Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 14 May 2013

Present:

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

Councillor J Pettett (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillor C Berlioz (St Ives Ward)

Councillors J Anderson & D Armstrong (Roseville Ward)

Councillor C Fornari-Orsmond (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (Greg Piconi)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Acting Director Strategy & Environment (Deborah Silva)

Acting Director Corporate (John Giovinazzo)

Acting Manager Finance (Angela Apostol)

Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan)

Governance Officer (Christie Spry)

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

113

APOLOGIES

File: S02194

Councillor Duncan McDonald tendered an apology for non-attendance [business commitment] and requested leave of absence.

Councillor David Ossip tendered an apology for non-attendance (family reasons) and requested leave of absence.

NOTE: The General Manager, John McKee and the Director Strategy and Environment, Andrew Watson, tendered apologies for non-attendance.

Resolved:

(Moved: CouncillorS Szatow/Fornari-Orsmond)

That the apologies by Councillors Duncan McDonald and David Ossip be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor David Citer declared a pecuniary conflict of interest in GB.1 - The Novus Foundation 2013 Gala Dinner (advised that he is the Manager of KYDS which is one of the beneficiaries of the Novus Dinner) and he will leave the Chamber during the debate and voting on the item.

Councillor Cheryl Szatow declared a pecuniary conflict of interest in GB.1 - The Novus Foundation 2013 Gala Dinner - (advised that she is a Councillor representative on the Board of KYDS which is a beneficiary of the Novus Dinner) and she will leave the Chamber during the debate and voting on the item.

Address the Council

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

R Younan

F Stuart

I Mahon

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Late Items:	Refer Minute No 102 of Ordinary Meeting of Council held 30 April 2013 - Planning Proposal to Reclassify Land for Relocation of Administration Services - Memorandum from Manager Records and Governance dated 10 May 2013 advising Councillors that he had re-checked the audio recording of the Council Meeting and that the Lost Amendment and Lost Foreshadowed Amendments within the Minute be amended.
Councillors Information:	Annual Report from NSW Government Planning and Infrastructure - Local Development Performance Monitoring 2011 - 2012 - Memorandum from Director Development and Regulation dated 7 May 2013 in answer to a Question Without Notice raised by Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 9 April 2013.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

114

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 30 April 2013

Minutes numbered 91 to 112

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Fornari-Orsmond)

That Minutes numbered 91 to 101 and 103 to 112 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting with the exception of Minute No 102 - Planning Proposal to Reclassify Land for Relocation of Administration Services.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

115

Planning Proposal to Reclassify Land for Relocation of Administration Services

File: S07252/4

Vide: Minute No 102

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Fornari-Orsmond)

That Minute No 102 of Ordinary Meeting of Council held 30 April 2013 be amended to read as follows:

A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared, in accordance with section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to reclassify and/or rezone the sites in the table below from Community land to Operational land either via an amendment the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO), draft
Ku-ring-gai Principal Local Environmental Plan 2013 (if gazetted in the interim) or the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP (2012) as appropriate:

Site	Property Address	Relevant Plan	Planning Action
1.	818 Pacific Highway, Gordon	KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
2.	2-4 Moree Street, Gordon	KLEP (Local centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
3.	Culworth Avenue Car Park, Killara	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
4.	2A Park Avenue, Gordon	KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
5.	4 Park Avenue, Gordon	KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
6.	19 Hughes Place, East Lindfield	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
7.	62 Pacific Highway, Roseville	KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
8.	27 Garrick Road, St Ives	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land and Rezone R2 Low Density Residential
9.	9 Eric Street, Wahroonga	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land and subdivide for sale as two lots
10.	56-58 Koola Avenue, East Killara	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal for reclassification and rezoning to R2 Low Density Residential
11.	97 Babbage Road, Roseville	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land and rezone to R2 Low Density Residential
12.	136A Morris Avenue/Junction Lane, Wahroonga	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land and rezone to R2 Low Density Residential
13.	Edith Street, Pymble (Between 74/76 Bannockburn Road)	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
14.	57 Merrivale Road, Pymble	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
15.	6A Peace Avenue, Pymble	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
16.	77A Bradfield Road, West Lindfield	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
17.	17 Marian Street, Killara	KPSO	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
18.	1186 Pacific Highway, Pymble	KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land
19.	1186 Pacific Highway, Pymble	KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	Initiate Planning Proposal to reclassify from Community land to Operational land

B. That Council undertake a public hearing under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 for the proposed reclassification of the sites in Table 1 from Community land to Operational land.

C. That where relevant, Council formally seeks to discharge all interests for the sites listed in Table 1.

D. That the Planning Proposal(s) be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

E. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination(s), the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.

F. That a report be brought back to Council at the end of the exhibition and public hearing processes.

G. That formal road closure application for the following sites be submitted to the Crown Lands Division, if required:

· Edith Street, Pymble (Between 74/76 Bannockburn Road) Being Closed Road;

H. That, upon issuance of the Certificates of Title from the Crown Lands Division the following land is classified as Operational Land:

· Edith Street, Pymble (Between 74/76 Bannockburn Road) Being Closed Road;

I. That, the General Manager be authorised to submitted a development application for subdivision of the lot into two building lots for the land known as 9 Eric Street, Wahroonga Being Lot 1 DP662194.

For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki, Councillors McDonald, Pettett, Fornari-Orsmond, Anderson and Ossip

Against the Resolution: Councillors Szatow, Armstrong, Citer and Berlioz

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

i. That Site 4, 2a Park Avenue (Gordon Community Preschool) be removed from the reclassification listing.

For the LOST Amendment: Councillors McDonald, Szatow, Armstrong, Citer and Berlioz

Against the LOST Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki, Councillors Pettett, Fornari-Orsmond, Anderson and Ossip

The voting being EQUAL,

the Mayor exercised her Casting Vote

ii. That Site 3, Culworth Avenue Car Park, Killara be removed from the reclassification listing.

For the LOST Amendment: Councillors Szatow, Citer and Berlioz

Against the LOST Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki, Councillors McDonald, Armstrong, Pettett, Fornari-Orsmond, Anderson and Ossip

iii. That site 14, 57 Merrivale Road, Pymble be removed from the reclassification listing.

For the LOST Amendment: Councillors McDonald, Szatow, Armstrong and Berlioz

Against the LOST Amendment: The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki, Councillors Citer, Pettett, Fornari-Orsmond, Anderson and Ossip

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

A Motion moved by

Councillors Armstrong and Berlioz

that a site inspection take place in relation to

GB.2 - 15 Normac Street, Roseville Chase

For the Motion: Councillors Szatow, Armstrong and Berlioz

Against the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki, Councillors Citer, Pettett, Fornari-Orsmond and Anderson

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as

the Motion when put to the vote was LOST

GENERAL BUSINESS

116

Draft Community Strategic Plan 'Our Community - Our Future' 2030

File: FY00382/5

Vide: GB.3

To place Council's Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Community – Our Future’ 2030 on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

A. That the report on the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Community - Our Future’ 2030, be received and noted.

B. That pursuant to Section 402 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Community - Our Future’ 2030, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days commencing Friday, 17 May 2013.

C. That the draft Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Community - Our Future’ 2030, be endorsed and sent to relevant NSW State Government agencies as part of the public exhibition process.

D. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the Community Strategic Plan ‘Our Community - Our Future’ 2030.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

117

Resourcing Strategy

File: FY00382/5

Vide: GB.4

To place Council's Resourcing Strategy incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Strategy on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Pettett)

A. That the report on Council’s Resourcing Strategy 2013 – 2017, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Strategy be received and noted.

B. That the principles and framework of the 10 Year LTFP as outlined in the Resourcing Strategy be adopted, provided that capital works related to the 2010 Contributions Plan are phased in accordance with the availability of revenue from sales of Council assets which fund these works as outlined in the report.

C. That Council’s 2013/2014 budget includes the following:

i) Reductions in debt servicing costs are restricted to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve and fully expended on Capital Works. This amounts to $335K.

ii) An amount of $308K transferred to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve, based on a Council policy to transfer funds to a former Building Reserve.

iii) An amount of $410K transferred to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve for Development Application Infrastructure Restoration Fees received.

iv) An amount of $323K transferred to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve for Street Advertising (bus shelters) receipts.

v) An amount of $2.5M transferred to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve for 15% of depreciation charge.

vi) Interest earned on the average balance of the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve be credited to that reserve.

vii) All asset sale revenue (except for 2010 Contribution Plan Asset Sales) is transferred to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve.

D. That Council endorse a total level of borrowing as outlined in this report as a maximum level.

E. That actual levels of borrowings will be determined in accordance with a dynamic Capital Management Strategy, as outlined in this report and in Council’s Resourcing Strategy that continuously re-assesses requirements.

F. That, in accordance with the capital management strategy, particular emphasis will be given to monitoring and estimating the working capital component so that any shortfall is made up by further borrowings (within the maximum permissible level) and any excess is transferred firstly to internal liability reserves where prudentially required, and then allocated to Council’s Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve.

G. That any estimated funds that remain, after all other resolutions of Council are incorporated into the LTFP, and would otherwise be credited to the Infrastructure and Facilities reserve, be expended on additional asset renewal strategy programs in order to address the gap between the required level of funding and that otherwise available. As the Asset Management Strategy is more fully developed, specific projects be identified that expends these funds in the most effective manner to address the asset renewal gap.

H. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the Resourcing Strategy 2013 – 2017, incorporating the Long Term Financial Plan, the Asset Management Strategy and the Workforce Strategy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

118

Report following Exhibition of Catchment Mapping Amendments to
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010

File: S05878

Vide: GB.6

To report back following the exhibition of mapping amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to ensure the catchment mapping boundaries accurately reflect all current environmental planning instruments.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Pettett)

A. That the amended maps be adopted and incorporated within the existing
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 and that all statutory procedures be carried out.

B. That any development application, the subject of a development consent issued after the gazettal of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 on 25 January 2013 and prior to the consequential mapping corrections in this resolution coming into effect, that has been levied contributions on the basis of a former zone that was not in effect at the time of consent, be invited to lodge a s96 request for modification to correct the anomaly.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Citer declared a pecuniary conflict of interest

in respect of the following item -

GB.1 - The Novus Foundation 2013 Gala Dinner

and withdrew from the Chamber taking no part

in discussion and voting on the item

Councillor Szatow declared a pecuniary conflict of interest

in respect of the following item -

GB.1 - The Novus Foundation 2013 Gala Dinner

and withdrew from the Chamber taking no part

in discussion and voting on the item

119

The Novus Foundation 2013 Gala Dinner

File: S05650

Vide: GB.1

To advise Council of a request from The Novus Foundation to purchase tickets for a Gala Dinner to be held at Miramare Gardens Function Centre, Terrey Hills on Saturday, 25 May 2013.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Anderson)

A. That Council determined to purchase tickets for The Novus Foundation Gala Dinner on 25 May 2013.

B. That any Councillors who would like to attend The Novus Foundation 2013 Gala Dinner advise the General Manager by Friday, 17 May 2013.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present

Councillor Citer returned

Councillor Szatow returned

120

15 Normac Street, Roseville Chase

File: DA0259/12

Vide: GB.2

The following member of the public addressed Council:

L Fletcher

To determine Development Application No. DA0259/12 for Demolition of an Existing Dwelling and Construction of a New Dwelling.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Fornari-Orsmond)

PURSUANT TO SECTION 80(1) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979

A. THAT Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the proposal includes works of a permanent character on land reserved for the purpose of County Open Space and in accordance with Clause 10(2) of the KPSO, the Council, as the responsible authority is of the opinion that the purpose for which the land is reserved cannot be carried into effect within a reasonable time after the appointed day, 1 October 1971.

AND

B. THAT Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to clause 46(2) – maximum height of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the objectives of the standard are achieved not withstanding the failure to achieve compliance with the development standard.

AND

C. THAT Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to DA0259/12 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA0259/12 for ‘demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling house including swimming pool and landscape works’ on land at 15 Normac Street Roseville Chase, for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions that identify approved plans:

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

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

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
01 – Site Plan	Paul Meyer Design	29/01/13
03 – Upper Ground Floor Level	Paul Meyer Design	29/01/13
04 – Middle Floor Level	Paul Meyer Design	29/01/13
05 – Lower Floor Level	Paul Meyer Design	29/01/13
06 – Elevation 1	Paul Meyer Design	29/01/13
07 – Elevation 2	Paul Meyer Design	29/01/13
LP01 Issue G – Landscape Plan	Site Design	21/03/13
C02.01 Revision E – Stormwater Drainage Plan	Abc Consultants	8/10/12
C02.02 Revision D – Stormwater Drainage Details	Abc Consultants	8/10/12

Document(s)	Dated
Proposed Exterior Colour Scheme	undated
Basix certificate No. 427299S_02	29/05/12
Bush fire risk assessment prepared by Planning For Bushfire Protection Pty Ltd	21/06/11
Landscape Plan certification prepared by Planning For Bushfire Protection Pty Ltd	20/09/12
Waste Management Plan	3/07/12
Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Douglas Partners	6/06/12

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

2. Inconsistency between documents

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

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

3. Approved landscape plans

Landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the following landscape plan(s), listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
LP01 Issue G	Site Design Pty Ltd	21/03/13

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

Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:

4. Road opening permit

The opening of any footway, roadway, road shoulder or any part of the road reserve shall not be carried out without a road opening permit being obtained from Council (upon payment of the required fee) beforehand.

Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.

5. Notice of commencement

At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

6. Notification of builder’s details

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

7. Dilapidation photos (public infrastructure)

Prior to the commencement of any works on site the applicant must submit to
Ku-ring-gai Council and the Principal Certifying Authority a photographic record on the visible condition of the existing public infrastructure over the full site frontage (in colour - preferably saved to cd-rom in ‘jpg’ format). The photos must include detail of:

· The existing footpath

· The existing kerb and gutter

· The existing full road surface between kerbs

· The existing verge area

· The existing driveway and layback where to be retained

· Any existing drainage infrastructure including pits, lintels, grates.

Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording any pre-developed damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development (which is not to be repaired by the Applicant as part of the development). The developer may be held liable to all damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded and demonstrated under the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of any works.

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

8. Access through public reserve not permitted

Access for construction purposes shall not be gained through the adjoining public reserve. Should no alternative access exist, an application for access to the construction site via the public reserve shall be submitted to Council for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of works.

Reason: To protect public reserves.

9. Construction and traffic management plan

The applicant must submit to Council a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), which is to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.

The plan is to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.

The report is to contain commitments which must be followed by the demolition and excavation contractor, builder, owner and subcontractors. The CTMP applies to all persons associated with demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

The report is to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.

The report is to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for an 11 metre long heavy rigid vehicle.

The Traffic Control Plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One must be provided for each of the following stages of the works:

o Demolition

o Excavation

o Concrete pour

o Construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath

o Traffic control for vehicles reversing into or out of the site.

Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users.

When a satisfactory CTMP is received, a letter of approval will be issued with conditions attached. Traffic management at the site must comply with the approved CTMP as well as any conditions in the letter issued by Council. Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines may be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction process in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.

10. Erosion and drainage management

Earthworks and/or demolition of any existing buildings shall not commence until an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan shall comply with the guidelines set out in the NSW Department of Housing manual "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction" certificate. Erosion and sediment control works shall be implemented in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.

11. Bushland protection fencing

To preserve the adjoining bushland reserve, no work shall commence until the following area is fenced off to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.

Schedule

Tree/Location

Radius in metres

Trees within the adjoining Council reserve

/ Adjacent to the northern side boundary of the property

The fence shall be erected along the northern side boundary extending from RL8.00 contour to RL10.00 contour.

Reason: To preserve the natural environment during the construction phase.

12. Bushland protective fencing type galvanised mesh

The tree protection fencing shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metre spacing and connected by securely attached chain mesh fencing to a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height prior to work commencing.

Reason: To protect existing trees during construction phase.

13. Fencing inspection

Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority is required to verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

14. Boundary fence adjoining a reserve

A permanent, 1.5 metres high, cyclone wire (or similar) boundary fence, shall be constructed along the common boundary (from RL8.00 contour to RL10.00 contour) with the adjoining reserve to the north-west of the site prior to any work commencing.

Reason: To protect the adjoining reserve.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:

15. Approval for wastewater management system

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that the applicant has obtained a Section 68 approval from Ku-ring-gai Council to operate the pump-out sewage system.

Reason: To maintain health and amenity

16. Deed of release

The landowner enter into a deed of release with the acquisition authority prohibiting the landowner and their successors in title from claiming compensation for the works associated with this development consent prior to the issue of a construction certificate to the extent that the works increase the value of the land and its improvements over and above its present value.

Reason: Department of Planning requirement.

17. Amendments to approved landscape plan

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

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
LP01 Issue G	Site Design Pty Ltd	21/03/13

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

· The existing hedge of Cupressocyparis x leylandii (Leyland Cypress) planted within the garden area on the southern side of the new dwelling shall be removed as they will impede the new landscaping proposal.

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the landscape plan has been amended are required by this condition.

Note: An amended plan, prepared by a landscape architect or qualified landscape designer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate landscaping of the site

18. Long service levy

In accordance with Section 109F(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act a Construction Certificate shall not be issued until any long service levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or where such levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) has been paid. Council is authorised to accept payment. Where payment has been made elsewhere, proof of payment is to be provided to Council.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

19. Builder’s indemnity insurance

The applicant, builder, developer or person who does the work on this development, must arrange builder’s indemnity insurance and submit the certificate of insurance in accordance with the requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 to the Certifying Authority for endorsement of the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate.

It is the responsibility of the applicant, builder or developer to arrange the builder's indemnity insurance for residential building work over the value of $20,000. The builder's indemnity insurance does not apply to commercial or industrial building work or to residential work valued at less than $20,000, nor to work undertaken by persons holding an owner/builder's permit issued by the Department of Fair Trading (unless the owner/builder's property is sold within 7 years of the commencement of the work).

Reason: Statutory requirement.

20. Landscape plan

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a landscape plan has been completed in accordance with Council’s DA Guide, relevant development control plans and the conditions of consent by a Landscape Architect or qualified Landscape Designer.

Note: The Landscape Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate landscaping of the site.

21. Utility provider requirements

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):

22. Infrastructure restorations fee

To ensure that damage to Council Property as a result of construction activity is rectified in a timely matter:

a) All work or activity taken in furtherance of the development the subject of this approval must be undertaken in a manner to avoid damage to Council Property and must not jeopardise the safety of any person using or occupying the adjacent public areas.

b) The applicant, builder, developer or any person acting in reliance on this approval shall be responsible for making good any damage to Council Property, and for the removal from Council Property of any waste bin, building materials, sediment, silt, or any other material or article.

c) The Infrastructure Restoration Fee must be paid to the Council by the applicant prior to both the issue of the Construction Certificate and the commencement of any earthworks or construction.

d) In consideration of payment of the Infrastructure Restorations Fee, Council will undertake such inspections of Council Property as Council considers necessary and also undertake, on behalf of the applicant, such restoration work to Council Property, if any, that Council considers necessary as a consequence of the development. The provision of such restoration work by the Council does not absolve any person of the responsibilities contained in (a) to (b) above. Restoration work to be undertaken by the Council referred to in this condition is limited to work that can be undertaken by Council at a cost of not more than the Infrastructure Restorations Fee payable pursuant to this condition.

e) In this condition:

“Council Property” includes any road, footway, footpath paving, kerbing, guttering, crossings, street furniture, seats, letter bins, trees, shrubs, lawns, mounds, bushland, and similar structures or features on any road or public road within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) or any public place; and

“Infrastructure Restoration Fee” means the Infrastructure Restorations Fee calculated in accordance with the Schedule of Fees & Charges adopted by Council as at the date of payment and the cost of any inspections required by the Council of Council Property associated with this condition.

Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.

23. Rural Fire Service requirements

Water and utilities

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

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

Design and construction

The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

2. New construction on the northwest elevation(s) shall comply with section 9 (BAL FZ) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas'. However, where any material, element of construction or system when tested to the method described in Australian Standard AS1530.8.2 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structures’ Part 8.2: ‘Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack—Large flaming sources’, it shall comply with Clause 13.8 of the Standard except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber.

3. Window assemblies on the northwest elevation(s) shall comply with one of the following:

a) Clause 9.5.2 of AS 3959-2009 as modified above; or

b) They shall comply with the following:

(i) Completely protected by a non-combustible and non perforated shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS3959-2009 excluding parts (e) & (f).

(ii) Window frames and hardware shall be metal.

(iii) Glazing shall be toughened glass minimum 6mm.

(iv) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index no greater than 5 or from silicone.

(v) The openable portion of the window shall be screened internally or externally with screens that comply with Clause 9.5.1A.

4. External Doors and door frames (not including garage doors) on the northwest elevation(s) shall comply with one of the following:

a) Clause 9.5.3 or 9.5.4 of AS 3959-2009 as modified above; or

b) They shall comply with the following:

(i) Completely protected by a non-combustible and non perforated shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS3959-2009 excluding parts (e) & (f).

(ii) Doors shall be non-combustible.

(iii) Externally fitted hardware that supports the panel in its function of opening and closing shall be metal.

(iv) Where doors incorporate glazing, the glazing shall be toughened glass minimum 6mm.

(v) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index no greater than 5 or from silicone.

(vi) Door frames shall be metal.

(vii) Doors shall be tight fitting to the doorframe and to an abutting door if applicable.

(viii) Weather strips, draught excluders or draught seals shall be installed at the base of side-hung external doors.

5. New construction on the northeast, southeast and southwest elevation(s) shall comply with section 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas'.

General advice

Roofing shall be gutterless or guttering and valleys are to be screened to prevent the build up of flammable material. Any materials used shall be non-combustible.

Reason: Conditions imposed by the Rural Fire Service under Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

24. Bush fire risk assessment and conditions

Bush fire protection measures shall be carried out in accordance with the following bush fire risk assessment listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp and all bush fire conditions:

Document title	Prepared by	Dated
Bush fire risk assessment	Planning For Bushfire Protection Pty Ltd	21/06/11

Prior to the issue of the construction certificate, the principal certifying authority must be satisfied that the construction certificate is in accordance with the recommendations of the report listed above and all bush fire conditions.

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

25. Conditions to be satisfied during the demolition, excavation and construction phases:

Prescribed conditions

The applicant shall comply with any relevant prescribed conditions of development consent under clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the following conditions are prescribed in relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work:

· The work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia

· In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any works commence.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

26. Hours of work

Demolition, excavation, construction work and deliveries of building material and equipment must not take place outside the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12 noon Saturday. No work and no deliveries are to take place on Sundays and public holidays.

Excavation or removal of any materials using machinery of any kind, including compressors and jack hammers, must be limited to between 7.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday, with a respite break of 45 minutes between 12 noon 1.00pm.

Where it is necessary for works to occur outside of these hours (ie) placement of concrete for large floor areas on large residential/commercial developments or where building processes require the use of oversized trucks and/or cranes that are restricted by the RTA from travelling during daylight hours to deliver, erect or remove machinery, tower cranes, pre-cast panels, beams, tanks or service equipment to or from the site, approval for such activities will be subject to the issue of an "outside of hours works permit" from Council as well as notification of the surrounding properties likely to be affected by the proposed works.

Note: Failure to obtain a permit to work outside of the approved hours will result in on the spot fines being issued.

Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.

27. Availability of car parking

During construction of the development a minimum of 20 on site car parking spaces are to be available for the exclusive use of marina patrons. Vehicles associated with the construction of the development are not to be parked in the 20 on site spaces that are to be made available for the exclusive use of marina patrons.

Reason: To ensure that construction of the development does not have an adverse impact on the local road network.

28. Approved plans to be on site

A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.

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

29. Site notice

A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works period.

The site notice must:

· be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the site for the purposes of informing the public that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

· display project details including, but not limited to the details of the builder, Principal Certifying Authority and structural engineer

· be durable and weatherproof

· display the approved hours of work, the name of the site/project manager, the responsible managing company (if any), its address and 24 hour contact phone number for any inquiries, including construction/noise complaint are to be displayed on the site notice

· be mounted at eye level on the perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

30. Dust control

During excavation, demolition and construction, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent dust from affecting the amenity of the neighbourhood. The following measures must be adopted:

· physical barriers shall be erected at right angles to the prevailing wind direction or shall be placed around or over dust sources to prevent wind or activity from generating dust

· earthworks and scheduling activities shall be managed to coincide with the next stage of development to minimise the amount of time the site is left cut or exposed

· all materials shall be stored or stockpiled at the best locations

· the ground surface should be dampened slightly to prevent dust from becoming airborne but should not be wet to the extent that run-off occurs

· all vehicles carrying spoil or rubble to or from the site shall at all times be covered to prevent the escape of dust

· all equipment wheels shall be washed before exiting the site using manual or automated sprayers and drive-through washing bays

· gates shall be closed between vehicle movements and shall be fitted with shade cloth

· cleaning of footpaths and roadways shall be carried out daily

Reason: To protect the environment and amenity of surrounding properties.

31. Further geotechnical input

The geotechnical and hydro-geological works implementation, inspection, testing and monitoring program for the excavation and construction works must be in accordance with the report by Douglas Partners dated 6 June 2012. Over the course of the works, a qualified geotechnical engineer/ engineering geologist must complete the following:

· further geotechnical investigations and testing recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary

· further monitoring and inspection at the hold points recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary

· written report(s) including certification(s) of the geotechnical inspection, testing and monitoring programs

Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.

32. Compliance with submitted geotechnical report

A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee excavation.

Geotechnical aspects of the development work, namely:

· appropriate excavation method and vibration control

· support and retention of excavated faces

· hydro-geological considerations

must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Douglas Partners dated 6 June 2012. Approval must be obtained from all affected property owners, including Ku-ring-gai Council, where rock anchors (both temporary and permanent) are proposed below adjoining property(ies).

Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.

33. Toilet facilities

During excavation, demolition and construction phases, toilet facilities are to be provided, on the work site, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

34. Recycling of building material (general)

During demolition and construction, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that building materials suitable for recycling have been forwarded to an appropriate registered business dealing in recycling of materials. Materials to be recycled must be kept in good order.

Reason: To facilitate recycling of materials.

35. Road reserve safety

All public footways and roadways fronting and adjacent to the site must be maintained in a safe condition at all times during the course of the development works. Construction materials must not be stored in the road reserve. A safe pedestrian circulation route and a pavement/route free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to any public access ways fronting the construction site. Where public infrastructure is damaged, repair works must be carried out when and as directed by Council officers. Where pedestrian circulation is diverted on to the roadway or verge areas, clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with AS1742-3 (1996) “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained across the site frontage, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may undertake proceedings to stop work.

Reason: To ensure safe public footways and roadways during construction.

36. Services

Where required, the adjustment or inclusion of any new utility service facilities must be carried out by the applicant and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant utility authority. These works shall be at no cost to Council. It is the applicants’ full responsibility to make contact with the relevant utility authorities to ascertain the impacts of the proposal upon utility services (including water, phone, gas and the like). Council accepts no responsibility for any matter arising from its approval to this application involving any influence upon utility services provided by another authority.

Reason: Provision of utility services.

37. Treatment of tree roots

If tree roots are required to be severed for the purposes of constructing the approved works, they shall be cut cleanly by hand, by an experienced Arborist/Horticulturist with a minimum qualification of Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 – Pruning of Amenity Trees.

Reason: To protect existing trees.

38. Approved tree works

Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:

Schedule
Tree/Location	Approved tree works
Tree 20 – Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese tree) / Within the dwelling footprint	Remove
Tree 21 – Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / Southern side of dwelling	Remove
Tree 23.1 – Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) / Southern garden area	Remove

Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

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

39. No storage of materials beneath trees

No activities, storage or disposal of materials shall take place beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council's Tree Preservation Order at any time.

Reason: To protect existing trees.

40. Removal of refuse

All builders' refuse, spoil and/or material unsuitable for use in landscape areas shall be removed from the site on completion of the building works.

Reason: To protect the environment.

41. Canopy replenishment trees to be planted

The canopy replenishment trees to be planted shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition until they attain a height of 5.0 metres whereby they will be protected by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Any of the trees found faulty, damaged, dying or dead shall be replaced with the same species.

Reason: To maintain the treed character of the area.

42. On site retention of waste dockets

All demolition, excavation and construction waste dockets are to be retained on site, or at suitable location, in order to confirm which facility received materials generated from the site for recycling or disposal.

· Each docket is to be an official receipt from a facility authorised to accept the material type, for disposal or processing.

· This information is to be made available at the request of an Authorised Officer of Council.

Reason: To protect the environment.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate:

43. Sydney Water approval

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that Sydney Water has given approval to the disposal of sewerage and pool backwash to the main in accordance with the Section 68 approval issued by Ku-ring-gai Council.

Reason: To maintain health and amenity.

44. Consolidation of allotments

Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that the three allotments which form the property known as 15 Normac Street Roseville Chase (Lot 91 DP 13450, Lot 92 DP 13450 and Lot 93 DP 13450) have been consolidated into one allotment and that the plan of consolidation has been registered with the Department of Lands:

Reason: To ensure that the development of the site is undertaken in an orderly manner and that the configuration of the site reflects its current use.

45. Compliance with BASIX Certificate

Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate No. 427299S_02 have been complied with.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

46. Completion of landscape works

Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.

47. Retention and re-use positive covenant

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the applicant must create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the site stormwater retention and re-use facilities on the property.

The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instruments for protection of retention and re-use facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to appendices of Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the reuse and retention facility, in relation to the building footprint, must be shown on a scale sketch, attached as an annexure to the request forms.

Registered title documents showing the covenants and restrictions must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To protect the environment.

48. Provision of copy of OSD designs if Council is not the PCA

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the following must be provided to Council’s Development Engineer:

· a copy of the approved Construction Certificate stormwater detention/retention design for the site

· A copy of any works-as-executed drawings required by this consent

· The Engineer’s certification of the as-built system.

Reason: For Council to maintain its database of as-constructed on-site stormwater detention systems.

49. Certification of drainage works (new single dwellings)

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:

· the stormwater drainage works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans

· the minimum retention and on-site detention volume storage requirements of BASIX and Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47, respectively, have been achieved in full

· retained water is connected and available for use

· the drainage system has been installed by a licensed contractor in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Code AS3500.3 (2003) and the Building Code of Australia

· all enclosed floor areas, including habitable and garage floor levels, are safeguarded from outside stormwater runoff ingress by suitable differences in finished levels, gradings and provision of stormwater collection devices

The rainwater certification sheet contained in Appendix 13 of Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47, must be completed and attached to the certification. Where an on-site detention system has been constructed, the on-site detention certification sheet contained at appendix 4 of DCP 47 must also be completed and attached to the certification.

Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To protect the environment.

50. Infrastructure repair

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that any damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council Development Engineer and at no cost to Council.

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

51. Swimming pool (part 1)

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that:

1. Access to the pool/spa shall be restricted by a child resistant barrier in accordance with the regulations prescribed in the Swimming Pools Act, 1992:

(a) The pool shall not be filled with water or be allowed to collect stormwater until the child resistant barrier is installed; and

(b) The barrier is to conform to the requirements of AS 1926-1 2007 Fences and Gates for Private Swimming Pools.

Reason: To ensure the safety of children.

2. Any mechanical equipment associated with the swimming pool and/or spa pool shall be located in a sound-attenuating enclosure and positioned so that it is setback a minimum of 2m from the boundary of any adjoining premises. The Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the sound levels associated with the swimming pool/spa filtration system and associated mechanical equipment do not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level at the boundaries of the site.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

52. Pool overflow to sewer

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate a high level overflow pipe is to be provided from the back of the skimmer box to the filter backwash line discharging to the sewer. This line must not directly vent the receiving Sydney Water sewer. This requirement is to collect stormwater overflow from the swimming pool surface only. A certificate from the installer, indicating compliance with this condition, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To provide satisfactory drainage.

53. Compliance with bush fire assessment report and conditions

Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all recommendations listed in the bush fire risk assessment and any conditions regarding bush fire protection have been complied with:

Document title	Prepared by	Dated
Bush fire risk assessment	Planning For Bushfire Protection Pty Ltd	21/06/11

Reason: Statutory requirement.

Conditions to be satisfied at all times:

54. Wastewater management

Wastewater management for the residence is to be installed and operated in accordance with the separate approval granted by Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act.

Reason: To maintain health and amenity.

55. Compliance with bush fire assessment, report and certificate

In accordance with the recommendations listed in the bush fire risk assessment and report below, all on going recommendations must be complied with at all times.

Document title	Prepared by	Dated
Bush fire risk assessment	Planning For Bushfire Protection Pty Ltd	21/06/11

Reason: To protect against bush fire.

56. Swimming pool (part 2)

At all times:

1. Access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as required by the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

2. Noise levels associated with spa/pool pumping units shall not exceed 5dB(A) at the boundaries of the site.

3. Devices or structures used for heating swimming pool water must not be placed where they are visible from a public place.

4. For the purpose of health and amenity, the disposal of backwash and/or the emptying of a swimming pool into a reserve, watercourse, easement or storm water drainage system is prohibited. These waters are to discharge via a permanent drainage line into Sydney Water's sewer in accordance with Australian Standard AS3500.2 section 10.9. Permission is to be obtained from Sydney Water prior to the emptying of any pool to the sewer.

5. Lighting from the swimming pool and other communal facilities shall not detrimentally impact the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings.

Reason: Health and amenity.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MOTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

121	Interpretive Signage - Firs Estate Cottage, Roseville Park File: S06604/2 Vide: NM.1
	The following member of the public addressed Council: B Walker
	Notice of Motion from Councillor Jennifer Anderson dated 30 April 2013 Firs Estate Cottage is located within Roseville Park, Clanville Road, Roseville, is owned by Ku-ring-gai Council and is a listed heritage item. It is currently leased and operates as Sous le Soleil Cafe. The following historical summary is taken from the Firs Estate Conservation Management Plan. (Rod Howard Heritage Conservation Pty Ltd, 1999): "The land on which the Firs Estate Cottage and its environs is located was once part of a 400 acre property granted to Daniel Dering Mathew (1788-1856) in 1819 who was reported to be the first trained architect to reach Australia. The property became known as "Clanville". Mathew sold the property to Richard Archbold (1791-1836) in 1824. Ownership was to pass through many members of the Archbold family until in 1850 when the land was divided between Archbold's children. It is not known when the first part of the Firs Estate Cottage was constructed, although it has been estimated to be in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The property was eventually sold to the Fowler family in 1905 where the cottage became a permanent residence for some of the family members. In 1918 the Council of the Shire of Ku-ring-gai purchased part of the estate to form a large part of what is now known as Roseville Park. Council has owned the Firs Estate Cottage continuously since this period, and at one time it served as a caretaker’s cottage." Local resident group, the Archbold Estate Inc. is keen to see interpretive signage at the site, in order to provide information to the public about its historical significance. The early parts of the cottage may be the oldest surviving building in Ku-ring-gai. The Archbold Estate Inc. has indicated it is willing to provide a financial contribution towards the signage. Council officers have indicated that a resolution of Council would be required to progress the matter. I move: "That Council support the concept of erecting interpretive signage on the history of Firs Estate Cottage at the site and that Council officers progress this by entering into discussions with the Archbold Estate Inc., obtaining quotes and providing a report back to Council for consideration. The lease holders, Sous le Soleil, be apprised of the proposal."
	Resolved: (Moved: Councillors Anderson/Armstrong) That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS (cont)

122

Draft Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Draft Operational Plan 2013-2014

File: FY00382/5

Vide: GB.5

To place Council's draft Delivery Program 2013-2017 and draft Operational Plan 2013-2014, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2013-2014, on public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Armstrong)

A. That the report on Council’s draft Delivery Program 2013-2017 and draft Operational Plan 2013-2014, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2013-2014, be received and noted.

B. That Council gives notice of its intention, should IPART approve Council's application for a special rate variation for the five year infrastructure levy program, to:

(i) Make and levy an ordinary rate to comprise a minimum rate and ad valorem rating structure for both Residential and Business categories, make and levy a special rate to comprise an ad valorem with a zero base rate for Environmental and New Facilities categories and make and levy a special rate to comprise an ad valorem with a $280 base charge for an infrastructure category.

(ii) Increase its rate income by the maximum 8.4% approved by IPART.

(iii) Future rates (other than special rate variations) are levied as 59% General and 41% Infrastructure levy, with the Infrastructure levy consisting of a 50% base charge component.

(iv) That the voluntary pensioner rebate be granted to all eligible pensioners as a flat percentage of 11% of total rates and charges in 2013-2014.

C. That Council gives notice of its intention, should IPART not approve Council's application for a special rate variation for the five year infrastructure levy program, to:

(ii) Increase its rate income by the maximum 3.4% approved by IPART.

(iii) Future rates (other than special rate variations) are levied as 54% General and 46% Infrastructure levy, with the Infrastructure levy consisting of a 50% base charge component.

(iv) That the voluntary pensioner rebate be granted to all eligible pensioners as a flat percentage of 8% of total rates and charges in 2013-2014.

D. That pursuant to Sections 404 and 405 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the draft Delivery Program 2013-2017, and draft Operational Plan 2013-2014, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2013-2014, as amended, be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days commencing Friday, 17 May 2013.

E. That following public exhibition, a further report be submitted to Council for the adoption of the draft Delivery Program 2013-2017, and draft Operational Plan 2013-2014, incorporating the Budget, Capital Works Program and Fees and Charges for 2013-2014.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given (cont)

123

Tree Works Review Application - 12 Wellesley Road, Pymble

File: EM00003/51

Vide: NM.2

Notice of Motion from Councillor David Ossip dated 3 May 2013

Council is in receipt of a Tree Works Review Application RMTR13/01938 for removal of one Sequoia Sempervirens at 12 Wellesley Road, Pymble. This follows an earlier refusal by Council.

The applicant has submitted the review application with additional technical information from consultants to augment the previous application. Issues of public safety have been raised in the application.

I move:

"1. That Council officers provide a report with recommendations to an Ordinary Meeting of Council so that full Council can determine the application.

2. That a site inspection of the tree be organised for Councillors."

Motion:

(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Fornari-Orsmond)

That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.

For the Resolution: Councillors Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Anderson

Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor E Malicki, Councillors Armstrong, Citer, Pettett and Berlioz

No decision was taken in respect of the above matter as

the Motion when put to the vote was LOST

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

(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/Anderson

A. That Council officers provide a report with recommendations to an Ordinary Meeting of Council so that full Council can determine the application.

B. That a site inspection of the tree be organised; and

C. That this Notice of Motion only be applied if the staff recommendation is for refusal of permission to remove the tree.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

124

Impact of the Carbon Tax

File: S09292

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond

I note in GB.5 the report mentions the 'impact of the carbon tax' - depending on the outcome of the Federal Election, would Council anticipate a reduction of costs to Council?

If so, could there be potential reductions to the Ku-ring-gai Council ratepayers?

Answer by Acting Director Strategy and Environment

This afternoon I sent an IPART document to all Councillors in relation to the decisions of the potential impact of the carbon tax. I haven't had the opportunity to review that document as I only received that today myself, so I am happy to take that on notice and find out what the actual impacts will or won't be. The IPART document actually refers to the whole local government area not just Council's facilities.

