Ordinary Meeting of Council

TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 9 September 2014 AT 7.00pm

Level 3 Council Chambers

 

Agenda

** ** ** ** ** **

 

NOTE:  For Full Details, See Council’s Website –

www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers

 

 

APOLOGIEs

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 

Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting

 

NOTE:

 

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

 

GB.4   Lindfield Community Hub - Woodford Lane - Report on Progress

 

Attachment A2: . Lindfield Feasibility Study - stage 1 report - FINAL

Attachment A3:   Lindfield Community Hub - Updated Scenarios - economic feasibility - Addendum - FINAL

 

GB.5   Lindfield Village Green - Confirmation of Preliminary Scope of Works, Project Budget and Program

 

Attachment A1: . Lindfield Village Green - Legal advice regarding use of development contributions

Attachment A2: . Lindfield Village Green - Concept Estimate (Final) - Wilde and Woollard - July 2014

Attachment A3: . Lindfield Village Green - cost estimate - Muller Partnership

Attachment A4: . Lindfield Village Green - Project Cost Estimate - Option 1 and 2 - Altus Page Kirkland

Attachment A5:   Lindfield Village Green - cost of land acquisition versus cost of underground car park construction

 

 

Address the Council

NOTE:           Persons who address the Council should be aware that their address will be tape recorded.

 

 

Documents Circulated to Councillors

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

 

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council                                                                         5

File: S02131

Meeting held 26 August 2014

Minutes numbered 265 to 285

 

 

minutes from the Mayor

 

 

Petitions

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

i.               The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to have a site inspection.

 

ii.             The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to adopt in accordance with the officer’s recommendation allowing for minor changes without debate.

 

 

GB.1        North Connex Project Response to Environmental Impact Statement               61

 

File: S10082

 

For Council to endorse the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the North Connex Project Environmental Impact Statement.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the attached submission and covering letter for the North Connex Environmental Impact Statement review for lodgement with the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

GB.2        Audited General Purpose and Special Purpose Financial Reports for year ended 30 June 2014 and Auditor's Report                                                                                  206

 

File: FY00259/7

 

To present to Council the Annual Financial Statements and audit reports from Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants for the year ended 30 June 2014 and to provide a summary of Council’s financial performance and financial position at 30 June 2014.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receives the audited Financial Statements and the external auditor’s report from UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants.

 

GB.3        Planning Proposal - 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara - Report following the Exhibition and Public Hearing                                                            349

 

File: S10083

 

To have Council consider the feedback following exhibition and public hearing for the Planning Proposal- 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara known as the Culworth Avenue car park.

 

Recommendation:

 

To proceed with the reclassification of the property at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara known as the Culworth Avenue car park, subject to the detailed recommendations in this report.

 

GB.4        Lindfield Community Hub - Woodford Lane - Report on Progress                    657

 

File: S09780

 

To seek Council’s approval of three preferred land use scenarios for the Lindfield Community Hub as the basis for engaging architectural consultants to prepare illustrative concept designs for public engagement and exhibition.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council proceed to engage an architectural consultant to prepare illustrated concept plans, based on the three preferred land use scenarios recommended in this report, and to seek the community’s views on the options.

 

 

GB.5        Lindfield Village Green - Confirmation of Preliminary Scope of Works, Project Budget and Program                                                                                                                     715

 

File: S09529

 

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of Lindfield Village Green project including recommending a preliminary project construction budget, an updated project program and clarification of scope of works.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council adopts the preliminary project budget, project program and scope of works as the basis for moving forward with the project.

 

 

 

GB.6        Amendments to Sports Facilities Plan of Management for Public Exhibition 739

 

File: S06604/2

 

To rectify an anomaly in the Sports Facilities Plan of Management to bring the permitted hours of clubhouse use in line with the permitted hours of sportsground use so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the Plan of Management; and to permit earlier tennis court hire at appropriate locations.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council place on public exhibition an amendment to the SFPOM to permit the use of clubhouses and amenities until 10pm on Fridays and Saturdays, and 12am when the club is hosting a club function or special event and has given surrounding residents at least seven days’ notice in writing and that Council also place on public exhibition an amendment to permit tennis court hire from 7am at appropriate locations.

 

GB.7        Draft Policy for Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places                           745

 

File: S10030

 

To consider the draft policy for use of overt electronic surveillance in public places for crime prevention associated with illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council place the draft policy for the use of overt electronic surveillance in public places on public exhibition for 28 days and that a further report be presented to Council on completion of the exhibition period.

  

 

Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting

 

 

BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS

 

 

Questions Without Notice

 

 

Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS

 

 

** ** ** ** ** **


Minute                                           Ku-ring-gai Council                                               Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 26 August 2014

 

Present:

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

Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillors C Berlioz & D Ossip (St Ives Ward)

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

 

 

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (Greg Piconi)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Manager Finance (Angela Apostol)

Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan)

Minutes Secretary (Sigrid Banzer)

 

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm

 

The Mayor offered the Prayer

 

265

Apologies

 

File: S02194

 

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

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Pettett)

 

That the apologies from Councillor Armstrong 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 Duncan McDonald declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in GB.2 - Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 4th Quarter 2013 to 2014 - [his son is a lawyer and works for Sparke Hill Moore which the Council may use from time to time in a consulting and representative capacity].  He also declared that his decisions tonight would not be influenced by the fact that his son works for the firm and will be staying in the Chamber for debate and voting on the Item.

 

Councillor David Citer declared a significant pecuniary interest in C.1 - T03-2014 Provision of Project Marketing and Sales Agency Services for the Former B2 Lands Subdivision (he declared that he doesn’t think it is in the public interest for him to reveal the details of that tenderer but would just like to say that one of the tenderers has been a sponsor of the service that he manages, the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service, and that he has also used one of the tenderers in the sale of one of his family properties) and that he will leave the Chamber before the debate and voting on the item.

 

266

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

 

File: S02499/8

Vide: BN.0

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillor Szatow/Councillor McDonald)

 

A.    That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of:

 

C.1      T03-2014 Provision of Project Marketing and Sales Agency Services for the Former B2 Lands Subdivision

 

C.2      General Manager's Performance Review Period of review - 12 months to May 2014

 

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

 

Refer GB.6  Engagement of Heritage Consultants for Review of Heritage Properties and Heritage Conservation Areas in Pymble

 

Attachment A2:. Consultants quotes - HCA Peer Review 2014 -

....................... Pymble East/West and Middle Harbour Road Lindfield

 

Attachment A3:. Assessment of quotes - HCA Peer Review 2014 –

                               Pymble East/West and Middle Harbour Road Lindfield

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

 

Address the Council

 

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

 

M Inglis             -        Marian Street Theatre

W Blaxland        -        Marian Street Theatre

 

 

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

 

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

 

Memorandums:

Refer GB.4 - Draft General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 – Memorandum from Director Corporate dated 25 August 2014 advising that on page 110 of the business paper under the sub-heading Other Expenses, the report should read “favourable” variance of $891K rather than “unfavourable”.

Councillors Information:

15 Normac Street Roseville – STEP – Building Works Encroaching Bushland Reserve – Memorandum from Director Development and Regulation in answer to a Question Without Notice raised by Councillor David Armstrong at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 12 August 2014.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

 

 

Standing Orders were suspended to leave the matter of

Confirmation of Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes of 24 June 2014

to later on in the Meeting

after a Motion moved by Councillors Ossip and McDonald

 

For the Motion:                      The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Berlioz, Citer, Fornari-Orsmond, McDonald, Ossip and Szatow

 

Against the Motion:                Councillors Malicki and Pettett

 

 

267

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

 

File: S02131

 

 

Meeting held 12 August 2014

Minutes numbered 247 to 264

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Fornari-Orsmond)

 

That Minutes numbered 247 to 264 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

 

268

Draft General and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014

 

File: S05273

Vide: GB.4

 

 

To present to Council the draft Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 for certification and referral to Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants and seek approval to carry over budgets to fund incomplete works at 30 June 2014.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Pettett/Szatow)

 

A.    That Council receive and certify the draft Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014.

 

B.    That the draft Financial Statements be referred to Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants to provide an opinion on the draft Financial Statements ended 30 June 2014 and to report to Council.

 

C.    That the draft Financial Statements ended 30 June 2014 be certified by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer in accordance with Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

 

D.    That 9 September 2014 be fixed as the date for the public meeting to present the audited Financial Statements and the audit reports for the year ended 30 June 2014 as required by Section 419 of the Local Government Act 1993, and that Council’s external auditor be present to answer questions.

 

E.    That Council adopt carry over expenditure of $18.006 million to carry forward to the 2014/15 financial year, as listed in Attachment A1, and borrow $3.883 million for the external loan funded portion of these works.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

 

269

Draft Asset Management Policy

 

File: S08989

Vide: GB.9

 

 

For Council to adopt the revised draft Asset Management Policy.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Citer)

 

For Council to adopt the revised draft Asset Management Policy.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

Councillor Citer declared a significant pecuniary interest

in respect of the following item – T03-2014 Provision of Project

Marketing and Sales Agency Services for the Former B2

Lands Subdivision and withdrew from the

Chamber taking no partin discussion or voting on the item

 

 

270

T03-2014 Provision of Project Marketing and Sales Agency Services for the Former B2 Lands Subdivision

 

File: S08281/4

Vide: C.1

 

 

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

 

Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public in respect of information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

The matter is classified confidential because it deals with the proposed acquisition and/or disposal of property.

 

It is not in the public interest to release this information as it would prejudice Council’s ability to acquire and/or dispose of the property on appropriate terms and conditions.

 

Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

 

(i)      prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii)     confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or

(iii)    reveal a trade secret.

 

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(i) because it deals with tenders.  Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process.  Some information provided to Council by tenderers is provided on the basis that Council will treat it as commercial in confidence.

 

It is not in the public interest to reveal details of these tenders or the assessment process.  Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council.  The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.

 

Section 10A(2)(d) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

 

(i)           prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii)         confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of Council, or

(iii)       reveal a trade secret.

 

This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(d)(ii) because it would confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

 

Report by Director Strategy and Environment and Manager Strategic Projects dated
13 August 2014.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Ossip/Malicki)

 

A.       That Council accept the Tender identified in the Tender Evaluation Committee Recommendation outlined above for the provision of Project Marketing and Sales Agency Services for the former B2 Lands subdivision at South Turramurra.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present

 

 

Councillor Citer returned

 

 

Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items

where there are speakers first after a

Motion moved by Councillors Szatow and Berlioz

was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

 

 

271

Engagement of Heritage Consultants for Review of Heritage Properties and Heritage Conservation Areas in Pymble

 

File: S10014

Vide: GB.6

 

 

The following members of the public addressed Council:

 

G Tabuteau

P Cooper

 

 

To report on quotations received for the preparation of an additional HCA Peer Review in East and West Pymble.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

 

A.    That Council receive and note the quotations.

 

B.    That funds of $9,955 (including GST) be allocated to cover the cost of the preferred consultant identified in the report, to undertake a review of HCAs of the identified areas in East and West Pymble.

 

C.    That funds be identified in the first quarter budget review.

 

D.    That the commissioning of the preferred consultants for the HCA Review in Pymble (East and West) be commenced as soon as practical and a further report brought back to Council on completion of the studies.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion.  The Original Motion was:

 

(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Fornari-Orsmond)

 

That Council receive and note the quotations.

 

 

 

272

Reclassification of Council-owned land within Pymble, Wahroonga, East and West Pymble

 

File: S09769

Vide: GB.7

 

 

The following members of the public addressed Council:

 

J Clements

K Bevan

G Keating

 

 

To have Council consider the feedback following the exhibition and public hearing for the Planning Proposal to reclassify six sites within Pymble, Wahroonga, and East and West Lindfield from community to operational land status.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

 

A.    That 19 Hughes Place, East Lindfield be reclassified from Community land to Operational and as per the planning proposal.

 

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

 

Against the Resolution:         Councillor Berlioz

 

B.    That 9 Eric Street, Wahroonga be reclassified from Community land to Operational and as per the planning proposal.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

C.    That 57 Merrivale Road, Pymble be reclassified from Community land to Operational and as per the planning proposal.

 

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

 

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

 

D.    That 57 Merrivale Road, Pymble be continued to be used to provide child care services in the future.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

E.    That 6A Peace Avenue, Pymble be reclassified from Community land to Operational and as per the planning proposal.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

F.    That 77A Bradfield Road, West Lindfield be reclassified from Community land to Operational and as per the planning proposal.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

G.    That Edith Street (between 74/76 Bannock Burn Road), Pymble be reclassified from Community land to Operational and as per the planning proposal.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

H.    That Council enter into an agreement with the NSW Office of Strategic Lands on the process for the sharing of any proceeds from the potential development and divestment of 9 Eric Street, Wahroonga, net of the costs of obtaining reclassification and subdivision approvals.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

I.     That any existing lawfully established access which is currently enjoyed by property owners for the Edith Street, Pymble site and the Eric Street, Wahroonga site be protected by appropriate legal means upon reclassification and divestment of the sites.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

J.    That the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Minister in accordance with Division 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

K.    That all persons who made a submission be notified of Council’s decision.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

 

273

Planning Proposal to include ‘Hardware and Building Supplies’ as a Permissible Land Use with Development Consent in Zone B7 (Business Park) - Consideration of Submissions

 

File: S10209

Vide: GB.10

 

 

The following members of the public addressed Council:

 

A Grundy

G Tabuteau

 

 

To consider the submissions arising from the public exhibition of the planning proposal and request the Department of Planning and Environment to make the plan in accordance with S59(2) of The EP&A Act 1979.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

 

That the decision be deferred for consideration after the planning proposal for heritage listing the 3M building as it may become necessary to excise the 3M building and curtilage from this planning proposal.

 

For the Resolution:                The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Berlioz, Malicki, McDonald, Ossip, Pettett and Szatow

 

Against the Resolution:         Councillors Citer and Fornari-Orsmond

 

 

The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion.  The Original Motion was:

 

(Moved: Councillors Citer/Fornari-Orsmond)

 

A.      That the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance to include ‘hardware and building supplies’ as a permissible land use with development consent in Zone B7 (Business Park) proceed without variation.

