy has been achieved through appropriate design or recommended conditions of consent. Appropriate storage areas have been provided within units and within the basement levels. The proposal would provide convenient and safe access via a central lift located in each building connecting the basement and all other levels. The application is considered acceptable in this regard.

2.4.8 Principle 8 – Safety and Security

Design Principle 8 is as follows:

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

A statement submitted by the Architect on 21 May 2013 incorporates recommended actions to promote safety and security within the development including design features such as controlled entry points; security gate access to basement car park; intercom access for pedestrians; security deadlocks to each apartment door; foyer door construction of safety glass; lighting for building foyer entries, pathways, driveways and common external spaces and on-going management of building repairs and landscaping.

The design orientates the balconies and windows of individual apartments towards the street and rear boundary, providing passive surveillance of the public domain and communal open space areas. Entry points are secured and visibly prominent from the respective streets.

The development proposal is supported in respect to safety and security.

2.4.9 Principle 9 – Social Dimensions and Housing Affordability

Design Principle 9 is as follows:

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

New development should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

New development should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.

The site is located approximately 240m east of Waitara Railway Station and approximately 700m from Hornsby Town Centre, which contains Westfield Shopping Centre. A small shopping centre is located on Edgeworth David Avenue, approximately 400m north of the site. The location of the site allows direct access to retail, educational, health and recreational facilities. The proposed development includes a mix of dwelling types and sizes which complies with the requirement within the RFDC to improve housing choice in the locality. In this regard, the development is considered acceptable in terms of social dimensions.

2.4.10 Principle 10 – Aesthetics

Design Principle 10 is as follows:

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

The applicant submitted a statement which includes the following comment:

Materials and colours are selected to be compatible with the existing development surrounding the site. Colours are predominately light to mid tones, with grey roofs and grey windows, shutters, louvers, pergolas, balustrades and other trims. Light coloured soffits and tiling is envisaged. Lower portions of the facades are darker tones to provide a visual base for the building.

The architectural treatment of the building is general consistent with the design principles contained within the RFDC. It is considered that the aesthetic quality of the building would contribute to the desired future character of the precinct. The details of the assessment of the built form and the aesthetics of the development are contained in Section 2.11 of this report.

2.5 SEPP 65 - Residential Flat Design Code

SEPP 65 also requires consideration of the Residential Flat Design Code, NSW Planning Department 2002. The Code includes development controls and best practice benchmarks for achieving the design principles of SEPP 65. The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the Code:

Residential Flat Design Code
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Deep Soil Zone	27%	25%	Yes
Communal Open Space	35%	25-30%	Yes
Minimum Dwelling Size	1 br – 55.1m² 2 br – 80.08m² 3 br –95.41m²	1 br – 50m² 2 br – 70m² 3 br – 95m²	Yes Yes Yes
Maximum Kitchen Distance	8.1m – 9.5m (Units 9, 10, 11, 16,17,18, 33, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48)	8m	No
Minimum Balcony Depth	>2.0m	2.0m	Yes
Dual Aspect & Cross Ventilation	66%	60%	Yes
Adaptable Housing	30%	10%	Yes
Total Storage Areas	Unit 24 (1 bed) – no storage provided in unit Unit 33 (2 bed) – no storage provided in unit Unit 53 (1 bed) – no storage provided in unit 326m³ (Basement) 323m³ (Upper Levels)	6m³/1 bed x 6 = 36m³ 8m³/2 bed x 40 = 320m³ 10m³/3 bed x 14 = 140m³ Total Storage required = 496m³ with 50% of storage within apartments	No

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development complies with the prescriptive measures within the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) other then maximum kitchen distance and internal storage areas for some units. Below is a brief discussion regarding the relevant development controls and best practice guidelines:

2.5.1 Apartment Layout

The layout of the proposed apartments includes a combination of single aspect units and dual aspect corner units. The unit layouts would provide for housing choice and a range of household types.

The RFDC requires that the back of a kitchen should be no greater than 8 metres from a window. Of the 60 units proposed, 13 units contain kitchens where the back wall is up to 9.5 metres from a window. These units offer an open layout with natural ventilation and accordingly, the minor non-compliance is acceptable with respect to residential amenity.

The proposed apartment layouts are functional and satisfy the RFDC requirements for internal privacy, access to sunlight, natural ventilation and acoustic privacy. It is considered that the apartment layout and mix achieve the intent of the best practice requirements of the RFDC and is acceptable in this regard.

2.5.2 Internal Circulation

The proposed development includes access to all floors via a lift in each building. The ground floor corridors connect to the communal open space at the rear of the site. The proposal is acceptable with respect to the requirements of the RFDC requirements for internal circulation.

2.5.3 Acoustic Privacy

The internal layout of the residential units is designed such that noise generating areas would mainly adjoin each other. Storage or circulation zones would act as a buffer between units. Bedrooms and service areas such as kitchens, bathrooms and laundries would be grouped together wherever possible. The proposal is consistent with the requirements within the RFDC for acoustic privacy.

2.5.4 Storage Areas

The RFDC requires that in addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, accessible storage facilities should be provided at the following rates: one-bedroom apartments – 6m³; two-bedroom apartments – 8m³ and three plus bedroom apartments – 10m³. In addition, the RFDC requires at least 50% of the storage be provided within each apartment and accessible from either the hall or living area. Of the 60 units proposed, 3 units (units 24, 33 and 53) do not contain storage areas as required within the apartments. A total of 323m³ storage space is allocated in the upper levels and 326m³ is allocated in the basement level which complies with the total storage areas required for 60 units. To ensure that adequate storage areas are provided for each unit, a condition is recommended that a storage area which is accessible from either the hall or living area of at least 3m³ is provided in units 24 and 53 (one-bedroom apartments) and a storage area of at least 5m³ is provided in unit 33 (three-bedroom apartment). With conditions, the proposal is consistent with the requirements within the RFDC for unit storage.

2.5.5 Building Separation

The proposed development is on a large site of 3,367 square metres and contains two buildings separated by a 6m landscape area. The majority of the living areas of both buildings would be setback at least 6 metres from the side boundaries increasing to 9 metres at the top level, facilitating a future building separation of 12 - 18 metres with the adjoining sites in accordance with the RFDC. The principal balconies adjoining living areas would be setback 4 metres from the northern side boundary. The building separation and privacy matters are addressed in Section 2.10.10 of this report.

In summary, the proposed residential flat building has been designed in accordance with the design principles of SEPP 65 and generally complies in respect to the RFDC subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent. It is considered the proposal would achieve good residential amenity and contribute to the desired future residential character of the Balmoral Street Precinct.

2.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) - 2004

The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. The proposal includes a BASIX Certificate for the proposed units and is considered to be satisfactory.

2.7 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 - Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) (SEPP 32)

The application has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 32, which requires Council to implement the aims and objectives of this Policy to the fullest extent practicable when considering development applications relating to redevelopment of urban land. The application complies with the objectives of the Policy as it would promote social and economic welfare of the locality and would result in the orderly and economic use of under utilised land within the Shire.

2.8 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean Rivers

The application has been assessed against the requirements of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean Rivers.

The Policy provides general planning considerations and strategies to ensure Council considers the impacts of this proposal on water quality, scenic quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.

The proposal includes details of stormwater management of the site by providing an on-site detention system. Council’s assessment of the proposal in this regard concludes that the development is satisfactory. A condition is recommended with respect to installation of sediment and erosion control measures prior to, and during, construction.

The proposed development would have minimal potential to impact on the Hawkesbury-Nepean Rivers Catchment subject to the implementation of recommended conditions.

2.9 Clause 74BA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

On 1 March 2013, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 was amended so that a DCP provision will have no effect if it has the practical effect of “preventing or unreasonably restricting development” that is otherwise permitted and complies with the development standards set out in relevant Local Environmental Plans and State Environmental Planning Policies. The principal purpose of a development control plan is to provide guidance on the aims of any environmental planning instrument that applies to the development; facilitating development that is permissible under any such instrument; and achieving the objectives of land zones under any such instrument.

The provisions of a development control plan made for that purpose are not statutory requirements.

2.10 Housing Strategy Development Control Plan

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements within Council’s Housing Strategy Development Control Plan (Housing Strategy DCP). The following table sets out the compliance of the proposal with the various elements of the Housing Strategy DCP:

Housing Strategy Development Control Plan
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Site Width	49.99m	30m	Yes
Height	5 storeys – 17.5m	5 storeys – 17.5m	Yes
Lowest Residential Floor Above Ground	Building A Northwest + 1.5m Northeast + 0.7m Southwest + 1m Southeast + 0.3m Building B Northwest + 1.7m Northeast – 0.86m Southwest – 0.68m Southeast + 0.3m	Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m Max + 1.5m	Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Maximum Floorplate Dimension	35.4m (Building A)	35m	No
Building Indentation	East – 7 x 4m (+ awning) West – 4m x 4m	4m x 4m 4m x 4m	Yes Yes
Front Setback	10.4m 9m (for 8.2m building length) 7m (balconies)	10m 8m < 1/3 of building (max 12.5m length) 7m (balconies)	Yes Yes Yes
Northern Side Setback	6m 4m (balconies)	6m 4m (balconies)	Yes Yes
Southern Side Setback	9m 6.49m (balconies)	6m 4m (balconies)	Yes Yes
Rear Setback	10m 8.8m (for 8.5m length)	10m 8m < 1/3 of building length (max 11.7m length)	Yes Yes
Top Storey Setback From Ground Floor	North - <3m South - 1.6m for a distance of 5m (Unit 60) East - 1.5m for a distance of 4.5m (Unit 28) West - <3m	3m 3m 3m 3m	Yes No No Yes
Underground Parking Setback	7m front/rear 4m sides	7m front/rear 4m side	Yes Yes
Balcony setback	7m front/rear 4m sides	7m front/rear 4m sides	Yes Yes
Basement Ramp Setback (6m wide)	2m	2m	Yes
Parking	60 resident spaces 12 visitor spaces	60 resident spaces 12 visitor spaces	Yes Yes
Landscaped areas	Front and Rear – 7m wide Sides – 4m wide	7m wide 4m wide	Yes Yes
Deep Soil Landscaping	Front/rear - 7m Rear - 7m Eastern side - 4m Western side - 4 m	7m front 7m rear 4m side 4m side	Yes Yes Yes Yes
Private Open Space with Min Width 2.5m	1 br units - 10m² 2 br units - 12m² 3 br units - 16m²	1 br units 10m² (min) 2 br units 12m² (min) 3 br units 16m² (min)	Yes Yes Yes
Communal Open Space with minimum dimension 2.5m	35%	25%	Yes
Solar Access	85%	70%	Yes
Housing Choice	1 br unit - 10% 2 br unit - 66% 3 br unit - 24%	10% of each type (min) 10% of each type (min) 10% of each type (min)	Yes Yes Yes
Adaptable Units	30% (18 units)	30%	Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development does not comply with a number of prescriptive measures within Council’s Housing Strategy DCP. The matters of non-compliance are detailed below, as well as a brief discussion regarding the desired outcomes and the prescriptive measures.

2.10.1 Desired Future Character

The proposal does not comply with the principle which states that “roofs will be flat pitched without parapets to minimise the height of exterior walls, incorporating eaves which cast shadows across the top storey walls” as the predominately flat roof incorporates wide overhang elements to the facades of the building. Notwithstanding, the proposal complies with the height requirement controls, is limited in bulk with less than 1m high ridges and does not contain any parapets. When viewed from street level, the variation to the roof structure would be negligible. Additionally, the proposed development meets all other key principles of the Housing Strategy DCP for five storey residential flat buildings such as development in garden settings with basement parking, and buildings in the form of pavilions. The varying architectural treatment of the roof would not detrimentally affect the overall desired future character of the area and is considered acceptable.

2.10.2 Design Quality – SEPP 65

The proposed development is designed in accordance with the design principles of SEPP 65. Refer to discussion in Section 2.4.

2.10.3 Site Requirements

The proposal has been considered with regard to the consolidated development pattern likely to occur with the Balmoral Street Housing Strategy Precinct. The proposal would not result in an isolated site.

2.10.4 Height

The proposal complies with the 17.5 metre maximum building height for five storey development. The height of the lowest residential floor above the natural ground level is proposed to be 1.7 metre in the north-western corner which exceeds the 1.5 metre requirement of the ‘Height’ element. The topography of the site includes a moderate fall to the rear, north western corner of the site which constrains development. The variation on the northwest only involves approximately 6% of the building footprint, is located at the rear of the development which is not visible from the street. In this regard, the minor non-compliance is considered acceptable.

2.10.5 Setbacks

The proposal achieves the desired outcome for articulated built form and provision of landscaping notwithstanding the non-compliance with the maximum encroachment of the top storey setbacks, pedestrian access and mailbox setbacks.

Minor sections of unit Nos. 28 and 60 (all upper floor units) do not comply with the prescriptive measure of the ‘Setbacks’ element that requires the exterior wall of the top most storey to be setback 3 metres from the exterior wall of the lowest storey. On the eastern façade, a 1.5 metre stepping of the top floor level for a distance of 4.5 metre is provided for unit 28 and on the southern side façade, a 1.6 metre stepping of 5 metres is provided for unit 60. The encroachments are considered to be negligible from the east and south as the proposed building provides the required separation from the adjoining properties. The majority of the development complies with this setback measure and the development provides for an articulated built form with reduced bulk on the top floor.