125

Barometer of Dwelling Yields on Council's Website

File: S03624

Vide: QN.2

Question Without Notice from Councillor Christiane Berlioz

With regard to a question put to Director of Strategy at the Ordinary Meeting of Council four weeks ago, when will the barometer of increase dwelling numbers approved and dwellings constructed since 2004 be made available and put up on Council website?

Answer by Manager Corporate Communications

It is still being updated at this time but it will be going back up.

126

Queen Elizabeth Tennis Courts Cleaning

File: S02946

Vide: QN.3

Question Without Notice from Councillor David Armstrong

Can there be any meeting organised with the gentleman who spoke earlier regarding the issues?

Answer by Director Operations

Normally, with a Question Without Notice, it relates to coming back with some information but more than happy to arrange a meeting with the tennis coach and my relevant staff and also the staff from Community in regards to all the activities and what we can do and things like that as well. I will have to send an invitation to see what time is suitable to every one.

127

Queen Elizabeth Tennis Courts - Maintenance

File: S02946

Vide: QN.4

Question Without Notice from Councillor Jennifer Anderson

Would the Director of Operations please advise Council regarding Mr Younan's comments that the Queen Elizabeth Tennis Court toilets have not been cleaned since July 2012 and apprise Council of maintenance works undertaken at the facility by Council at the location over recent years?

Answer by Director Operations

Happy to provide a memo to the Councillors on that matter.

The Meeting closed at 8pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 14 May 2013 (Pages 1 - 34) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 28 May 2013.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

Land & Environment Court Costs 2009/2010 - 2012/2013
2009/2010* (54 appeals lodged)	$1,445,394	$217,726	$368,642	$264,137	$594,899
2010/2011* (38 appeals lodged)	$1,297,458	$333,219	$271,232	$256,486	$436,521
2011/2012* (33 appeals lodged)	$1,396,006	$183,714	$314,271	$333,656	$564,365
2012/2013 (23 appeals lodged)	$675,122	$172,245	$322,751	$180,126

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 28 May 2013	GB.8 / 121

Item GB.8	DA0321/12
	20 May 2013

development application

Summary Sheet

Report title:	Subdivision of 21 lots into 26 lots including roadworks and service infrastructure over former B2 lands at South Turramurra
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.8

application No:	DA0321/12
Property Details:	25, 25A, 27, 37, 41 & 45 Barwon Avenue, Nos. 17, 17A, 19 & 21 Chisholm Street, No. 13 Lyon Avenue and unformed portions of Hall Street, Barwon Avenue and Warners Avenue. Lots 10-12, DP 1167303 (unformed roads), Lots 19 & 20, DP 16578, Lot 21, DP 455668, Lots 43- 46, DP 455669, Lots 1-3, DP 746618, Lot 1, DP 847214 (unformed road), Lot 74, DP 216500, Lots 47-50, DP 455669, and Lots 1-2, DP 840228. Site area: 3.71 hectares Zoning: Part 2(c) and part unzoned under KPSO
Ward:	Comenarra
Proposal/Purpose:	Subdivision of 21 allotments, into 26 residential allotments and 1 allotment for public open space, reconstruction of a creek and wetland system with ancillary landscaping, construction of three roads and associated infrastructure.
Type of Consent:	Integrated
Applicant:	Aver Pty Ltd
Owner:	Ku-ring-gai Council & NSW State Government
Date Lodged:	8 August 2012
Recommendation:	Approval.

Purpose of Report

To determine development application No. DA0321/12 for the subdivision of South Turramurra Road Corridor, currently comprised of 21 allotments, into 26 residential allotments and 1 allotment for public open space (to contain riparian land), reconstruction of a creek and wetland system with ancillary landscaping, construction of three roads and associated infrastructure

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for subdivision of 21 existing allotments that form part of the abandoned South Turramurra Road Corridor into 26 residential allotments and one allotment for public open space, reconstruction of a creek and wetland system with ancillary landscaping, construction of three roads and associate infrastructure.

The site has been assessed by consultant ecologists and an arborist and it has been determined that the site does not contain any vegetation, habitat, communities or species of significance and contains no threatened or endangered species. An assessment of the proposed rerouting and revegetation of the creek shows that the proposal can be supported from an ecological assessment viewpoint for these reasons and that the works are likely to improve the habitat value of the land.

The proposed design of the subdivision is supported, providing appropriately designed roads and infrastructure (including drainage infrastructure) that will provide adequately for the proposed allotments. The design of the allotments, whilst limited by the orientation of Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street, is reasonable and will provide for an acceptable level of amenity for future residents.

The variation to the 929m² minimum allotment size proposed for the majority of the allotments is supported in this instance due to the significant number of allotments in the vicinity which are also smaller than this size and as the allotments are capable of supporting future development which would comply with DCP 38 and would be characteristic of the area. The number of allotments which vary from the control is also supported due to the significant public benefit being provided by way of the public reserve and for this reason it is not considered that supporting the SEPP 1 objection will set an unacceptable precedent for other development to breach this control.

Eighteen submissions were received in response to the notification of the application and were given due consideration in the assessment of this application. Where the concerns raised were supported they have been addressed either by amendment to the plan or by recommended conditions of consent.

For these reasons the proposed development is recommended for deferred commencement consent.

History

Site

The site was previously part of the South Turrumarra Road corridor, a project which has been abandoned. As such, the site has been unused for a number of years. The Minister’s land was rezoned to Residential 2(c) under LEP 201 on 13 January 2006. The Council owned portions of the site were reclassified from community land to operational land on 30 March 2012 under LEP 216. The unformed portions of Hall Street and Warner Avenue were also rezoned to 2(c) Residential under the provisions of the KPSO.

In order to guide the development of the site, Council adopted DCP 58 – South Turramurra Corridor on 24 July 2012.

Pre-DA

No pre-DA consultation was undertaken by the applicant.

DA History

8 August 2012 The application was lodged.

23 August 2012 A consultant town planner was engaged to assess application.

21 September

& 22 October 2012 The application was notified to owners of surrounding properties.

4 October 2012 Initial letter requesting additional information was sent to the applicant, which also contained a ‘stop the clock’ advice. This letter sought information about whether the application was a ‘Crown Application and sought a constraints plan, a Species Impact Statement (SIS), details of offsets for the identified Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) that was to be removed and clarification of the extent of cut and fill, the Asset Protection Zones (APZ) proposed and the archaeological assessment.

10 October 2012 A consultant ecologist engaged to assess application

15 October 2012 The Rural Fire Service (RFS) comments received, requesting more information on the ongoing management of the APZ on future Council land.

17 October 2012 A consultant arborist was engaged to assess application

31 October 2012 Additional information was received from applicant, including SIS.

1 November 2012 Confirmation was provided by the applicant that the application was not a Crown Application.

22 November 2012 General Terms of Approval (GTAs) were issued by the Office of Water.

5 December 2012 An initial assessment was completed and a letter was sent to the applicant advising of concerns with the application and of additional information/clarification required.

Concerns were raised in relation to the level of information contained in the Arborist Report, with a significant number of trees onsite not addressed and no specific recommendations in relation to the protection of trees given the design of the proposal. Concern was also raised as to the identification of a number of trees and the lack of consideration of the desirability of retaining semi-mature trees. Further, concern was raised that no assessment had been made of the impact upon trees of the proposed APZ, the impact upon trees to be retained due to wind forces and upon trees in neighbouring properties.

Concerns were raised at the level of information provided in the Flora and Fauna Assessment Report, particularly in relation to the potential for Threatened Species to be found on the site, the extent of surveys undertaken, the analyses and conclusion in relation to the presence onsite of an EEC (Coastal Upland Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion), the lack of testing for the potential for other EECs onsite such as Duffys Forest Ecological Community and the need for additional work to be carried out.

Concerns were raised in relation to the design and extent of information for the engineering works, in particular having regard to the potential for downstream flooding, the need to relocate existing easements, the location of the rainwater tank, the need to clarify the design details, the need to clarify the stormwater treatment for a number of proposed lots, details in relation to the road design, identification of how some lots will be serviced for garbage collection and clarification of the geotechnical report and environmental site assessment.

Concerns were raised with the design of the subdivision, in particular having regard to the number of undersized allotments and the extent of the breach of the minimum lot size standard, the need for proposed Lot 28 (which had no planning purpose), the length of Road 2 (which appeared unnecessarily long), the proposed front setback covenant dimensions, the inappropriate provision of APZ on land to be dedicated to Council rather than on the private land which is being protected and the potential conflict between the APZ and the trees to be retained on some lots.

15 January 2013 A meeting was held with the applicant to discuss potential redesign options to address planning concerns.

9 April 2013 Amended plans were lodged, together with additional information in response to the matters raised in the letter of 5 December 2012. The amended plans made the following changes from the original plans and provided additional information. The amended proposal is described in detail in the section of the report headed “The Proposal” and is the subject of this assessment:

· Deletion of Lot 28

· Reduction in the length of Road 2

· Increases in the dimensions of the front setback covenant

· Increases in the area of allotments fronting Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street and some reductions in the area of allotments fronting proposed Road 2

· Widening of Lot 24 and provision of APZ largely within proposed residential lots

17 April 2013 A letter was sent to the applicant advising that the Flora and Fauna report remained unsatisfactory and that the methodology used to determine whether the site contained an EEC was of concern as it did not appear to comply with the final determination for Coastal Upland Swamp. The applicant was asked to review the findings of the ecologist peer reviewing the application and to justify the position of the applicant’s ecologist having regard to that review.

29 April 2013 The applicant confirmed that the applicant’s ecologist did not agree with the views of the ecologist peer reviewing the application and, as such, the original position would stand.

1 May 2013 Discussions with Office of Environment and Heritage resulted in suggestion of review by a third ecologist.

2 May 2013 Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer indicated his opinion that the site did not contain an EEC .

20 May 2013 The request for concurrence from the Office of Environment and Heritage was withdrawn.

The Site

Site description

The site is a large, irregular shaped, site comprised of 21 allotments, including 4 lots that form components of unformed road reserves and is located between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue, South Turramurra, with the majority of the site being to the south of Warners Avenue. The site is known as Nos. 25, 25A, 27, 37, 41 & 45 Barwon Avenue, Nos. 17, 17A, 19 & 21 Chisholm Street, No. 13 Lyon Avenue and unformed portions of Hall Street, Barwon Avenue and Warners Avenue. The site is legally described as Lots 10- 12, DP 1167303 (unformed roads), Lots 19 & 20, DP 16578, Lot 21, DP 455668, Lots 43- 46, DP 455669, Lots 1-3, DP 746618, Lot 1, DP 847214 (unformed road), Lot 74, DP 216500, Lots 47-50, DP 455669, and Lots 1-2, DP 840228.

The site has a frontage to Barwon Avenue of approximately 280m, a frontage to Chisholm Street of approximately 140.6m, an irregular southern boundary of approximately 187.3, an irregular northern boundary of approximately 278.9m and a site area of 3.71 hectares. The site generally slopes from east (Chisholm Street) to west (Barwon Avenue), with a fall of approximately 7.5m. There are also localised variations to this slope, with the southern corner of the site sloping from north to south, as does the portion of the site between Lyon Avenue and Barwon Avenue.

The site contains two open drainage channels, the largest of which runs from the piped system under Chisholm Street, running near and parallel to the northern boundary of the site, then veering to the north-west, exiting into the drainage pipe under Barwon Street. This drainage line is tree lined, with the trees largely being planted specimens. The second smaller drainage line runs from the piped system in Lyons Avenue and exits to the piped system in Barwon Avenue.

The site is undeveloped and is largely either covered in grass or dense bushy vegetation, with some areas of tree cover. Some of the adjoining properties have structures that encroach on the subject site, including the fencing of part of the site to the west of Lyons Avenue which has been included in the backyard and the encroachment of part of a shed on No. 8 Warner Avenue. A dirt and gravel track runs along the alignment of the unformed Hall Road, between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue.

The site is serviced, with an overhead electricity line running along the alignment of the unformed Hall Road, between Chisholm and Barwon Avenue and a second one running along the alignment of the unformed extension of Warner Avenue. A sewer main runs from the end of the formed Warner Avenue, diagonally to the south of the unformed extension of Warner Avenue to Barwon Avenue. A second sewer main runs just inside the northern portion of the front boundary of the site in Barwon Avenue. A water main runs parallel to the previously described overhead electricity line that runs along the unformed extension of Warner Avenue.

The site is burdened by an easement for electricity purposes (5.8m wide) running approximately half the length of the unformed Hall Street (from the Barwon Avenue end). An easement for drainage purposes (1.83m wide) crosses the largest of the two drainage channels and travels to Barwon Avenue.

Surrounding development

The site is located in a low density residential area which is predominantly characterised by rectangular shaped lots of between 900m² and 1150m². The area also contains a number of allotments that are between 850m² and 900m² (approximately 3%) and some lots that are below 850m² in area (approximately 6%). The relatively large allotments are generally occupied by detached dwellings, with the older dwellings largely being small and single storey and the new dwellings being large, two storey dwellings.

To the east of the site, behind properties in Chisholm Street and Paroo Place, is Auluba Reserve and to the west of the site at the end of Hinkler Avenue, Ulm Avenue, Kingsford Avenue and Cove Street is the Lane Cove River and National Park.

The Proposal

The proposal is for subdivision of the old South Turramurra Road Corridor, currently comprised of 21 allotments, into 26 residential allotments and 1 allotment for public open space (to contain riparian land), reconstruction of a creek and wetland system with ancillary landscaping, construction of three roads and associated infrastructure. The proposed residential allotments vary in size from 851m² to 1,577m² and the public reserve will have an area of 7,286m².

Proposed Roads 1 and 2 are new roads, with Road 1 linking Auluba Road to Ulm Avenue and with Road 2 being a cul-de-sac located off Road 1. Warner Avenue will be extended slightly to the west, with a narrow public road having the visual appearance of a wide driveway. This road will link to a pathway through the public reserve, providing a pedestrian connection from Warner Avenue to Barwon Avenue. A second pathway is located through the reserve, running from Barwon Avenue around the edge of the proposed wetland and connecting to the pathway along proposed Road 1 to Chisholm Street. Formalised parking spaces are proposed along the southern side of Road 1 and the western side of Road 2 (10 in total).

Consultation

Community

In accordance with Council's Notification DCP 56, adjoining owners were given notice of the original application. Eighteen (18) submissions were received in response to the notification, ten (10) of which were proforma letters, from the following persons.

1. Mrs M. M. and Mr P. A. Thompson – 3 Warner Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

2. David and Kate Watson – 4 Warner Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

3. Nathan and Melissa Self – 16 Chisholm Street, South Turramurra 2074

4. Ray Clark – 7 Auluba Road, South Turramurra 2074

5. Nigel and Jacqueline Cunningham – 16 Auluba Road, South Turramurra 2074

6. The occupier – 52 Barwon Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

7. Debra and Eric Yamashiter – 46 Barwon Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

8. Louise Bromley – 42 Barwon Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

9. David Mills – 14 Auluba Road, South Turramurra 2074

10. Roger Carlsson – 24 Chisholm Street, South Turramurra 2074

11. Mr and Mrs Olive 18 Auluba Road, South Turramurra 2074

12. Mr Sampath Kariyawasam – 10 Warner Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

13. Vinko Stibilj – 8 Warner Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

14. Nicolas Dunn – 47 Barwon Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

15. Mr and Mrs Millar – 20 Chisholm Street, South Turramurra 2074

16. F and Y Langshaw – 26 Chisholm Street, South Turramurra 2074

17. Step Inc – PO Box 5136, Turramurra 2074

18. Massud Zhouand and Davina Jones - 7 Lyon Avenue, South Turramurra 2074

The issues raised in the submissions are summarised and addressed following.

The width and pavement structure of Warner Avenue is inadequate for the volume and type of construction traffic and will be damaged. The construction traffic should be reduced to 40k/h by signage and flagman to mitigate noise and protect the road surface. Truck movement should be banned from the intersection of Canoon Road and Chisholm Street due to the deficiency in width and sight distance.

The Outline Construction Management Plan submitted is conceptual and a more detailed report will be required prior to the commencement of works. This is the subject of a recommended condition requiring the submission of traffic control plans, provision of traffic controllers and clear identification of site entry and exit points as well as construction vehicle routes [see Condition 26].

Access will be required from Warner Avenue for the construction of the new Road 3. A condition of consent will require dilapidation survey of roads proposed to be used for access to the site and restoration of any damage caused by construction traffic [see Condition 22]. However, it should be noted that excavation is minimal, so the heavy truck and trailer combinations which are used elsewhere in the Ku-ring-gai area, such as for residential flat development will not be required.

The proposed capacity of the pipe to drain water from Warner Avenue is insufficient and will lead to water travelling overland.

The initial design for the new pipe between Warner Avenue and Barwon Avenue (Line 10) was based on the assumption that all flow in the catchment could be collected and conveyed in the pipe. Section 9.3.3 of Council’s DC 47 Water Management requires provision for overland flow for all drainage systems. An overland flowpath has now been shown on the amended engineering drawings by ACOR.

The catchment for Line 10 appears to be only the area shown as “Area = 0.053ha” on ACOR Drawing C6.05E, however the flow shown on the longitudinal section on Drawing C6.01E indicates that the upstream catchment has been included in the calculations. Documentation submitted with the application confirms that the flows were obtained from Council’s own model.

Concern is raised at the lack of traffic control/ safety of the design of the intersection of Chisholm Street and proposed Road 1 to provide suitable safety on Saturdays, given its likely use as a ‘rat-run’ to the netball and soccer fields and given its slight offset from the Auluba Road intersection and high volume of pedestrian traffic. The four way intersections should provide a stop sign at each end of Road 1, with Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue traffic given priority. Road 1 should have traffic calming devices making it possible for only one car to travel at a time and making cars in the other direction wait.

Concerns have been raised about Road 1 being used as a through route for local traffic and a possible alternative access to the Canoon Road netball courts. The introduction of the Give Way restriction at either end of Road 1 will deter motorists other than internal residents. It is noted that the environmental capacity of a local street is 200 vehicles per peak hour (RTA Guide), and the traffic which is expected to be generated by the new lots is 22 vehicles per peak hour, so there will be sufficient capacity in Road 1 without the safety of other motorists, cyclists or pedestrians being compromised, The environmental capacity is based on both amenity and safety.

The new road should occur at the existing alignment for Hall Street to prevent a dangerous 4 way intersection.

The slight offset on the southern side of the Road 1/Chisholm Street/Auluba Avenue intersection, which is due to the narrower pavement width of Road 1, is not considered to be a concern due to the good sight distances available and the low traffic volumes anticipated. The location of the proposed road is also consistent with the requirements of DCP 58.

Roundabouts should be provided at each intersection with planting in the centre.

The roads in the vicinity of the subject site have a low traffic accident history and there is no evidence of increase in traffic volumes since 1998. Accordingly, it is not considered that roundabouts are required at either end of Road 1.

The level of parking provision within the development is inadequate.

Formalised parking is provided along both Road 1 and Road 2, with a total of 10 spaces provided. Further, parking will be possible along the Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street frontages of the subject site. As the proposal is for a subdivision of low density residential allotments and as parking for residents will in the future be provided within each allotment, the street parking is largely for visitors and is considered adequate.

The lots are not designed to have north facing rear yards and should be redesigned to do so in order to prevent overshadowing adjoining properties and to improve amenity.

The orientation of the allotments is largely determined by the orientation of Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street, which also dictates the orientation of Roads 1 and 2 and the allotments fronting them. Whilst not optimal, the orientation of the allotments is considered acceptable given these site constraints. It is also noted that the additional width of many of the allotments will assist in ensuring suitable solar access into future rear yards.

The riparian corridor and revegetation is supported as is the retention of the native trees in this area.

The above support is noted, however it should be clarified that the most of the vegetation in the reserve area is to be removed to allow regrading of the land and relocation of the creek and replanting is proposed.