 

B.      That Council proceed to make the Plan under delegated authority under Section 59(2) of the EP&A Act and Regulations.

 

C.      That those who made a submission be notified of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

274

Economic Development Projects - Strategy and Action Plans

 

File: S09436

Vide: GB.1

 

 

To outline to Council, the strategy, approach and budgets for delivering economic and social development projects in Ku-ring-gai.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/McDonald)

 

A.    That Council adopt the recommended programs, initiatives and budgets for    ESDAC projects for 2014/2015.

 

B.    Any subsequent proposals to expand monies currently included under the unallocated amount of $24,300 be formally reported back to Council for ratification throughout the financial year.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

275

Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 4th Quarter 2013 to 2014

 

File: S05273

Vide: GB.2

 

 

To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the year ended 30 June 2014.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/McDonald)

 

That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 30 June 2014 be received and noted.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

276

Investment Report as at 31 July 2014

 

File: S05273

Vide: GB.3

 

 

To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for July 2014.

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

 

A.    That the summary of investments and performance for July 2014 be received and noted.

 

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

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

277

30-34 Henry Street Gordon - Demolish Existing Structures and Construct a Residential Flat Building containing 44 Units, Basement Parking and Landscaping

 

File: DA0264/13

Vide: GB.5

 

 

To determine Development Application DA0264/13 involving demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building comprising 44 units, basement parking and landscaping.

 

 

Councillor Ossip withdrew and was not present for voting on the item

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Berlioz)

 

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant deferred commencement development consent to DA 0264/13 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building containing 45 units, basement parking and landscaping on land at No 30-34 Henry Street Gordon, for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following:

 

SCHEDULE A – DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT TERM:

 

This consent shall not operate until the following deferred commencement term is satisfied:

 

A.     Provision of a drainage easement

 

The applicant shall submit documentary evidence that the Owners' Corporation of SP13053 (717 Pacific Highway Gordon) has given written consent to the released of the inter-allotment drainage easement C540229 and the creation of a new easement over the renewed pipe shown on Whipps-Wood Drawing 2011-0281 HDA01/P2. This consent will not operate until the documentary evidence has been submitted to and approved by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

Reason:         To ensure that provision is made for stormwater drainage through the site in a proper manner that protects adjoining properties.

 

NOTE:             The deferred commencement term must be satisfied within 2 years of the date that the consent is granted. It the deferred commencement term is not satisfied within 2 years, the consent will lapse.

 

Upon receipt of written notification from Council that the abovementioned condition has been satisfied the consent will operate and following conditions will apply:

 

SCHEDULE B – GENERAL CONDITIONS:

 

Conditions that identify approved plans:

 

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

 

The development must be carried out in accordance with work shown in colour on 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

D000 Drawing and Location Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D001 Perspective 01

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D002 Perspective 02

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D003 Perspective 03

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D070 Demolition Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D097 Basement 3 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D098 Basement 2 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D099 Basement 1 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D101 Level 1 Floor Plan (Ground)

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision D 19/05/2014

D102 Level 2 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision D 19/05/2014

D103 Level 3 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D104 Level 4 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D105 Level 5 Floor Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D106 Level 6 Roof Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D110 Adaptable Layout Plan 01

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 08/07/2014

D111 Adaptable Layout Plan 01

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision A 08/07/2014

D120 Proposed Driveway Detail

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision A 13/05/2014

D200 East & West Elevations

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D201 North & South Elevations

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision D 19/05/2014

D300 Section 01

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision D 19/05/2014

D301 Section 02

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision D 19/05/2014

D310 Rear Perspective

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D320 Common Areas Perspective

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D400 Setback Diagram

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D401 40% Site Coverage Diagram

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D402 30% Deep Soil Diagram

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision C 19/05/2014

D403 FSR Calculation

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D404 Natural Ventilation Diagram

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D406 Communal Open Space

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D407 Private Open Space

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D408 Apartment Mix

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D409 Elevation Diagram - Setback to Heritage Building

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D410 Storage Diagram

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D425 Planting Diagram

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision A 19/05/2014

D500 Waste Management and Preliminary Construction Plan

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

D600 External Finishes

Koichi Takada Architects

Revision B 01/04/2014

2011-0281 HDA01/P2 Hydraulic Services Plan

AJ Whipps Consulting Group

P2 13/05/2014

L001 Landscape Plan - Level 5

Peta Gilliland Landscape Design

Revision H 08/06/11

L002 Landscape Plan - Level 5

Peta Gilliland Landscape Design

Revision D 25/06/13

 

Document(s)

Dated

BASIX certificate No. 491503M_03

14 May 2014

Waste Management Plan - Ku-ring-gai Council Template

Unsigned / Undated

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic Ref 20130618.1/1207A/R0/JR

12/07/2013

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by JK Geotechnics Ref 2492Srptrev1

16/07/2013

Access Report prepared by Mark Relf of Accessibility Solutions Pty Ltd

22/07/2013

Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Traffix Traffic & Transport Planners Ref11.093r01v03

Revision 3 19/07/2013

Arboricultural Impact Report prepared by Guy Paroissien of Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd

Revised 04/07/2013

 

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

Landscape Plan L001/H and L002/D

Peta Gilliland Landscape Design

 15/05/14

 

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

 

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

 

4. Asbestos works

 

All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.

 

Reason:         To ensure public safety

 

5. Groundwater inflow predictions

 

1.    The predicted instantaneous inflow rate (expressed in litres per second) and the predicted groundwater extraction volume (expressed in mega-litres) for the defined period of construction (expressed in months) of the development shall be determined and advised to the NSW Office of Water. The treatment, management and disposal of the pumped groundwater will be subject to the approval of the appropriate regulatory authority.

 

2.    The predicted instantaneous inflow rate (expressed in litres per second) and the predicted groundwater extraction volume (expressed in mega-litres per year) for the long-term operation of the development shall be determined and advised to the NSW Office of Water. The treatment, management and disposal of the pumped groundwater will be subject to the approval of the appropriate regulatory authority.

 

Note:               The appropriate regulatory authority may be either Council, Sydney Water, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority or the NSW Office fo Water, depending on the quality or contamination status of the groundwater and the proposed method of disposal.

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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.

 

8. 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 Henry Street over the site frontage.

 

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.

 

9. Archival recording of buildings

 

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that an archival report has been submitted to Council’s Heritage Advisor.

 

The report must consist of an archival standard photographic record of the building (internally and externally), its garden and views of it from the street illustrating its relationship to neighbouring properties and the streetscape. Recording shall be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines for “Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006)” prepared by the New South Wales Heritage Office.

 

Information shall be bound in an A4 report format. It shall include copies of photographs, referenced to plans of the site. Two (2) copies (one (1) copy to include negatives or CD of images shall be submitted to Council's Heritage Advisor. The recording document will be held in the local studies collection of Ku-ring-gai Library, the local historical society and Council’s files.

 

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 works.

 

Reason:         To ensure the proper management of historical artefacts and to ensure their preservation.

 

10.   Dilapidation survey and report (private property)

 

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

 

Addresses:

 

Nos 28 and 36 Henry Street

 

Nos 713, 717 and 719 Pacific Highway

 

The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.

 

In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.

 

Note:              A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.

 

Reason:         To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.

 

11.   Geotechnical report

 

Prior to the commencement of any bulk excavation works on site, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority, the results of the detailed geotechnical investigation recommended in JK Geotechnics report dated 16 July 2013. The report is to address such matters as:

 

·    appropriate excavation methods and techniques

·    vibration management and monitoring

·    dilapidation survey

·    support and retention of excavated faces

·    hydrogeological considerations

 

The recommendations of the report are to be implemented during the course of the works.

 

Reason:         To ensure the safety and protection of property.

 

12. 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:

 

·    Demolition

·    Excavation

·    Concrete pour

·    Construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath

·    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.

 

For safety and amenity, no heavy vehicle movements are to occur in Henry Street during school drop-off (8.00am to 9.30am) and pick-up (2.30pm to 4.00pm) periods.

 

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.

 

13.   Work zone

 

A Works Zone is to be provided in Henry Street, subject to the approval of the Ku-ring-gai Local Traffic Committee.

 

No loading or unloading must be undertaken from the public road or nature strip unless within a Works Zone which has been approved and paid for.

 

In the event the work zone is required for a period beyond that initially approved by the Traffic Committee, the applicant shall make a payment to Council for the extended period in accordance with Council’s schedule of fees and charges for work zones prior to the extended period commencing.

 

Reason:         To ensure that appropriate measures have been made for the operation of the site during the construction phase.

 

14.   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.

 

15.   Marking of trees to be removed

 

All trees that are to be removed are to be clearly marked on site by the project arborist in accordance with the approved plans. All other trees are to be retained.

 

Reason:    To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

16.   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

Tree/location

Radius from trunk

Tree 8/ Camellia sasanqua (Chinese Camellia) This tree is located at the south-eastern corner of the site, within the adjacent property

2m

Tree 10/ Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood) This tree is located at the south-eastern corner of the site, within the adjacent property

4m

Tree 13/ Livistona chinensis (Chinese Fan Palm) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site

2m

Tree 16/ Brachychiton acerifolius (Flame Tree) This tree is located at the south-western corner of the site, within the adjacent property

3m

Tree 17/ Pistacia chinensis (Pistacia) This tree is located at the south-western corner of the site, within the adjacent property.

3m

Tree 35/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the western boundary of the site, within the adjacent property.

4m

Tree 45/ Euphorbia pulcherrima (Pointsettia) This tree is located on the northern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property

3.0m

Tree 46/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the northern boundary of the site

3.0m

 

Reason:         To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

17.   Tree protection fencing excluding structure

 

To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy excluding that area of the approved driveway shall be fenced off for the specified radius from the trunk 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 from trunk

Tree 2/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street nature reserve.

4.1m

Tree 4/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street frontage.

4.8m

 

Reason:         To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

18.   Tree protection fencing excluding structure

 

To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy excluding that area of the approved driveway shall be fenced off for the specified radius from the trunk 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 from trunk

Tree 2/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street nature reserve.

4.1m

Tree 4/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street frontage.

4.8m

 

Reason:         To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

19.   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.

 

20.   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.

 

21.   Ground protection - avoiding soil compaction

 

To preserve the following tree/s and avoid soil compaction, no work shall commence until temporary ground protection measures to avoid soil compaction (eg rumble boards or existing paving) beneath the canopy of the following tree/s and between the proposed excavation works and the temporary fencing is/are installed.

 

Schedule

Tree/Location

Tree 46/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the northern boundary of the site

 

Reason:         To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

22.   Tree fencing inspection

 

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

 

Reason:         To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

23.   Construction waste management plan

 

Prior to the commencement of any works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a waste management plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person, has been prepared in accordance with Council’s DCP 40 - Construction and Demolition Waste Management.

 

The plan shall address all issues identified in DCP 40, including but not limited to: the estimated volume of waste and method for disposal for the construction and operation phases of the development.

 

Note:              The plan shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         To ensure appropriate management of construction waste.

 

24.   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 achieve the best practice objectives of AS 2436-2010 and NSW Environment Protection Authority Interim Construction Noise Guidelines. 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, commercial premises 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 surrounding occupants 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;

 

Reason:         To protect the amenity afforded to surrounding residents and commercial occupants during the construction process.

 

25.   Support for Council roads, footpaths, drainage reserves

 

Council property adjoining the construction site must be fully supported at all times during all excavation and construction works. Details of shoring, propping and anchoring of works adjoining Council property, prepared by a qualified structural engineer or geotechnical engineer, must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), before the commencement of the works. A copy of these details must be forwarded to Council. Backfilling of excavations adjoining Council property or any void remaining at completion of construction between the building and Council property must be fully compacted prior to the completion of works.

 

Reason:         To protect Council’s infrastructure.

 

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

 

26.   Consolidation of allotments

 

The three allotments subject of this development application shall be consolidated into one allotment and registered with the Department of Property and Information prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

The lots to be consolidated are:

·    30 Henry Street, Gordon Lot B in DP 945897

·    32 Henry Street, Gordon Lot 1 in DP 940309

·    34 Henry Street, Gordon Lot 1 in DP 178704

 

Reason:    To ensure orderly development of land.

 

27.   Design elements of building

 

The Certifying Authority shall ensure that the integrated shading devices as indicated on the perspective drawings nominated in the approved plan set are maintained on the Construction Certificate drawings to ensure the development provides for satisfactory privacy and environmental design.

 

Reason:    Compliance with the principles of SEPP 65.

 

28.   Ventilation of kitchens

 

Unit kitchens shall be provided with mechanical ventilation to ensure appropriate amenity is maintained for residents.

 

Reason:    To ensure adequate ventilation is provided.

 

29.   Adaptable units

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a minimum of four units are designed as adaptable housing on accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS4299-1995: Adaptable Housing.

 

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

 

Reason:    Statutory requirement.

 

30.   Car wash

 

One visitors car parking space shall be equipped with a tap and appropriately drained (to the sewer) to provide for appropriate facilities for car washing.

 

Reason:    Compliance with DCP (Local Centres)

 

31.   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.

 

 

32.   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.

 

 

33.   Outdoor lighting

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all outdoor lighting will comply with AS/NZ1158.3: 1999 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

 

Note:              Details demonstrating compliance with these requirements are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Reason:         To provide high quality external lighting for security without adverse affects on public amenity from excessive illumination levels.

 

34.   Air drying facilities

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a common open space area dedicated for open air drying of clothes is provided. This area is to be located at ground level behind the building line and in a position not visible from the public domain.

 

In lieu of the above, written confirmation that all units will be provided with internal clothes drying facilities prior to the Occupation Certificate is to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason:         Amenity & energy efficiency.