A 1m wide pedestrian access path is setback 300 millimetres from the southern side boundary. This leads to Building B’s main entrance and communal open space at the rear of the site. This is inconsistent with Council’s prescriptive measure requiring pedestrian access with deep soil verges at least 2 metres wide. Notwithstanding, the landscape concept plan submitted with the application indicates that the path would be constructed of concrete stepping stones and landscaping screening would be incorporated along the southern property boundary including plant species such as Acacia longifolla (Sydney Golden Wattle) and Elaeocarpus reticulates (Blue berry ash) which would grow to a mature height of 4 metres and 8 metres respectively.

The mailboxes are proposed along the front boundary adjacent to the entrance path to the building. This is inconsistent with Council’s prescriptive measure requiring mailboxes to be setback 2 metres and Council’s objective to ensure well articulated building forms are setback to incorporate landscaping and open space. To ensure compliance with Council’s objective, a condition is recommended that the mailboxes be relocated at least 2 metres from the street frontage and planting is to be provided to soften the appearance of mailbox area from the street.

The proposal otherwise complies with the prescriptive measures for front, rear, side, basement car park and basement ramp setbacks. The overall intent of the ‘Setbacks’ element is achieved given that the proposal includes a well articulated built form that is set back to achieve landscaping, open space and separation between dwellings. The non-compliances are considered acceptable in this regard.

2.10.6 Landscaping

The ‘Landscaping’ element of the Housing Strategy DCP prescribes that a 7 metre wide landscaped area is to be provided at the front and rear of the development and a 4 metre wide landscaped area is provided along the side boundaries.

A 7 metre wide landscaped area is achieved in the front setback. The front landscaped area includes turf areas as well as hard stand areas and a nominated location for an electricity substation at the north eastern corner of the site. The extent of hard stand areas proposed is considered to be minimal as reasonable provision has been made for deep soil areas to accommodate mature canopy trees and achieve a landscape setting.

A surface on site detention basin is proposed for the rear, north western landscape area of the site. A condition is recommended that this basin area should be outside of any planted areas.

A pedestrian access path is located along the southern property boundary. This leads to Building B’s main entrance and communal open space, including a BBQ area with picnic tables and benched seating at the rear of the site. The proposed path is to be constructed of concrete stepping stones and is designed to “fit in” with the proposed landscaping and is therefore considered to be complementary to the landscape design.

The landscape plan submitted with the application demonstrates that shrubs and trees would be established within the front, side and rear setbacks to achieve a landscape setting. The submitted landscape plan includes a range of plant species including Angophora floribunda (Rough barked apple), Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt), Juniperus ‘Sky Rocket’ (Sky Rocket), Eucalyptus haemastome (Scribbly Gum), Magnolia Little Gem (Magnolia) and Elaeocarpus reticulates (Blue berry ash).

Subject to conditions and on-going maintenance of the landscaped areas, the development would achieve a landscape setting and that is generally consistent with the desired future character of the precinct. The proposal is assessed as acceptable with respect to the ‘Landscaping’ element.

2.10.7 Floorplates and Separations

The proposed building has appropriate articulation in achieving the required pavilion built form, landscaping and common open space areas. The proposal complies with the design requirements of SEPP 65. It is considered that the proposed minor non-compliance with the maximum 35 metre floorplate dimension by 0.4 metres for Building A would not detract from the desired pattern of development in the streetscape.

The proposal is on a large site and consists of two five storey buildings (Building A and Building B). A 6m separation is maintained between Building A and Building B as well as a 6m x 6m area of deep soil on the north which complies with the requirements of the Housing Strategy DCP.

The proposed minor non-compliance with the floorplate prescriptive measure is therefore considered acceptable.

2.10.8 Articulation

The articulation of the building facades has been achieved by two steps across 50% of the front façade and including vertical panels generally no greater than 8 metres wide. The proposal includes indentations on the front and side elevations of both buildings to create the appearance of separate building pavilions. The design includes the provision of wrap around balconies and a varied use of colours and materials to break up the built form. The proposed building complies with the Housing Strategy DCP articulation prescriptive measures and meets the key principles for built form within the Balmoral Street precinct.

2.10.9 Open Space

The proposed private open space and communal open space areas comply with the prescriptive area requirements and are designed for active living and to maximise useable space.

It is considered the proposed private and communal open space areas achieve the desired outcome for active recreation areas with privacy and access to sunlight.

2.10.10 Privacy

The majority of the living areas would be setback 6 metres from the side boundaries increasing to 9 metres at the top level, facilitating a future building separation of 12 - 18 metres with the adjoining sites in accordance with the RFDC and the ‘Privacy element’ of the Housing Strategy DCP.

Units on the ground level include balconies and living areas setback 4 metres from the northern side boundary and at least 7 metres from the southern side boundary. The ground floor units at the northern elevation are elevated to the adjoining site. These ground floor balconies are designed with solid 900mm high balustrades with fixed inward angled louvred blade privacy screens to minimise opportunity for overlooking onto the adjoining property.

The ground floor balconies of Building B (Units 35 and 36) are setback 6.49 metres from the southern property boundary and include 900 millimetres deep planter boxes to minimise the opportunity for overlooking onto the adjoining southern property. Windows on the southern elevation for both buildings are located at least 9 metres from the southern property boundary and serve bedrooms.

Levels 1 – 2 of the development include balconies that are located 4 metres from the northern side boundary and include 900 millimetres high solid balustrades and fixed inward angled louvred blade privacy screening. These balconies provide an open aspect to the north and achieve solar access and natural ventilation to living areas. Similar to the ground floor level, all windows on the northern elevation serve bedrooms and are at least 6 metres from the side boundary which would minimise privacy impacts for adjoining properties. All principal balconies are setback 6 metres from the southern side boundaries and living areas are setback 9 metres in accordance with the building separation requirements.

On level 3, two principal balconies are setback 5 metres from the northern boundary and the living room windows/doors are setback 8.5 metres from the side boundary. Unit 26 is unscreened with glass balustrades whilst Unit 51 has a single movable louvred privacy screen and glass balustrades. This does not achieve the required setbacks under the RFDC for unscreened balconies. In this regard, a condition is recommended that a 1.3 metre high solid balustrade is required for the principal balconies of Unit 26 and 51 to minimise overlooking impacts to adjoining properties. All principal balconies are setback 6 metres from the southern side boundaries and living areas are setback 9 metres in accordance with the building separation requirements.

On level 4, all principal balconies are unscreened and setback 7 metres from the northern boundary and living areas are setback 9.5 metres from the side boundary which does not comply with the required setbacks under the RFDC for unscreened balconies. In this regard, a condition is recommended that a 1.3 metre high solid balustrade is required for the principal balconies on the northern elevation. All principal balconies and living areas on the southern elevation are setback 9 metres from the side boundaries in accordance with the building separation requirements.

With appropriate conditions, the proposal has been designed to provide reasonable privacy to the adjacent properties and is assessed as satisfactory with respect to the ‘Privacy element’ of the Housing Strategy DCP.

2.10.11 Sunlight and Ventilation

The applicant has submitted solar access diagrams demonstrating compliance of individual units with solar access requirements. As the site is located within a redevelopment precinct, the solar access analysis has taken into account the overshadowing impacts of indicative five storey developments on adjoining sites. The applicant submits that 85% of the units would receive a minimum 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm on June 22nd. Based on Council’s assessment, the proposal would comply with the sunlight access requirements for units under the Housing Strategy DCP and is acceptable in this regard.

The solar access diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate the overshadowing impacts of the development to adjoining properties at 9am, 12pm and 3pm on June 22^nd. The proposed building would overshadow a small portion of the western adjoining properties, No. 4 Park Avenue and No. 63 Alexandra Parade between 9am and 10am. The development would overshadow a portion of the southern adjoining property, No. 7 Balmoral Street, between 9am and 3pm however, north facing windows on the western half of the site would maintain solar access between 1pm and 3pm. The provisions for solar access and setbacks requirements for five storey developments are governed by the RFDC and Council’s Housing Strategy DCP. The potential five storey development on the southern side would require demonstration that the proposal would comply with the minimum 70% requirement of the units to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pn on June 22^nd. This would be assessed in a future application.

The development would overshadow a small portion of the eastern adjoining property, No.s 6, 8 and 10 Balmoral Street after 2pm however, the north facing windows of this property would maintain solar access. The overshadowing that would result from the development is considered acceptable with regard to residential amenity and the Housing Strategy DCP prescriptive measures.

2.10.12 Housing Choice

The proposed development includes a mix of one, two and three bedroom units and includes adaptable housing units (30%).

2.10.13 Vehicle Access and Parking

The proposed basement car park is over one level and is accessed via a 6.19m wide driveway from Balmoral Street. The proposed car parking has a total of 72 spaces, including 60 resident spaces (inclusive of 9 spaces for people with a disability) and 12 visitor spaces (inclusive of 2 spaces for people with a disability). The parking provision is in accordance with the minimum number of car spaces prescribed by the Housing Strategy DCP. The driveway width, ramp gradients and aisle widths are assessed as satisfactory. The basement level includes storage for residents and a bicycle parking area.

The application was referred to the RMS in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act. No objections are raised to the proposal subject to conditions.

2.10.14 Balmoral Street, Waitara Precinct

The strategy for redevelopment of this precinct is to incorporate five storey residential flat buildings in garden settings with parking in basements. The development would provide for a landscaped setting and a built-form that is consistent with the desired outcome for the Balmoral Stre et, Waitara Precinct.

2.11 Waste Minimisation & Management Development Control Plan (WMMDCP)

The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan which is satisfactory in meeting criteria for recycling and reuse of materials in the proposed demolition of the three existing dwelling houses. The plan includes appropriate project management measures for waste minimisation in the construction of the building.

The proposed 60 dwellings would require 5 x 660 litre garbage bins serviced twice weekly plus 13 of 240 litre recycling bins serviced weekly. Each residential level has a waste facility including a garbage chute and a recycling bin. Each garbage chute is fitted with volume handling equipment (linear). A chute room is located on the basement level for each building which is 2.5 metres in depth.

The 660 litre bins required are 1360 millimetres so they would not be able to be removed from the linear without the doors being open. To ensure that the bins can be removed from the linear making use of the footpath outside the chute room to manoeuvre the bins, a condition is recommended that the doors to be replaced with roller shutter doors that are the full width of each chute room.

A site caretaker would be required to transfer the bins from the chute rooms to the ground level collection area located at the front south eastern corner of the building, using a bin hoist and transfer recycling bins from each floor to the collection area.

The bin collection area is shown having a bin blocking the fire hydrant door, which is not acceptable. To ensure sufficient space in the bin collection area for all the bins and allow for aisle space to access and manoeuvre them, a condition is recommended that the collection area be extended towards the front by 0.7 metres and the total length from bin hoist to front end be increased from 5.3 metres to 6.0 metres.

A small rigid waste collection vehicle would be able to reverse onto the site and park on the driveway while servicing the bins and then leave the site in a forward direction.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposed development is satisfactory in respect to the WMMDCP.

2.12 Access and Mobility Development Control Plan

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements within Council’s Access and Mobility Development Control Plan.

The proposed disabled car parking spaces within the basement levels are designed to comply with AS2890.6-2009 Parking facilities – Off street parking for people with disability.

The proposed direct street access, walkways to the common areas and letter boxes are compliant with the design and technical specifications of AS1428.1-2009 Clause 10 Walkways, ramps and landings.

The proposed development complies with the Access and Mobility Development Control Plan.

2.13 Car Parking Development Control Plan

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements contained within Council’s Car Parking Development Control Plan and is generally in compliance with Council’s car parking requirements. Refer also to discussion in Section 2.10.13.

2.14 Sustainable Water Development Control Plan

Subject to sediment and erosion control measures being implemented on site during construction, the proposal would comply with the requirements contained within the Sustainable Water Development Control Plan.

2.15 Section 94 Contributions Plan

Council’s Section 94 Plan applies to the development as it would result in the addition of fifty seven residential units in lieu of the three existing residences. Accordingly, the requirement for a monetary Section 94 contribution is recommended as a condition of development consent.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Section 79C(1)(b) of the Act requires Council to consider “the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality”.

3.1 Natural Environment

The proposed five storey residential flat buildings would necessitate the removal of five locally indigenous trees from the site (trees No. 1,2,3,4 and 7) and the retention of two trees on the northern neighbouring property, No. 17 Balmoral Street (trees No. 5 and 6). Council’s Tree Assessment raises no objection to the trees proposed for removal.

The proposed location of the drainage easement may affect a number of protected trees at No. 2 Park Avenue. These trees are considered to be prominent streetscape features and are required to be retained under the Key Principles Diagram within the Balmoral Street, Waitara precinct under Council’s Housing Strategy DCP. In this regard, a condition is recommended that any excavation works associated with the drainage easement be carried out by hand excavation only. Hand excavation is to be carried out under the supervision of a Project Arborist in such a manner that is non-injurious to any roots revealed.

A landscape plan has been submitted with the application that includes a range of locally native plant species to achieve canopy trees, a shrub layer and ground covers. The landscaping of the site has been discussed in Section 2.10.6 of this report. Subject to conditions and on-going maintenance of the landscaped areas, the development would achieve a landscape setting and would be acceptable with respect to the natural environment.

3.2 Built Environment

3.2.1 Built Form

The buildings would be located within a precinct indentified with a future character of five storey residential flat buildings in landscaped setting with underground car parking. The built form of the proposal would be consistent with the desired future character of the precinct.

3.2.2 Traffic

Council has undertaken an assessment of the overall traffic impact of the redeveloped precinct on the locality.

In the preparation of Council’s Housing Strategy transport modelling was undertaken to determine the traffic impact precincts to be rezoned as part of the Strategy. Traffic modelling and assessment for the Waitara Precinct established that additional traffic that would be generated in the Precinct would not have a significant impact on existing roadway conditions and intersection performance in the area.