Proposed Lots 25 and 26 will have unacceptable height and setback impacts upon No. 10 Warner Avenue due to their size, shape, orientation and location in close proximity to the watercourse. This area should form part of the reserve.

Proposed lots 25 and 26 are very large allotments and are of sufficient size to allow the construction of substantial dwellings without unacceptable impacts upon No. 10 Warner Avenue. Whilst the outlook from No. 10 Warner Avenue will be significantly changed by it being adjoined by residential properties rather than undeveloped land, given the residential zoning of the land such a change was to be expected. The proximity of the allotments to the watercourse is supported by the Office of Water.

As the application is on behalf of Council, it should be independently peer reviewed to ensure fairness and independence.

The application has been assessed by an independent consultant arborist, ecologist and town planner.

The proposal is an overdevelopment in a bushfire area which relies on clearing of natural corridors and habitats and reconfiguring the watercourse.

Assessment of the application by the arborist and ecologist supports the level of vegetation clearing as the site does not contain natural bushland, but rather land that has been cleared and planted with largely non-endemic species. Appropriate asset protection zones have been provided to ensure protection of the proposed dwellings. The watercourse is being reconfigured and revegetated to provide improved habitat value as it is currently a system that is not protected from soil erosion and is planted by largely non-endemic species.

The small lot sizes make inadequate provision for landscaping on the site which can be seen in the illustrative plan submitted with the application and is not characteristic of the area which has smaller footprints on larger lots.

This concern was agreed with and the applicant was asked to redesign the proposal to increase the size of allotments, particularly where they front the existing road. A landscape scheme was prepared by the applicant showing the ability to provide for a layer of canopy trees throughout the development comprised of both street trees and trees in the rear yards. It was considered reasonable for the allotments of the new internal road to be smaller as they do not impact the streetscape of the wider area, subject to the provision of an appropriate tree planting scheme.

The site is mapped as containing biodiversity and Category 2/3a riparian land, yet the proposal does not provide a core riparian zone of 20m and an additional 10m buffer zone, having a width as little at 5m in places. How is biodiversity being maintained when almost the entire site is to be altered and vegetation removed? The proposed road is too close to the riparian zone.

The ecological value of the entire site, including the riparian land, has been assessed and the conclusion reached was that the biodiversity and habitat value in its current state is low to moderate. The Office of Water and the expert ecologist both support the proposed riparian corridor both in terms of its width and the biodiversity and the habitat value that will be created.

No Species Impact Statement has been prepared.

A SIS has subsequently been prepared and has been provided to the consultant ecologist for consideration. However, detailed assessment of the location of the suspected EEC, including soil testing, has led to two ecologists determining that the EEC does not exist on the site.

Any future dwelling on Lot 25 would be likely to be forward of the building line of dwellings in Warner Avenue and would not comply with the setback requirements of DCP 38.

Given the Warner Road is not to be connected through to Barwon Avenue but rather is to be continued as a narrow access handle to three lots, the existing setbacks in Warner Avenue would not continue in the same manner as for the existing component of the road. This is similar to the situation in a cul-de-sac head, where the setbacks follow the change in alignment of the road. As the small extension of the road will read more as a battleaxe access handle than a road, the change in location of the setbacks is appropriate and will not appear to be detrimental to the streetscape of Warner Avenue.

The proposal removes direct access from No 47 Barwon Avenue to the reserve and such access should be retained and would be willing to discuss buying a portion of land to retain such access. This will result in the backyard of Lot 23 adjoining the dwelling on No. 47 Barwon Avenue causing privacy problems. Further, a side boundary fence forward of the dwelling on that property would be inappropriate in the streetscape.

The issue of access to the reserve for No. 47 Barwon Avenue is a matter for Council’s parks section to address directly with the owner of the property and the issue of purchase of land is one for the owner to take up with Council’s property section. There is no planning reason why access to the reserve should be maintained from No. 47 Barwon Avenue and no evidence has been found that such access has a legal basis (ie easement for access), as such, there is no reason to condition such access as part of this assessment.

Whilst it is acknowledged that No. 47 Barwon Avenue would now have a residential neighbour rather than undeveloped land adjoining, the layout of the subdivision is not such that a reasonable dwelling could not be erected on proposed Lot 23 that could ensure privacy is protected to No. 47 Barwon Avenue, though this is a matter for consideration at the assessment of a development application for the erection of such dwelling.

The existing sewer and stormwater lines that run through the front of the Barwon Avenue properties would run through the middle of any dwelling on Lots 23 and 24.

As part of the redevelopment, an easement for drainage across this line is being created and any dwellings erected on the lots would need to be located clear of the sewer or in accordance with Sydney Water requirements.

The electricity supply to No, 47 Barwon Avenue would need to be relocated which would detrimentally impact 4 Casuarina at the front of that property.

A condition of consent requires a number of electricity supply lines to be relocated as part of the subdivision and also requires that such relocation occur in a manner so as to minimise impact upon trees that are required to be retained [see Conditions 9 & 12].

The proposed setbacks to Lots 23 and 34 are well forward of the dwelling at No. 47 Barwon Avenue and that property owner was not allowed to buy part of the road reserve and construct their dwelling closer to the road.

Amended plans were requested and provided which provide for an increased setback on proposed Lots 23 and 24 such that any dwelling on the allotments would be no more than a few metres forward of the dwelling on No. 47 Barwon Avenue at most to ensure an appropriate streetscape presentation to Barwon Avenue.

A 40 k/h speed limit should be introduced along Auluba Road and Road 1.

The setting of speed limits would be the subject of future local area traffic committee meetings. It is not considered warranted that the speed limit for Auluba Road be reduced as a result of the proposed development.

Should introduce no parking on one side of Road 1 between March and September on Saturdays and Sundays between 7am and 5pm.

The northern side of Road 1 will have a 2 metres wide grass swale on the edge of the pavement. To protect the swale from vehicles attempting to park on it, a No Stopping restriction is to be implemented, as shown on the Signage and Linemarking Plan ACOR Drawing C2.02E. The southern side of Road 1 has dedicated parking bays.

The design of the wetland has an excessive footprint and its location will result in an unacceptable impact upon the tall forest in the area and the extent of soil disturbance will make recovery of the tall forest less likely.

The ecologist and arborist have determined that, whilst the existing tall trees in the vicinity of the riparian zone are attractive and add to the visual amenity of the area, they are largely planted trees that are not endemic to the area. As such, whilst few of the trees will be retained, it is more appropriate to the long term habitat value of the site that they be replanted with endemic species. It is noted that the site is considered to be so disturbed that regeneration from the soil onsite is unlikely to result in an appropriate range of vegetation.

Water treatment should occur on each lot and in swales for the roads, not in the large riparian zone.

This is not an appropriate approach for the subdivision as there is no requirement for water treatment on individual allotments under the DCP.

The provision of the large rainwater tank within the riparian zone is inappropriate.

It is agreed that a large water tank would not normally be provided within a riparian zone, however the water tank is proposed to provide for reuse of the collected water for irrigation of the Council reserves. The relocation of the water tank has been considered by the engineer and arborist and it is agreed that there is not a more appropriate location for the water tank.

The APZ should be retained in the public reserve to allow for a place for children to play.

It is inappropriate for APZ to be located in public reserves as it places an ongoing maintenance burden and potential liability upon Council into the future. For this reason, the subdivision was required to be amended to provide for the APZ as much as possible on the land which is to be protected by it, it being noted that this was also a request of the Rural Fire Service. The small amount of APZ remaining on the land to be retained by Council is located in proximity to a path and, as such, is unlikely to involve a significant ongoing maintenance burden.

The top soil in proximity to any trees to be retained should not be removed from the site as the top soil plays an important role in sustaining soil organisms.

Confirmation was received from the applicant that the land grading works proposed would not occur in the immediate vicinity of trees to be retained.

Request that footpaths be provided along the new and existing roads to improve pedestrian safety.

Proposed Road 1 and 2 are provided with footpaths. It is inappropriate to provide footpaths on the Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street frontages as they would not connect with any existing footpaths and would interfere with retained vegetation and drainage swales.

Within Council

Engineering comments

Comments were received from Council’s Engineer in relation to the original plans which are summarised as follows:

· Written approval is to be provided from the relevant authority to the relocation of the existing easement for electricity purposes over Lot 1 DP 847214.

· The interallotment drainage pipe that crosses the front of proposed Lot 23 is to be relocated or an easement is to be shown over the pipe if it is to be retained in this position.

· The drainage longitudinal sections do not appear to be complete with some lines not shown (eg Line 19 which would give some detail of the arrangement of the wetland and the rainwater tank).

· Explanation is required as to why some drainage lines have been designed to convey the 100 year ARI and others only the 20 year ARI.

· Interallotment drainage is required to have an overland flow path in the event of a blockage and a typical section should be provided.

· Concern is raised at what is an apparent surcharge for the 20 year ARI in drainage line 10 between Pit 10/2 and 10/1 which is not acceptable as the system flows into downstream private properties.

· Concern is raised with the location of the rainwater tank under the bank of the wetland and whether this would allow for appropriate vegetation of the riparian zone. Clarification is required or the tank is to be relocated (potentially under a road). A section is to show the top and invert levels, how the water flows into the tank and the depth of soil over the top of the tank, along with access details (may address point 15 above). Cross section FF provides inadequate details of the discharge control mechanism.

· Compliance with the MUSIC model in the Stormwater Management and Water Quality Treatment Report is reliant upon the treated water being used for irrigation of Sir David Martin playing field and/or Auluba Oval however pipes to these grounds are not proposed as part of this application. Without such pipework, the proposal would be non-compliant.

· No stormwater treatment for Lots 16 to 26 is provided (stating it would occur at the house construction stage, however DCP 47 does not require detention in some circumstances or water quality measures for dwellings). Details of proposed treatment are to be provided and included in the pre and post development stormwater model.

· The total pre and post development flows from the entire development site are to be modelled as there is no capacity for increased flow downstream. The DRAINS model printout in Appendix C is illegible and unclear. Further, a schematic plan of the site showing the detention basin volume and outflows, including emergency overflow is to be provided, together with details of the capacity of the watercourse downstream of the overflow.

· There are inconsistencies in the flood modelling as follows and/or additional information is required, which need to be addressed:

a. The post development model indicates a rise of 0.55m at the downstream extremity, but this may be an error.

b. The report does not address overland flow along Warner Avenue nor the flood affectation of proposed Lot 24 after the swale/channel from Warner Avenue is filled and replaced with a pipe.

c. No details are given of the connection with the existing trunk drainage system to the 750mm pipe or of the inlet structures.

d. Clarification is required as to whether the 750mm pipe to convey water from Warner Avenue shown on Drawing C10.06B would reduce the overland flow across proposed Lots 23 and 24 to zero.

e. Post development modelling is to be amended to address overland flow from proposed Road 3.

f. Clarification is required as to whether the deflection mound opposite Hinkler Avenue is to be removed and whether the existing pit at the front of proposed Lot 23 is to be removed or converted to Pit 10/1. It must be made clear that vehicular access is possible to proposed Lot 24 (though an actual design is not required).

g. The civil works drawings shall be amended to show the use of rubber ring jointed reinforced concrete pipes for pipes larger than 300mm in diameter in public roads and reserves.

h. The pre and post development flood levels are to be calculated assuming that the watercourse is 50% blocked.

i. More detail is to be provided of the wetland, including volumes and outflows, emergency overflow and the capacity of the downstream watercourse.

· The road design plans need to be amended as follows:

a. Details of a barrier to prevent parking on the swale of Road 1 are required

b. Compliance of the design with the PBP 2006 is required and shall be noted on the plans.

c. The 50km/hr speed limit signs are to be deleted.

d. The proposed driveways are to be deleted from the plans.

e. A typical cross section is to be provided for Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue to show if there is sufficient space for a footpath.

f. Typical section Road 2 shows a slotted pipe under the swale, however the detail on Sheet 5.03A does not. Further, the pipe Line 4 should be shown. The plans are to be made consistent.

· Longitudinal sections for all drainage lines are to be shown on the plans and a report is to be provided justifying the flow rates.

· The Waste Management Plan is to address how proposed Lots 22 and 25 will be serviced as there is no provision for turning. Further, it is to be amended to reflect the Remediation Action Plan.

· Comments are to be provided by a geotechnical engineer in relation to the provision of suitable residential slabs and footings having regard to the slotted subsoil pipe across proposed Lots 23 and 24 with engineered fill around and over and specifications are to be provided for the engineered fill for future building platforms for proposed Lots 12, 13 and 19.

· The Environmental Site Assessment predates Council’s Contaminated Land Policy and requires updating to address that policy. The Assessment does not appear to have included Lots 1 and 3 DP 746618, Lot 74 DP 216500 or Lot 1 DP 840228. It is unclear whether testing has occurred around the shed onsite. The Construction Management Plan refers to removal of affected soils in accordance with the RAP, which contradicts the SEE which indicates no material is to be imported or exported from the site.

After receipt of the amended plans and additional information the following comments were received from Council’s Engineer:

The application is supported, subject to conditions of consent. If the application is to be approved, a deferred commencement consent is recommended, with the formal submission of Ausgrid approval to relocate its easement and electricity lines as a Schedule A condition.

Electricity easement

The applicant feels that Ausgrid, in advising it can service the development, has given tacit approval to the release or relocation of the easement. However, the letter from Ausgrid dated 18 February 2013 is completely generic and does not mention property rights associated with the existing easement, only the creation of new easements. In fact, the section titled “Property Rights” states “The land owner is required to grant tenure over Ausgrid existing and/or proposed assets…”.

I am not sure that it can be said that the approval of Ausgrid to relocate the easement and its overhead power lines has actually been obtained. No plans are referenced so it is not clear whether the proposed subdivision plan only has been viewed or a survey plan showing the easement.

For that reason, a deferred commencement consent would be most appropriate, with the formal submission of Ausgrid approval to relocate the easement and lines as a Schedule A condition.

Water management

The amended drawings address the issues raised in my previous report.

The water management proposal for this site incorporates the rehabilitation of the watercourse between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue, treatment of runoff from Roads 1 and 2 and Lots 1 to 15 in the wetland, attenuation of flows in the detention basin, then discharge at a controlled rate to the downstream drainage system, so that the net effect of the development on downstream properties and the downstream drainage system is improvement in terms of quantity and quality of runoff.

The existing channel from Warner Avenue to Barwon Avenue is to be piped. No issues have been raised by the ecological consultants in regard to this piping.

The initial design for this new line (Line 10) was based on the assumption that all flow in the catchment could be collected and conveyed in the pipe. Section 9.3.3 of Council’s DCP 47 Water management requires provision for overland flow for all drainage systems. An overland flowpath has now been shown on the engineering drawings by ACOR.

The catchment for Line 10 appears to be only the area shown as “Area = 0.053ha” on ACOR Drawing C6.05E, however the flows shown on the longitudinal section on Drawing C6.01E indicate that the upstream catchment has been included in the calculations. Documentation submitted with the application confirms that the flows were obtained from Council’s own model.

Lots 16 to 26 are not able to drain to the wetland because of their levels. When they are developed, Council’s current policy allows the provision of a large rainwater tank to be substituted for on site detention for a new single dwelling. In the event that the rainwater tank is full, it can be seen that the runoff from each of these lots once developed would be the same as if no detention had been provided.

The model used to assess the impact of the development on the downstream drainage system confirms that runoff from these lots will not contribute to an increase in peak flows in the downstream drainage system. The report by ACOR states that the provision of a rainwater tank of volume equal to the Site Storage Requirement calculated under Section 6.7.1 of Council’s DCP 47, together with the provision of a 2 metres long bioretention trench, will achieve Council’s water quality targets given in Section 8.3.1 of DCP 47. These measures will be required to be provided on these lots by the creation of a Positive Covenant in favour of Council upon registration of the subdivision.

Stormwater storage is also proposed in a 250 cubic metres tank, which is shown on the drawings as being located within the embankment of the detention basin. Although there are no technical objections to this location, its construction may raise issues of impermeability of the embankment, as compacting against this structure will require the use of hand-held equipment, which can have varied results. There would appear to be sufficient space in the Barwon Avenue verge for the tank to be located there without the need for it to go under the road.

The existing deflection mound outside Lots 23 and 24 is to be removed. When the subdivision works have been completed, it will no longer be required.

The interallotment drainage pipe which conveys runoff from Canoon Road and Barwon Avenue properties has now been shown on the drawings, along with a future easement over the pipe. This is satisfactory.

Traffic, vehicular access and parking

The predicted traffic generation of the entire development (26 new lots), using the figures contained in the RTA (now Roads and Maritime Services) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, is 22 vehicle trips per peak hour. A trip is a one way movement. The result of the subdivision and future development of the lots will be a minimal increase in traffic flows in the road network.

The proposed intersections of the new Road 1 with both Chisholm Street/ Auluba Road and Barwon Avenue/ Ulm Avenue will be four way, with Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue traffic having right of way. This is considered to be the optimum configuration. The slight offset on the southern side of the Road 1/ Chisholm Street/ Auluba Avenue intersection, which is due to the narrower pavement width of Road 1, is not considered to be a concern due to the good sight distance available, and the low traffic volumes anticipated.

The site is within 500 metres of the Canoon Road Netball Courts, which are the main contributor to Saturday traffic in this area. The development of itself will not significantly contribute to traffic flow in the surrounding road network and therefore there is no requirement for the applicant to ameliorate an existing situation.

Council uses set criteria to prioritise traffic facility projects, which include accident history, increase in traffic volume and proximity to schools. There is a low accident history in the vicinity of this site and traffic counts indicate that Saturday traffic volumes have not increased since 1998 and that speeds have slightly decreased. It is not considered that roundabouts are required at either end of Road 1.

Concerns have been raised about Road 1 being used as a through route for local traffic and a possible alternative access to the Canoon Road netball courts. The introduction of the Give Way restriction at either end of Road 1 will deter motorists other than internal residents. It is noted that the environmental capacity of a local street is 200 vehicles per peak hour (RTA Guide), and the traffic which is expected to be generated by the new lots is 22 vehicle trips per peak hour, so there will be some spare capacity in Road 1 without the safety of other motorists, cyclists or pedestrians being compromised. The environmental capacity is based on both amenity and safety.

The signage and linemarking plan shows the Give Way linemarking for the new roads, but not for the streets opposite. This will obviously have to be done at the same time, and is included in the recommended conditions. Traffic Committee approval is required for the linemarking and signage as well as the parking restrictions along Road No. 1. The conditions require this approval to be obtained and the signs and linemarking implemented prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

Council’s Director Operations will also have to give approval to the type of street lighting to be installed. This is also included in the recommended conditions.

The northern side of Road 1 will have a 2 metres wide grass swale on the edge of the pavement. To protect the swale from vehicles attempting to park on it, a No Stopping restriction is to be implemented, as shown on the Signage and Linemarking Plan ACOR Drawing C2.02E. It is understood that the use of physical barriers, such as guardrail, bollards or boulders, is not desirable here due to the need for permanent firefighting vehicle access.

Earthworks and site preparation

The geotechnical engineer has confirmed that the slotted pipe across Lots 23 and 24 will not affect the lot classification, and that recommendations in the report for site preparation apply to Lots 12, 13 and 19 as well as Lots 23 and 24.

Construction traffic management

The Outline Plan submitted is conceptual, and a more detailed report will be required prior to commencement of works. This is the subject of a recommended condition.

Access will be required from Warner Avenue for the construction of the new Road 3.

The conditions of consent will require dilapidation survey of roads proposed to be used for access to the site and restoration of any damage caused by construction traffic.

Environmental site assessment

An updated, site-specific report has now been submitted. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed use, subject to further inspection, sampling and testing. These works can be carried out in conjunction with subdivision works, and conditions are recommended to that effect.