 

35.   External service pipes and the like prohibited

 

Proposed water pipes, waste pipes, stack work, duct work, mechanical ventilation plant and the like must be located within the building. Details confirming compliance with this condition must be shown on construction certificate plans and detailed with construction certificate specifications. Required external vents or vent pipes on the roof or above the eaves must be shown on construction certificate plans and detailed with construction certificate specifications. External vents or roof vent pipes must not be visible from any place unless detailed upon development consent plans. Where there is any proposal to fit external service pipes or the like this must be detailed in an amended development (S96) application and submitted to Council for determination.

 

Vent pipes required by Sydney Water must not be placed on the front elevation of the building or front roof elevation. The applicant, owner and builder must protect the appearance of the building from the public place and the appearance of the streetscape by elimination of all external services excluding vent pipes required by Sydney Water and those detailed upon development consent plans.

 

Reason:         To protect the streetscape and the integrity of the approved development.

 

36.   Access for people with disabilities (residential)

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that access for people with disabilities to and from and between the public domain, residential units and all common open space areas is provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access.

 

Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1, AS1428.2, AS1428.4 and AS 1735.12.

 

Access is to be provided to the court yard located at the western end of the entry foyer by way of a stair lift or alternate compliant solution.

 

Reason:         To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

 

37.   Excavation for services

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) unless previously approved by conditions of consent, are located beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order, located on the subject allotment and adjoining allotments.

 

Note:              A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under the Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         To ensure the protection of trees.

 

38.   Recycling and waste management

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the development provides a common garbage collection/separation area sufficient in size to store all wheelie garbage bins and recycling bins provided by Council for the number of units in the development in accordance with DCP 40. The garbage collection point is to be accessible by Council’s Waste Collection Services.

 

The responsibility for:

 

·    the cleaning of waste rooms and waste service compartments; and

·    the transfer of bins within the property, and to the collection point once the development is in use;

 

shall be determined when designing the system and clearly stated in the Waste Management Plan.

 

Note:              The architectural plans are to be amended and provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         Environmental protection.

 

39.   Noise from plant in residential zone

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate an acoustic design report shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant identifying all mechanical ventilation equipment and other noise generating plant including, but not limited to car park and garbage room exhaust, roller shutter doors, air conditioners and lifts proposed as part of the development. The report shall provide acoustic design detailing and recommendations to address any potential noise impacts to ensure that the operation of an individual piece of equipment or operation of equipment in combination will not exceed more than 5dB(A) above the background (LA90, 15 min) level during the day when measured at the nearest adjoining property boundary and shall not be audible within a habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am.

 

Reason:       To comply with best practice standards for residential acoustic amenity.

 

40.   Location of plant (residential flat buildings)

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all plant and equipment (including but not limited to air conditioning equipment) is located within the basement or plant room as shown on the approved plans.

 

Note:              Architectural plans identifying the location of all plant and equipment shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         To minimise impact on surrounding properties, improved visual appearance and amenity for locality.

 

41.   Driveway crossing levels

 

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, driveway and associated footpath levels for any new, reconstructed or extended sections of driveway crossings between the property boundary and road alignment must be obtained from Ku-ring-gai Council. Such levels are only able to be issued by Council under the Roads Act 1993. All footpath crossings, laybacks and driveways are to be constructed according to Council's specifications "Construction of Gutter Crossings and Footpath Crossings".

 

Specifications are issued with alignment levels after completing the necessary application form at Customer Services and payment of the assessment fee. When completing the request for driveway levels application from Council, the applicant must attach a copy of the relevant development application drawing which indicates the position and proposed level of the proposed driveway at the boundary alignment.

 

This development consent is for works wholly within the property. Development consent does not imply approval of footpath or driveway levels, materials or location within the road reserve, regardless of whether this information is shown on the development application plans. The grading of such footpaths or driveways outside the property shall comply with Council's standard requirements. The suitability of the grade of such paths or driveways inside the property is the sole responsibility of the applicant and the required alignment levels fixed by Council may impact upon these levels.

 

The construction of footpaths and driveways outside the property in materials other than those approved by Council is not permitted.

 

Reason:         To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

 

42.   Driveway grades - basement car parks

 

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, longitudinal driveway sections are to be prepared by a qualified civil/traffic engineer and be submitted for to and approved by the Certifying Authority. These profiles are to be at 1:100 scale along both edges of the proposed driveway, starting from the centreline of the frontage street carriageway to the proposed basement floor level. The traffic engineer shall provide specific written certification on the plans that:

 

·    vehicular access can be obtained using grades of 20% (1 in 5) maximum and

·    all changes in grade (transitions) comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 -“Off-street car parking” (refer clause 2.5.3) to prevent the scraping of the underside of vehicles.

 

If a new driveway crossing is proposed, the longitudinal sections must incorporate the driveway crossing levels as issued by Council upon prior application.

 

Reason:         To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

 

43.   Basement car parking details

 

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, certified parking layout plan(s) to scale showing all aspects of the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority. A qualified civil/traffic engineer must review the proposed vehicle access and accommodation layout and provide written certification on the plans that:

 

·    all parking space dimensions, driveway and aisle widths, driveway grades, transitions, circulation ramps, blind aisle situations and other trafficked areas comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 - 2004 “Off-street car parking”

·    a clear height clearance of 2.6 metres (required for waste collection trucks) is provided over the designated garbage collection truck manoeuvring areas within the basement

·    no doors or gates are provided in the access driveways to the basement carpark which would prevent unrestricted access for internal garbage collection at any time from the basement garbage storage and collection area

·    the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements are to be constructed and marked in accordance with the certified plans

 

Reason:         To ensure that parking spaces are in accordance with the approved development.

 

44.   Drainage of paved areas

 

All new exposed impervious areas graded towards adjacent property and/or habitable areas are to be drained via the main drainage system. This may require the installation of suitable inlets pits, cut-off structures (e.g. kerb), and/or barriers that direct such runoff to the formal drainage system. Details of such measures shall be shown on the Construction Certificate drawings, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         To control surface run off and protect the environment.

 

45.   Car parking allocation

 

Car parking within the development shall be allocated in the following way:

 

Resident car spaces

53

Visitor spaces

11

Total spaces

64

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

46.   Number of bicycle spaces

 

The basement car park shall be adapted to provide 14 bicycle spaces in accordance with DCP (Local Centres). The bicycle parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

 

47.   Energy Australia requirements

 

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must contact Energy Australia regarding power supply for the subject development. A written response detailing the full requirements of Energy Australia (including any need for underground cabling, substations or similar within or in the vicinity the development) shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Any structures or other requirements of Energy Australia shall be indicated on the plans issued with the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and Energy Australia. The requirements of Energy Australia must be met in full prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason:         To ensure compliance with the requirements of Energy Australia.

 

 

48.   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.

 

49.   Underground services

 

All electrical services (existing and proposed) shall be undergrounded from the proposed building on the site to the appropriate power pole(s) or other connection point. Undergrounding of services must not disturb the root system of existing trees 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.

 

Reason:         To provide infrastructure that facilitates the future improvement of the streetscape by relocation of overhead lines below ground.

 

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

 

50.   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.

 

51.   Section 94 Contributions - Centres.

(For DAs determined on or after 19 December 2010)

 

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

 

Key Community Infrastructure

Amount

Local parks and local sporting facilities

$460,706.97

Local recreation and cultural facilities; Local social facilities

$79,636.58

Local roads, local bus facilities & local drainage facilities (new roads and road modifications)

$145,576.33

Local roads, local bus facilities & local drainage facilities (townscape, transport & pedestrian facilities)

$284,607.47

Total:

$970,527.35

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

52.   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.

 

53.   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.

 

54.   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.

 

55.   Vibration

 

Vibration emitted from activities associated with the demolition, excavation, construction and fitout of buildings and associated infrastructure shall satisfy the values referenced in Table 2.2 of the Environment Protection Authority Assessing Vibration - a Technical Guideline.

 

Reason:       To protect the amenity of surrounding residents during the construction process.

 

56.   Reduction or elimination of groundwater impact

 

If, during the detailed design of the development or during construction, significant quantities of groundwater are identified or encountered, the NSW Office of Water shall be consulted. Any measures as directed or agreed to by the NSW Office of Water to reduce or eliminate the inflow of groundwater to the construction site shall be incorporated into the detailed design and/or construction of the development.

 

Note: The NSW Office of Water shall determine the significance of any extraction volume and the need for an authorisation to account for the take of water so identified. Where an authorisation is deemed to be required, the applicant shall procure an entitlement from the relevant water source(s) appropriate to account for the extraction of groundwater. The authorisation shall be subject to prescribed assessment fees and administrative charges as determined from time-to-time by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

57.   Temporary irrigation

 

Temporary irrigation within the Tree Protection Fencing is to be provided. Irrigation volumes are to be determined by the Project Arborist.

 

Reason:         To protect trees to be retained on site.

 

 

58.   Demolition of existing site structures

 

To preserve the health and condition of existing trees to be retained, all demolition of existing building and landscape structures including tree removal, are to be undertaken within the access restricted to the existing driveways and building platforms. Where vehicular access is required across existing soft landscape area, temporary ground protection capable of supporting the vehicles is to be constructed in accordance with Section 4.5.3, AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

 

Reason:         To protect trees to be retained on site.

 

59.   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.

 

60.   Engineering fees

 

For the purpose of any development related inspections by Ku-ring-gai Council engineers, the corresponding fees set out in Councils adopted Schedule of 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.

 

61.   Statement of compliance with Australian Standards

 

The demolition work shall comply with the provisions of Australian Standard AS2601: 2001 The Demolition of Structures. The work plans required by AS2601: 2001 shall be accompanied by a written statement from a suitably qualified person that the proposal contained in the work plan comply with the safety requirements of the Standard. The work plan and the statement of compliance shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Reason:         To ensure compliance with the Australian Standards.

 

62.   Construction noise

 

During excavation, demolition and construction phases, noise generated from the site shall be controlled in accordance with best practice objectives of AS 2436-2010 and NSW Environment Protection Authority Interim Construction Noise Guidelines and the recommendations of the approved noise and vibration management plan.

 

Reason:       To protect the amenity of surrounding residents during the construction process.

 

63.   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.

 

64.   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.

 

65.   Post-construction dilapidation report

 

The applicant shall engage a suitably qualified person to prepare a post construction dilapidation report at the completion of the construction works. This report is to ascertain whether the construction works created any structural damage to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads. The report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. In ascertaining whether adverse structural damage has occurred to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads, the Principal Certifying Authority must:

 

·    compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report

·    have written confirmation from the relevant authority that there is no adverse structural damage to their infrastructure and roads.

 

A copy of this report is to be forwarded to Council at the completion of the construction works.

 

Reason:         Management of records.

 

66.   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 JK Geotechnics dated 16 July 2013 and the report submitted prior to commencement of works. Over the course of the works, a qualified geotechnical/
hydrogeological engineer 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.

 

67.   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

·    hydrogeological considerations

 

must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by JK Geotechnics dated 16 July 2013 and the report submitted prior to commencement of works. 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.

 

68.   Use of road or footpath

 

During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.

 

Reason:         To ensure safety and amenity of the area.

 

69.   Guarding excavations

 

All excavation, demolition and construction works shall be properly guarded and protected with hoardings or fencing to prevent them from being dangerous to life and property.

 

Reason:         To ensure public safety.

 

70.   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.

 

71.   Protection of public places

 

If the work involved in the erection, demolition or construction of the development is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, a hoarding is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.

 

The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place.

 

Any hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

 

Reason:         To protect public places.

 

72.   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.

 

73.   Construction signage

 

All construction signs must comply with the following requirements:

 

·    are not to cover any mechanical ventilation inlet or outlet vent

·    are not illuminated, self-illuminated or flashing at any time

·    are located wholly within a property where construction is being undertaken

·    refer only to the business(es) undertaking the construction and/or the site at which the construction is being undertaken

·    are restricted to one such sign per property

·    do not exceed 2.5m2

·    are removed within 14 days of the completion of all construction works

 

Reason:         To ensure compliance with Council's controls regarding signage.

 

74.   Approval for rock anchors

 

Approval is to be obtained from the property owner for any anchors proposed beneath adjoining private property. If such approval cannot be obtained, then the excavated faces are to be shored or propped in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical and structural engineers.

 

Reason:         To ensure the ongoing safety and protection of property.

 

75.   Maintenance period for works in public road

 

A maintenance period of six (6) months applies to all work in the public road reserve carried out by the applicant - after the works have been completed to the satisfaction of Ku-ring-gai Council. In that maintenance period, the applicant shall be liable for any section of the public infrastructure work which fails to perform in the designed manner, or as would reasonably be expected under the operating conditions. The maintenance period shall commence once the applicant receives a formal letter from Council stating that the works involving public infrastructure have been completed satisfactorily.

 

Reason:         To protect public infrastructure.

 

76.   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.

 

77.   Road repairs necessitated by excavation and construction works

 

It is highly likely that damage will be caused to the roadway at or near the subject site as a result of the construction (or demolition or excavation) works. The applicant, owner and builder (and demolition or excavation contractor as appropriate) will be held responsible for repair of such damage, regardless of the Infrastructure Restorations Fee paid (this fee is to cover wear and tear on Council's wider road network due to heavy vehicle traffic, not actual major damage).

 

Section 102(1) of the Roads Act states “A person who causes damage to a public road is liable to pay to the appropriate roads authority the cost incurred by that authority in making good the damage.”

 

Council will notify when road repairs are needed, and if they are not carried out within 48 hours, then Council will proceed with the repairs, and will invoice the applicant, owner and relevant contractor for the balance.

 

Reason:         To protect public infrastructure.

 

78.   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.

 

79.   Temporary rock anchors

 

If the use of temporary rock anchors extending into the road reserve is proposed, then approval must be obtained from Council and/or the Roads and Traffic Authority in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. The Applicant is to submit details of all the work that is to be considered, and the works are not to commence until approval has been granted. The designs are to include details of the following:

 

·      How the temporary rock anchors will be left in a way that they will not harm or interfere with any future excavation in the public road

·      That the locations of the rock anchors are registered with Dial Before You Dig

·      That approval of all utility authorities likely to use the public road has been obtained. All temporary rock anchors are located outside the allocations for the various utilities as adopted by the Streets Opening Conference.