The most significant traffic increase is envisaged to occur on arterial routes such as Edgeworth David Avenue. These increases are mainly attributed to anticipated growth and developments in other regions and to a greater extent to the re-distribution effect arising from the growth in through traffic.

The modelling also established that the existing access to Balmoral Street via Edgeworth David Avenue is unsatisfactory during the morning peak period. A new median strip is planned to promote access from streets other than Edgeworth David Avenue.

A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment has been submitted with the proposal. The report concludes that the Level of Service (LoS) for Edgeworth David Road and the nearby intersections would be negligibly affected by the traffic generated due to the proposed development (28 peak hour vehicular trips). Council’s engineering assessment of the traffic impacts of the development concludes that the proposal is satisfactory.

3.2.3 Stormwater Management

The application proposes two options to create a drainage easement to benefit the site. The first option proposes an easement over the southern property boundary of Nos. 2A and 4 Park Avenue and the second option proposes an easement over the rear of No. 63 Alexandra Parade and the northern boundary of No. 2 Park Avenue. The easement would be located along either the rear boundary of No. 63 Alexandra Parade and along the northern boundary of No. 2 Park Avenue or Nos. 2A and 4 Park Avenue and would connect to Council’s drainage system in Park Avenue.

Additionally, an above ground on-site detention (OSD) system is proposed to control the discharge of water from the site. The inter-allotment drainage system and the required on-site detention systems would mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff on down stream properties. Council’s Engineering assessment concludes that the OSD system is satisfactory, subject to conditions.

Owner’s consent for the creation of the easement over either Nos. 2A and 4 Park Avenue or No. 63 Alexandra Parade and No. 2 Park Avenue is required. However, consent was not submitted with the application. A deferred commencement condition is recommended for the registration and creation of the easement through the neighbouring properties.

3.3 Social Impacts

The residential development would improve housing choice in the locality by providing a range of household types. The location of the development is in close proximity to Waitara Railway Station, a small shopping centre on the Edgeworth David Avenue and Hornsby Town Centre, which contains Westfield Shopping Centre allowing direct access to retail, business, recreational, health and educational facilities for future residents.

3.3 Economic Impacts

The proposal would have a minor positive impact on the local economy in conjunction with other new residential development in the locality by generating an increase in demand for local services.

4. SITE SUITABILITY

Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider “the suitability of the site for the development”.

There is no known hazard or risk associated with the site with respect to landslip, subsidence, flooding and bushfire that would preclude development of the site.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 79C(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

5.1 Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 11 January 2013 and 14 February 2013 in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan. During this period, Council received nineteen submissions from twelve nearby properties. The proposal was subsequently amended and re-notified between 17 April 2013 and 1 May 2013. During this period, Council received nine submissions.

The submissions object to the development, generally on the following grounds:

· Dissatisfaction with Council’s Housing Strategy rezoning of low density to medium - high density;

· Development that is excessive in bulk and scale and is an overdevelopment of the site;

· Building separation is not compliant with Council’s Draft DCP which requires a 12m separation of buildings.

· Design that is unsympathetic to the visual amenity of the streetscape and character of the area;

· Unacceptable overshadowing of adjoining properties;

· Unacceptable side setbacks, apartment layout and building separation which result in detrimental privacy and noise impacts to the northern and southern neighbouring properties;

· Unacceptable noise and pollution at the construction stage;

· Unacceptable noise from the OSD and communal open space on the rear, western portion of the site;

· Insufficient setbacks for planting of trees as the amount of deep soil is not substantial to support large types of trees;

· Development does not present as being in a garden setting;

· Visual amenity impacts resulting from an above ground OSD;

Additionally, the submissions received made the following observations:

· Request that Council impose a condition of consent requiring that the applicant pay for a new boundary fence on the northern property boundary prior to construction of the development. The fence would be 1800mm high, with an extra 600mm of lattice on top.

· Request that Council impose conditions of consent requiring balcony walls to be made to 1.3m and constructed of a non-translucent material; laminated windows be provided to the townhouses on the northern adjoining property.

· Request that Council impose a condition of consent requiring soundproof windows to the townhouses on the northern adjoining property at the cost of the developer.

· Visitor parking design does not result in efficient entry to the basement parking and thus would encourage visitors to park on the street. Request that Council impose a condition of consent requiring the site not to have a controlled entry and therefore be readily accessed from Balmoral Street.

· Request that a traffic study be provided as there is current difficulty in accessing Alexandria Parade from Balmoral Street at peak times.

· Consideration of the ingress and egress of large vehicles.

· Questions the accuracy of the shadow diagrams submitted with the application.

· Strategies concerning trees, paths, nature strips during construction have not been addressed in the Dilapidation Report.

· Questions how garbage disposal would be managed.

· No yellow notice was erected on the site during the initial notification period.

· There is lack of detail in the plans for public exhibition i.e. no floor plans, site plan showing neighbouring properties and selection of finishes and materials.

· Lack of Community Consultation.

· Request that Council notify individual townhouses rather than just to the Strata Manager.

· Request that Council consider impacts in the increase in population to the overall surrounding road network, Waitara Public School and Waitara Station.

· Request that Council provide additional Public Open Space areas for the increased population density.

· Economic impacts to the values of surrounding properties.

NOTIFICATION PLAN
• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED	X SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED	PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT
3 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED OUT OF MAP RANGE

The merits of the matters raised in community submissions have been addressed in the body of the report with the exception of the following:

5.1.1 Dissatisfaction with Housing Strategy

Submissions have been received concerning the dissatisfaction with the implementation of Council’s Housing Strategy that was made in September 2011.

The Housing Strategy included a detailed study on the identification of centres, selection of precincts and evaluation of precincts and consulted with various External Agencies including the Department of Planning (Regional Team), Department of Housing, Transport infrastructure Development Corporation, NSW Police, Sydney Water, NSW Health, Department of Community Services and NSW Department of Education and Training.

Progression of the Housing Strategy was required to ensure that Council addressed its dwelling obligations under the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy.

5.1.2 Visual Amenity of Streetscape and Local Area

Submissions have been received regarding the design being unsympathetic to the visual amenity of the streetscape and character of the area.

The development is the first five storey residential application proposed under the Housing Strategy for the Balmoral Street, Waitara precinct. The eastern side of Balmoral Street is not included in this precinct. It is acknowledged that the transformation from the previous low density residential zone to the medium – high density zone would be a gradual process. Notwithstanding, the proposed five storey residential development generally meets the key principles of the Housing Strategy DCP and is consistent with the overall desired future character of the area.

5.1.3 Development is Excessive in Bulk and Scale and an Overdevelopment of Site

Submissions were received regarding the excessive bulk and scale of the development and that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal complies with the requirements of SEPP65 – RFDC and Council’s Housing Strategy DCP in terms of Height, Scale, Built Form, Density and Desired Future Character. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

5.1.4 Boundary Fence

A submission was received requesting Council impose a condition of consent for the applicant to construct a 2.4m high boundary fence along the northern property boundary to maintain privacy.

It is considered to be a reasonable request that the applicant be required to construct the boundary fence with an additional 600 millimetres lattice on top of the boundary fence to maintain privacy. A recommended condition of consent has been included in Schedule 1.

5.1.5 Building Separation Compliance with Council’s draft DCP

Submissions were received questioning the compliance of Building Separation measures to Council’s draft DCP. The proposal complies with requirements of SEPP65 - RFDC and Council’s Housing Strategy DCP.

5.1.6 Overshadowing Impacts on Existing Low Density Properties

Submissions were received regarding excessive overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties on the southern side of the development and question the accuracy of the shadow diagrams.

Solar access diagrams were submitted with the application demonstrating overshadowing impacts to existing low density residential development and future five storey developments on adjoining sites. These diagrams were drawn by a registered Architect. The diagrams for existing and indicative future envelopes were overlayed on top of one another to determine the differential impacts on existing and future developments.

The proposal would overshadow the north facing windows and a portion of the private open space area on the southern adjoining property, No. 7 Balmoral Street, between 9 am and 3 pm. No. 7 Balmoral Street is within the Balmoral Street, Waitara Precinct which is envisaged as a future five storey development. Discussion of the compliance of five storey developments as governed by the RFDC and Council’s Housing Strategy DCP is addressed in Section 2.10.11 of this report.

5.1.7 Landscaping

Submissions were received regarding the inadequate landscaping and deep soil areas to the proposal.

Council’s Landscape Architect assessed the application to be satisfactory. A Landscape Concept Plan was submitted with the application that demonstrates that the proposal presents within a garden setting. With conditions, the proposal complies with SEPP 65 – RFDC and Council’s Housing Strategy DCP in terms of Setbacks and Deep Soil Landscaping.

5.1.8 Visual Amenity of Above-Ground OSD

A submission was received regarding the detrimental visual amenity impacts resulting from the design of the above ground on-site detention system.

Council’s Engineering assessment has deemed the above ground on-site detention system to be satisfactory. An underground OSD would require the ground levels at the rear boundary to be raised by approximately 1.1 metres to 1.5 metres (allowing for 1.2 metres clear height in tank, 0.2 metres for roof slab and 0.3 metres soil above the tank). This would result in detrimental overlooking impacts from the communal open space area to adjoining properties and visual amenity impacts resulting from a 1.8 metre high boundary fence. Alternative locations along the side setback are restricted due to the location of the sewer main which crosses the rear of the property and is offset approximately 13 metres from the rear boundary. In addition, the building footprint sits immediately above the basement, so any underground OSD tank would reduce deep soil planting for the development.

The above ground OSD proposed is incorporated into the landscaping of the design and the visual amenity impacts are considered to be minimal when compared to an underground OSD.

5.1.9 Privacy and Noise Impacts to Adjoining Properties

A submission was received requesting Council to impose privacy and noise conditions in favour of the northern adjoining property.

Conditions have been recommended requiring the balustrades on the northern elevation for levels 3-4 to be made to 1.3 metres in height and be of obscured glass material. The balustrades on levels G-2 are indicated as being of solid construction with fixed, louvred privacy screens which would minimise overlooking impacts to the northern adjoining property and mitigate potential overlooking impacts. In this regard, the request for laminated windows on the adjoining properties is deemed unnecessary.

With appropriate conditions, the proposal complies with the privacy and setbacks requirements of the RFDC and Council’s Housing Strategy DCP and the request for soundproof windows on the adjoining properties is deemed unnecessary.

5.1.10 Noise from Development

Submissions were received regarding detrimental noise impacts from the location of the OSD, Pump-Out Tank and communal open space area at the rear of the development and excessive noise generated from the construction of the development.

Conditions have been recommended requiring the all noise generated by the development to be attenuated to prevent levels of noise being emitted to adjacent premises which possess tonal, beating and similar characteristics or which exceeds background noise levels by more than 5dB(A) and that the construction hours (including demolition and earth works) must only occur between 7am and 5pm Monday to Saturday, in accordance with Interim Construction Noise Guidelines 2009 – NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change and no work is to be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

5.1.11 Yellow Notice during Notification Period

A submission was received claiming that a yellow notice was not placed on site during the initial notification period.

In accordance with adopted Council policy, applicants for development are required to place a notice on site which indicates the development proposed. A photo was submitted on 15 January 2013 showing that a yellow notice was erected on the site during the initial notification period.

5.1.12 Damage to Council Assets

A submission was received concerning damage to Council’s Assets e.g. paths, nature strips.

A condition of consent is recommended requiring that any damage caused to Council’s assets as a result of the construction of the development must be rectified in accordance with Council’s written requirements and at the sole cost of the applicant.

5.1.13 Lack of Detail in Notification Plans and Notification to Strata Units

A submission was received questioning the lack of detail of the notification plans and requested that all Strata Unit Owners receive individual notification plans.

The notification plans were exhibited in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition DCP. Applications were notified to the Owners Corporation of strata title developments in accordance with the DCP. Floor plans were not included for exhibition as they are protected under privacy provisions within GIPA.

5.1.14 Traffic Network

A submission was received concerning access to Alexandra Parade from Balmoral Street.

Council’s Traffic assessment concludes that the traffic generated from the development is considered to be “statistically insignificant and would not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”.

5.1.15 Controlled Entry to Car Park

A submission was received requesting that Council impose a condition of consent requiring the site not to have a controlled entry and gate and therefore be readily accessed from Balmoral Street.

A controlled entry to the site is required for safety and security under SEPP 65 - RFDC as addressed in Section 2.4.8 of this report.

5.1.16 Ingress and Egress of Large Vehicles

A submission was received questioning the capability of the development to accommodate large vehicles.

The proposal has not been designed to accommodate large vehicles in the basement level. All waste collection and removal is designed to accommodate a small rigid waste collection vehicle to reverse onto the site and park on the driveway while servicing the bins and then leave the site in a forward direction.

5.1.17 Materials Use for Fencing

A submission was received questioning the type of materials used for fencing in the courtyards.

The fencing would be constructed of solid walls and inward angled metal louvers to minimise privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

5.1.18 Lack of Community Consultation

A submission was received concerning lack of community consultation by the developer regarding the development.

There is no clause under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 that requires a developer to consult with the community regarding the submission of development applications. The plans were notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 and Council’s Notification and Exhibition DCP.

5.1.19 Economic Impact to the Value of Surrounding Properties

A submission was received regarding the detrimental impacts to the economic value of the surrounding adjoining properties on Balmoral Street.

It is acknowledged that there may be an adjustment to the development value of adjoining properties as a result of Council’s Housing Strategy. Notwithstanding, under the current Freehold tenure system, landowners may redevelop land on the basis of own individual decisions. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, matters of consideration include the likely impacts of the development in regards to the natural environment, social and economic impacts.