Comment: The requested conditions have been included in the recommendation.

Outside Council

Arborist comments

Comments were received from the consultant arborist in relation to the original plans which requested the following deficiencies in the application be addressed by additional information:

· The Arborist Report addresses 121 trees whilst the survey plan shows approximately 445 trees, including trees with diameters greater than 400mm and as such inadequate information is provide to allow assessment of the application;

· The Arborist Report appears to be only a very limited preliminary assessment providing audit information on some of the trees on site. It does not provide specific tree protection recommendations related to the proposal that comply with the guidelines and principles of AS 4970-2009. The Arborist Report lacks the following information required by Council’s DA Guide:

a. A tree location plan showing all trees on site, in the road reserve and on adjacent properties within 5m of the site, with trees to be numbered and identified.

b. TPZ and SRZ in accordance with AS 4970;

c. An assessment of the full extent of the proposed works including building, landscape and stormwater/infrastructure with regard to impact on trees;

d. Provision of recommendations as to alternatives to removal/transplantation of trees; and

e. Proposed location of tree protective fencing by way of a 1:200 scale plan

· DCP 38 requires that arborist reports be prepared by a qualified and experienced arborist and no information is provided of Mr Potts qualifications and experience.

· There are inconsistencies and conflicts between the Arborist Report and Landscape Plan in terms of tree removal/retention (eg the Arborist Report recommends 31 trees for removal where the Landscape Plan shows 81). Given the number of trees onsite and in neighbouring properties, both figures are misleading and inaccurate.

· The identification of species is unreliable (eg trees in the planted woodland area are identified as Eucalyptus saligna whilst they are mainly Eucalyptus grandis, other introduced species including Corymbia citriodora and Corymbia torelliana are identified as Eucalyptus deanei. Most trees identified as Eucalytus haemastome are more likely to be E. racemosa or ingrades between the two species).

· The Arborist Report does not include an assessment of the unaccustomed wind forces on the trees to be retained.

· No consideration has been given to the young and/or semi-mature trees that may have good prospects for retention.

· The Arborist Report specifies the “trunk to dripline” as the minimum offsets for tree protections which is not in line with the principles of AS 4970.

· No assessment has been made of the impact of trees on adjoining properties in terms of SRZ, TPZ, pruning impacts, impacts of drainage works and wind exposure.

· No assessment of the APZ management and its impact upon trees has been provided.

· A review of the Landscape Plan shows several trees proposed for retention that would have compromised retention capability due to encroachments in the SRZ.

· Inadequate information is also provided in relation to :

a. A tree location plan showing all trees on site, in the road reserve and on adjacent properties within 5m of the site, with trees to be numbered and identified.

b. The stormwater plans do not show locations of existing trees;

c. The bulk earthwork plans do not identify the impact upon trees to be retained due to earthworks on proposed Lots 12, 13 and 19;

d. Sediment and Erosion Control plans show temporary stockpiles in the vicinity of at least one tree proposed for retention; and

e. The location of some trees to be retained as shown on the Landscape Plans is not consistent with their location on the survey.

· An Aboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) is to be prepared in accordance with AS 4970, including the following:

a. Evidence of the aboricultural qualifications and experience fo the person undertaking the AIA;

b. A Tree Audit and assessment, including the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) and Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) offsets of site and neighbouring trees to be retained.

c. A Tree Plan including the requirements of DCP 38, DCP 58 and AS 4970.

d. Address tree removal/retention inconsistencies with the Landscape Plan.

e. Assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on trees to be retained (including pruning and root zone encroachments), including, but not limited to: bulk earthworks, grading, stormwater and other utilities, building envelopes, tree removal, APZ management.

f. A Tree Protection and Management Plan providing tree specific protection and management details for trees to be retained.

Amended plans and additional information were received to address the above comments and the consultant arborist provided the following response.

I am happy to advise the report has appropriately addressed the several concerns outlined in previous requests for additional arboricultural information from the applicant.

Ms. Hopwood has undertaken a detailed audit of all the site trees and major tree groups as requested, and provided appropriate comment in regard to tree retention and removal in response to the proposed site development.

In particular, the report confirms that he site’s tree assets include a high percentage of trees with low landscape and retention values, with subsequent poor retention potential for residential development.

Of those trees proposed to be retained, the author has aptly applied the principles of Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites and identified suitable forms of tree protection and management of trees to be retained, including those on adjoining properties.

From an arboricultural perspective, I am satisfied the report, including the Tree Protection Zone Plan prepared by Tree iQ, addresses the arboricultural requirements of the development application. I can support the application, subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions of consent.

Comment: The requested conditions have been included in the recommendation.

Ecologist comments

Comments were received from the consultant ecologist (Anne Clements and Associates) in relation to the original plans which requested the following deficiencies in the application be addressed by additional information:

· The information provided does not adequately describe the location and its context, particularly in relation to its bushland connectivity.

· Insufficient desktop review undertaken, including geology and soil landscapes, previous vegetation mapping such as NPWS 2002/Tozer 2003, Tozer et al 2010, Ku-ring-gai Council (2010).

· The recommended methods stated in the Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Development and Activities – Working Draft 2004 have not been applied. The “fixed plot based or transect survey” was not undertaken and sampling locations either as GPS co-ordinates and/or on figures are not provided.

· The limiting of listed threatened species to 5 km is inappropriate given the disjunct populations of some of the threatened species. A 10 km grid search area as provided on the current NSW Wildlife Atlas is expected. The additional threatened species that should be considered include Deyeuxia appressa, Grevillea caleyi, Lasiopetalum joyceae and Persoonia hirsuta.

· Surveys for threatened flora and fauna were not undertaken at the appropriate time of the year, especially with regard to threatened flora species and bats and reptiles .

· The site Zones 1-8 for the species recorded are not shown on maps. The vegetation of these zones is not described. Inadequate sampling has occurred and inadequate description provided of the structure and composition of the mapped vegetation communities.

· For testing presence of endangered ecological communities (EEC), no data analyses have been undertaken to compare vegetation with the legal definitions in the Final Determinations, nor is sufficient information provided to carry out the required comparisons. There is insufficient evidence provided to determine the presence of the legally defined endangered ecological community Coastal Upland Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion. No testing was undertaken for other potential EECs such as Duffys Forest Ecological Community despite it being mapped in Auluba Reserve. Additional site vegetation and soil survey is required.

· Inadequate assessment has been provided against SEPP 19 and SEPP 44.

· Additional work is required to adequately assess the vegetation onsite and connectivity with adjoining lands such as Auluba Reserve including:

a. Review the requirements under the revised Guidelines for the riparian corridor.

b. Presentation of environment setting (climate, geology, soil landscape, site specific soil data, review of past land use historic fire records.

c. Flora compositional and structural quadrat-based data with locations of the sampling locations clearly identified on plan, data clearly presented in Tables and photographs at time of sampling of the sampling locations.

d. Likelihood of fauna species based on the records from the adjoining land and habitat values onsite.

e. Comparison using the site specific data and existing data with the Final Determination for the listed ecological communities.

After receipt of the amended plans and additional information (including an assessment of soils carried out by Dr Hazelton), Anne Clements and Associates advised that the information had not completely addressed the previous request for information, but notwithstanding that, the findings of the ecological assessment were not concurred with for the following reasons.

The Presence of the Endangered Ecological Community Coastal Upland Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, is dependent on the soil conditions “associated with periodically waterlogged soils on Hawkesbury sandstone plateaus”. Dr Hazelton found that the soil was not periodically waterlogged and does not fit the description of the Final Determination. In the judgment of Gales Holdings Pty Limited v Tweed Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 209 (file number 10264 of 2005), CJ Preston found that the land in this Court proceedings did not support a particular endangered ecological community as:

The vegetation communities do not satisfy the edaphic [soil characteristics including drainage, texture, or chemical properties such as pH], locational, floristic or structural criteria specified by the Scientific Committee in its final determination.

CJ Preston clarifies the argument of “associated” for the Final Determination for Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions in paragraph 64 of the judgment.

64 This description [in the final determination] has three components that are linked: an edaphic (soil) component (“silts, muds or humic loams”), a topographical component (“depressions, flats, drainage lines, backswamps, lagoons and lakes”) and a locational component (“associated with coastal floodplains”). The soils are “in” the topographical features identified, which are in turn “associated” with the coastal floodplain, as defined by the Scientific Committee. This suggests that these topographical features are formed by the fluvial processes referred to in the definition of floodplains, namely, “active erosion and aggradation by channelled and overbank stream flow with an average recurrence interval of 100 years or less”. So too the soils which are in such topographical features will be formed by such fluvial processes.

If there is no endangered ecological community present then no Assessment of Significance nor Species Impact Statement is required.

The flora conservation rankings (7 classes - very high to very low) and fauna conservation rankings (4 classes – very high (paddock), high (most of the site), medium (along south-east boundary) and low (adjoining the south-west boundary) are not supported by the limited data used for the ranking. Is it an error in the ranking of the paddock - “Very Low” for flora and “Very High” for fauna? No overall conservation ranking is provided.

The flora and fauna assessment remains unsatisfactory. It appears to be a degraded site with a ongoing history of clearing (including in the north of the site), diverted drainage and nursery stock plantings.

In response to the above assessment, discussions were undertaken with the Office of Environment and Heritage (the concurrence body in relation to the impact upon an EEC), whereby it was suggested that a third opinion should be sought in relation to the ecological issues as the expert for the applicant and the expert peer reviewing that assessment were fundamentally opposed as to the significance of the site and the existence or otherwise of an EEC. In response to this suggestion, an assessment was sought from Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer and the following advice was provided, after the receipt of which the Office of Environment and Heritage were notified that a concurrence was no longer sought as it had been concluded that the site does not contain an EEC.

I undertook a site visit of the area identified by Total Earth Care as containing endangered Coastal Upland Swamp (CUS) vegetation on the 26/03/2013.

During the site inspection I traversed the area mapped by Total Earthcare as containing the CUS and made the following observations/notes.

· The soil type consisted of clay with ironstones.

· Remnant Woodland vegetation type present was dominated by Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) and Allocasuarina littorals (Forest Oak) within a highly modified under storey comprising mostly of exotic weed species e.g. Blackberry, Privet, Ginger, Senna & Crofton Weed. Native groundcovers, shrubs and small trees were present but were not dominant within the area mapped as containing CUS. The assemblage of species present within the area mapped as CUS was characteristic of dry woodland/forest communities.

· No wet species were dominant within the area mapped as CUS.

· Planted Agapanthus were located within the area mapped as containing CUS indicating past disturbance and past garden landscaping planting works. A review of the attachment particularly photograph 6 taken in 1951 shows a single driveway access and dwelling and clearing around the house site. It is highly likely that the Agapanthus were planted in association with the house.

· Overland flow from northern properties was seeping into the area mapped as CUS. It is clearly apparent that development upslope (north) is contributing to an increase in overland flow.

· An artificial drainage line has been dug along the southern end of the area mapped as CUS within the uniformed section of Warner Avenue. The drainage line appears to have been installed after 1961. Discussion with a resident of the area for 52 years onsite confirmed that the drainage line was installed in 1962. The drainage line picks up overland flow from the formed end of Warner Avenue and moves the water in a south-westerly direction into a storm water pit located within the road verge of Barwon Avenue.

Section 1 of the scientific determination for CUS states the following "Soils that support Coastal Upland Swamp are acidic and vary from yellow or grey mineral sandy loams with a shallow organic horizon to highly organic spongy black peats with pallid subsoils. They vary in depth from a few centimetres to at least four metres". The soil type within the area mapped as CUS is not consistent with determination, as the soil identified during the site visit forms part of the Lucas Height landscape, this is also supported by Soil mapping. As the soil within the area mapped by CUS does not meet the section 1 of scientific determination for this reason alone the vegetation cannot be considered to be representative of the CUS Endangered Ecological Community listed under the TSC Act.

The vegetation present within the area mapped as CUS EEC is not considered to meet the structure definition of the CUS EEC. Section 1 of the Scientific Determination states the following:” The vegetation is dominated by sclerophyll shrubs and/or sedges, with dynamic mosaics of structural forms that may include tall scrub, open heath and/or sedgeland. Although typically treeless, Coastal Upland Swamp may include scattered trees”. The area mapped as CUS was not treeless and did not contain scattered trees instead was dominant by woodland trees except within areas that had been previously cleared and were dominated by exotic weeds. Scribbly Gum and Forest Oaks comprised that of a Woodland structure in accordance with Specht classification (1963). The vegetation within the area mapped as CUS does not meet the structural definition as per section 1 of the scientific determination.

A review of aerial photographs of the subject property from 1943 to the present was undertaken to determine the structure of the vegetation through time. Aerial photographs show that the area mapped as CUS was dominated by Woodland vegetation prior to disturbance events. The scientific determination states that the CUS is “typically treeless with scattered trees”, none of the aerial photographs from 1943 to the present show an open vegetation structure absent of trees or with scattered trees. It is clearly evident from the aerial photographs that woodland vegetation has been cleared for access roads and drainage works which explains the sparse nature of canopy within part of the area mapped as CUS.

For the reasons given above, the vegetation identified and mapped by Total Earthcare as containing CUS is not considered to be an endangered ecological community under the TSC Act.

The results of this review were provided to Anne Clements and Associates and the following response was received.

We have agreed with the opinion by the third ecologist, Mr John Whyte, that there is no significant vegetation on the site, including the listed Coastal Upland Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, an endangered ecological community (EEC) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

As there is no EEC on the site, there is no need for offsets offsite to be provided for the proposed development. There are no fauna nor flora constraints on the site. The development proposed should proceed, subject to conditions.

Comment: The requested conditions have been included in the recommendation.

Rural Fire Service

The following comments were received from the Rural Fire Service (RFS) in response to the original application.

“The service is not in a position to properly assess the application as submitted by Ku-ring-gai Council on the basis of the information provided, The following will need to be provided for further assessment.

1. The proposed asset protection zones (APZ) to lots 24, 25 and 26 to the north of the riparian zone require management of the adjoining land. No evidence has been submitted as to how the lots APZ will be managed on the adjoining land. Evidence is required either to have the requirement to maintain the APZ on the lot title or Council acceptance an approval for Council to maintain the area.”

This information was not sought from the applicant as it was assessed that it was inappropriate to burden Council (and its ratepayers) with the cost of ongoing maintenance of the APZ and also the potential for liability if at some time in future the APZ is not considered to be appropriately maintained and the adjacent properties are damaged by bushfire. Accordingly, the applicant was requested to provide the APZ as much as possible on the lots for which it serves and advised a positive covenant would be placed on the affected lots requiring ongoing fuel maintenance within the APZ (both on private and public land).

After receipt of amended plans, the following comments were received from the RFS, together with required conditions which are included in the recommendation.

This response is to be deemed a bush fire safety authority as required under section 100B of the ‘Rural Fires Act 1997’ and is issued subject to the following numbered conditions.

Asset Protection Zones

The intention of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building.

Water and utilities

Access

The intent of measures for public roads is to provide safe operational access to structures and water supply for emergency services, while residents are seeking to evacuate from an area.

Comment: The requested conditions have been included in the recommendation.

Office of Water

The application was referred to the Office of Water due to the proposal to carry out work requiring a controlled activity approval pursuant to the Water Management Act 2000. The Office of Water provided its General Terms of Approval (GTAs) for the proposal and requested a condition be placed on any consent requiring that a construction certificate not be issued for any works requiring a controlled activity approval until a copy of such approval is approval has been provided to Council.

Comment: The GTAs and requested condition have been included in the recommendation.

Office of Environment and Heritage

Due to the determination that the site did not contain an EEC and as such there was to be no significant impact upon an EEC, the concurrence of the Office of Environment and Heritage was no longer necessary and, as such, the request was withdrawn.

Statutory Provisions

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

The provisions of Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) determine the matters for consideration in assessing a development application as stated below:

(a) The provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument, and

(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

(iii) any development control plan; and

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(c) the suitability of the site for the development,

(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

(e) the public interest.

The relevant provisions of environmental planning instruments, proposed instruments, DCPs, the Regulations and Policies are addressed following. There are no planning agreements (or draft) for consideration in this assessment. The likely impacts, suitability of the site and public interest are also addressed below and the submissions received have previously been addressed.

Disability Discrimination Act

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires Council in the assessment of all development applications to assess whether the proposal has been designed for an appropriate level of equitable access for all. Considerations, in particular, include whether a building or public place has an appropriate level of accessibility for all persons and whether such accessibility is equitable.

No buildings are proposed as part of this application and the accessibility of the proposed footpaths and pathways is largely determined by the topography of the site. The proposal includes long sections of the two proposed roads which show that both roads are under 1:14 in grade and, as such, the footpaths along these roads will be accessible subject to the provision of appropriately designed footpath crossings. A condition to ensure appropriate footpath crossings is proposed. A further condition is recommended requiring the pathways through the reserve and to the viewing platform to be accessible pathways pursuant to AS 1428 [see Condition 18].

State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas (SEPP 19)

The provisions of SEPP 19 require Council to consider, impacts of development on bushland on public open space or adjoining public open space. The site is not zoned for public open space and has no bushland adjoining land zoned public open space and as such the policy is not applicable.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44)

The provisions of SEPP 44 require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, the potential for a site to contain Koala Habitat. The peer review of the application by Anne Clements and Associates found that the site did not constitute Koala Habitat and, as such, the provisions of SEPP 44 don’t apply to the application.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, the potential for a site to be contaminated. A Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Geotechnique Pty Ltd, dated 24 July 2002, which followed a Stage 1 Assessment. The assessment addressed Precincts 8, 10a, 10b and 11, which were identified as potentially containing contamination given the past use of the site and concluded that the only area of the abandoned road corridor which posed a potential risk of hazard to the environment or human health was localised surface soils in the vicinity of and beneath galvanised iron sheds and scrap metals in Precinct 10b, which is located on the subject site.

The sampling of Precinct 10b targeted areas occupied by sheds, scrap metal and former sheds and twelve surface soil samples were taken. The results show elevated levels of lead and zinc under the scrap metal and galvanised iron sheds and recommended that remediation works were necessary. The Remediation Action Plan indicates that the shed and scrap metal was to be removed, with further sampling required beneath the sheds and in the vicinity to delineate both laterally and vertically the volume of soil to be remediated, The soils are then to be classified for disposal and taken to a suitable landfill. Validation of the excavated areas is to occur after remediation to ensure all contaminated soils have been removed. A condition of consent is recommended requiring the carrying out of the Remediation Act Plan and requiring verification of the soils prior to the carrying out of any works related to the subdivision in the vicinity of the contaminated soils [see Conditions 10 & 72].

Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006

The provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, the potential for allotments within the subdivision to be impacted by bushfire. The proposal has been assessed by the RFS who have issued a bushfire safety authority subject to conditions of consent (which are included in the recommendation). As such, subject to the conditions the proposal will satisfy the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection.

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO)

The subject site is part zoned 2(c) (the majority of the site) and part unzoned (a portion of road reserve to Barwon Avenue and Warner Avenue) under KPSO and the subdivision of land in both zones is permissible with consent pursuant to clause 58A, however the portions of the site that are unzoned would not permit residential development. The site does not contain a heritage item and is not located in the immediate vicinity of an item of heritage. Schedule 10 of the KPSO identifies the allotments contained within the proposed development parcel that are owned by Ku-ring-gai Council as being classified as operational land. The following provisions of the KPSO apply to the proposed development.

Clause 38B requires that consent cannot be granted to development unless the land has a water supply and a drainage area and facilities for the removal and disposal of sewage or arrangements satisfactory to Council and the Water Board have been made to make provision for such supply. The subject site will have appropriate connection to water, drainage and sewage systems upon completion, satisfying this provision.