·      That any remaining de-stressed rock anchors are sufficiently isolated from the structure that they cannot damage the structure if pulled during future excavations or work in the public road.

·      That signs will be placed and maintained on the building stating that de-stressed rock anchors remain in the public road and include a contact number for the building manager. The signs are to be at least 600mm x 450mm with lettering on the signs is to be no less than 75mm high. The signs are to be at not more than 60m spacing. At least one sign must be visible from all locations on the footpath outside the property. The wording on the signs is to be submitted to Council’s Director Technical Services for approval before any signs are installed.

 

Permanent rock anchors are not to be used where any part of the anchor extends outside the development site into public areas or road reserves.

 

All works in the public road are to be carried out in accordance with the Conditions of Construction issued with any approval of works granted under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

Reason:         To ensure the ongoing safety and protection of property.

 

80.   Temporary disposal of stormwater runoff

 

During construction, stormwater runoff must be disposed of in a controlled manner that is compatible with the erosion and sediment controls on the site. Immediately upon completion of any impervious areas on the site (including roofs, driveways, paving) and where the final drainage system is incomplete, the necessary temporary drainage systems must be installed to manage and control runoff as far as the approved point of stormwater discharge. Such measures shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         To preserve and enhance the natural environment.

 

81.   Erosion control

 

Temporary sediment and erosion control and measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of any works on the site. These measures must be maintained in working order during construction works up to completion. All sediment traps must be cleared on a regular basis and after each major storm and/or as directed by the Principal Certifying Authority and Council officers.

 

Reason:         To protect the environment from erosion and sedimentation.

 

82.   Drainage to interallotment easement

 

Stormwater runoff from all new impervious areas and subsoil drainage systems shall be piped and connected to the interallotment stormwater drainage line benefiting the site. The interallotment line must be covered by the necessary easement for drainage which may exist or need to be created under this consent.

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

83.   Grated drain at garage

 

A 200mm wide grated channel/trench drain, with a heavy-duty removable galvanised grate is to be provided in front of the garage door/basement parking slab to collect driveway runoff. The channel drain shall be connected to the main drainage system and must have an outlet of minimum diameter 150mm to prevent blockage by silt and debris.

 

Reason:         Stormwater control.

 

84.   Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate

 

The applicant must obtain a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994. An application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. The applicant is to refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au <http://www.sydneywater.com.au> then the “e-develop” icon or telephone 13 20 92. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

Reason:         Statutory requirement.

 

85.   Arborist’s report

 

The trees to be retained shall be inspected and monitored by an AQF Level 5 arborist in accordance with AS4970-2009 during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the project arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work. All reports should include dated, a brief description of the trees inspected, and any mitigation works prescribed. An arborist report prepared by Landscape Matrix, dated 4/07/13, has been submitted. The tree numbers refer to this report.

 

Schedule

Tree/location

Time of inspection

Tree 2/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street nature reserve.

Excavation for driveway

Tree 4/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street frontage.

Excavation for driveway

Tree 31/ Xylosma senticosa (Xylosma) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property.

Excavation for retaining walls

Tree 32/ Macadamia tetraphylla (Macadamia) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property

Excavation for retaining walls

Tree 35/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property.

Excavation for retaining walls. Proposed arborist to ensure all existing levels are retained between the tree and the retaining wall.

Tree 46/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the northern boundary of the site.

Minor ground modification and all excavation for play equipment and seating.

 

All works as recommended by the project arborist are to be undertaken by an experienced arborist with a minimum AQF Level 3 qualification.

 

Reason:    To ensure protection of existing trees.

 

86.   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.

 

87.   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.

 

88.   Hand excavation

 

All excavation, excluding for basement, within the specified radius of the trunk(s) of the following tree(s) shall be hand dug. No tree roots of 50mm 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 hand excavation.

 

Schedule

Tree/location

Radius from trunk

Tree 2/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street nature reserve.

4.1m

Tree 4/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) This tree is located on the Henry Street frontage.

4.8m

Tree 31/ Xylosma senticosa (Xylosma) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property.

6.4m

Tree 32/ Macadamia tetraphylla (Macadamia) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property

6.6m

Tree 35/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the southern boundary of the site, within the adjacent property.

9.8m

Tree 46/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) This tree is located on the northern boundary of the site.

5.5m

 

Reason:    To protect existing trees.

 

89.   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.

 

90.   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.

 

91.   Removal of noxious plants & weeds

 

All noxious and/or environmental weed species shall be removed from the property prior to completion of building works:

 

Reason:    To protect the environment.

 

92.   Survey and inspection of waste collection clearance and path of travel

 

At the stage when formwork for the ground floor slab is in place and prior to concrete being poured, a registered surveyor is to:

 

·    ascertain the reduced level of the underside of the slab at the driveway entry,

·    certify that the level is not lower than the level shown on the approved DA plans; and

·    certify that the minimum headroom of 2.6 metres will be available for the full path of travel of the small waste collection vehicle from the street to the collection area.

·    This certification is to be provided to Council’s Development Engineer prior to any concrete being poured for the ground floor slab.

·    No work is to proceed until Council has undertaken an inspection to determine clearance and path of travel.

 

At the stage when formwork for the ground floor slab is in place and prior to concrete being poured, Council’s Development Engineer and Manager Waste Services are to carry out an inspection of the site to confirm the clearance available for the full path of travel of the small waste collection vehicle from the street to the collection area. This inspection may not be carried out by a private certifier because waste management is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Reason:       To ensure access will be available for Council’s contractors to collect waste from the collection point.

 

93.   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:

 

94.   Easement for waste collection

 

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

 

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

 

95.   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. 491503M_03 dated 14 May 2014 have been complied with.

 

Reason:         Statutory requirement.

 

96.   Clotheslines and clothes dryers

 

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the units either have access to an external clothes line located in common open space or have a mechanical clothes dryer installed.

 

Reason:         To provide access to clothes drying facilities.

 

97.   Mechanical ventilation

 

Following completion, installation and testing of all the mechanical ventilation systems, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied of the following prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate:

 

1.  The installation and performance of the mechanical systems complies with:

 

·   The Building Code of Australia

·   Australian Standard AS1668

·   Australian Standard AS3666 where applicable

 

2.  The operation of the mechanical ventilation systems and other noise generating plant in isolation or in association with other equipment will not be audible within a habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am. The operation of the equipment outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dB(A) above background when measured at the nearest adjoining residential boundary. The background (LA90, 15 min) level is to be determined without the source noise present.

 

Note:              Written confirmation from an acoustic engineer that the development achieves the above requirements is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason:         To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

98.   Completion of landscape works

 

Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works 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.

 

99.   Completion of tree works

 

Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all tree works, including pruning in accordance with AS4373-2007 or remediation works in accordance with AS4370-2009, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent. All monitoring reports shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

100.   Accessibility

 

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

 

·    the lift design and associated functions are compliant with AS 1735.12 & AS 1428.2

·    the level and direction of travel, both in lifts and lift lobbies, is audible and visible

·    the controls for lifts are accessible to all persons and control buttons and lettering are raised

·    international symbols have been used with specifications relating to signs, symbols and size of lettering complying with AS 1428.2

·    the height of lettering on signage is in accordance with AS 1428.1 - 1993

·    the signs and other information indicating access and services incorporate tactile communication methods in addition to the visual methods

 

Reason:         Disabled access & services.

 

 

101. 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 88B or 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 Volume C Part 4R.9 of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan). 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.

 

 

102. 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.

 

103. Certification of drainage works (dual occupancies and above)

 

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 storage volume requirements of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan have been achieved

·    retained water is connected and available for use

·    all grates potentially accessible by children are secured

·    components of the new drainage system have been installed by a licensed plumbing 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

 

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.

 

104. WAE plans for stormwater management and disposal (dual occupancy and above)

 

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, a registered surveyor must provide a works as executed survey of the completed stormwater drainage and management systems. The survey must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate. The survey must indicate:

 

·    as built (reduced) surface and invert levels for all drainage pits

·    gradients of drainage lines, materials and dimensions

·    as built (reduced) level(s) at the approved point of discharge to the public drainage system

·    as built location and internal dimensions of all detention and retention structures on the property (in plan view) and horizontal distances to nearest adjacent boundaries and structures on site

·    the achieved storage volumes of the installed retention and detention storages and derivative calculations

·    as built locations of all access pits and grates in the detention and retention system(s), including dimensions

·    the size of the orifice or control fitted to any on-site detention system

·    dimensions of the discharge control pit and access grates

·    the maximum depth of storage possible over the outlet control

·    top water levels of storage areas and indicative RL’s through the overland flow path in the event of blockage of the on-site detention system

 

The works as executed plan(s) must show the as built details above in comparison to those shown on the drainage plans approved with the Construction Certificate prior to commencement of works. All relevant levels and details indicated must be marked in red on a copy of the Principal Certifying Authority stamped construction certificate stormwater plans.

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

105. Basement pump-out maintenance

 

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a maintenance regime has been prepared for the basement stormwater pump-out system.

 

Note:              A maintenance regime specifying that the system is to be regularly inspected and checked by qualified practitioners is to be prepared by a suitable qualified professional and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

106. OSD positive covenant/restriction

 

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

 

The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to Volume C Part 4R.9 of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP). 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 on-site detention 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 and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

107. Easement registration and drainage line construction

 

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the new interallotment drainage system serving 717 Pacific Highway has been installed and surveyed under the supervision of a designing engineer or equivalent professional, and that an easement has been created over the pipe to benefit 717 Pacific Highway. Council is to be named as the authority to release, vary or modify the easement.

 

Note:              At the completion of the interallotment works, the following must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval:

 

·   details from the supervising engineer that that the as-constructed works comply with the approved interallotment design documentation

·   a full works as executed drawing of the as built interallotment drainage line (dimensions, grades, materials, invert levels) prepared by a registered surveyor, and details from the surveyor that all drainage structures are wholly contained within the drainage easement(s)

 

Reason:         To protect the environment.

 

108. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate

 

Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate the Section 73 Sydney water Compliance Certificate must be obtained and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority

 

Reason:      Statutory requirement.

 

109. Certification of as-constructed driveway/car park - RFB

 

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

 

·   the as-constructed car park complies with the approved Construction Certificate plans

 

·   the completed vehicle access and accommodation arrangements comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 - 2004 “Off-Street car parking" in terms of minimum parking space dimensions

 

·   finished driveway gradients and transitions will not result in the scraping of the underside of cars

 

·   no doors, gates, grilles or other structures have been provided in the access driveways to the basement car park, which would prevent unrestricted access for internal garbage collection from the basement garbage storage and collection area

 

·   the vehicular headroom requirements of:

 

o   Australian Standard 2890.1 - “Off-street car parking”,

o   2.6 metres height clearance for waste collection trucks are met from the public street into and within the applicable areas of the basement carpark.

 

Note:              Evidence from a suitably qualified and experienced traffic/civil engineer indicating compliance with the above is to be provided to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason:         To ensure that vehicular access and accommodation areas are compliant with the consent.

 

110. Reinstatement of redundant crossings and completion of infrastructure works

 

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, and upon completion of all work which may cause damage to Council's infrastructure, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that he or she has received a signed inspection form from Council which states that the following works in the road reserve have been completed:

 

·    new concrete driveway crossing in accordance with levels and specifications issued by Council

·    removal of all redundant driveway crossings and kerb laybacks (or sections thereof) and reinstatement of these areas to footpath, turfed verge and upright kerb and gutter (reinstatement works to match surrounding adjacent infrastructure with respect to integration of levels and materials)

·    full repair and resealing of any road surface damaged during construction

·    full replacement of damaged sections of grass verge to match existing

 

This inspection may not be carried out by the Private Certifier because restoration of Council property outside the boundary of the site is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

All works must be completed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued until all damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works on the subject site (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council. Repair works shall be at no cost to Council.

 

Reason:         To protect the streetscape.

 

111. Construction of works in public road - approved plans

 

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that all approved road, footpath and/or drainage works have been completed in the road reserve in accordance with the Council Roads Act approval and accompanying drawings, conditions and specifications.

 

The works must be supervised by the applicant’s designing engineer and completed and approved to the satisfaction of Ku-ring-gai Council.

 

The supervising consulting engineer is to provide certification upon completion that the works were constructed in accordance with the Council approved stamped drawings. The works must be subject to inspections by Council at the hold points noted on the Roads Act approval. All conditions attached to the approved drawings for these works must be met prior to the Occupation Certificate being issued.

 

Reason:         To ensure that works undertaken in the road reserve are to the satisfaction of Council.

 

112.  Fire safety certificate

 

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a Fire Safety Certificate for all the essential fire or other safety measures forming part of this consent has been completed and provided to Council.

 

Note:              A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be submitted to Council.

 

Reason:         To ensure suitable fire safety measures are in place.

 

Conditions to be satisfied at all times:

 

113. Outdoor lighting

 

At all times for the life of the approved development, all outdoor lighting shall not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings and shall comply with, where relevant, AS/NZ1158.3: 1999 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

 

Reason:      To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

114. Encroachment over burdens

 

At all times for the life of the approved development, no part of any structure shall encroach over any easement and no loadings shall be imposed to utilities within any easement unless approved by the owner(s) appurtenant to the burden.

 

This development consent does not set aside or affect in any way the exercise of any rights-at-law which may be conferred upon any parties by the existence and/or terms of the grant of any easements or rights-of-carriageway on or over the subject lot(s). It is the applicant’s full responsibility to ensure that any rights-at-law are investigated and upheld. Council accepts no responsibility whatsoever, at any time, for any claim for any matter or thing arising from its approval to this application involving any encroachment or other influence upon any easement or right-of-carriageway.

 

The applicant’s attention is directed to the rights of persons benefited by any easement or right-of-carriageway concerning the entry and breaking up of a structure approved by this consent. In the event that such a structure causes damage, blockage or other thing requiring maintenance to infrastructure within the easement or right-of-carriageway, or access is required to carry out maintenance, Council accepts no responsibility in this regard.