5.1.20 Inadequacy of Services and Infrastructure such as Existing Public Open Space Areas for the Increase in Density

Submissions were received regarding the inadequacy of existing services and infrastructure such as public open space areas resulting from the increase in density attributed to the Balmoral Street Housing Strategy Precinct.

Whilst this is not a matter that requires consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for the specific application, a condition of consent is recommended requiring a Section 94 Contribution for the proposed development. Section 94 Contributions play a major part of providing public open spaces and recreational facilities.

5.1.21 Owner's Consent for the Proposed Drainage Easement Located Along the Adjoining Rear Property Boundaries is Denied by No. 4 Park Avenue.

The drainage easement and associated excavation issues related to trees protected at No. 2 Park Ave have already been addressed under the natural environmental impacts and built environmental/stormwater impacts section of the report.

5.2 Public Agencies

5.2.1 NSW Police

The application was referred to the NSW Police for comment in respect to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. No objections were raised to the proposal.

5.2.2 NSW Roads and Maritime Service

The application was referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Service for comment. No objections were raised to the proposal.

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

The public interest is an overarching requirement, which includes the consideration of the matters discussed in this report. Implicit to the public interest is the achievement of future built outcomes adequately responding to and respecting the future desired outcomes expressed in environmental planning instruments and development control plans.

The application is considered to have satisfactorily addressed Council’s and relevant agencies’ criteria and would provide a development outcome that, on balance, would result in a positive impact for the community. Accordingly, it is considered that the approval of the proposed development would be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application seeks approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of two detached, five storey residential flat buildings comprising 60 units and basement car parking.

The proposed development is generally in accordance with the development controls for the ‘Balmoral Street, Waitara’ Precinct of the Housing Strategy DCP and would contribute to the future desired five storey residential character of the precinct. With conditions, the minor non-compliance with prescriptive measures for floorplate, height of the basement, unit storage, privacy and setbacks are considered acceptable. The proposal complies with the design principles of SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code.

The proposal would result in a development that would be in keeping with the desired future character of the precinct.

Note: At the time of the completion of this planning report, no persons have made a Political Donations Disclosure Statement pursuant to Section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of the subject planning application.

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessment

Planning Division

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Attachments:

1.View	Locality Map
2.View	Site Plan
3.View	Floor Plans
4.View	Elevations
5.View	Shadow Diagrams
6.View	Landscape Plan
7.View	Drainage Plans

File Reference: DA/1369/2012

Document Number: D02155385

SCHEDULE 1

1. Deferred Commencement

Pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this consent does not operate until the following information is submitted to Council:

a) Inter-allotment Drainage Easement: The submission of a letter signed by all Registered Proprietors of affected downstream land indicating they do not object to the creation of an inter-allotment drainage easement favouring the subject lots.

b) Inter-allotment Drainage Plan: A Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a Chartered Hydraulic Engineer in accordance with Council’s Design and Construction Specification 2005 detailing the proposed inter-allotment drainage system through downstream land and the proposed connection with the Council-controlled drainage pipe in Park Avenue. The system shall show details how the proposed inter-allotment drainage connects to the proposed on-site detention and site drainage system.

c) Pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, an Application shall be made to Hornsby Shire Council for a Construction Certificate for the proposed connection to Council’s drainage system in Park Avenue. The Applicant shall submit four copies of the proposed drainage plan and pay Council’s fees for the Construction certificate and Compliance Inspections with the Application.

Such information shall be submitted within 12 months of the date of this notice.

Upon Council’s written satisfaction of the above information, the following conditions of development consent will apply:

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The conditions of consent within this notice of determination have been applied to ensure that the use of the land and/or building is carried out in such a manner that is consistent with the aims and objectives of the relevant legislation, planning instruments and Council policies affecting the land and does not disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood or impact upon the environment.

Note: For the purpose of this consent, the term ‘applicant’ means any person who has the authority to act on or the benefit of the development consent.

Note: For the purpose of this consent, any reference to an Act, Regulation, Australian Standard or publication by a public authority shall be taken to mean the gazetted Act or Regulation, or adopted Australian Standard or publication as in force on the date that the application for a construction certificate is made.

2. Approved Plans and Supporting Documentation

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

*Plan No.*	*Rev*	*Drawn by*	*Dated*
8159 DA-B:01 Cover Page	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:02 Urban Context Analysis	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:03 Site Analysis	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:04 Basement -1 Floorplan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:05 Ground Floor + Site Plan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:06 First Floor Plan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:07 Second Floor Plan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:08 Third Floor Plan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:09 Fourth Floor Plan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:10 Roof Plan	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:11 East + North Elevations	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:12 West + South Elevations	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:13 Internal Elevation, Section A	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:14 Street + Fence Details	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:15 Shadow Diagrams	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:16 Potential Neighbour Shadow 9-12pm	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
8159 DA-B:17 Potential Neighbour Shadow 3pm	B	Zhinar Architects	March 2013
1499_C DA01 Stormwater Drainage Layout Plan Basement Level	A	HKMA Engineers	20 Feb 2013
1499_C DA02 Pump out tank and DCP Section Details and Various Other Details	B	HKMA Engineers	20 Feb 2013
1499_C DA03 Stormwater Drainage Layout Plan Ground Level	B	HKMA Engineers	20 Feb 2013
1499_C DR01 Stormwater Drainage Layout Drawing	A	HKMA Engineers	20 Feb 2013
12210DA1 Landscape Concept Plan	B	Vision Dynamics	10 April 2013

*Document No.*	*Prepared by*	*Dated*
Basix Certificate No. 461713M_02	Designview Pty Ltd	21 May 2012
ABSA Certificate No. 100495807	Designview Pty Ltd	20 Dec 2012
Traffic and Parking Assessment Report	Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd	17 Dec 2012
Tree Assessment Report	Redgum Horticultural	19 Dec 2012
Statement of Environmental Effects	Caladines Town Planning	Dec 2012
Access Compliance Report	Certified Building Specialist	18 Dec 2012
Colour Schedule	Zhinar Architects	17 Dec 2012
Waste Management Plan	Balmoral Street Developments Pty Ltd	Received 21 Dec 2012

3. Removal of Existing Trees

This development consent only permits the removal of trees numbered 1,2,3,4,7,E1,E4-E12 as identified on Plan Appendix E- Site Plan A-Survey of Subject Trees prepared by Redgum Horticultural dated 2012. The removal of any other trees requires separate approval under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

4. Amendment of Plans

The approved plans are to be amended as follows:

a) Storage areas which are accessible from either the hall or living area of at least 3m³ is to be provided for Units 24 and 53 and at least 5m³ for Unit 33.

b) Mailboxes are to be relocated 2m from the front property boundary.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

5. Building Code of Australia

a) All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

6. Contract of Insurance (Residential Building Work)

a) 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 building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

7. Water/Electricity Utility Services

a) The applicant must submit written evidence of the following service provider requirements:

b) Energy Australia – a letter of consent demonstrating that satisfactory arrangements have been made to service the proposed development.

c) Sydney Water – the submission of a ‘Notice of Requirements’ under s73 of the Sydney Water Act 1994.

Note: Sydney Water requires that s73 applications are to be made through an authorised Sydney Water Servicing Coordinator. Refer to www.sydneywater.com.au or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

8. Accessible Units

The details of fit-outs of all accessible units and details of adaptable units must be provided with the Construction Certificate Plans.

9. Dilapidation Report

A ‘Dilapidation Report’ is to be prepared by a ‘chartered structural engineer’ detailing the structural condition of all adjoining properties.

10. Interallotment Drainage Easement

The proposed interallotment drainage easements to connect the subject site to Council’s drainage system in Park Avenue shall be registered in the Land Titles Office. A copy of the registered document and plan shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

11. Balmoral Street Drainage System

Any Council asset such as drainage kerb inlet pits in Balmoral Street that conflict with the driveway crossing shall be designed to be relocated at the Applicant’s cost to a Council approved location. Details shall be provided on the engineering drainage plans and submitted to Council for consideration and approval.

12. Stormwater Drainage

The stormwater drainage system for the development must be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Civil Works – Design and Construction Specification 2005 and the following requirements:

a) The roof and upstream paved areas of the proposal shall be connected to the proposed detention system and interallotment drainage system.

b) Above ground on-site detention systems shall have socked aggregate drainage lines connected to the on-site detention pit to drain soils in the area after rain events.

13. On-Site Stormwater Detention

An on-site stormwater detention system must be designed by a chartered civil engineer and constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

a) Have a capacity of not less than 41 cubic metres, and a maximum discharge (when full) of 70 litres per second.

b) Have a 900 mm x 900 mm square access grate located directly above the on-site detention outlet in the control pit.

c) An additional overflow system designed to convey all high water level flows from the detention system basin to an overflow pit adjacent the control pit.

d) Discharge from the detention system to be controlled via 1 metre length of pipe, not less than 50 millimetres diameter or via a stainless plate with sharply drilled orifice bolted over the face of the outlet discharging into a larger diameter pipe capable of carrying the design flow to the proposed interallotment drainage system.

14. Internal Driveway/Vehicular Areas

The driveway and parking areas on site must be designed generally in accordance with the approved plans, Australian Standards 2890.1, AS2890.2, AS2890.6, AS3727 and the following requirements:-

a) Design levels at the front boundary to be obtained from Council.

b) The driveway be a rigid pavement.

c) The driveway grade for the design waste vehicle standing area must not exceed 15.4 percent and transitions for changes in grade must not exceed requirements of AS2890.2.

d) Driveway structure, retaining walls required to support the carriageway as required and the protection of all drops as per the requirements of a chartered Structural Engineer.

e) Planting of landscaping strips to enhance the visual amenity of the driveway.

15. Vehicular Crossing

A separate application under the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Roads Act, 1993 must be submitted to Council for the installation of a new vehicular crossing and the removal of the redundant crossing. The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Design Specification 2005 and the following requirements:

a) Any redundant crossings to be replaced with integral kerb and gutter.

b) The footway area to be restored by turfing.

c) Provision for all relevant utility authorities’ necessary conduits, installed and protected under the crossing.

d) Adjustment of all regulatory signage and all services and street furniture made necessary by the proposed works.

Note: An application for a vehicular crossing can only be made to one of Council’s Authorised Vehicular Crossing Contractors. You are advised to contact Council on 02 9847 6760 to obtain a list of contractors.

16. Footpath

A separate application under the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Roads Act, 1993 must be submitted to Council for the construction of a footpath within the road reserve. The concrete footpath must be constructed along the full frontage of the subject site in accordance Council’s Civil Works Design and Construction Specification, 2005 and the following requirements:

a) The existing footpath being removed.

b) Pouring of the concrete footpath across full frontage of the subject site in Carlingford Road.

c) Any public utility adjustments to be carried out at the cost of the applicant and to the requirements of the relevant public authority.

Note: A Construction Certificate must be issued for these works.

17. Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council.

18. Demolition and Construction Vehicles

All demolition and construction vehicles shall be contained wholly within the site as a work zone permit will not be approved for Balmoral Street.

19. Waste Management Details

The following waste management requirements must be complied with:

a) An area of no less than 8 m² must be allocated for the placement of unwanted bulky items awaiting removal.

b) The doors to each chute room must be roller doors that are the full width of the room.

c) The waste collection area at ground level in front of the goods lift / bin hoist must be increased in area from 5.3m x 4.3 m to 6.0 m x 4.3 m.

20. Traffic Control Plan

a) A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) must be prepared by a qualified traffic controller in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority’s Traffic Control at Worksites Manual 1998 and Australian Standard 1742.3 for all work on a public road and be submitted to Council. The TCP must detail the following:

b) Arrangements for public notification of the works.

c) Temporary construction signage.

d) Permanent post-construction signage.

e) Vehicle movement plans.

f) Traffic management plans.

g) Pedestrian and cyclist access/safety.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

21. Erection of Construction Sign

a) A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

b) Showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work,

c) Showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any demolition or building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

d) Stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Note: Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

22. Protection of Adjoining Areas

a) A temporary hoarding, fence or awning must be erected between the work site and adjoining lands before the works begin and must be kept in place until after the completion of the works if the works:

b) Could cause a danger, obstruction or inconvenience to pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

c) Could cause damage to adjoining lands by falling objects.

d) Involve the enclosure of a public place or part of a public place.

Note: Notwithstanding the above, Council’s separate written approval is required prior to the erection of any structure or other obstruction on public land.

23. Toilet Facilities

a) Toilet facilities must be available or provided at the works site before works begin and must be maintained until the works are completed at a ratio of one toilet for every 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet must:

b) be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer; or

c) be a temporary chemical closet approved under the Local Government Act, 1993; or

d) have an on-site effluent disposal system approved under the Local Government Act, 1993.

24. Erosion and Sediment Control

Erosion and sediment control measures must be provided and maintained throughout the construction period in accordance with the manual ‘Soils and Construction 2004 (Bluebook)’, the approved plans, Council specifications and to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority. The erosion and sediment control devices must remain in place until the site has been stabilised and revegetated.

Note: On the spot penalties up to $1,500 may be issued for any non-compliance with this requirement without any further notification or warning.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

25. Works Near Trees

All works (including driveways and retaining walls) within 6 metres of any trees required to be retained (whether or not on the subject property, and pursuant to this consent or the Tree Preservation Order), must be carried out under the supervision of an ‘AQF Level 5 Arborist’ and a certificate submitted to the principal certifying authority detailing the method(s) used to preserve the tree(s).

Note: Except as provided above, the applicant is to ensure that no excavation, filling or stockpiling of building materials, parking of vehicles or plant, disposal of cement slurry, waste water or other contaminants is to occur within 4 metres of any tree to be retained.