Clause 58B sets minimum allotment sizes and widths for allotments intended to be occupied by a single dwelling-house. In the 2(c) zone, a minimum allotment size of 929m² and width of 18m (measured 12.2m from the street alignment) for allotments with road frontage is set and an area of 1,300m² and minimum width for the access handle of 4.6m is set for battleaxe lots. The clause also requires that a dwelling-house shall not be erected on an allotment not having a common boundary with a public road.

The following table shows each of the proposed allotments, intended for the erection of a dwelling house, and their areas and dimensions and identifies whether they comply with the above controls. All proposed residential allotments have a common boundary with a proposed public road.

Proposed Lot

Area/ Width at 12.2m from road frontage

Compliance

Lot 1

900m²

25.66m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 2

900m²

22.69m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 3

900m²

22.69m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 4

900m²

22.69m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 5

871m²

18.71m

No (variation 58m² – 6.2%)

Yes

Lot 6

856m²

26.01m

No (variation 73m² – 7.9%)

Yes

Lot 7

856m²

23.55m

No (variation 73m² – 7.9%)

Yes

Lot 8

900m²

25.24m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 9

900m²

25.1m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 10

869m²

21.1m

No (variation 78m² – 8.4%)

Yes

Lot 11

851m²

21.3m

No (variation 78m² – 8.4%)

Yes

Lot 12

851m²

21.3m

No (variation 78m² – 8.4%)

Yes

Lot 13

851m²

23.51m

No (variation 78m² – 8.4%)

Yes

Lot 14

851 m²(whilst having only a narrow frontage to the road this site does not contain an access handle)

21.46m

No (variation 78m² – 8.4%)

Yes

Lot 15

1,574m²(879m² excluding access handle)

Minimum access handle width 4.94m

No (variation 421m² – 32%)

Yes

Lot 16

853m²

21.07m

No (variation 76m² – 8.2%)

Yes

Lot 17

880m²

22.63m

No (variation 49m² – 5.3%)

Yes

Lot 18

880m²

22.6m

No (variation 49m² – 5.3%)

Yes

Lot 19

880m²

22.58m

No (variation 49m² – 5.3%)

Yes

Lot 20

880m²

22.57m

No (variation 49m² – 5.3%)

Yes

Lot 21

900m²

24.5m

No (variation 29m² – 3.1%)

Yes

Lot 22

1,275m²

35.8

Yes

Lot 23

1,163m²

17.94m

Yes*

Lot 24

1,508m²

28m

Yes*

Yes

Lot 25

1,146m²

40.3m

Yes

Lot 26

1,574m²(1,365m² excluding access handle)

Minimum access handle width 6.31m

Yes

* Proposed Lots 23 and 24 both contain areas that are currently unzoned under KPSO, however they are proposed to be zoned for residential purposes under DLEP (see later discussion). It is considered that the residentially zoned area of both allotments would permit the construction of a dwelling without the need to use the unzoned areas.

Proposed allotments Nos. 15 and 26 are battleaxe allotments and, as such, are required to have minimum site areas (exclusive of the access handle) of 1,300m². Proposed lot 26 is compliant, though Lot 15 breaches the control by a significant degree. Generally, the subdivision contains compliant allotments in terms of the width of access handles and the width at a setback of 12.2m from the frontage (other than a minor non-compliance in relation to width for proposed Lot 23

The areas of the allotments proposed to the north of the riparian reserve are compliant with the controls, with all of these lots being of generous dimensions and area.

All of the allotments to the south of the reserve are non-compliant with the minimum area requirement to various degrees, with the allotments fronting Chisholm Street, Barwon Avenue and proposed Road 1 generally being larger and those fronting proposed Road 2 being generally smaller and having more significant breaches of the minimum lot size standard.

SEPP 1 objections have been lodged in relation to the breaches of the minimum allotment size and width standards, with the following arguments being put forward in support of the breach of the standards:

· Future development on the site will be low density in nature and will uphold a similar streetscape presentation and character to surrounding development in South Turramurra;

· The numerical variation to the control will not result in any adverse environmental impact;

· No perceptible numerical non-compliance will be evident when the proposal is viewed from the public domain;

· There is unlikely to be any adverse visual, acoustic, privacy or shadowing amenity impacts on surrounding properties and the breach is not likely to result in any loss of significant views;

· Future dwellings will be able to comply with the requirements of DCP 38 or SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes without creating adverse environmental impact;

· The proposal demonstrates good urban design and there is a precedent for the type of variation proposed in the South Turramurra locality; and

· The non-compliance is minor with variations of less than 10%, other than in relation to proposed Lot 15 which is a battleaxe lot and, as such, the variation will not be readily perceptible from the public domain or surrounding development.

A detailed analysis has been undertaken of the South Turramurra locality and it has been found that the subdivision pattern is not consistent, with allotment sizes varying quite significantly, and with some portions of the locality providing for areas of consistent and relatively large variation from the 929m² minimum lot size standard.

In this regard, the allotments to the west of the site fronting Barwon Avenue (south of proposed Road 1) generally have areas of 880m², with only one compliant allotment. The allotments fronting Barwon Avenue (with the exception of proposed Lot 16) have areas of 880m² – 900m² breaching the control by 3-5%, which equates to the allotments being a little over 1-2m shorter in depth than a compliant allotment. As such, the proposed lots are commensurate with the size and dimension of the lots opposite and, these proposed lots will be consistent with the character of Barwon Street and the variation of these lots can be supported for this reason. The allotments opposite the site in Barwon Street to the north of proposed Road 1 are all larger allotments, as are the lots to the north on the same side of Barwon Road and, as such, the design whereby the proposed lots to the north of Road 1 comply with the control is appropriate.

No residential allotments front Chisholm Street opposite the subject site and, as such, properties to the north and south of the site provide for the character of the streetscape. These lots vary in size from 881m² to 986m², with most of the allotments in the vicinity of the site being below the 929m² minimum. The allotments fronting Chisholm Street have areas of 900m², breaching the control by 3%, which equates to the allotments being a little over 1m shorter in depth than a compliant allotment. As such, the proposed lots are commensurate with the existing allotments and will result in an acceptable streetscape upon development.

The allotments which do not front existing streets will set new streetscapes, with those fronting Road 1 being located on a through road and, as such, the streetscape is more sensitive to the character of the area than those fronting the dead end Road 2. The allotments fronting proposed Road 1 have areas of 900m², breaching the control by 3%, which equates to the allotments being a little over 1m shorter in depth than a compliant allotment. The lots fronting Road 1 have areas consistent with the streetscape in the vicinity of the site in Chisholm Street and Barwon Street and, as such, this through road will provide for continuity in the streetscape character of the area.

The allotments fronting proposed Road 2 are the allotments with the most significant variations to the 929m² standard, ranging from between 851m² and 871m², equating to breaches of 6.2% - 8.4%, which equates to the allotments being between 3m – 3.5m shorter in depth than a compliant allotment. The exception to this is proposed Lot 15 which has an area of 879m² (excluding the access handle), equating to a significant breach of 32% as it is required to have a much larger area due to it being a battleaxe lot. Notwithstanding the larger breach, these allotments are still not inconsistent with the character of some parts of South Turrumurra, with a series of lots fronting Canoon Road ranging in area from 732m² to 916m², the majority of which have areas of around 830m². Similarly, lots in Lyon Avenue and Warner Avenue range in size from 754m² to 890m². Both of these examples show that small areas within the locality exhibit more significant variation to the area control and the lots fronting proposed Road 2 would be consistent with this extent of variation.

In an area which exhibits such wide levels of variation in lot sizes and where there are small localities of more significant variation to the control, it is considered that variations such as those proposed can be supported as they would be generally characteristic of the area. As such, the future development of the proposed lots is not likely to result in uncharacteristic streetscape presentations. There is also sufficient area on the proposed allotments to provide for the treed canopy cover that is characteristic of the area. Given the character of the area is not compromised by the variation sought, nor is the amenity of adjoining properties, such a variation can be supported on planning grounds with the proposal remaining consistent with the objectives of the zone and the assumed objectives of the standard.

As the characteristics of the lot size pattern in the locality are quite unique and as the proposal also provides for a significant public benefit in the form of the reserve, it is not considered that such a level of variation is likely to set a precedent. For these reasons the submitted SEPP 1 objection is supported.

The proposed variation to the minimum Lot width evident in Lot 23 of 6cm is very minor, inconsequential and will not compromise any objectives of Clause 58B.

Clause 59 addresses subdivisions and new roads and requires that a subdivision of land where a new road is proposed must propose a road in “reasonable conformity with the road design shown on the scheme map”. There are two roads shown on the scheme map for the subject site, being a westward extension of Warner Avenue and an unformed road (Hall Road) between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue to the south of Auluba Road.

The proposal provides for a westward extension of Warner Avenue, though not extending through to Barwon Avenue and also provides for a link road between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue, though it provides a connection between Auluba Road and Ulm Avenue and, as such, is located slightly further north than Hall Street. It is considered that the differences are not significant and, as such, the proposal is in reasonable conformity with the scheme map.

Schedule 9 contains the aims and objectives for residential zones and, to the extent that they are relevant to the proposal, they are addressed following:

1. The general aims of this Ordinance in relation to land within Zones Nos 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e). 2(f). 2(g) and 2 (h) are –

(a) To maintain and, where appropriate, improve the existing amenity and environmental character of residential zones.

The amenity of the residential area is maintained by providing appropriately designed allotments adjoining existing allotments. In this regard, proposed Lot 22 is designed such that the rear yard of that property would adjoin the rear yards of the existing adjoining properties in Lyon Avenue and Barwon Avenue, as does the design of proposed Lot 23, with the proposed setback covenant ensuring the dwelling on that lot would not extend significantly forward of the dwelling adjoining. Similarly, the size and orientation of proposed Lots 4, 5, 15 and 16 are such that the future dwellings on those lots are likely to align with either the existing dwellings on adjoining lots or the likely location of future dwellings if the adjoining large lot is subdivided. Finally, the provision of larger sized lots fronting Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street as well as along Road 1 will ensure the visual character of the area is maintained.

(b) To permit new residential development only where it is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality and has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

The above described design features (in response to (a) will result in the future residential development within the subdivision being visually compatible with the existing character of the locality.

2. The specific objectives of this Ordinance in relation to land within Zones Nos 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e). 2(f). 2(g) and 2 (h) are to ensure that –

(a) All new dwelling-houses and additions to dwelling-houses maintain a reasonable level of sunlight to neighbours’ living areas and recreation space between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice on 22 June.

The design of the subdivision is such that a well-designed dwelling can be provided on each allotment that provides for suitable solar access on the subject lot, whilst protecting the solar access of adjoining properties.

(b) All new dwelling-houses and additions to dwelling-houses are sited and designed so as to minimise overlooking of neighbours’ living areas and recreation space.

This objective is more relevant at the design stage for the future dwellings.

(c) Any building or development work shall maintain or encourage replacement of treecover whenever possible to ensure the predominant landscape quality of the Municipality is maintained and enhanced.

This objective is more relevant at the design stage for the future dwellings, however all allotments are of sufficient size to permit the planting of canopy trees and canopy street trees are to be provided.

(d) Any building or development work on a site avoids total or near total site utilisation by maintaining a reasonable proportion of the site as a soft landscaping area.

This objective is more relevant at the design stage for the future dwelling, however all allotments are of sufficient size to permit the planting of canopy trees and an appropriate area of soft landscaping.

(e) All new dwelling-houses and additions to existing dwelling-houses are of a height, size and bulk generally in keeping with that of neighbouring properties and, where larger buildings are proposed, they are designed so as not to dominate and so far as possible to harmonise with neighbouring development.

This objective is not relevant to the assessment of an application for subdivision of land.

(f) In areas where one period, style or genre of architecture predominates, the new dwelling-house reflects either that style or the main stylistic features such as roof pitch, materials, proportions, setbacks, etc. and additions to existing dwelling-houses reflect the style of and continue the main stylistic features of the existing structure.

This objective is not relevant to the assessment of an application for subdivision of land.

(g) All new dwelling-houses and additions provide reasonable space on the site for the forward entrance and exit of vehicles.

This objective is more relevant at the design stage for the future dwellings, however all allotments are of sufficient size to permit appropriate garaging arrangements for the future dwellings.

(h) All applications will be assessed against the considerations of section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and section 303 of the Local Government Act 1919.

The abovementioned provisions are no longer relevant, however the current provisions dealing with these matters are addressed within this report.

Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013 (DLEP) and Draft LEP 218

Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013 (DLEP) and Draft Local Environmental Plan 218 have been publicly exhibited and, as such, is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the application, however the DLEP is not considered imminent or certain for the purpose of this assessment and therefore should not be given significant weight. The subject site is to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the subdivision of land is permissible with consent under that zoning. The site does not contain a heritage item and is not located in the immediate vicinity of an item of heritage. The site is identified as having a biodiversity corridor and category 2 riparian zone in the approximate location of the proposed reserve and part of Road 1.

Clause 4.1 provides a minimum subdivision size for most of the subject site of 930m² (excluding the upper half of the unformed Hall Street and Warner Street road reserves which have no minimum lot size). The portion of the site that currently forms part of the Barwon Road reserve also does not have a minimum lot size but is also affected by clause 4.1A. All allotments are required to have a minimum width of 18m, measured at 12m from the road frontage of the lot. In the case of battleaxe allotments, the access handle is excluded from the site area calculation. This provision is very similar to that contained within the KPSO and has been addressed in that section of the report. The only significant difference is the treatment of battleaxe allotments, where they are not required to be larger than street frontage allotments and, as such, the two proposed battleaxe allotments would comply with this provision.

Clause 4.1A only applies to the small portion of the site within the Barwon Avenue road reserve and the provision requires that “any new lot created on any land containing a bush fire hazard, where the effective slope is within the specified range in Column 1 of the Table to this subclause, the distance between the bushfire hazard and the furthest boundary must not be less than the distance specified in Column 2 of the Table to this subclause”. This provision is very unclear as to its meaning and the wording makes it difficult to understand the intent of the provision. If read literally, the provision would only apply to land when the land itself contained a bush fire hazard, not when the land was in the vicinity of a bushfire hazard. Under such a reading the subclause would not apply to the area of the road reserve as the area is surrounded by either a road or residential development and is not of sufficient size of itself to be classified as a bushfire hazard (note the bushfire report did not indicate it was a hazard).

As such, it would not appear that the provision applied to the site notwithstanding the site is specifically identified for the purpose of the provision. Under this interpretation it is unlikely that the provision would apply to many of the identified lots, so clearly this cannot be the correct interpretation. However, alternatively, if bushfire hazards off the subject site are considered (contrary to the wording of the clause) then again the identified portion of Barwon Avenue would not seem to be a lot where a concern would be raised due to the distance to the nearest bushfire hazard, again being noted that RFS have no concern with bushfire hazard in relation to this portion of the site. Given the lack of clarity of the wording or intent of the provision and as the subdivision has been assessed as acceptable from bushfire hazard risk viewpoint by the RFS, it is not considered appropriate to give any weight to this provision in the assessment of the application.

Clause 6.6 provides controls for biodiversity protection and applies to areas identified as being of biodiversity significance and, as such, applies to the portion of the subject site proposed to be the reserve and part of Road 1, together with the front portion of proposed Lots 1-4 and 24. The clause requires consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development upon native vegetation, the habitat of threatened species, populations or communities, regionally significant species, biodiversity corridors, wetlands, biodiversity values and the stability of the land. The ecological value of the subject site has been considered in detail by several ecologists and the conclusions drawn are that the site contains no significant areas of ecological or biodiversity value and that the proposed vegetation of the riparian corridor within the reserve is the best chance of providing an improvement to the biodiversity on the site as well as a biodiversity corridor. A condition addressing this revegetation work is included in the recommendation, together with a requirement to retain native vegetation fronting Chisholm Street to create a vegetative corridor [see Condition 14].

Clause 6.7 addresses riparian land and waterways and the area generally contained within the proposed reserve, part of Road 1 and parts of Lots 1, 8 and 9 is mapped as a Category 2 riparian land, and a smaller part near Barwon Avenue as Category 3a riparian land. The clause requires consideration of the impact of the development upon water quality, the natural flow, aquatic and riparian species, populations, communities and habitats, stability, passage of fauna and public access prior to determination of the application. Assessment of the application has revealed the land does not contain a natural waterway, but rather an artificial one that has been created over time and does not contain any significant biodiversity value. The waterway is also not stable in its current state, being subject to erosion in large rainfall events. The proposed rerouted waterway, with stability works, water treatment facility and revegetation works will appropriately ameliorate the damage done to the waterway in the past and is supported by the Office of Water and the consultant ecologist assessing the application.

Clause 6.10 addresses stormwater and water sensitive urban design and the proposal has been addressed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer in this regard.

With regard to Draft LEP 218, that instrument is an amending instrument to the KPSO. These foreshadowed objectives and standards have been included as part of the comprehensive Draft KLEP 2013. Subsequently, as the proposed development is assessed as being satisfactory with regard to the Draft KLEP 2013, it is also consistent with the foreshadowed objectives and controls of Draft LEP 218.

Policy Provisions (DCPs, Council policies, strategies and management plans)

Development Control Plan No. 40 – Construction and Demolition Waste (DCP 40)

The provisions of DCP 40 require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, the construction and demolition waste and seeks ways to reduce or reuse the waste. A Construction Management Plan and Waste Management Plan have been prepared for the proposal and are considered to satisfactorily address DCP 40.

Development Control Plan No. 47 – Water Management (DCP 47)

The provisions of DCP 47 require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, the design of the proposal against the specified criteria for water management. The comments of the development engineer provide a detailed assessment against these controls and conclude that the proposal is appropriately designed with regard to water management, subject to recommended conditions.

Development Control Plan No. 58 – South Turramurra Corridor (DCP 58)

The provisions of SEPP 58 were adopted by Council on 24 July 2012 and were prepared specifically to address the subject site and as such should be accorded significant weight in the assessment of the application. It is noted that DCP 58 prevails over other DCPs to the extent of any inconsistency between the Plan and those DCPs.

Section 4.1 addresses riparian land and requires the following:

1. The Riparian Land is to be restored and rehabilitated, through the removal of weed species, decreasing the abundance of non-locally indigenous plant species and revegetated with locally indigenous plant species.

The proposal seeks to reroute and recreate a riparian corridor with an engineered open channel designed to prevent soil erosion, which is landscaped with suitable riparian vegetation. This process will involve the removal of weed species and non-locally indigenous plants and a replanting with locally indigenous species.

2. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is to be prepared for any Riparian Land and for public land. The VMP must include management actions, plant densities, responsibilities, maintenance and monitoring.

A Conservation Management Plan has been prepared, however is not considered appropriate in its current form. As such, a condition of consent will specify that an updated Conservation Management Plan be prepared specifying management actions, plant densities, responsibilities, maintenance and monitoring [see condition 14].

3. Road crossings of the Riparian Land are discouraged but where proposed, road crossings are to be designed to maintain riparian connectivity.

No road crossings are proposed across the riparian land, with the extension of Warner Avenue stopping before it reaches the riparian land.

4. A suitable interface between the Riparian Land and urban development (eg roads, passive open space) is to be provided.

The interface with the riparian land is either Road 1 or reserve on the southern side of the land. On the northern side of the land the riparian land is already adjoined by two residential allotments and two more such allotments (proposed Lots 25 and 26) are proposed to adjoin this land, however a pathway is proposed to separate the riparian land from proposed Lot 24. Other than by reducing these allotments to a single allotment, there is no way that the riparian land could be separated from the residential lot by passive open space due to the need to provide wide APZ for the lots. Given the majority of the riparian land has a suitable interface and that the Office of Water supports the design, it is considered reasonable to allow two allotments to border this land. An appropriate condition of consent in relation to the provision of fencing adjoining the riparian land is recommended [see condition 14].