 

Reason:         To ensure compliance with the development consent.

 

115. No door restricting internal waste collection in basement

 

At all times, the basement garbage storage and collection area is to be accessible by Council’s Waste Collection Services. No doors, grilles, gates or other devices shall be provided in any location which would prevent this service. Where a gate, door or the like is to be erected, unimpeded access to the garbage collection point is to be provided by other means through written agreement with Council’s Waste Collection Services.

 

Reason:         To facilitate access to the garbage collection point.

 

116. Noise control - plant and machinery

 

All noise generating equipment associated with mechanical ventilation systems, plant and machinery shall be located and/or soundproofed so the equipment is not audible within a habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 10.00pm and 7am. The operation of the equipment outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dB(A) above the background when measured at the nearest adjoining boundary. The background (LA90, 15 min) level is to be determined without the source noise present.

 

Reason:    To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

 

117. Noise control - rainwater re-use system

 

All noise generating equipment, such as pumps, associated with any proposed rainwater re-use system/s shall be located and/or soundproofed so the equipment is not audible within a habitable room in any other residential premises before 7am and after 10pm Monday to Friday and before 8am and after 10pm Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. The operation of the pump/s outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dbA above the background when measured at the nearest boundary.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

118. Car parking

 

At all times, the visitor car parking spaces are to be clearly identified and are to be for the exclusive use of visitors to the site. On site permanent car parking spaces are not to be used by those other than an occupant or tenant of the subject building. Any occupant, tenant, lessee or registered proprietor of the development site or part thereof shall not enter into an agreement to lease, license or transfer ownership of any car parking spaces to those other than an occupant, tenant or lessee of the building. These requirements are to be enforced through the following:

 

·    restrictive covenant placed on title pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act, 1919

·    restriction on use under Section 68 of the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act, 1986 to all lots comprising in part or whole car parking spaces

 

Reason:         To ensure adequate provision of visitor parking spaces.

 

 

119. Loading and unloading

 

At all times, all loading and unloading of service vehicles in connection with the use of the premises shall be carried out wholly within the site.

 

Reason:         To ensure safe traffic movement.

 

120. Unobstructed driveways and parking areas

 

At all times, all driveways and parking areas shall be unobstructed. Driveways and car spaces shall not be used for the manufacture, storage or display of goods, materials or any other equipment and shall be used solely for vehicular access and for the parking of vehicles associated with the use of the premises.

 

Reason:         To ensure safe traffic movement.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present

 

 

Councillor Ossip returned

 

278

Delivery Program 2013-2017 & Operational Plan 2013-2014 - Bi-annual Report

 

File: FY00382/6

Vide: GB.8

 

 

To report to Council on the progress of the Revised Delivery Program 2013/2017 and Operational Plan 2013/2014, for the period January 2014 to June 2014. 

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Mayor, Councillor Anderson/Councillor Ossip)

 

A.    That the report on the six (6) monthly progress review of the Revised Delivery Program, 2013/2017 and Operational Plan 2013/2014 for the period of January 2014 to June 2014 be received and noted.

 

B.    That 2013/2014 Tasks as listed in the report be carried over for completion in Council’s 2014/2015 Operational Plan.

 

For the Resolution:                The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, Fornari-Orsmond, McDonald, Ossip and Szatow

 

Against the Resolution:         Councillors Berlioz, Malicki and Pettett

 

 

The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion.  The Original Motion was:

 

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Pettett)

 

A.      That the report on the six (6) monthly progress review of the Revised Delivery Program, 2013/2017 and Operational Plan 2013/2014 for the period of January 2014 to June 2014 be received and noted.

 

B.      That 2013/2014 Tasks as listed in the report be carried over for completion in Council’s 2014/2015 Operational Plan.

 

C.      That P4.1.2.1.1, on page 614, the Term of achievement be carried out as soon as possible as per the resolution of Council dated 10/12/2013.

 

 

 

279

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

 

File: S02131

 

 

Meeting held 24 June 2014

Minutes numbered 187 to 210

 

 

Resolved:

 

(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/Ossip)

 

That Minutes numbered 187 to 210 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting with the exception of the Urgency Motion before Minute No 210 – Staff Matter – General Manager’s Performance Review and that the Urgency Motion and voting be amended as follows:

 

A.    That Councillor Berlioz voted for the motion of urgency and Councillors Pettett and Szatow voted against the motion of urgency.

 

B.    That Councillor Szatow departed during discussion of the below item.

 

For the Resolution:                The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, Fornari-Orsmond, McDonald and Ossip

 

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

 

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

 

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Pettett)

 

A.      That all the Councillors who gave personal explanations – Councillors Malicki, Berlioz, Armstrong, Szatow and Pettett were not in the room for any formal vote and therefore there was no quorum and therefore no decision.

 

B.     That Councillor Berlioz voted for the motion of urgency and Councillors Pettett and Szatow voted against the motion of urgency.

 

C.     That Councillor Szatow departed during discussion of the below item.

 

 

 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

 

280

Graffiti on Utilities in the Area – Henry Street Gordon

 

File: S05122

Vide: QN.1

 

 

Question Without Notice from Councillor Cheryl Szatow

 

At least 3 months ago, the Operations Department alerted Railcorp to the ugly graffiti on the doors of its sub-station in Henry Street.  The mess is still there.  What can be done about this?

 

Answer by Director Operations

 

I’ll take it on notice and I will refer it to Railcorp to see what they are doing.

 

 

 

 

281

Letter to the Minister of Transport – Culworth Avenue Car Park Killara

 

File: S10007

Vide: QN.2

 

 

Question Without Notice from Councillor Cheryl Szatow

 

At the last Council Meeting, Councillors voted unanimously for the General Manager to write to the Minister for Transport to offer the Culworth Avenue Car Park in Killara, the second portion on Culworth Avenue, to Transport of NSW.

 

Has this been done and could Councillors have a copy of the letter, please?

 

Answer by Director Strategy and Environment

 

The answer to both questions is yes and I will provide a copy of the letter tomorrow.

 

 

 

282

Meals on Wheels – Display of Promotional Banner at Council Events

 

File: CY00377/3

Vide: QN.3

 

 

Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald

 

At a recent Meals on Wheels (MOW) Board Meeting, it was raised that as a means to increase awareness to this Non for Profit Organisation that they display promotional banners and distribute marketing information and things like edible treats at major Council events such as the Wahroonga Park Music in The Park series.

 

Would this pose an issue for Council to allow this and is it necessary that it be approved by way of a Notice of Motion given the awareness campaign would not require Staff to do anything but it would be located in or next to the Ku-ring-gai stall?

 

Answer by Director Community

 

We can certainly talk with Meals on Wheels about giving them a higher exposure at the events and that type of thing.

 

 

 

283

Land and Environment Court Costs – Comparison to Councils in NSW

 

File: S05948

Vide: QN.4

 

 

Question Without Notice from Councillors Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond

 

Could the General Manager or the Director Development and Regulation please provide comparison figures for Land and Environment Court costs for all NSW Councils for last financial year when they are available from the State Government, please?

 

Answer by the General Manager

 

As soon as the comparative data report comes out, we will send that through to Councillors.

 

 

 

284

10/50 Legislation

 

File: S10321

Vide: QN.5

 

 

Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki

 

What action, if any, is Council taking on the 10/50 Legislation?

 

Answer by Director Strategy and Environment

 

Council doesn’t have a position on the 10/50 Legislation other than the submission adopted by Council several weeks ago.

 

 

 

Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter -C.2 - General Manager's Performance Review Period of review - 12 months to May 2014 in accordance with section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of information that would, if disclosed, relate to the discussion of personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

This resolution was moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and McDonald.

 

For the Motion:          The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, Ossip, McDonald and Fornari-Orsmond

 

Against the Motion:    Councillors Malicki, Pettett, Szatow and Berlioz

 

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

 

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Pettett)

 

Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter -C.2 - General Manager's Performance Review Period of review - 12 months to May 2014 in accordance with section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of information that would, if disclosed, relate to the discussion of personnel matters concerning particular individuals and that the Mayor’s Personal Assistant remain in the Chamber to take the Minutes of
C.2 - General Manager's Performance Review Period of Review - 12 months to May 2014

 

 

285

General Manager's Performance Review Period of Review - 12 months to May 2014

 

File: CY00254/6

Vide: C.2

 

 

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

 

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

 

Confidential Mayoral Minute by the Mayor, Councillor Jennifer Anderson dated 15 August 2014.

 

 

Resolved:

 

A.    That Council recognises that overall the General Manager’s performance achieved a MORE THAN SATISFACTORY result for the 2013/2014 performance cycle.

 

B.    That in accordance with the provisions of the General  Manager’s contract, Council approve an increase to the total remuneration package, as determined by the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal (SOORT), being 1.88% effective on and from 1 July 2014.

 

C.    That the General Manager be formally advised of Council’s decision.

 

D.    That reviews are to be conducted twice yearly in November and May with both reviews to be reported back to full Council.

 

E.    That all Councillors must be given an opportunity to put forward their views for consideration by the Panel.

 

F.    That the Panel give consideration to the weighting of each KPI.

 

G.    That the full comments prepared by the Consultant be provided to full Council.

 

H.    That a portion of each Performance Review be conducted without the General Manager in attendance.

 

I.     That a date be confirmed with the Consultant to progress the KPIs.

 

J.    That the Mayor contact Gregor Ptok to inquire as to his availability for performance reviews and if he is not available, that the Mayor contact Employment Solutions to inquire about an alternative consultant.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

Council resolved to return to Open Council

after a Motion moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and McDonald

was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

The Mayor adverted to the consideration of the matter referred to in the Minute numbered 285, and to the resolutions contained in such Minute.

 

The Meeting closed at 11.45pm

 

 

 

 

 

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 August 2014 (Pages 1 - 57) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 9 September 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

          __________________________                                 __________________________

                   General Manager                                                         Mayor / Chairperson

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.1 / 58

 

 

Item GB.1

S10082

 

13 August 2014

 

 

North Connex Project Response to Environmental Impact Statement

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

For Council to endorse the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the North Connex Project Environmental Impact Statement.

 

 

background:

The NSW Government announced the preferred scheme for the North Connex tunnel on 16 March 2014. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was placed on public exhibition from 15 July 2014 to 12 September 2014.

 

 

comments:

As there are a number of environmental aspects associated with the North Connex project, it was necessary to engage consultants for air quality, noise and vibration and heritage. While Council has heritage advisers on staff, they were not available to assist with Council’s submission due to existing workloads. However, Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer and Ecological Assessment Adviser were able to provide information to be included in Council’s submission.

 

 

recommendation:

That Council endorse the attached submission and covering letter for the North Connex Environmental Impact Statement review for lodgement with the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

 

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

For Council to endorse the attached submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on the North Connex Project Environmental Impact Statement.

 

Background

 

Council considered a Notice of Motion from Councillor Fornari- Orsmond regarding the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement at its meeting of 15 July 2014 and resolved as follows:

 

A.   That Council approve the engagement of suitably qualified consultants to assist with Council’s submission on the EIS for the North Connex project.

 

B.   That any funding required for the engagement of consultants be referred to Council at the first quarter budget review for 2014/2015.

 

The NSW Government announced the preferred scheme for the North Connex tunnel on 16 March 2014. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was placed on public exhibition from 15 July 2014 to 12 September 2014.

 

A letter was sent to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking an extension to the exhibition period but at the time of writing, no response has been received. Consequently, this report and attached submission is being prepared to meet the 12 September 2014 closing date.

 

Prior to the EIS being placed on public exhibition, Council had received a number of emails providing information and support for Council in a response to the EIS. A number of issues from nearby residents have also been provided.

 

Comments

 

As there are a number of environmental aspects associated with the North Connex project, it was necessary to engage consultants for air quality, noise and vibration and heritage. While Council has heritage advisers on staff, they were not available to assist with Council’s submission due to existing workloads. However, Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer and Ecological Assessment Adviser were able to provide information to be included in Council’s submission.

 

On 18 August 2014, Council held a workshop with interested residents to provide Council and its consultants with a list of concerns they wish to be considered as part of Council’s submission. A copy of the Workshop Summary Notes is included in Section 11 of Council’s submission.

 

It should be noted that while a number of issues were raised, Council’s submission will focus mainly on errors and omissions associated with the EIS. Residents who attended the workshop were requested to make their own submissions to the EIS.

 

Council’s covering letter and proposed submission to the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment is attached as Attachment A1 and A2 including the consultant reports in Appendices A, B and C. This will be uploaded to the Department of Planning and Environment website prior to the closing of submissions before 12 September 2014.

 

Council’s submission mainly concentrates on the northern portal of the proposed project. This section of the project relates directly to Ku-ring-gai Council. As the project will assist with improvements to traffic flow on the major arterial roads and possibly some local roads, the submission did not object to the project being constructed but mainly focused on the impacts the project will have on the environment and local residents adjacent to the proposed northern entrance to the tunnel.

 

The major concerns of Council and the local community are summarised below:

 

·        Number of stacks compared to Lane Cove Tunnel

The Lane Cove tunnel is 3.6km long and has two (2) ventilation stacks. The proposed North Connex tunnel is 9km long and only has two (2) proposed ventilation stacks. Consequently, it is considered unacceptable for such a long tunnel to only have two (2) ventilation stacks and serious consideration should be given to including at least one (1) additional ventilation stack at the mid-point of the tunnel to assist with the dispersion of pollutants over a broader area.

 

·        Location of stacks in industrial areas

The Lane Cove Tunnel ventilation stacks are located in industrial areas of the North Shore, therefore, away from residential areas. As the ventilation stacks are not proposed to be filtered, they should at least be located in industrial areas. There is an opportunity to locate the northern ventilation stacks in the industrial areas of Hornsby and therefore minimise the impact on the residential areas of Hornsby and Wahroonga.