26. Works Near Protected Trees at No. 2 Park Avenue

All excavation works, including sub-surface, trenching for stormwater or other services associated with the drainage easement must be carried out by hand excavation only. Hand excavation is to be carried out under the supervision of an ‘‘AQF Level 5 Arborist’ in a manner that is non-injurious to any roots revealed.

27. Construction Work Hours

a) All work on site (including demolition and earth works) must only occur between 7am and 5pm Monday to Saturday, in accordance with Interim Construction Noise Guidelines 2009 – NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change.

b) No work is to be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

28. Waste Management

Waste management during the demolition and construction phase of the development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan. Additionally written records of the following items must be maintained during the removal of any waste from the site and such information submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority within fourteen days of the date of completion of the works:

a) The identity of the person removing the waste.

b) The waste carrier vehicle registration

c) Date and time of waste collection.

d) A description of the waste (type of waste and estimated quantity).

e) Details of the site to which the waste is to be taken.

f) The corresponding tip docket/receipt from the site to which the waste is transferred (noting date and time of delivery, description (type and quantity) of waste).

g) Whether the waste is expected to be reused, recycled or go to landfill.

Note: In accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the definition of waste includes any unwanted substance, regardless of whether it is reused, recycled or disposed to landfill.

29. Council Property

During construction works, no building materials, waste, machinery or related matter is to be stored on the road or footpath. The public reserve is to be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition at all times.

30. Demolition

All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601-2001 – The Demolition of Structures and the following requirements

a) Demolition material is to be disposed of to an authorised recycling and/or waste disposal site and/or in accordance with an approved waste management plan.

b) Demolition works, where asbestos material is being removed, must be undertaken by a contractor that holds an appropriate licence issued by WorkCover NSW in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and Clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

c) On construction sites where buildings contain asbestos material, a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm must be erected in a prominent position visible from the street.

31. Landfill

a) Landfill must be constructed in accordance with Council’s ‘Construction Specification, 2005’ and the following requirements:

b) All fill material imported to the site is to wholly consist of Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) as defined in Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or a material approved under the Department of Environment and Climate Change’s general resource recovery exemption.

c) A compaction certificate is to be obtained from a geotechnical engineer verifying that the specified compaction requirements have been met.

32. Excavated Material

All excavated material removed from the site must be classified in accordance with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW Waste Classification Guidelines prior to disposal to an approved waste management facility and reported to the principal certifying authority.

33. Survey Report – Finished Floor Level

a) A report(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the pouring of concrete at each level of the building certifying that:

b) The building, retaining walls and the like have been correctly positioned on the site.

c) The finished floor level(s) are in accordance with the approved plans.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

Note: For the purpose of this consent, a reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall not be taken to mean an ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

34. Fulfilment of BASIX Commitments

The applicant must demonstrate the fulfilment of BASIX commitments pertaining to the development.

35. Sydney Water – s73 Certificate

An s73 Certificate must be obtained from Sydney Water.

36. Waste Management Details

The following waste management requirements must be complied with:

a) The bin storage room at the basement level must include water or a hose for cleaning, graded floors with drainage to sewer, a robust door, sealed and impervious surface, adequate lighting and ventilation. The bin rooms at each residential level must include sealed and impervious surface, adequate lighting and ventilation.

b) A report must be prepared by an appropriately qualified person, certifying the following:

i) A comparison of the estimated quantities of each waste type against the actual quantities of each waste type.

Note: Explanations of any deviations to the approved Waste Management Plan is required to be included in this report

ii) That at least 60% of the waste generated during the demolition and construction phase of the development was reused or recycled.

Note: If the 60% diversion from landfill cannot be achieved in the Construction Stage, the Report is to include the reasons why this occurred and certify that appropriate work practices were employed to implement the approved Waste Management Plan. The Report must be based on documentary evidence such as tipping dockets/receipts from recycling depots, transfer stations and landfills, audits of procedures etc. which are to be attached to the report.

iii) All waste was taken to site(s) that were lawfully permitted to accept that waste.

c) Each unit must be provided with an indoor waste/recycling cupboard for the interim storage of a minimum one day’s waste generation with separate containers for general waste and recyclable materials.

d) Space must be provided for either individual compost containers for each unit or a communal compost container;

Note: The location of the compost containers should have regard for potential amenity impacts.

e) The bin carting routes must be devoid of any steps.

Note: Ramps between different levels are acceptable

37. Damage to Council Assets

Any damage caused to Council’s assets as a result of the construction of the development must be rectified in accordance with Council’s written requirements and at the sole cost of the applicant.

38. Creation of Easements

The following matters must be nominated on the title using s88E or s88B (as applicable) of the Conveyancing Act 1919:

a) Consolidation of the subject lots.

b) The creation of an appropriate "Positive Covenant" and "Restriction as to User" over the constructed on-site detention systems and outlet works, within the lots in favour of Council in accordance with Council’s prescribed wording. The position of the on-site detention system is to be clearly indicated on the title.

c) To register the OSD easement, the restriction on the use of land “works-as-executed” details of the on-site-detention system must be submitted verifying that the required storage and discharge rates have been constructed in accordance with the design requirements. The details must show the invert levels of the on site system together with pipe sizes and grades. Any variations to the approved plans must be shown in red on the “works-as-executed” plan and supported by calculations.

Note: Council must be nominated as the authority to release, vary or modify any easement, restriction or covenant.

39. Boundary Fencing

Fencing must be erected at the sole cost of the applicant, along the northern, southern and western property boundaries behind the front building alignment to a height of 1.8 metres. An additional 600mm lattice on top of the northern boundary fence is to be erected to maintain privacy for adjoining neighbours.

Note: Alternative fencing may be erected subject to the written consent of the adjoining property owner(s).

40. On-Site Detention Basin (Landscaping)

The design and construction of the surface on-site detention basin is to ensure that the boundary screen planting can be provided in a garden area a minimum 1 metre wide and that the basin is located outside of the planted area.

41. Planter boxes/On Slab Planting

On slab planter boxes must include waterproofing, subsoil drainage (proprietary drainage cell, 50mm sand and filter fabric) automatic irrigation, minimum 500mm planting soil for shrubs and minimum 1000mm planting soil for trees and palms and 75mm mulch to ensure sustainable landscape is achieved.

42. Privacy

The balustrades on north facing balconies on levels 3 and 4 are to be 1.3 metre in height and constructed of solid or obscured glass material.

43. Completion of Landscaping

A certificate must be provided by a practicing landscape architect, horticulturalist or person with similar qualifications and experience certifying that all required landscaping works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved landscape plans.

44. Section 94 Infrastructure Contributions

The payment to Council of a contribution of $ 777,766.60 for 57 additional dwellings towards the cost of infrastructure identified in Council’s Development Contributions Plan 2007-2011 in accordance with the following table:

Note: The value of contribution is current as at 24 November 2012. The contribution will be adjusted from this date in accordance with the underlying consumer price index for subsequent financial quarters.

It is recommended that you contact Council to confirm the value of the contribution prior to payment.

45. External Lighting

All external lighting must be designed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. Certification of compliance with the Standard must be obtained from a suitably qualified person.

46. Unit Numbering

The allocation of unit numbering must be authorised by Council prior to the numbering of each unit in the development.

47. Safety and Security

The site must include the following elements:

a) An intercom system must be installed at gate locations to ensure screening of persons entering the units.

b) The entry doors to the pedestrian foyer is to be constructed of safety rated glass to enable residents a clear line of site before entering or exiting the residential apartments.

c) Lighting is to be provided to pathways, building foyer entries, driveways and common external spaces.

d) Security gate access is to be provided to the car parking area allowing residents-only access to private car spaces.

e) The communal open space at the rear of the site must be illuminated with high luminance by motion sensor lighting.

f) The driveway and basement car park must be illuminated with low luminance at all times.

g) Security deadlocks are to be provided to each apartment door.

h) Peep holes are to be provided to individual apartment doors to promote resident safety.

48. Works as Executed Plan

A works-as-executed plan(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to Council for completed road pavement, kerb & gutter, public drainage systems, driveways and on-site detention system.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

49. Waste Storage and Waste Management

The waste management on site must be in accordance with the following requirement:

a) A site caretaker must be employed and be responsible for moving bins where and when necessary, washing bins and maintaining waste storage areas, ensuring the chute system and related devices are maintained in effective and efficient working order, managing the communal composting area, arranging the prompt removal of dumped rubbish, and ensuring all residents are informed of the use of the waste management system.

50. Car Parking

All car parking must be constructed and operated in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 – Off-street car parking and Australian Standard AS 2890.2:2002 – Off-street commercial vehicle facilities.

a) All parking areas and driveways are to be sealed to an all weather standard, line marked and signposted;

b) Car parking, loading and manoeuvring areas to be used solely for nominated purposes;

c) Vehicles awaiting loading, unloading or servicing shall be parked on site and not on adjacent or nearby public roads;

d) All vehicular entry on to the site and egress from the site shall be made in a forward direction.

51. Visitor Access

Visitors are to have access to the parking area at all times. Visitors are to be able to access the basement car park by an audio/visual intercom system located at the top of the ramped driveway.

52. Disabled Parking

All parking spaces for people with disabilities must be constructed and operated in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009 – Off-street parking for people with disabilities

53. Provision for SRV to park on site

Provision is to be made for a SRV to park on site. For this case a reverse in or reverse out manoeuvre from the proposed development is acceptable.

54. Noise

All noise generated by the proposed development must be attenuated to prevent levels of noise being emitted to adjacent premises which possess tonal, beating and similar characteristics or which exceeds background noise levels by more than 5dB(A).

55. Fire Safety Statement - Annual

On at least one occasion in every 12 month period following the date of the first ‘Fire Safety Certificate’ issued for the property, the owner must provide Council with an annual ‘Fire Safety Certificate’ to each essential service installed in the building.

56. Landscape Establishment

The landscape works must be maintained into the future to ensure the establishment and successful growth of plant material to meet the intent of the landscape design. This must include but not be limited to watering, weeding, replacement of failed plant material and promoting the growth of plants through standard industry practices.

- END OF CONDITIONS -

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, other relevant legislation and Council’s policies and specifications. This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Requirements

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 requires:

· The issue of a construction certificate prior to the commencement of any works. Enquiries can be made to Council’s Customer Services Branch on 9847 6760.

· A principal certifying authority to be nominated and Council notified of that appointment prior to the commencement of any works.

· Council to be given at least two days written notice prior to the commencement of any works.

· Mandatory inspections of nominated stages of the construction inspected.

· An occupation certificate to be issued before occupying any building or commencing the use of the land.

Long Service Levy

In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, a ‘Long Service Levy’ must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation or Hornsby Council.

Note: The rate of the Long Service Levy is 0.35% of the total cost of the work.

Note: Hornsby Council requires the payment of the Long Service Levy prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Tree Preservation Order

To ensure the maintenance and protection of the existing natural environment, it is an offence to ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, wilfully injure or destroy a tree outside 3 metres of the approved building envelope without the prior written consent from Council.

Note: A tree is defined as a single or multi-trunked wood perennial plant having a height of not less than three (3) metres, and which develops many branches, usually from a distance of not less than one (1) metre from the ground, but excluding any plant which, in its particular location, is a noxious plant declared as such pursuant to the Noxious Weeds Act 1993. This definition of ‘tree’ includes any and all types of Palm trees.

All distances are determined under Australian Standard AS4970-2009 ”Protection of Trees on Development Sites”.

Fines may be imposed for non-compliance with Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

Disability Discrimination Act

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the existence of the Disability Discrimination Act. A construction certificate is required to be obtained for the proposed building/s, which will provide consideration under the Building Code of Australia, however, the development may not comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. This is the sole responsibility of the applicant.

Dial Before You Dig

Prior to commencing any works, the applicant is encouraged to contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au for free information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth)

If you are aware of any works or proposed works which may affect or impact on Telstra’s assets in any way, you are required to contact: Telstra’s Network Integrity Team on Phone Number 1800810443.

Asbestos Warning

Should asbestos or asbestos products be encountered during demolition or construction works you are advised to seek advice and information should be prior to disturbing the material. It is recommended that a contractor holding an asbestos-handling permit (issued by WorkCover NSW)be engaged to manage the proper handling of the material. Further information regarding the safe handling and removal of asbestos can be found at:

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.adfa.org.au

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Alternatively, telephone the WorkCover Asbestos and Demolition Team on 8260 5885.

House Numbering

House numbering can only be authorised by Council. Before proceeding to number each premise in the development, the allocation of numbers is required to be obtained from Council's Planning Division. The authorised numbers are required to be displayed in a clear manner at or near the main entrance to each premise.

Group Manager’s Report No. PL50/13

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 19/06/2013

12 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - SUBDIVISION OF ONE ALLOTMENT INTO FIVE LOTS - 16 NALYA ROAD, BEROWRA HEIGHTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/902/2012 (Lodged 4 September 2012)
Description:	Subdivision of one allotment into five lots
Property:	Lot 102 DP 771576, No. 16 Nalya Road, Berowra Heights
Applicant:	Mrs Pamela Jean Wall
Owner:	Mrs P J Wall
Estimated Value:	$200,000
Ward:	A

· The application proposes subdivision of one allotment into five lots and demolition of the existing dwelling.

· The application does not comply with the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan, the Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas and Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 as the proposal would adversely impact on bushland within land zoned for public open space.

· The application is subject to an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the development application (Proceedings No. 10275 of 2013).

· There were no public submissions received in respect of the application.

· It is recommended that the application be refused.

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND

A road reservation between Nalya Road and Turner Road forms part of the site subject of this application and is land zoned Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local).

On 25 August 2008 and 4 May 2011, Council refused requests to endorse an ‘Application for Closure of Road’ submitted to the Department of Lands by the applicant, for closure of the road reserve between Nalya Road and Turner Road, Berowra Heights.