5. All services (eg power, water and sewerage, water retention tanks) are to be outside of the Core Riparian Zone unless the impact on riparian functions is demonstrated to be minimal.

The existing sewer connections through the riparian land are to be retained, however new servicing is to be provided along the proposed roads and, as such, is outside the riparian land.

6. Any Riparian Land design must consider reshaping, rock armouring, revegetation and potential for public access.

The submitted design for the watercourse and the VMP satisfy this requirement, with public access proposed by way of a pathway connecting proposed Road 1 with Barwon Avenue which travels along the edge of the proposed wetland and accesses a viewing platform and seating.

7. The Riparian Land may be within private or public ownership.

Noted.

8. Any fencing fronting Riparian Land is to be a maximum height of 1.2m with use of high quality materials incorporating native landscaping.

No details of fencing are provided, however a condition of consent requires the proposed lots fronting the riparian land (Nos 25 and 26) to be fenced with a 1.2m high fence to allow passive surveillance [see Condition 19].

9. Provide bushfire asset protection zones outside the Core Riparian Zone.

The APZ are largely proposed within private land and as such are outside the CRZ.

Section 4.2 addresses biodiversity and requires the following:

1. A Tree Survey is to be submitted as part of any development application for subdivision of land to which this Plan applies. The Plan is to identify the location, type and condition of all existing trees and is to indicate those trees proposed to be removed and those to be retained.

Appropriate tree survey information was lodged to allow for the assessment of the vegetation on the subject site and to determine what vegetation is to be retained and removed.

2. Where possible, existing locally indigenous vegetation and fauna habitat is to be retained and restored either within public open space or within private allotments.

There is little significant locally indigenous vegetation on the site and no significant fauna habitat. However, the proposed reserve will provide for revegetation with locally indigenous vegetation, creating suitable fauna habitat, including assisting in provision of a vegetation corridor for fauna.

Section 4.3 addresses riparian land and water cycle management and requires the following:

1. All development is to incorporate water sensitive urban design (WSUD). A stormwater management plan incorporating WSUD principles is to be submitted with any development application for subdivision of land. The plan is to include water cycle management measures generally in accordance with Council’s civil engineering advice and documentation.

The proposal makes suitable provision for WSUD and Council’s engineer is satisfied with the design and compliance of the proposal.

2. On site stormwater detention is to be provided in accordance with Council’s “On Site Stormwater Detention Technical Specification”.

The proposal makes suitable provision for onsite stormwater detention and Council’s engineer is satisfied with the design and compliance of the proposal.

3. A rainwater retention tank is to be provided with a minimum capacity of 250m², to accommodate water recycling associated with development on land to which this Plan applies, for the benefit of nearby community facilities.

The proposal makes suitable provision for an onsite rainwater retention tank and Council’s engineer is satisfied with the design and compliance of the proposal.

4. As far as is possible, overland flow frequency and runoff volumes should replicate pre-development circumstances, Any subdivision development application submitted should include modelling to demonstrate how pre-development and post-development flows have been calculated.

Suitable calculations have been provided to allow assessment of this requirement and Council’s engineer is satisfied with the design and compliance of the proposal.

5. Pollution reduction targets for the subdivision of land to which this Plan applies are to be as follows:

- 90% reduction in gross pollutants

- 85% reduction in Total Suspended Solids

- 65% reduction in Total Phosphorous

- 45% reduction in Total Nitrogen

Pollution reduction targets are to be calculated in accordance with the methodology outlined in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan No. 47 – Water Management.

Suitable calculations have been provided to allow assessment of this requirement and Council’s engineer is satisfied with the design and compliance of the proposal.

Section 4.4 addresses street network, public open space and access and requires the following:

1. Provide a vehicle connection between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue.

Road 1 provides a vehicle connection between Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue.

2. The Chisholm Street/Barwon Avenue connection should generally align with existing street intersections.

Proposed Road 1 aligns with the existing street intersections of Auluba Road and Ulm Avenue.

3. Provide access and a street frontage to the Riparian Land.

Road 1 runs along the frontage of the riparian land, providing appropriate access and a street frontage.

4. Riparian Land and new roads/carriageways are to be designed generally in accordance with Appendix B.

Appendix B provides indicative road sections which show Road 1 as having a reserve of 16m and being located immediately adjoining the riparian land, providing a 2.5m wide footpath, then a 2.0m wide bioswale, a 6m carriageway, a 2.8m wide treed and turfed area with interspersed parking spaces, then a 1.2m wide footpath and 1.5m wide planting adjacent to the residential properties on the other side of the street. Proposed Road 1 complies with this requirement.

Appendix B provides indicative road sections which show roads other than Road 1 as having a reserve of 16m, providing a 1.5m wide planted strip, then a 1.2m wide footpath, then a 3.0m wide turfed swale on one side of the street, a 6m carriageway, then a 2.8m wide treed and turfed area with interspersed parking spaces, then a 1.5m wide planted strip on the other side of the street. Proposed Road 2 complies with this requirement.

Appendix B also requires that the street trees be informally clumped and they are shown as regularly spaced trees on the plans, as such, a condition of consent is recommended requiring the trees to be clumped informally [see Condition 5].

5. A footpath should be provided on at least one site of each street.

A footpath is proposed on one side (eastern) of Road 2 and both sides of Road 1. No footpath is proposed for Road 3 (extension of Warner Avenue) which, whilst not being a through road and only serving 3 properties, is not considered appropriate as the road links up with a pathway through the reserve from Barwon Avenue. Therefore, a condition of consent is recommended requiring the pathway to be extended past proposed Lot 22 to the existing Warner Avenue road reserve [see Condition 5].

6. Public pedestrian access is to be provided that connects Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue. This should occur adjacent to the carriageway and wherever possible connect through the Riparian Land.

A pathway is provided along both sides of Road 1 and a pathway is provided from that path through the riparian reserve to Barwon Road.

7. Footpaths and boardwalks are to be a minimum of 1.2m wide and be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 1428:1-4 (also refer to Appendix B).

All footpaths provided have a minimum width of 1.2m and a condition of consent will ensure compliance with Australian Standard 1428.1-4 [see Condition 18].

8. Streets are to have a total road reserve up to 16 meters wide comprising a 6 metre wide carriageway and verges on both sides ranging between 4.3 metres and 5.7 metres wide with use of grassed swales for drainage where possible (Appendix B).

Proposed Roads 1 and 2 have 16m wide road reserves, with 6m wide carriage ways. The roads have verges on both sides within the specified range and grass swales are proposed for drainage.

9. Where possible, on-street parking shall be integrated within the turn nature strip.

On-street parking is integrated into the nature strips of Roads 1 and 2.

Section 4.5 addresses lot layout and requires the following:

1. Lots should front streets and overlook open space to improve personal and property security.

The majority of allotments front streets, with only two battleaxe lots, one of which fronts the open space reserve. Three lots front the reserve, providing for improved casual surveillance.

2. Lots should be orientated so that one axis is within 30^o east and 20^o west of true solar north (Figure 2).

Only proposed Lots 22, 25 and 26 comply with this control. The lots fronting Barwon Avenue and Chisholm Street are slightly outside this requirement, however their orientation is largely set by the orientation of the roads and to artificially angle the lots would achieve little in terms of improved solar access, but would result in inappropriate streetscape presentation. Similarly, the lots fronting Road 1 and Road 2 run parallel to Chisholm Street and Barwon Avenue and for the same reason the small variation is supported. To achieve compliance with this control would result in lots that were at significant angles to the existing and proposed streets creating streetscape impacts and design issues for future dwellings without substantial solar access benefits.

3. Reduce the number of lots that have a street on the northern boundary.

Only 5 lots have streets to the northern boundary, as such, this criteria has been satisfied.

4. Dwelling houses on the lots should take into account the orientation of the lot.

This provision is best addressed at the design stage of the dwelling.

Section 4.6 addresses general site landscaping and requires the following:

1. All planting within 40m of the centre of the watercourse shall be native species of local provenance in accordance with the Vegetation Management Plan.

A condition requiring this is recommended where the vegetation is included in the riparian zone and is within the reserve [see Condition 14].

2. For lots not within the area nominated in 3.6(1), 50% of all plantings on the site must be selected from the ‘Desired Species’ within the Plan Species List in Appendix A.

This is a matter for applications for dwelling houses, not the subdivision.

3. Plants in the prohibited section of the Plant Species List are not to be planted in any part of the land to which this Plan applies.

A condition to this effect in relation to the reserve and road reserves is proposed, however implementation for residential lots can only occur at the dwelling house stage of the development [see Condition 5].

4. All planting on the site is to have regard to the controls prescribed in DCP 38.

Noted.

Section 4.7 addresses public utilities and services and requires the following:

1. Subject to agreement by the electricity authority, electricity kiosk/substations are to be appropriately located and suitably landscaped so that these structures do not dominate the streetscape or any entrance/exits to the site.

Electricity providers do not allow landscaping surrounding substations. The location of the proposed substation midway between Barwon Avenue and proposed Road 2, along Road 1 is considered appropriate.

2. All electricity power lines in new streets are to be located underground.

A condition to this effect is recommended [see Condition 7].

3. Where practicable, all stormwater infrastructure on public land is to be located so that it is not visually prominent.

The proposed stormwater design consists largely of ‘soft’ landscaped, rather than ‘hard’, structures and as such is not visually prominent.

The Ku-ring-gai Subdivision Code (Subdivision Code)

The provisions of Subdivision Code are for all subdivisions of land and should be considered in conjunction with the more site specific controls contained in DCP 58.

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 addresses frontages, dimensions and areas and contains the same controls as the KPSO which have been addressed previously in this report.

Section 4 requires the environmental impact of the proposal to be considered and this has been addressed at length in the arboricultural and ecological comments within this report and is considered acceptable.

Section 5 requires the dedication of land for active public open space, however it would appear that this requirement has been superseded by the s94. contributions policy. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development involves dedication of a large area of public reserve.

Section 6 deals with subdivision involving new roads and sets standard for road design which are considered to have been superseded by the specific controls contained within DCP 58, with which the application complies.

Section 7 deals with drainage and again sets standards for drainage which are considered to be superseded by the specific controls contained within DCP 58, with which the application complies.

Ku-ring-gai Council Riparian Policy 2004 (Riparian Policy)

The provisions of the Riparian Policy require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, impacts of a proposal in relation to riparian land and, as such, apply to the site due to the watercourse on the subject site. The proposal to reroute, reconstruct and revegetate the watercourse is supported by Council’s engineer and the consultant ecologist assessing the application and has been granted GTAs by the Office of Water. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable when assessed against this Policy.

Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity Strategy (Biodiversity Strategy)

The provisions of Biodiversity Strategy require Council to consider, when assessing a development application, impacts of a proposal in relation to the biodiversity value of land and, as such, apply to the site due to the watercourse and vegetation existing on the subject site. An assessment of the application reveals the site had in the past been largely cleared of vegetation and as a consequence of this and previous development and use of the land, the subject site no longer has any significant biodiversity value. The proposal to reroute, reconstruct and revegetate the watercourse is supported by the consultant ecologist assessing the application and is considered likely to improve the biodiversity values of the site significantly. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable when assessed against this Policy.

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010

The Section 94 contributions applicable to the proposal have been calculated and a condition of consent is recommended requiring the payment of those contributions [see Condition 17].

Likely Impacts

The potential impacts of the subdivision largely relate to changing the visual character of the area, increasing traffic generation in the area and physical impacts of future dwellings on the proposed lots which adjoin existing residential lots.

The first two of these potential impacts have been addressed at length throughout this report and it is considered that the visual character of the area will be maintained by the proposed subdivision and that the traffic generation will not significantly alter the performance or amenity of the road network.

The allotments which adjoin existing residential properties are considered to be appropriately located and designed such that an appropriately designed dwelling on each of those lots would not result in unacceptable impacts upon the adjoining properties by way of loss of views, solar access or privacy.

Suitability of the Site

The site is largely zoned residential and contains no significant environmental constraints and the proposed range of lot sizes are commensurate with lot sizes in the general area, with larger lots proposed where they front existing road and existing allotments, ensuring amenity is protected. As such, the site is considered suitable for the proposed subdivision.

Public Interest

The public interest is best served by an appropriately designed subdivision that fits into the character of the area and provides for additional housing stock of a character that is suited to the area.

This is achieved by the proposal which, although providing a significant number of allotments below the KPSO specified minimum lot size and width, will result in lots commensurate with the range of lot sizes in the area and which are of sufficient size to maintain the character of the area.

The public interest is also served by permitting allotments that are somewhat smaller than the control in this instance in order to maximise the size of the public riparian reserve provided with the application. As the reserve is a significant public benefit provided by the subdivision, a variation to the lot size control can be supported in this instance without creating a precedent for variation in other subdivisions which do not provide such a public benefit.

Conclusion

The proposed subdivision is considered to be acceptable when assessed against the matters for consideration of s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and, as such, the accompanying SEPP 1 objection to the lot size standard is recommended for support and the application is recommended for deferred commencement consent.

Recommendation:

A. THAT Council, as the consent authority is of the opinion that the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clause 58B– minimum allotment size and width of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case as the objective of the standards are achieved notwithstanding the failure to achieve compliance with the development standards.

B. THAT Council as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objections under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to DA0321/12 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant deferred commencement development consent to Development Application No. 0321/12 for subdivision of South Turramurra Road Corridor, currently comprised of 21 allotments, into 26 residential allotments and 1 allotment for public open space (to contain riparian land), reconstruction of a creek and wetland system with ancillary landscaping, construction of three roads and associated infrastructure at Nos. 25, 25A, 27, 37, 41 & 45 Barwon Avenue, Nos. 17, 17A, 19 & 21 Chisholm Street, No. 13 Lyon Avenue and unformed portions of Hall Street, Barwon Avenue and Warners Avenue (Lots 10- 12, DP 1167303 (unformed roads), Lots 19 & 20, DP 16578, Lot 21, DP 455668, Lots 43- 46, DP 455669, Lots 1-3, DP 746618, Lot 1, DP 847214 (unformed road), Lot 74, DP 216500, Lots 47-50, DP 455669, and Lots 1-2, DP 840228), subject to the following conditions.

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITION

DC1. Ausgrid approval for electricity easement and infrastructure relocation

Prior to the operation of the consent, the applicant is to submit to Council documentary evidence that Ausgrid has given its formal approval to relocate the 5.8 metres wide easement for electricity over Lot 1 DP 847214 and the associated electricity infrastructure. This consent will not operate until documentation has been provided to Council and Council has provided written confirmation that this condition is satisfied. This condition shall be satisfied within 12 months of the date of development consent.

Reason: To ensure that the new lots can be created and developed in an orderly way without being unduly restricted by the easement and electricity infrastructure.

CONDITIONS THAT IDENTIFY APPROVED PLANS

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
Civil Engineering Plans, drawing Nos. C2.01 Issue G, C2.02 -2.03, C3.01-C3.04, C4.01, C5.01-C5.02, C6.01 – C6.05, C7.01, all Issue E, C2.04, Issue A and C3.05, C5.03, all Issue C	ACOR	25.2.13

Document(s)
Statement of Environmental Effects (inclusive of appendices and plans), prepared by DFP, dated August 2012 as amended by Additional Information Submission, prepared by AVER (inclusive of appendices and plans), dated February 2013
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, preapred by TreeiQ, dated08/04/2013

2. Inconsistency between documents

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

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

3. Approved landscape and conservation management plans

Landscape works and works in the riparian corridor and fronting Chisholm Street shall be carried out in accordance with the landscape plan and Conservation Management Plan listed below, and required by condition, and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Plan no.	Drawn by/Prepared by	Dated
Drawing No. L01 Issue F, L02 Issue G, L03 Issue F, L04 Issue D, L05, Issue C, L06-L07, Issue D, L08 Issue A	Habitation	22.2.13

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

4. Approved plans to be on site

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

CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

5. Amended landscape plan

Amended landscape plans are to be prepared providing for street tree planting in informal clumps, rather than regularly spaced intervals. The plan is also to show the continuation of the path running from Barwon Avenue along the northern side of the reserve to the intersection of Warner Avenue and Lyon Avenue. Details to be provided for approval with the Construction Certificate. The landscape plan is also to specify that no species identified on the prohibited species list contained within DCP 58 are used throughout the site.

Reason: To ensure compliance with DCP 58.

6. Utility provider requirements

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.

7. Underground services

All electrical services (existing and proposed) shall be undergrounded. Undergrounding of services must not disturb the root system of existing trees to be retained and shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the relevant service provided. Documentary evidence that the relevant service provider has been consulted and that their requirements have been met are to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All electrical and telephone services to the subject property must be placed underground and any redundant poles are to be removed at the expense of the applicant.

8. Infrastructure restorations fee

To ensure that damage to Council Property as a result of construction activity is rectified in a timely matter:

c) The Infrastructure Restoration Fee must be paid to the Council by the applicant prior to both the issue of the Construction Certificate and the commencement of any earthworks or construction.

e) In this condition:

Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.

9. Street lighting

The applicant is to provide a road lighting plan for the development with due consideration given to all areas’ operating characteristics, proposed traffic management devices and intersection including all works within the road reserve and adjoining public spaces. The lighting plan shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 1158 – Road Lighting. On completion of the road lighting design plans, the plan and a schedule of annual charges shall be forwarded to Council for its acceptance of the ongoing maintenance and charges. These plans shall include a statement by the designer certifying that the design meets all requirements of AS/NZS 1158. The Construction Certificate for the development shall not be issued prior to Council providing this letter of acceptance, unless otherwise agreed to by Council. This letter of acceptance and approved plan shall then be submitted to Ausgrid for their approval and certification for connection to their public lighting network.

Reason: Public safety

10. Site remediation

Works are to be carried out as recommended by Geotechnique in the Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report 12806/1-AA, dated 22 January 2013. This is to include all sampling, testing and inspection works recommended by the environmental consultant.

Reason: Protection of the environment and compliance with SEPP 55

11. Interallotment drainage design

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit, for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority, full hydraulic design documentation for the required interallotment drainage system from the subject property to the approved point of discharge to the public drainage system. Plans are to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47 and AS3500.3 (2003) Plumbing Code. New pipes within the downstream easement drainage system must be sized to have adequate capacity to carry uncontrolled runoff from the contributing catchment and an associated overland flow path is to be provided in the event of blockage of the interallotment line.

The following engineering details must be included:

· plan view of interallotment system to scale showing dimensions, location and reduced levels of all pits, grates, pipe inverts, flushing facilities and exact point of discharge

· the contributing catchment calculations and supporting pipe sizing information

· longitudinal section, showing existing ground levels and proposed pipe invert levels, grades and flow capacities

· surrounding survey detail, including all trees within 7 metres of the proposed interallotment drainage system

· means to preserve the root systems of trees within 7 metres of the drainage system

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory design of the interallotment drainage in accordance with relevant codes and Australian Standards.

12. Excavation for services

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) are located beneath the canopy of any tree required to be retained or located on adjoining allotments. Services are to avoid areas with more than 50% projected foliage cover with native vegetation component, where practicable.

Note: A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees to be retained and protected and areas with more than 50% projected foliage cover with native vegetation component shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.

13. Paving near trees

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that paving works within the specified radius of the trunks of the following trees will be of a type and construction to ensure that existing water infiltration and gaseous exchange to the trees root system is maintained:

Schedule
Tree/Location	Radius from trunk
30	5.2
54	7.8
55 & 226	3.6
64 & 74	6.6
83	9
225	4.2
425 & 442	4.8

Note: Details of the paving prepared by a suitably qualified professional shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To protect existing trees.

14. Conservation management plan

The riparian corridor is to be bush regenerated with supplementary local native planting to achieve a fully structure native vegetation community as required under the Water Management Act 2000. It is to consist of native vegetation, typical of sandstone slopes and gully. Such vegetation is to be of local provenance where possible. The works should be in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan.