 

·        Consider extending tunnel

To assist with improving the ventilation stack location, tunnel gradients and noise impacts of the tunnel, consideration should be given to extending the tunnel northerly to avoid locating the northern portals near residential areas.

 

·        Height of stacks

The height of the ventilation stacks, where proposed, is identified as being 15 metres tall. This will have a negative impact on the visual character and Heritage Conservation Area of Wahroonga.

 

·        Background air stations and atmospheric conditions

The differences between modelled and actual terrain need to be explained, in terms of whether the simulated meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet will change because of the data source (SRTM) and selected resolution.

The comparison of modelled and measured (Lindfield) wind speeds suggests the CALMET simulation of conditions in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet needs further verification. A comparison between the modelled and measured (for example, James Park) wind patterns is required in order to demonstrate the CALMET output is representative of local conditions.

 

·    Air quality assessment and ongoing monitoring

The recommended concentrations of pollutants in the in-coming air are estimated and included in the emission calculations, with ventilation outlet emission estimates updated as appropriate. Additional information is required to demonstrate the northern ventilation outlet emissions and resultant concentrations in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet are not underestimated because of the assumed concentrations in the intake air.

The difference between the estimated in-tunnel concentrations for North Connex and measured concentrations from other tunnels should be explained, with consideration of differences between traffic volumes, ventilation flow rates and tunnel lengths to make sure modelled emissions for North Connex have not been under-estimated.

 

It is recommended the Department of Planning and Environment consider the predicted ambient concentrations in light of the modelled source concentrations, if concentration limits are to be set.

 

With regard to ongoing monitoring of the air quality, there needs to be consideration to consent requirements for the air quality to be measured over a five (5) year period to ensure emissions are within acceptable levels. If they are outside acceptable levels, then filtering may be required.

 

·    Construction issues

As indicated in the EIS, the project is to operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week. Where there are residential dwellings in close proximity to the worksite, it is considered the working hours are totally unreasonable and should be restricted to working days, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 7am to 5pm and Saturdays 8am to 1pm.

 

To minimise noise, the access road off Eastbourne Avenue should not be used between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am.   A suitable intersection arrangement will need to be provided at Eastbourne Avenue to ensure traffic on Eastbourne Avenue is not disrupted by construction vehicles and safety on Eastbourne Avenue is not compromised.

 

To minimise noise, the access road off Coonanbarra Road should not be used between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am. A suitable intersection arrangement will need to be provided at Coonanbarra Road to ensure traffic on Coonanbarra Road is not disrupted by construction vehicles and safety on Coonanbarra Road and Carrington Street is not compromised.

 

A road condition report is requested for Coonanbarra Road and Junction Road (between Coonanbarra Road and the M1 Motorway), to ensure any damage to Council’s roads used by construction traffic for the North Connex project, during the life of the project, is identified and repaired to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Council should be consulted on Construction Traffic Management Plans prior to any approval of the project.

 

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) will need to provide details and protocols for minimising and managing the risk of noise and vibration impacts from construction activity.  Construction noise management and mitigation measures will have to be comprehensively covered within the CNVMP.

 

·    Design issues

There is concern one (1) northbound lane on the M1 Motorway does not provide sufficient capacity for northbound traffic. This would result in traffic congestion back into Pennant Hills Road. An extra northbound lane should be provided at this location to maintain satisfactory levels of service.

 

In the northbound carriageway, under existing Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road bridge, there are currently three (3) northbound lanes with associated shoulders between the bridge abutment and the central bridge support. It is difficult to see how four (4) northbound lanes, nominal shoulders and a separation space could be accommodated without major modifications to the abutments and central support at the Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road bridge. This has not been identified or analysed. Modifications to the bridge would have significant impacts to Edgeworth David Avenue, Junction Road and the Regional Road 2043 route between Roseville and Hornsby.

 

·    Ecology impacts

The Northern Interchange Compound Site  (NICS) will result in the removal of 1.14ha of Critically Endangered Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) (Eco Logical Australia 2013) which is listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

 

The 1.14ha of BGHF which is proposed to be removed to establish the NCIS is one of the largest stands of critically endangered BGHF outside of local bushland reserves (Dalrymple Hay, Sheldon Forest, Brown’s Forest & Clive Evatt).

 

No BGHF biodiversity credit sites have been identified in the North Connex Technical Working Paper: Biodiversity. The Technical Working Paper Biodiversity fails to demonstrate compliance with the Director General Requirements (DGR) –biodiversity, and fulfil its requirements to offset in accordance with the NSW offset principles for Major projects.

 

The project, if approved, would require 10% or 17.52ha of all the remaining BGHF to be protected and conserved. In accordance with the Office of Environmental Heritage (OEH) principles, the project should not be approved until such time the offset of 163 BGHF Biodiversity credits can be demonstrated for the loss of 2.81ha of BGHF.

 

·    Heritage impacts

Some of the information used for the Statements of Significance and Statement of Heritage Impacts was out-dated. However, it is recognised these oversights do not substantially alter the substance of the Heritage Impact Assessment in relation to most of the items (except 11A Lucinda Avenue) and the Heritage Conservation Area within the Ku-ring-gai Council LGA.

 

11A Lucinda Avenue (Hindfell) is a substantially intact property of potential state significance. It is appropriate a more detailed impact assessment and vibration monitoring program be established for 11A Lucinda Avenue. The issue of acoustic treatment needs to be addressed with regard to the intactness of the property and its aesthetic significance.

 

The EIS assesses four (4) potential impacts to heritage items as confirmed by this review. They include:

 

1.   vibration impacts,

2.   settlement impacts,

3.   visual impacts and

4.   impacts from acoustic treatments.

 

In summary the following can be summarised:

 

Vibration impacts – The EIS does not define the scope of vibration monitoring works to be undertaken. In particular, how impacts would be addressed if they arise. The assessment does not take into account the fabric of the property in its assessment. The vibration assessment on page 78 of the EIS notes the individual features of the property need to be factored into impact assessments. This should be considered to confirm potential degree of impact and ensure adequate measures are put in place to protect the properties.

 

Settlement impacts – The EIS determined some properties have the potential to be subject to, at most, minor cosmetic damage. However, the assessment did not take into account the fabric of the property in its assessment. The vibration assessment on page 78 of the EIS notes the individual features of the property need to be factored into impact assessments. This should be considered to confirm potential degree of impact and ensure adequate measures are put in place to protect the properties.

 

Visual impacts – The EIS, as confirmed by our review, has determined the majority of visual impact to heritage items would be negligible due to the plan for the replacement of noise walls and revegetation once construction is completed. However, it is noted for 4 Burns Road, the potential visual impact described in the EIS will not be screened by neighbouring properties, as these properties are marked for acquisition and demolition. The EIS should be amended to address this potential impact.

 

Acoustic treatment impacts – The EIS for heritage recommends one property for potential acoustic treatment. The reasons for the selection of this property and the exclusion of neighbouring properties is not stated in the heritage chapter of the EIS and is not made clear in the noise chapter of the EIS. Community consultation has raised the possibility acoustic treatment is being considered for other properties. If this is the case, the appropriate heritage assessments should be carried out.

 

The heritage chapter of the EIS has inconsistencies and in some cases uses out-dated significance assessments as the basis for investigation of impacts, but the general thrust of the document is considered to be accurate. The project will avoid direct impacts to heritage properties and the Heritage Conservation Area. However, the potential for impacts has not been adequately addressed.

 

 The EIS has left many aspects of future planning to detailed design. This has created confusion and uncertainty in the community and has made it difficult for the community to understand the ongoing process. In addition, the low legibility of the document, cross referencing to technical papers that are not interpreted and difficult to read maps has made it difficult to clarify points of confusion.

 

·    Noise impacts

Additional noise monitoring should be carried out to determine representative background levels (RBLs) for the revised noise catchment areas (NCAs).

 

Additional noise monitoring should be carried out, where required, to determine existing traffic noise levels for the revised NCAs.

 

Further information should be provided regarding the Northern Ventilation Facility and tunnel portal jet fans and a review of potential sleep disturbance from the operation of the Northern Ventilation facility.

Details should be provided to clarify how the study area was derived (i.e. how was it calculated the Project adds no more than 2.0 dB(A) to the total noise level) and the boundary of the study area should be defined.

 

Operational daytime LAeq,15hr  and night-time LAeq,9hr traffic noise contours should be provided.

 

Details should be provided to clarify what receiver heights were assessed as part of the operational assessment.  Confirmation will be required if this affects the outcomes of the noise barrier assessment.

 

More information is required as to how the open graded asphalt (OGA) corrections for the M1 southbound carriageway were derived.

 

With regard to pavement corrections, it should be clarified whether the corrections were applied equally for each vehicle emission string (car exhaust/engine; car/truck tyre noise; truck engines and truck exhaust) or just for the car/truck tyre noise emission string.

 

It is not clear why the southbound carriageway of the M1 Motorway has assumed to be resurfaced with open graded asphalt (OGA) for the No Build Opening year and Design year scenarios. This would imply the resurfacing is not project related and has perhaps already been undertaken post EIS noise monitoring (i.e. after December 2013).

 

Details should be provided to clarify whether Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) corrections or any other calibration corrections and safety factors have been applied to operational traffic noise predictions.

 

More information is required with regard to the portal correction used in noise assessment.

 

More detailed assessment of maximum noise level impacts associated with the Northern Interchange should be provided.

 

A reasonable and feasible noise barrier analysis in accordance with Environment Noise Management Manual (ENMM ) -Practice Note (iv) should be conducted for Lucinda Avenue properties (including IDs 1617, 1626, 1648, 1656 & 1661) which are located north-east of the on and off-ramp portals.

 

 

The Environment Impact Statement –Noise and Vibration (EIS-NV) needs to provide more information to ensure the receivers affected by the Northern Interchange, where noise barriers are to be replaced, are provided with replacement noise barriers of at least the equivalent performance of the existing barriers.

 

A cumulative noise assessment should be included in the EIS to address operational Northern Ventilation Facility - portal noise and operational traffic noise.

 

Details should be provided to clarify whether the property treatments identified within Table 59 of the EIS are applicable to the ground floor and/or first floor of multi-storey dwellings.

 

The EIS-NV should include a commitment to provide a road surface with similar acoustic performance to OGA when the road is resurfaced in future.

 

·    Traffic issues

The use of the compounds in Ku-ring-gai will have a significant impact on local traffic conditions. They need to be managed to reduce the impact on the local community. There are local schools in the vicinity of these compounds and road and traffic safety will need to be included in any consent conditions. This needs to be heavily consulted with Council and representatives of the local schools to ensure the safety of school children.

 

·    Construction vibration impacts

Tunnelling work under the properties in Lucinda and Eastbourne Avenues will have an impact on the structural integrity of the properties. A dilapidation survey is required for all properties within a 100 metre zone of any construction work. The proposal to undertake tunnelling work 24 hours per day is expected to cause vibration to properties. Any activity should be limited to standard working hours. This needs to be addressed in the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development.

 

Develop plans and strategies that respond to the impacts of urban development.

 

Respond to State Government Planning initiatives and reforms – including the new Planning Legislation.

 

 

Governance Matters

 

Council’s submission is regarded as one of Council’s general governance requirements.

 

 

Risk Management

 

The construction and ongoing operation may involve risks to Council’s environment and ecological communities with possible impacts on the health and well-being of the local community. To help overcome some of these risks, Council has sought additional information which needs to be provided and assessed as well as included in draft Conditions of Consent for this state significant project.

 

Financial Considerations

 

To assist with Council’s submission, a number of specialist consultants were engaged. The cost of the engagement for the consultants will be reported to Council in the first quarter review of the budget as well as an indication of the likely source of funding for this work. When the budget was originally being prepared, it was not possible to identify what was required for this project as the announcement was not made public until March 2016.

 

Social Considerations

 

The project will have some social benefits in terms of improved travel times but may have negative impacts on property values particularly with those properties in close proximity to the ventilation stacks. It may have an impact on the Heritage Conservation Area of Wahroonga.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

The purpose of this report is to address the environmental considerations associated with the project and its impact on the community in terms of health and well-being, threats to vegetation, threatened species and fauna.

 

Community Consultation

 

Consultation has been undertaken with the local community with regard to concerns associated with the project by responding to emails and holding a workshop with local residents to allow issues to be raised and considered by Council and its consultants in the preparation of Council’s submission.

 

Internal Consultation

 

Consultation has been undertaken with representatives of the Development and Regulation department and the Strategy and Environment department on this project. Representatives of these departments have provided comments on various aspects of the submission.

 

Summary

 

The NSW Government announced the preferred scheme for the North Connex tunnel on 16 March 2014. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was placed on public exhibition from 15 July 2014 to 12 September 2014.

 

Prior to the EIS being placed on public exhibition, Council received a number of emails providing information and support for Council to respond to the EIS. A number of issues from nearby residents have also been provided.

 

As there are a number of environmental aspects associated with the North Connex project, it was necessary to engage consultants for air quality, noise and vibration and heritage. On 18 August 2014, Council held a workshop with interested residents to provide Council and its consultants with a list of concerns they wish to be considered as part of Council’s submission.

 

Council’s submission mainly concentrates on the northern portal of the proposed project as this section of the project relates directly to Ku-ring-gai Council. As the project will assist with improvements to traffic flow on the major arterial roads and possibly some local roads, the submission did not object to the project from being constructed and mainly focused on the impacts the project will have on the environment and local residents adjacent to the proposed northern entrance to the tunnel.