On 4 September 2012, DA/902/2013 was lodged for subdivision of one allotment into five lots. Consideration of the proposal is the subject of this report.

On 17 April 2013, the applicant filed an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of DA/902/2012 (Proceedings No. 10275 of 2013).

On 18 April 2013, Council advised the applicant that the subject development application cannot be supported due to impacts on land zoned Open Space. It was suggested that the application should be substantially amended or withdrawn.

SITE

The site is irregular in shape and has an area of 8,031m2. The site is located on the western edge of the Berowra Heights residential area and overlooks the Berowra Valley National Park. The site is within a bushfire prone area.

The site has an overall frontage of 51.39m to the northern side of Nalya Road and a frontage of 193.485m to the western side of a 20m wide road reservation between Nalya Road and Turner Road, Berowra Heights.

The southern part of the site has an average fall of 5% to the adjoining battleaxe lot off Nalya Road. The northern part of the site is steeper with an average fall of 26% to the western boundary.

The site includes an existing dwelling house with access off Nalya Road via a track through the adjoining bushland road reservation. An old wire fence is alongside the track approximately 15m inside the road reservation and for the extent of the frontage.

The road reservation is within a public recreation area and is zoned Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local). The site and the road reservation include bushland identified as ‘Narrow Leaved Scribbly Gum Woodland’.

The western boundary of the site adjoins steeply sloping land zoned Environmental Protection B (River Catchment). Part of the adjoining land is subject to an easement for bushfire protection for the proposed subdivision. The site and the adjoining land include bushland identified as ‘Peppermint -Angophora Forest’.

The Berowra Heights residential area includes single and two storey dwelling houses, many on steeply sloping sites with remnant trees.

The site is located 570m northwest of Berowra Heights Commercial Centre. The site is within 230m of a regular bus service connection with Berowra Railway Station.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is for subdivision of one lot into five allotment and demolition of the existing dwelling house.

The proposed lots are as follows:

Proposed Lot 1 is an irregular shaped lot with a 13.33m frontage to Nalya Road. The lot has an area of 917m² and includes an existing metal shed. The lot has an average fall of 8% to the western side boundary. The lot includes 22 trees of which 7 trees would be removed for the proposed indicative dwelling.

Proposed Lot 2 is an irregular shaped lot with a 37.85m frontage to Nalya Road. The lot has an area of 971m², is vacant and includes several rock outcrops. The lot has an average fall of 9% to the western side boundary. The lot includes 21 trees of which 15 trees would be removed for the proposed indicative dwelling.

Proposed Lot 3 is an irregular shaped lot with a 23.1m frontage to the road reservation. The lot has an area of 1,475m² and includes an existing fibro garage and part of the southern elevation of the existing dwelling house. The lot has an average fall of 13% to the rear western boundary. The lot includes 11 trees of which 3 trees would be required to be removed.

Proposed Lot 4 is a regular shaped lot with a 22.8m frontage to the road reservation. The lot has an area of 1,319m² and includes the existing dwelling house. The lot has an average fall of 13% to the rear western boundary. The lot includes 9 trees of which 2 trees would be required to be removed.

Proposed Lot 5 is an irregular shaped lot with a 90.3m frontage to the road reservation. The lot has an area of 3,346m², is vacant and includes rock ledges across the central part of the lot. The lot has an average fall of 26% to the rear western boundary. The lot includes 31 trees of which 12 would be required to be removed. Access to the lot is proposed off Turner Road.

The proposal includes the establishment of a bushfire asset protection zone over a 2,440m² area of land adjoining the western boundary identified as Lot 2 DP 545090, No. 222 Berowra Waters Road, Berowra Heights which is the subject of an existing easement for this purpose.

An 8m wide bushfire asset protection zone is proposed for the extent of the road reservation at the frontage of the proposed lots involving an area of approximately 1,350m².

The proposal includes upgrading of the existing unformed access driveway within the road reservation for access to proposed lots 3 and 4.

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031 and (Draft) North Subregional Strategy

Within the North Subregion, the Draft Metropolitan Strategy proposes:

· Population growth of 81,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 529,000

· Housing growth of 37,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 204,000

· Employment growth of 39,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 186,000

The proposed development would be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031 by providing additional housing allotments.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 79C(1)(a) requires Council to consider any relevant environmental planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments, development control plans, planning agreements and other prescribed matters.

2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 – Clause 49

Pursuant to Clause 49 of the Regulations the consent of the owner of land subject to the application is required for the application to be made.

The proposed subdivision relies on the existing road reserve for access over the existing track which is proposed to be upgraded. The road reserve is Crown land under the jurisdiction of the Department of Lands and Hornsby Shire Council.

Council is the responsible authority for road works within the road reserve and can authorise road works to be carried out under the Roads Act 1993.

The proposed subdivision however, requires the creation of an easement over a section of the road reserve for bushfire protection measures for future dwelling houses on the proposed lots. Council has not granted consent for creation of an easement. Refer also to discussion in Section 2.11 and Section 2.12.

The development application therefore, has not been made in the prescribed form.

2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 – Section 91A

The proposed subdivision is ‘integrated development’ subject to approval of the NSW Rural Fire Service for the issue of a Bushfire Safety Authority under the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The approval of the NSW Rural Fire Service has not been obtained for the issue of a Bushfire Safety Authority.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 91A, a consent authority must not grant consent unless the ‘General Terms of Approval’ have been obtained from the relevant authority.

2.3 Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 1994

The land subject to the proposed development is zoned Residential AS (Low Density – Sensitive Lands) and Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local) under the Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 1994 (HSLEP).

The objectives of the Residential AS (Low Density – Sensitive Lands) zone are:

(a) to provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area.

(b) to promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment and sensitive to the land capability and established character of this environment.

(c) to provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a sensitive low density residential environment.

The proposed development is defined as ‘subdivision’ under the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

The objectives of the Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local) zone are:

(a) to ensure there is provision of adequate open space to meet the needs of the community and to enhance the environmental quality of the Hornsby area.

(b) to encourage a diversity of recreational settings and facilities.

(c) to protect and preserve areas of urban bushland which are considered valuable in terms of their ecology.

The proposed development is defined as ‘subdivision’ under the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. Notwithstanding, residential development is prohibited in the zone. Further, the proposed subdivision would involve road works and bush fire protection measures. In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to objective (c) of the Open Space A zone.

Clause 14 of the HSLEP prescribes a minimum area of 600m² for an allotment within the Residential AS zone. The proposed subdivision complies with this requirement.

Clause 18 of the HSLEP sets out heritage conservation provisions for Hornsby Shire. The site is not identified as a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area or in the vicinity of a heritage item.

2.4 Draft Comprehensive Hornsby Local Environmental Plan

The draft Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (DHLEP) was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 19 December 2012 to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to be made. In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Plan has been submitted to the Department for finalisation. The Draft HLEP essentially reiterates the current land use zoning applicable to the site as outlined below.

2.4.1 Zoning

The site would be zoned R2 Low Density Residential Use and RE1 Public Recreation pursuant to the Land Use Table of the Draft HLEP. The proposed development would be permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone with development consent.

2.4.2 Height of Building

Clause 4.3 of the draft HLEP provides that the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the R2 zoned land is 8.5 metres. The construction of dwelling houses on the proposed allotments is not included as part of the application.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas (SEPP 19)

The application has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 19 which applies to local government areas within the Sydney metropolitan area. The aim of the Policy is to protect and preserve bushland in urban areas for its natural heritage, aesthetic, recreational, educational and scientific values.

The road reserve adjoining the site is subject to the provisions of the Policy pursuant to Clause 9, being land zoned Open Space A (Pubic Recreation – Local) under the HSLEP. Under the Policy, before granting consent to development, Council must consider the effect of the development on bushland and the protection and preservation of bushland.

The proposed development requires the implementation of bushfire protection measures with the creation of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) over an 8m wide strip of the road reserve. The APZ would require removal of existing vegetation to reduce fuel loads in accordance with Planning For Bush Fire Protection (NSW Rural Fire Service 2006).

The proposed development includes upgrading of the existing unformed vehicular track within the road reserve, for access to the proposed lots. The proposed access would be required to be constructed to the standard of a public road. Council’s design standard is for a road pavement width of 7.5m and 22m diameter cul-de-sac turning head or tee-shaped turning head together with 3.5m wide graded footpath verge each side of the road.

The necessary APZ and public road would result in substantial clearing of bushland from the open space zoned land.

The proposed development would be contrary to the aim of the Policy to protect and preserve bushland in urban areas.

2.6 State Environmental Planning Policy – Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River

The site is located within the catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River. Part 2 of the Plan contains general planning considerations and strategies requiring Council to consider the impacts of the proposal on water quality, scenic quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.

Subject to the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater management to protect water quality, the proposal would comply with the requirements of the Policy.

2.7 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

The site has been used for residential purposes and is unlikely to be contaminated. No further assessment is considered necessary in this regard.

2.8 Clause 74BA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

The provisions of a development control plan made for that purpose are not statutory requirements.

2.9 Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan

The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements within Council’s Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan (Residential Subdivision DCP). The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the Plan:

Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Compliance
Lot Area	Lot 1 – 917m² Lot 2 – 971m² Lot 3 – 1,475m² Lot 4 – 1,319m² Lot 5 – 3,346m²	600m²	Yes
Accessway Width	4m	7.5m	No

As detailed in the above table, the proposed development does not comply with the prescriptive accessway width requirement within Council’s Residential Subdivision DCP. The matter of non-compliance is detailed below, as well as a brief discussion on compliance with relevant performance standards.

2.9.1 Density

The proposed subdivision includes a large APZ on-site contiguous with the proposed APZ over land adjoining the western boundary, for bush fire protection. The proposed APZ reduces the area of the site for construction of dwelling houses. An APZ is also proposed over the road reservation which is land zoned Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local).

The applicant has submitted indicative dwelling designs for the buildable areas of the proposed lots clear of the APZs. Proposed Lot 4 includes a 440m² area available for dwelling house construction. Proposed Lot 5 includes a 572m² area of which 407m² is of dimension greater than 10m and suitable for dwelling house construction. Notwithstanding the developable areas clear of the APZs, the proposed APZ within the road reserve is contrary to Planning For Bushfire Protection 2006 requirements for APZs to be on-site and not to include land used for a public purpose.

The proposed subdivision therefore, does not include sufficient land to accommodate the 5 proposed lots and bush fire protection measures. Accordingly, the proposal does not meet the Residential Subdivision density performance criteria.

2.9.2 Allotment Layout & Allotment Design

The proposed subdivision includes the road reservation for provision of access to two of the proposed lots and also for an APZ for four of the five proposed lots. The road reservation is land zoned for Open Space – Public Recreation and includes bushland.

The road reservation is integral to the design and layout of the proposed subdivision. The road reservation is land required for a public open space. The proposed APZ over this land is contrary to the requirements of Planning For Bush Fire Protection 2006.

Council’s requirements for access within the road reservation, is for public road construction to Council standard. The necessary clearing of the open space land required for road construction is contrary to the objectives of the Open Space A zone.

The submitted plans include indicative building envelopes for the proposed lots. Proposed Lot 5 does not include sufficient area to accommodate a 200m² indicative building envelope with a minimum dimension of 10m clear of setbacks to boundaries and the APZ, in accordance with the allotment design prescriptive measure of the Residential Subdivision DCP.

It is considered the proposed subdivision does not meet the allotment layout and design performance criteria of the Residential Subdivision DCP.

2.9.3 Setbacks

The proposed front setbacks of the indicative building envelopes on proposed Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5 do not comply with the minimum 6m front setback prescriptive measure of the Residential Subdivision DCP.

The proposed front setbacks would encroach on the setting of the bushland reserve and are considered contrary to the setbacks element objective of the Residential Subdivision DCP.

2.9.4 Landscaping

The site includes significant groups of trees which would be impacted on by the proposed subdivision including trees which form part of the bushland open space reserve.

The impact of the removal of significant trees and groups of trees on the bushland within the open space reserve has not been adequately addressed in the application.

It is considered the proposed subdivision does not meet the Residential Subdivision DCP landscaping performance criteria.

2.9.5 Road Design

The proposed subdivision includes upgrading of the existing unformed access track through the road reservation to provide access to proposed Lot 3 and Lot 4. The track is noted in the Berowra / Cowan Development Control Plan to ‘retain existing access to property’ for the Turner Road Reserve.

The road reservation is a Council Public Road vested in the Crown as the road is unformed. The road would be vested in Council should the unformed access track be upgraded as proposed; pursuant to Section 38 of the Roads Act 1993. In this regard, as the road would become Council’s responsibility, the proposed access should be constructed to Council’s standard.

The proposed access way does not comply with Council’s design standard for a Cul-de-sac Road pavement width 7.5m and 22m diameter turning head or tee-shaped turning head together with 3.5m wide graded footpath verge each side of the road.

Notwithstanding the required road design for access to the proposed lots, the road reservation is land zoned Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local). The construction of a road to Council’s design standard would remove bushland and be contrary to the objective of the zoning.

Council officers met with the applicant during the assessment of the application and suggested that, give the size and layout of the site, options should be explored to locate the accessway for the subdivision within the site. Locating the accessway within the site would minimise the alienation of public lands and may reduce the loss of significant trees. However, this suggestion was not accepted by the applicant.

2.9.6 Waste Minimisation and Management

Council’s garbage truck would be required to service the proposed lots having frontage to a public road. The proposed accessway through the road reserve would need to be designed for a Heavy Rigid Vehicle in accordance with Council’s design standard as discussed in Section 2.9.5.

The proposed subdivision does not comply with the Residential Subdivision DCP waste minimisation and management performance criteria for developments to incorporate convenient access for waste collection.