Existing native canopy trees and understorey is to be retained and enhanced along Chisholm Street in the south-east (opposite Auluba Reserve), where practicable, with additional local native planting to further enhance ecological connection between the riparian corridor reserve and Auluba Reserve.

The Conservation Management Plan is to be prepared by a suitably experienced and qualified expert and is to include:

· clear aims to enhance, conserve and protect the local indigenous vegetation on the site, as well as minimising risk to onsite and adjoining bushland during and post construction;

· objectives;

· realistic targets

· details of bush regeneration and weed removal;

· regular monitoring (1-, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-monthly, then yearly) which includes monitoring of any corrective action requested,

· regular reporting (including corrective action requests and reassessment of targets as required) within one month post monitoring issued to Council; and

· Bush regeneration works to be carried out by qualified bush regenerators under the supervision of a bush regenerator/restoration ecologist with at least 5 years experience.

The Conservation Management Plan is to be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate and is to be prepared in consultation with Council.

Reason: To preserve the tree canopy, enhance natural ecological value and connectivity, and ensure adequate landscaping of the site.

15. Design for bushfire safety

Water, electricity and gas provision are to comply with section 4.1.3 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. Public access roads shall comply with section 4.1.3(1) of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006”. Certification that the final design is compliant is to be provided prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

16. Long service levy

Reason: Statutory requirement.

17. Section 94 development contributions

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

Key Community Infrastructure	Amount
Local parks and local sporting facilities	$462,282.63
Local recreation and cultural facilities; Local social facilities	$79,110.93
Total:	$541,393.56

Notwithstanding the total above, in accordance with the s94E Direction issued by the Minister for Planning dated 4 March 2011, for so long as it remains legally in force, the maximum amount payable for the subject development application shall be $20,000 x 26 = $520,000.

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

The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and may vary at the time of payment in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 may be viewed online at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au and at the Council Chambers.

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

18. Accessible paths of travel

All proposed footpaths on Roads 1, 2 and 3 and the pathways through the reserve from Barwon Avenue to Warner Avenue and from Road 1 to the viewing platform thence Barwon Avenue are to be a minimum of 1.2m wide and are to be made accessible pathways pursuant to AS 1428 unless the topography makes such accessible pathways impossible. Details of the pathways, including any pram ramps at intersections, are to be provided with the Construction Certificate and certified as accessible by a suitably qualified access consultant.

Reason: To ensure equity of access.

19. Fencing to reserve

At the completion of subdivision works fencing is to be erected along the south-eastern boundary of proposed Lot 24, the southern boundary of proposed Lot 15 and the irregular southern-south-eastern boundary of proposed Lot 26. The fencing is to have a maximum height of 1.2m, be of suitable material for location in an asset protection zone and be of aesthetically pleasing design and materials. Details, are to be provided for approval with the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To allow for casual surveillance of the public reserve as required by DCP 58.

CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS

20. Notice of commencement

Reason: Statutory requirement.

21. Notice of proposed work (contaminated land)

A notice of proposed work form must be given to Council’s Manager Development Assessment Services, in accordance with SEPP 55, Clause 16. Note: At least 30 days notice is required, except in the case of work required to be carried out immediately under the terms of remediation order (in which case, at least 1 days notice is required).

SEPP 55, Clause 16 requires that the notice must:

· be in writing

· provide the name, address and telephone number of the person who has the duty of ensuring that the notice is given

· briefly describe the remediation work

· show why the person considers that the work is category 2 remediation work by reference to Clause 9, 14 and (if it applies) 15(1)

· specify, by reference to its property description and street address (if any), the land on which the work is to be carried out

· provide a map of the location of the land

· provide estimates of the dates for the commencement and completion of the work

The following additional information must be submitted with the notice to Council:

· copies of any preliminary investigation, detailed investigation and remediation action plan for the site

· contact details for the remediation contractor and any other party responsible for ensuring compliance of remediation work with regulatory requirements

Reason: Protection of the environment and compliance with SEPP 55.

22. Dilapidation survey and report (public infrastructure)

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures of the following public infrastructure, has been completed and submitted to Council:

Public infrastructure

· Full road pavement width, including kerb and gutter, of

A. Warner Avenue;

B. Lyon Avenue;

C. Barwon Avenue from Canoon Rod to the southern end of the site frontage;

D. Chisholm Street from Canoon Road to the southern end of the site frontage;

E. Auluba Road from Kissing Point Road to the site; and

F. Canoon Road from Kissing Point Road to Barwon Avenue.

· All driveway crossings and laybacks opposite the subject site.

The report must be completed by a consulting structural/civil engineer. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording (both written and photographic) existing damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing any damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development.

The developer may be held liable to any recent damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded by the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of works.

Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any excavation works.

Reason: To record the structural condition of public infrastructure before works commence.

23. Road opening permit

Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.

24. Erosion and drainage management

Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.

25. Sediment controls

Prior to any work commencing on site, sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed along the contour immediately downslope of any future disturbed areas.

The form of the sediment controls to be installed on the site shall be determined by reference to the ‘NSW Department of Housing manual ‘Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction’. The erosion controls shall be maintained in an operational condition until the development activities have been completed and the site fully stabilised. Sediment shall be removed from the sediment controls following each heavy or prolonged rainfall period.

Any hay bales used on site must be wrapped to reduce the risk of weed introduction. Exotic cover crops are not to be used in proximity of the riparian corridor or conservation plantings.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.

26. Construction and traffic management plan

The applicant must submit to Council a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CRMP), which is to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.

The plan is to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.

The report is to contain commitments which must be followed by the contractor(s), owner and subcontractors. The CTMP applies to all persons associated with construction of the development.

The report is to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.

The report is to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for an 11 metre long heavy rigid vehicle.

The Traffic Control plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One or more as necessary must be provided for each of the proposed site entry/exit points.

Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction proves in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.

27. Insurances

The applicant or the applicant’s contractor shall ensure that there is adequate Worker’s Compensation policy in force for the staff carrying out the work, and shall supply a copy of such policy to Council prior to the commencement of work.

The applicant must indemnity Council against all loss of or damage to the property of others and injury or death to any persons which may arise out of or in consequence of the carrying out of the work and against all claims, demands, proceedings, costs, charges and expenses whatsoever in respect thereof or in relation thereto, In this regard, the applicant shall take out a public liability policy during the currency of the works in the sum of not less than $20,000,000 and to be endorsed with Ku-ring-gai Council as principal, and keep such policy in force at the applicant’s own expense. A certificate from the applicant’s insurers to this effect is to be lodged with Council before any work is commence. The amount of Common Law liability shall be unlimited.

Any hay bales used on site must be wrapped to reduce the risk of weed introduction. Exotic cover crops are not to be used in proximity of the riparian corridor or conservation plantings.

Reason: Public interest.

28. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate

The applicant must obtain a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994. An application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing CoOrdinator. The applicant is to refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-develop” icon or telephone 13 20 92. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the CoOrdinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

29. Tree protection fencing

To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy is fenced off at the specified radius from the trunk/s to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.

Schedule Note: Radius measured from centre of tree trunk
Tree/Location	Radius in metres	Tree/Location	Radius in metres
Area A		Area A
17	3	222	6
24	3.6	225	4.2
96	11.4	226	3.6
104	3.6	230	10
105	6	231	3.6
106	3.6	252	3.6
206	3	265	10.8
207	3	266	7.2
208	5.4	267	3.6
209	3.6	268	4.8
211	3.6	269	7.8
212	3.6	270	5.4
221	9	280	4.8
Area B		Area B
30	5.2	302	2
37	2.4	308	3.6
40	4.2	312	8.4
297	7.2	313	4.4
298	6	325	3.6
299	2.4	327	7.8
300	2.4	335	3.6
301	3
Area C		Area C
1	5.4	238	3.6
54	7.8	239	5.4
55	3.6	240	11.4
56	4.2	241	7.8
63	4.8	242	4.9
64	6.6	247	9
74	6.6	284	6
82	4.8	414	4.2
83	9	423	4.8
84	4.2	425	4.8
101	7.2	429	3
116	4.8	442	4.8
117	5.4	443	3.6
119	4.2	466	3.6
234	7.1	476	4.8
235	2.4	477	6.6
236	4.2	478	5.4
237	3.6	485	4.8

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

30. Tree protective fencing type galvanised mesh

Reason: To protect existing trees during construction phase.

31. Tree protection signage

Prior to works commencing, tree protection signage is to be attached to each tree protection zone, displayed in a prominent position and the sign repeated at 10 metres intervals or closer where the fence changes direction. Each sign shall contain in a clearly legible form, the following information:

Tree protection zone.

· This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing environment both above and below ground and access is restricted.

· Any encroachment not previously approved within the tree protection zone shall be the subject of an arborist's report.

· The arborist's report shall provide proof that no other alternative is available.

· The Arborist's report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for further consultation with Council.

· The name, address, and telephone number of the developer.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

32. Tree protection mulching

Prior to works commencing and throughout construction, the area of the tree protection zone is to be mulched to a depth of 100mm with composted organic material being 75% Eucalyptus leaf litter and 25% wood.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

33. Tree fencing inspection

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

34. Seed bank

No work shall commence until seed and other plant material from local native plants (not planted native species) on the site or nearby is collected for use in subsequent landscape works. Plant propagation seed is to be collected, stored and propagated by a specialist seed collector as part of the Conservation Management Plan.

Reason: To preserve existing indigenous plant species, native to the site.

35. Noise and vibration management plan

Prior to the commencement of any works, a noise and vibration management plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified expert addressing the likely noise and vibration from demolition, excavation and construction of the proposed development and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The management plan is to identify amelioration measures to ensure the noise and vibration levels will be compliant with the relevant Australian Standards and Ku-ring-gai Council’s Code for the Control and Regulation of Noise on Building Sites. The report shall be prepared in consultation with any geotechnical report that itemises equipment to be used for excavation works.

The management plan shall address, but not be limited to, the following matters:

· identification of the specific activities that will be carried out and associated noise sources

· identification of all potentially affected sensitive receivers, including residences, churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive equipment

· the construction noise objective specified in the conditions of this consent

· the construction vibration criteria specified in the conditions of this consent

· determination of appropriate noise and vibration objectives for each identified sensitive receiver

· noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures

· assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed demolition, excavation and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles and any traffic diversions

· description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and procedures that will be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction

· construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration restrictions, respite periods and frequency

· procedures for notifying residents of construction activities that are likely to affect their amenity through noise and vibration

· contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non-compliances and/or noise complaints

· compliance with Council’s Code for the Control and Regulation of Noise on Building Sites

Reason: To protect the amenity afforded to surrounding residents during the construction process.

36. Road opening permit

Reason: Statutory requirement (Roads Act 1993 Section 138) and to maintain the integrity of Council’s infrastructure.

CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION

37. Hours of construction

Where it is necessary for works to occur outside of these hours (i.e.) placement of concrete for large floor areas on large residential/commercial developments or where building processes require the use of oversized trucks and/or cranes that are restricted by the RTA from travelling during daylight hours to deliver, erect or remove machinery, tower cranes, pre-cast panels, beams, tanks or service equipment to or from the site, approval for such activities will be subject to the issue of an "outside of hours works permit" from Council as well as notification of the surrounding properties likely to be affected by the proposed works.

Note: Failure to obtain a permit to work outside of the approved hours will result in on the spot fines being issued.

Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties.

38. Survey marks

The applicant must not remove, damage, destroy, displace, obliterate or deface any survey mark unless authorised to do so by the Surveyor-General and is to comply with Section 24(1) of the Surveying Act 2002. Further details are contained in Surveyor General’s Direction NO. 11. Information can be found at http://www.lpma.nsw.gov,au_data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25946/section11.pdf or by searching on the Lands Department website through the tags ‘Survey & Maps’. ‘SCIMS Online’, ‘Survey Mark Status’ to get a copy of the document. For the purpose of this clause ‘survey mark’ means a mark that is in a form or style declared by the regulations to be the form or style for a survey mark under the Surveying Act 2002.

Reason: Public interest.

39. Construction standards

All construction and restoration work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (including any amendments shown in red) and with Council’s General Specification for Construction of Road Works and Drainage Works and to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer.

Any inspections carried out by Council do not relieve the applicant or the Applicant’s Engineer/Surveyor of their responsibility to ensure works are carried out in accordance with these approved plans and with Council’s Specification for Road Works and Drainage Works.

Reason: Public interest.

40. Council assets

Any disturbance or damaged areas adjacent to the public land or roadway shall be restored or landscaped to the satisfaction of Council’s Direction Operations, Full cost to be bourne by the developer. The total cost of all construction and restoration work shall be bourne by the applicant.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of Council asset.

41. Engineering fees

For the purpose of any development related inspections by Ku-ring-gai Council engineers, the corresponding fee set out in Councils adopted Fees and Charges are payable to Council. A re-inspection fee per visit may be charged where work is unprepared at the requested time of inspection, or where remedial work is unsatisfactory and a further inspection is required. Engineering fees must be paid in full prior to any final consent from Council.

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

42. Design requirements

The approval does not confer any responsibility upon Council with respect to eh accuracy of the design for which responsibility fully rests with the design engineer.

This approval does not confer any responsibility upon Council with respect to the design meeting requirements of AS 1428.

Reason: Disability Discrimination Act requirements.

43. Road safety

Lighting, fencing, traffic flagging and advance warning signs and other measures shall be provided in accordance with the RMS’s “Traffic Control at Work Sites Version 4”, SSA’s “Field Guide for Traffic Control at Works on Roads – Part 1” and AS 1742.3 “Manual of uniform traffic control devices, Part 3, Traffic control devices for works on roads” and the approved Traffic Management Plan for these works. Traffic movement in both directions and vehicular access to private properties is to be maintained at all times.

Reason: Public interest.

44. Council inspections - engineering

Council’s Development Engineer is to undertake an inspection of the works which will be dedicated to Council or come under Council control at the time of the subdivision. The applicant or their engineer is to give Council’s Development Engineer at least 48 hours notice of a need for inspection fo the following stages;

a) After excavation and prior to pipe laying commencing..

b) Pipes laid and jointed, prior to backfilling.

c) Pits formed prior to pouring.

d) Road, excavated to subgrade and subgrade compacted

e) Road, base placed and compacted, prior to laying asphalt..

f) Prior to any concrete pours.

g) All works completed and restoration complete.

h) Before commencement and at agreed times during earthworks and wetland/detention basin construction.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of public asset.

45. Construction requirements

Joins to existing asphalt to be at least 300mm overlap of edge of excavation below asphalt. See Council’s drawing 2004-010.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of public asset.

46. Pedestrian safety

All public footways and roadways fronting and adjacent to het site must be maintained in a safe condition at all times during the course of the development works. Construction materials must not be stored in the road reserve. A safe pedestrian circulation route and a pavement/route free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to any public access ways fronting the construction site,. Where public infrastructure is damaged, repair works must be carried out when and as directed by Council officers. Where pedestrian circulation is diverted on to the roadway or verge areas, clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with AS 1742-3 (1996) “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained across the site frontage, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may undertake proceedings to stop work.

Reason: To ensure safe public footways and roadways during construction.

47. Services

Reason: Provision of utility services.

48. On site retention of waste dockets

· Each docket is to be an official receipt from a facility authorised to accept the material type, for disposal or processing.

· This information is to be made available at the request of an Authorised Officer of Council.

Details are to be included in the monitoring reports associated with Conservation Management Plan.

Reason: To protect the environment.

49. Arborist’s report

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

Schedule

Tree/Location

Time of inspection

Trees to be retained in Areas A, B and C as identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Tree iQ 08/04/2103 and conditions of this consent

Pre demolition and/or land clearing. Tree Protection Devices compliance

Earthworks Tree Protection Devices compliance and maintenance

Construction

Maintenance of Tree Protection Devices

Post-Construction

/Landscaping

Tree health and condition assessment and report

Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.

50. Temporary groundcover

On disturbed areas which will otherwise remain exposed for more than fourteen (14) days before permanent stabilisation works are undertaken, a temporary cover of mulch shall be applied or a dense cover crop shall be established utilising sterile/non seed-setting species.

Reason: To protect the environment.

51. Stockpiling of top soil

Top soil shall be stripped from areas to be developed and stock-piled within the site. Stock-piled topsoil must be located outside drainage lines and tree canopies and be protected from run-on water by suitably positioned diversion banks. Where the period of storage will exceed fourteen (14) days, stock-piles are to be seeded or sprayed with an appropriate emulsion solution to minimise particle movement.

Reason: To protect the environment.

52. Private property stormwater drainage

If any private property stormwater drainage pipes are encountered during the course of the works (for example draining runoff from Lyon Avenue or Warner Avenue properties), the pipe(s) shall be relocated to discharge directly to the public drainage system at the expense of the applicant.

Reason: To protect the environment

53. Canopy/root pruning

Canopy and/or root pruning of the following tree/s which is necessary to accommodate the approved building works shall be undertaken by an experienced Arborist/Horticulturist, with a minimum qualification of the Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 – Pruning of Amenity Trees.

Schedule
Tree/Location	Tree works
221	Canopy pruning in accordance with TreeiQ report recommendation.
269	Canopy pruning in accordance with TreeiQ report recommendation.

Reason: To protect the environment.

54. Treatment of tree roots

Reason: To protect existing trees.

55. Cutting of tree roots

No tree roots of 30mm or greater in diameter located within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be severed or injured in the process of any works during the construction period. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 – Pruning of Amenity Trees:

Schedule
Tree/Location	Radius from trunk (metres)	Tree/Location	Radius from trunk (metres)
17	2	234	2.8
24	2.2	235	2
54	2.9	236	2.3
55	2.1	237	2.1
63	2.4	238	2.1
64	2.7	242	2.4
74	2.7	252	2.1
82	2.4	265	3.3
83	3.1	266	2.8
96	3.4	268	2.4
101	2.8	269	2.9
105	2.6	280	2.4
117	2.5	284
119	2.3	425
206	2	442
211	2.1	466
212	2.1	476
225	2.3	477
226	2.1

Reason: To protect existing trees.

56. Approved tree works

Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:

Schedule
Tree/Location	Approved tree works	Tree/Location	Approved tree works
Area A	Removal	Area B	Removal
6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 203, 204, 205, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 253, 264, 271, 272, 273, 281, 293, 460, 461, 492, 493 & 494	Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal	27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 294, 295, 296, 304, 305, 306, 307, 311, 310, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 336, 338, 339, 340, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358, 360, 363, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 376, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 388, 389, 399, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517	Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal
Area C	Removal
3, 5, 50, 51, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 114, 115, ,120, 121, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 255, 256, 402, 406, 408, 413, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 426, 428, 430, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 444, 447, 450, 458, 459, 463, 464, 465, 467, 474, 475, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 495, 496, 497, 504, 505, 506, 507, & 508	Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal

Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

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

57. No storage of materials beneath trees

No activities, storage or disposal of materials shall take place beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council's Tree Preservation Order at any time.

Reason: To protect existing trees.

58. Canopy replenishment trees to be planted

Reason: To maintain the treed character of the area.

59. Construction noise

During excavation, demolition and construction phases, noise generated from the site shall be controlled in accordance with the recommendations of the approved noise and vibration management plan.

Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity to neighbouring properties.

60. Site notice

A site notice shall be erected on the site prior to any work commencing and shall be displayed throughout the works period.

The site notice must:

· be prominently displayed at the boundaries of the site for the purposes of informing the public that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

· display project details including, but not limited to the details of the builder, Principal Certifying Authority and structural engineer

· be durable and weatherproof

· be mounted at eye level on the perimeter hoardings/fencing and is to state that unauthorised entry to the site is not permitted

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

61. Dust control