 

In order to verify the issues are being addressed, Council is seeking an opportunity to comment on the draft Conditions of Consent prior to the determination being made by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council endorse the attached submission and covering letter for the North Connex Environmental Impact Statement review for lodgement with the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

 

 

 

 

Greg Piconi

Director Operations

 

 

 

Attachments:

A1View

Letter to accompany submission

 

2014/216987

 

A2View

Submission - response to Environmental Impact Statement - North Connex project

 

2014/213843

 

A3View

Appendix A - consultant review - Air Quality Review

 

2014/217255

 

A4View

Appendix B - consultant review - Noise and vibration

 

2014/217251

 

A5View

Appendix C - consultant review - Heritage

 

2014/216945

  


APPENDIX No: 1 - Letter to accompany submission

 

Item No: GB.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact:  Greg Piconi                                                                  Reference: S10082 / 2014/216987 

                                                                                                                                1 September 2014

 

1301012011022212001212300030212222013

Assessing Officer

Department of Planning and Environment

Application number - SS 13_6136

Major Projects Assessment

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY  NSW  2001

 

 

 

Submission to the Environmental Impact Statement

for the North Connex Tunnel Project

 

Please find attached Ku-ring-gai Council’s submission to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the North Connex tuner project.

 

Council has engaged suitably qualified consultants to review and assess the EIS and have found the EIS does not provide sufficient information to fully assess the impacts on the local community. The consultants, along with Council staff, have highlighted a number of areas where additional information is required. These are detailed in Council’s submission.

 

It would be appreciated if the Department of Planning and Environment seek responses from Transurban and the Roads and Maritime Services prior to any determination of the EIS. Council understand the Department is obtaining its own independent analysis of several environmental aspects associated with the project. This action is supported.

 

Council held a forum with local residents.  Their concerns with the project have been included in Council’s submission.

 

Council and the local community have raised a number of concerns with the proposed project particularly with regard to the location of the northern ventilation stack and its likely impact on the local community. There are a number of other concerns relating to construction traffic, noise and vibration, loss of property values and heritage impacts.

 

Council requests it be consulted on any proposed conditions of consent prior to determination of the EIS.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Clr Jennifer Anderson

Mayor


APPENDIX No: 2 - Submission - response to Environmental Impact Statement - North Connex project

 

Item No: GB.1

 

 

KC Logo

 

KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL

 

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE NORTH CONNEX TUNNEL PROJECT

untitled

 

9 September 2014


 

 

Contents

1.      Executive summary. 2

2.      Air quality issues. 8

2.1         Existing Air Quality Data (“Background” levels). 8

2.2         Meteorological Data. 8

2.3         Emission Calculations. 10

2.4         Model Selection. 13

2.5         Receptor Data. 13

2.6         Assessment Criteria. 14

2.7         Construction. 14

2.8         Air Quality Impacts of an Alternative. 14

2.9         Summary. 16

3.      Construction issues. 17

3.1         Northern Construction Compound (off Eastbourne Avenue). 17

3.2         Junction Road compound (off Coonanbarra Road, Wahroonga). 19

4.      Design issues. 20

4.1         Pacific Highway / Pennant  Hills Road / M1 Motorway Interchange. 20

4.2         Edgeworth David Avenue/Junction Road bridge. 20

4.3         Lane Configuration at Northern Portals/Northern Ventilation Facility. 21

5.      Ecological issues. 22

5.1         Ecological Impact. 22

5.2         Offsets for BGHF. 22

5.3         Biodiversity Credits. 23

5.4         Key Issue. 23

6.      Heritage issues. 24

7.      Noise issues. 26

8       Property value issues. 27

9       Traffic issues. 28

10    Vibration issues. 29

11    Workshop forum summary. 30

12.   Conclusion. 33

 

1.    Executive summary

 

Council has undertaken a review of the Environmental Impact Statement and has engaged suitably qualified consultants to assist with the review. Council held an issues workshop with representatives of the local community and their concerns are in Section 11 of this report.

The major concerns of Council and the local community are summarised below:

 

·          Number of stacks compared to Lane Cove Tunnel

 

The Lane Cove tunnel is 3.6km long and has two (2) ventilation stacks. The proposed North Connex tunnel is 9km long and has only two (2) proposed ventilation stacks. Consequently, it is considered unacceptable for such a long tunnel to only have two (2) ventilation stacks. Serious consideration should be given to including at least one (1) additional ventilation stack at the mid-point of the tunnel to assist with the dispersion of pollutants over a broader area.

 

·        Location of stacks in industrial areas

 

The Lane Cove Tunnel ventilation stacks are located in industrial areas of the North Shore and therefore away from residential areas. As the ventilation stacks for the North Connex project are not proposed to be filtered, they should at least be located in industrial areas. There is an opportunity to locate the northern ventilation stack in the industrial area of Hornsby. This relocation would minimise the impact on the residential areas of Hornsby and Wahroonga.

 

·        Consider extending tunnel

 

To assist with improving the ventilation stack location, tunnel gradients and noise impacts of the tunnel, consideration should be given to extending the tunnel in the north direction to avoid the northern portals being located near residential areas.

 

·    Height of stacks

 

The height of the ventilation stacks, where proposed, is identified as being 15 metres tall. This will have a negative impact on the visual character and Heritage Conservation Area of Wahroonga.

 

·    Background air stations and atmospheric conditions

 

The differences between modelled and actual terrain need to be explained, particularly in terms of whether the simulated meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet will change because of the data source (SRTM) and selected resolution.

The comparison of modelled and measured (Lindfield) wind speeds suggests the CALMET simulation of conditions in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet needs further verification. A comparison between the modelled and measured (for example, James Park) wind patterns is required in order to demonstrate the CALMET output is representative of local conditions.

 

·    Air quality assessment and ongoing monitoring

 

It is recommended concentrations of pollutants in the in-coming air are estimated and included in the emission calculations, with ventilation outlet emission estimates updated as appropriate. Additional information is required to demonstrate the northern ventilation outlet emissions and resultant concentrations in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet are not underestimated because of the assumed concentrations in the intake air.

 

The difference between the estimated in-tunnel concentrations for North Connex and measured concentrations from other tunnels should be explained, with consideration of differences between traffic volumes, ventilation flow rates and tunnel lengths to make sure modelled emissions for North Connex have not been under-estimated.

 

It is recommended the Department of Planning and Environment consider the predicted ambient concentrations in light of the modelled source concentrations, if concentration limits are to be set.

 

With regard to ongoing monitoring of the air quality, there needs to be consideration to consent requirements for the air quality to be measured over a five (5) year period to ensure emissions are within acceptable levels. If they are outside acceptable levels then filtering may be required.

 

·    Construction issues

 

As indicated in the EIS, the project is to operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week. Where there are residential dwellings in close proximity to the worksite, it is considered the working hours are unreasonable and should be restricted to working days, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 7am to 5pm and Saturdays 8am to 1pm.

 

To minimise noise, the access road off Eastbourne Avenue should not be used between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am. A suitable intersection arrangement will need to be provided at Eastbourne Avenue to ensure traffic on Eastbourne Avenue is not disrupted by construction vehicles and safety on Eastbourne Avenue is not compromised.

 

To minimise noise, the access road off Coonanbarra Road should not be used between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am. A suitable intersection arrangement will need to be provided at Coonanbarra Road to ensure traffic on Coonanbarra Road is not disrupted by construction vehicles and safety on Coonanbarra Road and Carrington Street is not compromised.

 

A road condition report is requested for Coonanbarra Road and Junction Road (between Coonanbarra Road and the M1 Motorway), to ensure any damage to Council’s roads used by construction traffic for the North Connex project, during the life of the project, is identified and repaired to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Council should be consulted on Construction Traffic Management Plans prior to any approval of the project.

 

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) will need to provide details and protocols for minimising and managing the risk of noise and vibration impacts from construction activity.  Construction noise management and mitigation measures will have to be comprehensively covered within the CNVMP.

 

·    Design issues

 

There is concern one (1) northbound lane on the M1 Motorway does not provide sufficient capacity for northbound traffic. This would result in traffic congestion back into Pennant Hills Road. An extra northbound lane should be provided at this location to maintain satisfactory levels of service.

 

 

In the northbound carriageway, under existing Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road bridge, there are currently three (3) northbound lanes with associated shoulders between the bridge abutment and the central bridge support. It is difficult to see how four (4) northbound lanes, nominal shoulders and a separation space could be accommodated without major modifications to the abutments and central support at the Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road bridge. This has not been identified or analysed. Modifications to the bridge would have significant impacts to Edgeworth David Avenue, Junction Road and the Regional Road 2043 route between Roseville and Hornsby.

 

·    Ecology impacts

 

The Northern Interchange Compound Site (NICS) will result in the removal of 1.14ha of Critically Endangered Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) (Eco Logical Australia 2013) which is listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

 

The 1.14ha of BGHF which is proposed to be removed to establish the NICS is one of the largest stands of critically endangered BGHF outside of local bushland reserves. These reserves are Dalrymple Hay, Sheldon Forest, Brown’s Forest & Clive Evatt.

 

No BGHF biodiversity credits sites have been identified in the North Connex Technical Working Paper: Biodiversity. The Technical Working Paper Biodiversity fails to demonstrate compliance with the Director General’s Requirement (biodiversity) and fulfil its requirements to offset in accordance with the NSW offset principles for major projects. The project, if approved, would require 10% or 17.52ha of all the remaining BGHF to be protected and conserved. In accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) principles the project should not be approved until such time the offset of 163 BGHF biodiversity credits can be demonstrated for the loss of 2.81ha of BGHF.

 

·    Heritage impacts

 

Some of the information used for the Statements of Significance and Statement of Heritage Impacts was out-dated. However, it is recognised these oversights do not substantially alter the substance of the Heritage Impact Assessment in relation to most of the items (except 11A Lucinda Avenue) and the Heritage Conservation Area within the Ku-ring-gai Council LGA.

 

11A Lucinda Avenue (Hindfell) is a substantially intact property of potential State significance. It is appropriate a more detailed impact assessment and vibration monitoring program be established for 11A Lucinda Avenue. The issue of acoustic treatment needs to be addressed with regard to the intactness of the property and its aesthetic significance.

 

The Environment Impact Statement (EIS) assesses four (4) potential impacts to heritage items as confirmed by this review. They include:

 

1.   Vibration impacts,

2.   Settlement impacts,

3.   Visual impacts and

4.   Impact from acoustic treatments.

 

 

 

 

 

In summary:

Vibration impacts – The EIS does not define the scope of vibration monitoring works that would be undertaken or how any impacts would be addressed if they arise. The assessment does not take into account the fabric of the property in its assessment. The vibration assessment on page 78 of the EIS notes the individual features of the property would need to be factored into impact assessments. This should be considered to confirm the potential degree of impact and ensure adequate measures are put in place to protect properties.

Settlement impacts – The EIS determined some properties have the potential to be subjected to, at most, minor cosmetic damage. However, the assessment does not take into account the fabric of the property in its assessment. The vibration assessment on page 78 of the EIS notes individual features of the property need to be factored into impact assessments. This should be considered to confirm potential degree of impact and ensure adequate measures are put in place to protect the properties.

Visual impacts – The EIS determined the majority of the visual impact to heritage items would be negligible due to the plan for the replacement of noise walls and revegetation once construction is completed. However, it is noted the property known as 4 Burns Road will not be screened by neighbouring properties, as these properties are marked for acquisition and demolition. The EIS should be amended to address this potential impact.

Acoustic treatment impacts – The EIS for heritage recommends one property for potential acoustic treatment. The reasons for the selection of this property and the exclusion of neighbouring properties are not stated in the heritage chapter of the EIS. It is not clear either in the noise chapter of the EIS. Community consultation has raised the possibility acoustic treatment is being considered for other properties. If this is the case, the appropriate heritage assessments should be carried out.

The heritage chapter of the EIS has inconsistencies. In some cases it uses out-dated significance assessments as the basis for investigation of impacts. However, the general thrust of the document is considered to be accurate. The project will avoid direct impacts to heritage properties and the Heritage Conservation Area. However, the potential for impacts has not been adequately addressed. The EIS has left many aspects of future planning to detailed design. This has created confusion and uncertainty in the community and has made it difficult for the community to understand the ongoing process. In addition, the low legibility of the document, cross referencing to technical papers which are not interpreted and difficult to read maps has made it difficult to clarify points of confusion.

 

·    Noise impacts

Additional noise monitoring should be carried out to determine the representative background levels (RBLs) for the revised noise catchment areas (NCAs).

Additional noise monitoring should be carried out, where required, to determine existing traffic noise levels for the revised NCAs.

Further information should be provided regarding the northern ventilation facility and tunnel portal jet fans and a review of potential sleep disturbance from the operation of the northern ventilation facility.

Details should be provided to clarify how the study area was derived (i.e. how was it calculated the project adds no more than 2.0 dB(A) to the total noise level) and the boundary of the study area should be defined.

Operational daytime LAeq,15hr  and night-time LAeq,9hr traffic noise contours should be provided.

Details should be provided to clarify what receiver heights were assessed as part of the operational assessment. Confirmation will be required as to whether this affects the outcomes of the noise barrier assessment.

More information is required as to how the open graded asphalt (OGA) corrections for the M1 southbound carriageway were derived.

With regard to pavement corrections, it should be clarified whether the corrections were applied equally for each vehicle emission string:

·    car exhaust/engine;

·    car/truck tyre noise;

·    truck engines and truck exhaust or

·    just for the car/truck tyre noise emission string.

It is not clear why the southbound carriageway of the M1 Motorway has been assumed to be resurfaced with open graded asphalt (OGA) for the No Build Opening year and Design year scenarios. This would imply the resurfacing is not project related and has perhaps already been undertaken post EIS noise monitoring (i.e. after December 2013).

Details should be provided to clarify whether Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) corrections or any other calibration corrections and safety factors have been applied to operational traffic noise predictions.

More information is required with regard to the portal correction used in noise assessment.

More detailed assessment of maximum noise level impacts associated with the Northern Interchange should be provided.

A reasonable and feasible noise barrier analysis in accordance with Environment Noise Management Manual (ENMM) Practice Note (iv) should be conducted for Lucinda Avenue properties (including IDs 1617, 1626, 1648, 1656 & 1661) which are located north-east of the on and off-ramp portals.

The Environmental Impact Statement -Noise and Vibration (EIS-NV) needs to provide more information to ensure the receivers affected by the Northern Interchange, where noise barriers are to be replaced, are provided with replacement noise barriers of at least the equivalent performance of the existing barriers.