2.9.7 Berowra / Cowan Development Control Plan

The open space zoned road reservation and the existing access to the subject property are identified in the Berowra / Cowan Development Control Plan Recreation Strategy. The Strategy recognises the existing access to the property. The Strategy does not promote the upgrading of the access to form a road to service development with the area.

The element objective of the recreation strategy is to promote the equitable provision and distribution of a wide range of recreational facilities. The development of an accessway to service residential development of adjacent properties is inconsistent with the objective.

2.10 Generic Plan of Management for Community Land and Crown Reserves. Planning District Five & Seven (Plan of Management)

The above Plan of Management applies to open space zoned land at Berowra Heights and includes environmental, recreational and social values of bushland open space and management issues for natural areas.

Section 9.2 of the Plan of Management makes provision for Council to grant licences and easements over Community Land in favour of private lands providing Council is satisfied there is no reasonable alternative and that appropriate benefits are obtained for the community land.

The applicant submitted a letter to Council suggesting the public benefit of the proposed access road and fire trail for fire fighting operations and hazard reduction works and also for provision of a walking/recreation track for surrounding residents.

In this regard, Council advised the applicant the submitted public benefit for fire fighting operations is unable to be supported as existing roads provide access to neighbouring properties and the land is required for open space public recreation purposes.

Notwithstanding the open space zoning of the road reservation, the status of the land as Community Land and the applicability of the Plan of Management is uncertain as Community Land generally does not include public roads; in accordance with Chapter 6 Division 2 of the Local Government Act 1993.

2.11 Planning For Bush Fire Protection - NSW Rural Fire Service 2006 (PBP)

The aim of PBP is to use the NSW development assessment system to provide for the protection of human life (including firefighters) and to minimise impacts on property from the threat of bush fire, while having due regard to development potential, on-site amenity and protection of the environment.

One of the general principles of PBP is for bush fire protection measures to be contained within the development site and not on adjoining lands, other than in exceptional circumstances. The proposed subdivision relies on a proposed easement over the open space zoned road reservation, for an Asset Protection Zone for bush fire protection. The exceptional circumstances provisions of PBP state that easements should not be considered where the adjoining land is used for a public purpose, where vegetation management is unlikely or cannot be legally granted. The adjoining open space zoned land is identified as urban bushland and is managed by Council for this purpose.

The proposed easement over the adjoining open space zoned land is contrary to the provisions of PBP as the land is required for a public purpose.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 Natural Environment

The applicant submitted a Flora and Fauna Survey and Ecological Assessment, pursuant to Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The assessment considered the impact of the proposed subdivision on the significance of the bushland on the site and the adjoining land, Lot 2 DP 545090 subject to the existing easement, with respect to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

The bushfire protection requirements for the proposed subdivision were considered in the assessment including the clearing and or modification of a 0.22 hectare area of bushland adjoining the western boundary of the site and within the existing easement for bushfire protection. The assessment also included the bushland within the site and the road reserve. The vegetation clearing/modification involved a 40m wide Inner Protection Area, a 20m wide Outer Protection Area and an 8m wide Inner Protection Area within the road reserve.

The assessment made the following conclusion:

The proposal is not expected to impact significantly on the Coastal Sandstone Ridgetop Forest which occupies the majority of the subject property. The bushland in the area proposed as the Outer Protection Area of the Asset Protection Zone below the escarpment will be modified in accordance with the Guidelines of Planning for Bushfire Protection published by the NSW Rural Fire Service (2006), but provided that measures are taken to retain slope stability and prevent soil erosion, it is considered that habitat for native flora and fauna will not be significantly impacted.

The assessment includes recommended bushland protection measures during construction of the proposed development.

Council’s requirement for road design to public road standard would require the clearing of bushland within the road reservation. The submitted assessment does not make reference to road construction or to consideration under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland In Urban Areas and the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 concerning land reserved for a public purpose (refer to discussion in Section 2.5).

3.2 Built Environment

The proposed subdivision would require the clearing of urban bushland within a residential area of Berowra Heights.

The loss of urban bushland would detract from the recreational, ecological and aesthetic value of the residential area.

3.3 Social Impacts

The proposed subdivision would not result in a social impact.

3.4 Economic Impacts

The proposal would have a minor positive impact on the local economy in conjunction with other new low density residential development in the locality by generating an increase in demand for local services.

4.1 SITE SUITABILITY

Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider “the suitability of the site for the development”.

The subject site includes bushland, is subject to high bushfire risk and adjoins a bushland reserve. The site is unsuitable for the proposed development as the development would adversely impact on bushland within land zoned Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local).

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 79C(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

5.1 Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 20 September and 11 October 2012 in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan. During this period no submissions were received by Council. The map below illustrates the location of those nearby landowners who were notified of the proposal.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES

NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF

DEVELOPMENT

5.2 Public Agencies – Rural Fire Service

The development application is Integrated Development under the Act requiring the approval of the NSW Rural Fire Service for the issue of a ‘Bush Fire Safety Authority’ under the Rural Fires Act 1997. Before granting consent to the application, Council must obtain General Terms of Approval from the RFS. Council is not required to obtain General Terms of Approval from the RFS if it determines to refuse the application.

The NSW Rural Fire Service has requested details of owners consent for the proposed easement over the unformed road reserve, for the issue of a Bush Fire Safety Authority. Council has responsibility for the road reservation and has not granted owner’s consent for an easement for the proposed 8m wide Asset Protection Zone within the open space zoned reserve. The Rural Fire Service would otherwise issue General Terms of Approval for the issue of a ‘Bushfire Safety Authority’ for the proposed subdivision.

Refer also to discussion in Section 2.1.

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

The proposed subdivision is contrary to Council’s planning controls for subdivision, bushland conservation and public open space. Accordingly, it is considered that approval of the proposed development would not be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application proposes subdivision of one allotment into five lots and demolition of an existing dwelling.

The application is subject to an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the application.

The proposed development relies on an adjoining road reservation for access and for bush fire protection measures. The road reservation is land zoned for public open space and includes bushland. The proposed accessway through the road reservation would be required to be constructed to Council’s public road standard. Council’s consent has not been granted for the creation of an easement over the road reservation.

The application is ‘integrated development’ subject to approval of the NSW Rural Fire Service. The Rural Fire Service has not granted approval for the proposal as Council’s consent as owner has not been obtained for an easement for bush fire protection measures.

The proposed subdivision is contrary to the HSLEP objectives for the Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local) Zone and does not comply with the requirements of the Residential Subdivision DCP. The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to SEPP 19 – Bushland In Urban Areas. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Planning For Bush Fire Protection 2006 for bush fire protection measures not to be considered on land required for a public purpose.

No submissions were received in response to notification of the application.

The application is recommended for refusal.

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessment

Planning Division

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Attachments:

1.View	Locality Map
2.View	Survey Plan
3.View	Site Plan
4.View	Subdivision Plan
5.View	Zoning Map

File Reference: DA/902/2012

Document Number: D02174533

SCHEDULE 1

1. The development application has not been made pursuant to the provisions of Clause 49 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 as owners consent has not been obtained for the proposed easement over the road reservation for bush fire protection.

2. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposal would result in modification and clearing of urban bushland and is unacceptable with respect to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas.

3. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 Open Space A (Public Recreation – Local) Zone objective to protect and preserve areas of urban bushland which are considered valuable in terms of their ecology.

4. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed subdivision does not comply with the requirements of Hornsby Shire Council Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan as follows:

(a) The proposed subdivision does not include sufficient land to accommodate the five proposed lots and the necessary bushfire protection measures. The proposal does not meet the density performance criteria.

(b) The Open Space A zoned road reservation is integral to the design and layout of the proposed subdivision for the provision of access and for bushfire protection measures. The proposed subdivision would adversely impact on urban bushland within the road reserve and does not meet the allotment layout and allotment design performance criteria.

(c) The proposed accessway does not provide for access for Council’s waste collection vehicle and is inconsistent with the waste minimization and management performance criteria.

5. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the requirement of Planning For Bush Fire Protection 2006 for easements for Asset Protection Zones not to be considered where the adjoining land is used for a public purpose (open space recreation).

6. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed subdivision would result in the removal of significant trees and groups of trees and would diminish the natural environment of the area.

7. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in respect to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed subdivision is contrary to State and local planning controls and would not be in the public interest.

- END OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL -

Group Manager’s Report No. PL51/13

Planning Division

Date of Meeting: 19/06/2013

13 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - DWELLING HOUSE - 36 MILLSTREAM GROVE, DURAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA No:	DA/356/2013
Description:	Erection of a two storey dwelling-house on a vacant allotment.
Property:	Lot 4, DP 270704, No. 36 Millstream Grove, Dural
Applicant:	Rawson Homes Pty Ltd
Owners:	Mr Kevin Hua and Ms Jannet Maestro Sajo
Estimated Value:	$490,824
Ward:	A

· The application involves the erection of a two storey dwelling-house on a vacant allotment.

· The proposal does not comply with the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 with regard to Clause 15 (Floor Space Ratio). The applicant has made a submission pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) to vary the development standard. The submission is considered well founded and is supported.

· No public submissions have been received in respect of the application.

· It is recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND

On 13 October 2008, the NSW Land and Environment Court granted consent to DA/1639/2006 for a community title subdivision of 2 lots into 12 residential lots, a community lot and a residual lot at Nos. 216 and 220 New Line Road, Dural. Millstream Grove was created as part of the approved subdivision.

SITE

The vacant, rectangular, 626.3m² site is located on the western side of Millstream Grove, Dural and experiences a 10% fall towards the front, south-east corner.

The site is located within a bushfire prone area and supports the growth of remnant trees within a mapped area of Blackbutt Gully Forest.

The site is burdened by an easement for drainage which runs along the rear, north-western boundary.

The site is not flood prone or located within a heritage conservation area, nor is it in the vicinity of a heritage listed item.

THE PROPOSAL

The application proposes the erection of a two storey dwelling-house and associated works. The ground floor level comprises a double garage, lounge room, powder room, family and dining area, kitchen with walk-in-pantry, laundry, rumpus/theatre room and an outdoor alfresco area.

The first floor level comprises 5 bedrooms, a walk-in-robe, ensuite, bathroom, powder room, leisure room and a deck.

The application also proposes the construction of a driveway, a vehicular crossing and retaining walls, the installation of an air-conditioning unit, a 3,500 litre above ground rainwater tank and the removal of one tree.

ASSESSMENT

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.1 Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031 and (Draft) North Subregional Strategy

The North Subregion comprises Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, Manly, Warringah and Pittwater Local Government Areas. The Draft North Subregional Strategy acts as a framework for Council in its preparation of the Comprehensive LEP by the end of 2013.

Within the North Subregion, the Draft Metropolitan Strategy proposes:

· Population growth of 81,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 529,000;

· Housing growth of 37,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 204,000; and

· Employment growth of 39,000 from the current 2011 baseline of 186,000.

The proposed development would be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2031 as it would contribute to the achievement of the dwelling target for the Shire.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

2.1 Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994

The subject land is zoned Residential A (Low Density) under the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 (HSLEP). The objectives of the Residential A zone are:

(a) to provide for the housing needs of the population of the Hornsby area.

(b) to promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment.

(c) to provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a low density residential environment.

The proposed development is defined as a ‘dwelling-house’ under the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent.

2.2 Draft Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan

The draft Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (DHLEP) was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 19 December 2012 to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to be made. In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Plan has been submitted to the Department for finalisation. The relevant provisions of the DHLEP that apply to the site are outlined below.

2.3 Zoning

Under the DHLEP, the subject land would be zoned R2 (Low Density Residential). A “dwelling house” would be a permissible use in the zone under the DHLEP.

2.3.1 Height of Building

Clause 4.3 of the DHLEP provides that the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum permissible height for the subject site within the R2 zone is 8.5 metres. The proposal complies with this provision.

2.4 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury – Nepean River

The site is located within the catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River. Part 2 of this Plan contains general planning considerations and strategies requiring Council to consider the impacts of development on water quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.

Subject to the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater management to protect water quality, the proposal would comply with the requirements of the Policy.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

Clause 15 of the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 prescribes that the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of development in the Residential A (Low Density) zone is 0.4:1. The gross floor area of the development is 322m² resulting in an FSR of 0.51:1, which does not comply with the development standard.

To address the variation to the 0.4:1 development standard, the applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1).

The application has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 1. This Policy provides flexibility in the application 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 of the Act.

The NSW Land and Environment Court has expressed the view that there are five different ways in which an objection may be well founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the Policy:

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

2. The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

3. The underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

5. The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone.

In regard to whether the objection may be well founded, the applicant contends that:

1. “The proposed dwelling provides a suitable height, setbacks and site coverage ensuring that it does not have any unreasonable impact by way of visual bulk. The dwelling has varied roof lines and an articulated design proving to be of benefit to the streetscape;

2. The first floor of the dwelling predominantly comprises bedrooms and bathrooms which are considered to be low trafficable areas. The upper leisure area is orientated to the front of the site ensuring that there is minimal potential to overlook the adjoining properties;

3. As the dwelling is of a typical size for a contemporary residence and there is no perceived impact on the streetscape character of the area or the amenity of adjoining properties, the proposed dwelling is considered to be able to meet the objectives of the floor space ratio control. The extent of the numerical non-compliance would not be visually apparent once constructed. It is recommended that the application be supported, despite the required variation as it would compliment and blend with the character of the area and is in keeping with the objectives of the zone.”

The matters listed above have been taken into consideration in assessing the merits of the SEPP 1 objection. The proposal takes into consideration the environmental and topographical constraints of the site. The additional floor space would not adversely impact on the environmental and amenity aspects of the site and the underlying objectives of the zoning. The dwelling-house would provide accommodation that would not detract from the scale and variety of dwelling-houses in the low density areas of the Shire as the proposal is considered to meet the zone objectives outlined in the HSLEP.

In addition to the above, the provisions of the NSW Housing Code have been considered, which provide that the maximum gross floor area for complying development within the low density residential zones of the Shire as being:

· 330m², if the lot has an area of at least 450m² but less than 600m²;

· 380m², if the lot has an area of at least 600m² but less than 900m²; and

· 430m², if the lot has an area of at least 900m².

Accordingly, if applicable, the proposed 322m²dwelling would satisfy the maximum floor area development standard under the NSW Housing Code.

Given that the recently introduced NSW Housing Code is now enacted in many parts of the Shire, it is anticipated that more developments would be approved under this Code, which will change the characteristics of dwelling-houses. Consequently, whilst Council has previously applied a maximum FSR of 0.4:1 for dwelling-houses in the low density residential zones within the Shire under the HSLEP, the introduction of the NSW Housing Code is changing the effect of this standard.

The SEPP1 objection is well founded and is considered acceptable.

2.6 Clause 74BA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - Purpose and Status of Development Control Plans

The provisions of a development control plan made for that purpose are not statutory requirements.

2.7 Dwelling House Development Control Plan

The development has been assessed having regard to the relevant performance and prescriptive design requirements within Council’s Dwelling House Development Control Plan (Dwelling House DCP). The following table sets out the proposal’s compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the Plan:

Dwelling House Development Control Plan
Control	Proposal	Requirement	Complies
Floor space ratio	0.51:1	0.4:1	No
Site cover	40%	40%	Yes
Setbacks Front (south-east) Rear (north-west) Side (south-west) Side (north-east)	6.4m 15m 1.5m 1.2m	6m 3m 1m 1m	Yes Yes Yes Yes
Height	7.8m	< 9m	Yes
Unbroken Wall length	8.5m	10m	Yes
Building length	21m	24m	Yes
Cut and fill	1m	1m	Yes
Private Open Space	120m²	120m²	Yes
Landscaped area	45%	45%	Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces	2 spaces	Yes
Garage size	6.1m x 5.5m	5.7 x 5.4m	Yes

As detailed in the above table, the proposal does not comply with the 0.4:1 prescriptive measure of the Scale element within the Dwelling House DCP. This issue of non-compliance is addressed below, together with a brief discussion on compliance with the objectives of the Acoustics and Flora and Fauna Protection and Privacy elements of the Dwelling House DCP.

2.7.1 Scale

The proposed development does not comply with the 0.4:1 prescriptive measure of the Dwelling House DCP and 0.4:1 development standard of the HSLEP. This matter has been addressed under Section 2.4 of this report.

2.7.2 Acoustics

The application proposes the siting of an air-conditioning unit adjacent to the south-western elevation of the dwelling-house. To protect the amenity of the adjoining property at No. 38 Millstream Grove, a condition is recommended regulating the noise emissions and hours of operation.

Subject to the above condition, the proposal meets the objectives of the Acoustics element and is considered acceptable.

2.7.3 Flora and Fauna Protection

The application proposes the removal of one tree located within 3 metres of the building envelope. This tree is not significant and its removal would have negligible environmental impacts.

The proposal meets the objectives of the Flora and Fauna Protection element and is considered acceptable.

2.7.4 Privacy

The application proposes the erection of a “leisure” room that would provide access to a “deck” at first floor level. This proposal does not comply with the prescriptive measures of the Privacy element which states that “living and entertaining areas should be located on the ground floor level”.

In this instance, there are no windows within the south-western elevation of the leisure room that would enable direct overlooking of the adjacent property at No. 38 Millstream Grove and the deck is orientated towards the street.

The remaining first floor level windows would serve bedrooms and bathrooms only, in accordance with the prescriptive measures of the Privacy element.

The proposal meets the objectives of the Privacy element and is considered acceptable.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 Natural Environment

As discussed under Section 2.5.3 of this report, the tree identified for removal from the site is not significant and its removal would have negligible environmental impacts.

The subject site is identified as being bushfire prone land. Council’s assessment has determined that BAL 29 bushfire construction techniques are applicable to the proposed development. Appropriate conditions are recommended in Schedule 1 of this report.

Approval of the proposed development would create negligible environmental impacts.

3.2 Built Environment

The proposal would not be out of character with the built form of residential development that has been established in the developed portion of Millstream Grove and would be consistent with the form of development permitted in the locality.

Approval of this development would not detract from the established character of the area.

3.3 Social or Economic Impacts

There are no anticipated adverse social or economic impacts resulting from the proposed development.

4. SITE SUITABILITY

Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider “the suitability of the site for the development”.

The site has the capacity to support the dwelling-house and the proposal would be consistent with the established residential character of the residential area. The site is considered suitable for the development.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 79C(1)(d) of the Act requires Council to consider “any submissions made in accordance with this Act”.

5.1 Community Consultation

The proposed development was placed on public exhibition and was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners between 17 April 2013 and 1 May 2013 in accordance with Council’s Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan. During this period, Council received no submissions.

NOTIFICATION PLAN

• PROPERTIES NOTIFIED

X SUBMISSIONS

RECEIVED

PROPERTY SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

6. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider “the public interest”.

The application is considered to have addressed Council’s criteria under the Dwelling House DCP and therefore, the development would be in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application proposes the erection of a dwelling-house and associated works on a vacant residential allotment.

The application does not comply with the Hornsby Shire Council Local Environmental Plan 1994 with regard to Clause 15 (Floor Space Ratio). The applicant has submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection to vary the floor space ratio development standard. The objection is considered well founded with regard to the existing development and the principles established by the Land and Environment Court.

There were no submissions received in response to notification of the proposed development.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and consideration of the SEPP 1 objection, approval of the application is recommended.

Note: At the time of the completion of this planning report, no persons have made a Political Donations Disclosure Statement pursuant to Section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in respect of the subject planning application.

Rod Pickles

Manager - Development Assessment

Planning Division

James Farrington

Group Manager

Planning Division

Attachments:

1.View	Locality Map
2.View	Architecutral Plans
3.View	Floor Plans
4.View	SEPP 1 Objection

File Reference: DA/356/2013

Document Number: D02175439

SCHEDULE 1

GENERAL CONDITIONS

Note: For the purpose of this consent, the term ‘applicant’ means any person who has the authority to act on or the benefit of the development consent.

1. Approved Plans and Supporting Documentation

Plan No.	Drawn by	Dated
J002215 – Drawing 02, 03, 04, 05 & 06: (Issue E)	Rawson Homes	2 July 2012
J002215 – Drawing 07, 09, 11 & 12: (Issue E)	Rawson Homes	24 January 2012
J002215 – Drawing 13 & 14	Rawson Homes	29 October 2012

2. Removal of Existing Trees

This development consent only permits the removal of the tree numbered T1 as identified on Plan No. J002215 – Drawing 02 prepared by Rawson Homes dated 2 July 2012. The removal of any other trees requires separate approval under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

3. Building Code of Australia

All building work must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

4. Contract of Insurance (Residential Building Work)

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 building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

5. Notification of Home Building Act, 1989 Requirements

Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act, 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being Council) has given Council written notice of the following information:

a) In the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

i) The name and licence number of the principal contractor; and

ii) The name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act.

b) In the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

i) The name of the owner-builder and;

ii) If the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder’s permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder’s permit.

Note: If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being Council) has given Council written notification of the updated information.

6. Sydney Water – Quick Check

This application must be submitted to a Sydney Water ‘Quick Check Agent’ or ‘Customer Centre’ for approval to determine whether the development would affect any Sydney Water infrastructure, and whether further requirements are to be met.

Note: Refer to www.sydneywater.com.au or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

7. Design and Construction - Bushfire Attack Category

New construction must comply with the current Australian Standard AS3959 ‘Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas’ sections 3 and 7 (BAL 29) and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of Planning for Bushfire Protection.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

8. Erection of Construction Sign

A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

a) Showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work;

b) Showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any demolition or building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c) Stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Note: Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

9. Toilet Facilities

Toilet facilities must be available or provided at the works site before works begin and must be maintained until the works are completed at a ratio of one toilet for every 20 persons employed at the site.

10. Erosion and Sediment Control

Erosion and sediment control measures must be provided and maintained throughout the construction period in accordance with the manual ‘Soils and Construction 2004 (Bluebook)’, the approved plans, Council specifications and to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority. The erosion and sediment control devices must remain in place until the site has been stabilised and revegetated.

Note: On the spot penalties up to $1,500 may be issued for any non-compliance with this requirement without any further notification or warning.

11. Bushfire Management – Protection Zones

At the commencement of building works, the entire property must 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.”

Note: Further information concerning planning for bush fire protection can be found at: www.rfs.nsw.gov.au.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

12. Construction Work Hours

All work on site including earth works, must only occur between 7am and 5pm Monday to Saturday. No work is to be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

13. Council Property

During construction works, no building materials, waste, machinery or related matter is to be stored on the road or footpath. The public reserve must be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition at all times.

14. Survey Report – Finished Floor Level

A report(s) must be prepared by a registered surveyor and submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the pouring of concrete at each level of the building certifying that:

a) The building, retaining walls and the like have been correctly positioned on the site.

b) The finished floor level(s) are in accordance with the approved plans.

15. Disturbance of Existing Site

During construction works, the existing ground levels of open space areas and natural landscape features, (including natural rock-outcrops, vegetation, soil and watercourses) must not be altered unless otherwise nominated on the approved plans.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

Note: for the purpose of this consent, a reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall not be taken to mean an ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated:

16. Fulfilment of BASIX Commitments

The applicant must demonstrate the fulfilment of BASIX commitments pertaining to the development.

17. Stormwater Drainage

The stormwater drainage system for the development must be designed and constructed for an average recurrence interval of 20 years in accordance with Plan No. J002215 – Drawing 12 prepared by Rawson Homes dated 24 January 2012.

18. Internal Driveway/Vehicular Areas

The driveway and parking areas on the site must be designed in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.1, 2890.2, 3727. Design levels at the front boundary must be obtained from Council.

19. Vehicular Crossing

A separate application under the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Roads Act, 1993 must be submitted to Council for the installation of a new vehicular crossing and the removal of the redundant crossing. The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with Council’s Civil Works Design, 2005 and the following requirements:

a) Any redundant crossings must be replaced with integral kerb and gutter; and

b) The footway area must be restored by turfing.

Note: An application for a vehicular crossing can only be made to one of Council’s Authorised Vehicular Crossing Contractors. You are advised to contact Council on 02 9847 6940 to obtain a list of contractors.

20. Damage to Council Assets

Any damage caused to Council’s assets as a result of the construction of the development must be rectified in accordance with Council’s written requirements and at the sole cost of the applicant.

21. Retaining Walls

All required retaining walls must be constructed as part of the development.

22. Installation of Air Conditioner

To protect the amenity of adjacent premises No. 38 Millstream Grove, the condenser unit for the air conditioner must be sited a minimum of 3 metres from the property boundary of any adjoining residential premises unless a certificate has been prepared by a suitably qualified person confirming that the unit has been tested for heating and cooling on the highest settings and that the noise levels generated do not exceed 5 dB(A) above background noise levels when tested at the property boundary between 8 pm and 10 pm.

- END OF CONDITIONS –

ADVISORY NOTES

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Requirements

· The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 requires:

· The issue of a construction certificate prior to the commencement of any works. Enquiries can be made to Council’s Customer Services Branch on 9847 6760;

· a principal certifying authority to be nominated and Council notified of that appointment prior to the commencement of any works;

· Council to be given at least two days written notice prior to the commencement of any works;

· mandatory inspections of nominated stages of the construction inspected; and

· an occupation certificate to be issued before occupying any building or commencing the use of the land.

Long Service Levy

In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, a ‘Long Service Levy’ must be paid to the Long Service Payments Corporation or Hornsby Council.

Note: The rate of the Long Service Levy is 0.35% of the total cost of the work.

Note: Hornsby Council requires the payment of the Long Service Levy prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Tree Preservation Order

Note: A tree is defined a s a single or multi-trunked wood perennial plant having a height of not less than three (3) metres, and which develops many branches, usually form a distance of not less than one (1) metre from the ground, but excluding any plant which, in its particular location, is a noxious plant declared as such pursuant to the Noxious Weeds Act 1993. This definition of ‘tree’ includes any and all types of Palm trees.

All distances are determined under Australian Standard AS4970-2009 “Protection of Trees on Development Sites”.

Fines may be imposed for non-compliance with Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

Dial Before You Dig

Asbestos Warning

Should asbestos or asbestos products be encountered during demolition or construction works, you are advised to seek advice and information prior to disturbing this material. It is recommended that a contractor holding an asbestos-handling permit (issued by WorkCover NSW) be engaged to manage the proper handling of this material. Further information regarding the safe handling and removal of asbestos can be found at:

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.adfa.org.au

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Alternatively, telephone the WorkCover Asbestos and Demolition Team on 8260 5885.

Date Lodged	Councillor/Designated Person (Position)	Reason for Lodgement
24 April 2013	Early Childhood Educator Acting Program Director	New designated person

1.View	HSC Borrowings Schedule as at 30 Apr 2013
2.View	HSC Investment Portfolio as at 30 Apr 2013

DA No:	DA/1318/2012 (Lodged 14 December 2012)
Description:	Erection of a Dwelling-House
Property:	Lot 4 Sec A DP 5527, 49 Brooklyn Road, Brooklyn
Applicant:	G E Hunt Architect
Owner:	Mrs Mathilde Frances Kearny-Kibble
Estimated Value:	$1,500,000
Ward:	A