A cumulative noise assessment should be included in the EIS to address operational Northern Ventilation Facility - portal noise and operational traffic noise.

Details should be provided to clarify whether the property treatments identified within table 59 of the EIS are applicable to the ground floor and/or first floor of multi-storey dwellings.

The EIS-NV should include a commitment to provide a road surface with similar acoustic performance to OGA when the road is resurfaced in future.

 

·    Traffic issues

The use of the compounds in Ku-ring-gai will have a significant impact on local traffic conditions. This is required to be managed to reduce the impact on the local community. There are local schools in the vicinity of these compounds. Road and traffic safety concerns will need to be included in any consent conditions. This needs to be heavily consulted with Council and representatives of the local schools to ensure the safety of school children.

 

·    Vibration impacts

Tunnelling work under the properties in Lucinda and Eastbourne Avenues will have an impact on the structural integrity of the properties. A dilapidation survey is required for all properties within a 100 metre zone of any construction work.

The proposal to undertake tunnelling work 24 hours per day is expected to cause vibration to properties. This activity should be limited to standard working hours. This needs to be addressed in the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.


 

2.    Air quality issues

 

This section documents the main outcomes of the independent review undertaken by Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd on behalf of Council, including elements of the study which have been found to be acceptable as well as those which need more information or correction.

The review has been carried out by checking the main factors which could affect the conclusions of the assessment such as:

·    choice of models and model setup,

·    mission calculations,

·    meteorological data,

·    ambient air quality data and interpretation.

 In addition, the review has checked for consistency with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Approved Methods of the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (DEC, 2005) and whether the assessment has addressed the Director-General’s Requirements.

Review outcomes are provided below.

 

2.1     Existing Air Quality Data (“Background” levels)

AECOM Pty Ltd quantified the background levels by adopting either the maximum predicted roadside concentrations by the CAL3QHCR model or from maximum levels recorded by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) monitoring stations at Prospect and Lindfield. The derived levels were then added to model predictions to determine cumulative impacts. These cumulative predictions were compared to the EPA’s air quality assessment criteria.

Five (5) air quality monitoring stations were installed in December 2013 specifically for this Project at Headon Sports Park, James Park, Observatory Park, Brickpit Park and Rainbow Farm reserve). Monitored levels from these sites for the period between December 2013 and March 2014 were reported.

AECOM Pty Ltd adopted a generally conservative approach to the quantification of existing air quality. Based on a comparison between the assumed background levels and the measured concentrations at James Park, the assumed background levels are conservative for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) although potentially underestimated for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less in diameter( PM10)) and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. (PM2.5). The differences between the assumed air quality and the air quality in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet, as measured at James Park, are not significant in terms of affecting the conclusions of the assessment.

 

2.2     Meteorological Data

AECOM Pty Ltd has used a meteorological model (CALMET) to simulate conditions across an area of 60km by 62.5 km, at a resolution of 250 m. The model used hourly meteorological records from weather stations located at Lindfield, Terrey Hills, Richmond, Prospect and Sydney Airport, in addition to prognostic data from the M5 model. Terrain data was sourced from the Shutter Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) database. Terrain data from weather station to the Project corridor is not necessarily an issue, so long as the modelled local meteorological conditions are representative of measured local meteorological conditions.

Potential issues with the meteorological data, meteorological modelling and terrain data have been identified below.

·    Modelled wind speeds: AECOM Pty Ltd has provided wind-roses showing the CALMET simulated wind patterns in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet (refer to Appendix F of the Air Quality Impact Assessment of the EIS). From these wind-roses, CALMET has simulated calm conditions occur at this location for around 1% of the time. At Lindfield, the percentage of calm conditions is 27%. Wind speed is important for determining the amount of dispersion. It is important the meteorological data are representative of the area around the modelled emission sources.

 

Recommendation

The comparison of modelled and measured (Lindfield) wind speeds suggests the CALMET simulation of conditions in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet needs further verification. A comparison between the modelled and measured (for example, James Park) wind patterns are required in order to demonstrate  the CALMET output is representative of local conditions.

 

·    Terrain source and resolution: Figure 2.1 shows the area around the proposed northern ventilation outlet, overlayed with the SRTM terrain data, and including three (3) assumptions on terrain resolution; 50 m, 150 m and 250 m.

CALMET Pty Ltd has used the SRTM data, gridded at 250 m resolution.

From this figure, it can be seen there are differences between the modelled terrain (250 m resolution) and the “actual” terrain (assuming the 50 m resolution is closest to the actual terrain).

Differences are in the order of 5 to 10 m depending on the location. The SRTM data has a limitation as the radar imaging technique does not always map the true surface, especially when the ground is covered by dense vegetation.

 

Recommendation

The differences between modelled and actual terrain need to be explained, in terms of whether the simulated meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet will change because of the data source (SRTM) and selected resolution.

 

Figure 2.1 : Comparison of assumed SRTM data resolutions

 

2.3     Emission Calculations

Emissions of key pollutants (CO, NO2 and PM10) from the tunnel ventilation outlets have been estimated using forecast traffic volumes, tunnel grade, vehicle speed, and traffic mix, combined with emission factors from the World Road Association (PIARC 2012). Emissions from motor vehicles using surface roads have been estimated using the PIARC emission factors. PM2.5, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) emissions were calculated from the PIARC data using emission factor relationships from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI).

Pacific Environment Limited undertook independent emission calculations. These calculations were compared to the AECOM calculations and consistency was demonstrated.

Potential issues with the emission calculations have been identified below.

·    Pollutant concentrations in the intake air: Table 18 (from Technical Working Paper: Air Quality) shows the estimated in-tunnel pollutant concentrations at 1 km increments along each tunnel, for peak hours of 9 am and 6 pm. From provided data, it appears the assumed pollutant concentrations of the incoming air are zero. The southern portal of the northbound tunnel is located in the vicinity of Pennant Hills Road and M2 Motorway interchange where CO, NO2 and PM10 concentrations will not be zero but generally higher than at ambient monitoring stations.

PIARC (2012) recommends the concentrations in the ambient air supplied to the tunnel be considered for emission calculations and ventilation requirements.

 

Recommendation

Concentrations of pollutants in the in-coming air should be estimated and included in the emission calculations, with ventilation outlet emission estimates updated as appropriate. Additional information is required to demonstrate the northern ventilation outlet emissions and resultant concentrations in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet are not underestimated because of the assumed concentrations in the intake air.

 

·    In-tunnel concentration comparisons: From Table 18, the estimated in-tunnel pollutant concentrations in the northbound tunnel at 6 pm by 2019, are up to 6.26, 0.86 and 0.504 mg/m3 for CO, NO2 and PM10 respectively.

In-tunnel monitoring for the Lane Cove Tunnel (see for example Ecotech April 2014 report from http://www.lanecovemotorways.com.au) shows 30-minute average CO concentrations up to around 25 mg/m3 during peak hours.

Online in-tunnel 15-minute average, CO concentration data for the Brisbane Airport Link tunnel (6.7 km long and in the order of 50,000 vehicles per day) are typically[1] 20 to 30mg/m3.

These measurements are higher than the 6.26 mg/m3 estimated for NorthConnex.

 

Recommendation

The difference between the estimated in-tunnel concentrations for NorthConnex and measured concentrations from other tunnels should be explained, with consideration of differences between traffic volumes, ventilation flow rates and tunnel lengths to make sure modelled emissions for NorthConnex have not been under-estimated.

 

·    Assumed heavy goods vehicle mass: The emission calculations are based on an average heavy goods vehicle (HGV) mass of 23 tonnes (a typical fleet consisting of single lorries, trailer trucks and coaches).

Traffic forecasts for NorthConnex indicate the proportion of HGVs will range from 28 to 28.5 per cent northbound by 2019, which means total emissions from the tunnel will be sensitive to the HGV mass assumptions.

AECOM Pty Ltd has not discussed the variation in different sized HGVs. The emissions are strongly related to the total vehicle mass and different vehicle masses may need to be considered by using PIARCs vehicle mass factors.

 

 

Recommendation

The air quality assessment should document the variation in different sized HGVs (single lorries, trailer trucks and coaches) to support the use of the average HGV mass of 23 t.

 

·    Traffic speed assumptions: In-tunnel vehicle speed data for each hour of the day, and assumptions on congestion during peak hours, are not documented in the air quality assessment. These assumptions are important for the emission calculations.

 

Recommendation

This data should be documented in order to verify the northern ventilation outlet emissions and resultant concentrations in the vicinity of the northern ventilation outlet are not underestimated.

 

·    Emission source concentrations: Peak hour (6 pm) emissions from the northern ventilation outlet for Design Analysis A (2019) are estimated to be 7.31, 10.9 and 0.67 g/s for CO, total NOx and PM10 respectively (refer to Appendix H).

Based on a flow rate of 700 m3/s, these mass emission rates correspond to concentrations of 10, 16 and 1 mg/m3 for CO, total NOx and PM10 respectively.

The same calculations have been done for Design Analysis B. The estimated concentrations are shown in the table below, and compared to data and limits from the Lane Cove Tunnel (LCT) and Airport Link Tunnel.

The calculations show the modelled in-tunnel concentrations for North Connex are lower than typical maximum measured concentrations from the Lane Cove Tunnel and Airport Link Tunnel.

Pollutant

NorthConnex estimated concentrations, (northbound, 2019, 6 pm, hourly, mg/m3)

Typical maximum measured concentrations (mg/m3)

Concentration limits (mg/m3)

Design analysis A

Design analysis B

LCT (30 min)

Airport Link (15min)

LCT

Airport Link tunnel

CO

10

6

~25

20-30

62.5

(50 ppm)

87

(70 ppm)

NOx

16

8

NA

NA

32.8

(in-stack)

20

(1 ppm NO2, 10% NOx is NO2)

PM10

1

0.4

NA

NA

1.6

(in-stack)

None

(0.005 m-1 visibility)

Recommendation

It is recommended the Department of Planning and Environment consider the predicted ambient concentrations in light of the modelled source concentrations, if concentration limits are to be set.

2.4     Model Selection

AECOM Pty Ltd has used CAL3QHR to model emissions from surface roads and CALPUFF to model emissions from ventilation outlets. CALPUFF is a model which is listed by the EPA as an approved model for these types of assessments (DEC 2005). CAL3QHCR is not listed by the EPA in their Approved Methods but is listed by the US EPA as a recommended model for simulating air quality in the vicinity of roadways.

 

2.5     Receptor Data

AECOM has used CALPUFF to predict ambient pollutant concentrations across an area of approximately 15 km by 10 km (Table 17). Potential issues with the receptor data have been identified below:

 

·    Receptor resolution: In the vicinity of the ventilation outlets, predictions were made at discrete receptors with a grid resolution of 150 m, up to 2.5 km from each outlet. Additional receptors were added along the project corridor, spaced 10, 35, 60, 105, 160 and 225 m from the road centreline (refer to page 45 of the Technical Working Paper: Air Quality). Figure 2.2 shows the location of the CALPUFF model receptors in the vicinity of the proposed northern ventilation outlet.

From this figure it can be seen there are areas of very little receptor coverage in the model (see for example area circled). This means maximum ground level concentrations, due to emissions from the 15 m high ventilation outlet, may not be identified by the model.

Figure 2.2 : Receiver locations, Figure 8 extract from Technical Working Paper: Air Quality

 

 

Recommendation

The proponent should demonstrate maximum ground level concentrations have not been under-estimated because of the selected receptor resolution around the ventilation outlets.

 

·    Elevated sensitive receptors: The EPA’s air quality impact assessment criteria apply to existing or likely future off-site sensitive receptors. The AECOM assessment provides model predictions for ground-level locations but does not comment on likely future sensitive receptors or elevated locations.

A multi (5) storey residential development is proposed for 11-21 Woniora Avenue, approximately 200 m to the south of the proposed northern ventilation outlet.

No predictions of concentrations at elevated locations are available in order to check compliance with air quality criteria can be achieved at this proposed development (for example, at 15 m above ground level).

 

Recommendation

The air quality impact assessment should demonstrate air quality criteria will not be exceeded at elevated sensitive receptor locations, such as at the proposed multi (5) storey residential development proposed at 11-21 Woniora Avenue.

 

2.6     Assessment Criteria

AECOM Pty Ltd has referenced the air quality impact assessment criteria from the EPA’s Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (DEC 2005). In the absence of air quality impact assessment criteria for PM2.5, AECOM has adopted the PM2.5 standards from the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM). The adopted criteria are appropriate.

 

2.7     Construction

In terms of construction impacts, the Director General’s Requirements state:

 “The assessment should provide an assessment of risk associated with potential discharges of fugitive and point source emissions, and include: details of the proposed methods to minimise adverse impacts on air quality during construction, particularly in relation to mobile plant…”.

Sections 5 and 7.1 of the assessment have addressed the Director General’s Requirements in relation to construction.

 

2.8     Air Quality Impacts of an Alternative

This section provides a discussion on the likely air quality impacts due to two (2) project alternatives which have been raised by the community.

 

·    Moving Ventilation Outlet to Industrial Area

Moving the northern ventilation outlet to the industrial area located approximately 1.6 kilometres to the north has been raised as an alternative by the community.

Section 6 from AECOM’s assessment included predictions of ground level air pollutant concentrations due to emissions from the northern ventilation outlet. The potential air quality impacts of moving the ventilation outlet to the industrial area can be estimated by shifting the isopleths from their current position, to match a shift in the location of the ventilation outlet.

As can be seen from some of AECOM’s model predictions (for example Figure 27), the highest ground level concentrations are not necessarily close to the ventilation outlet. In some circumstances, moving the source to a new location may lead to higher concentrations in the vicinity of the original location. This would need to be confirmed by a quantitative assessment.

As noted in Section 1 AECOM concluded the Project would not cause any greater excess of ambient air quality criteria (pending responses to the issues raised in Section 2.

It is likely moving the ventilation outlet to the industrial area can also demonstrate this outcome; however the level of compliance with air quality criteria would need to be confirmed by site-specific dispersion modelling or similar assessment technique.

In addition; the net effect of changes in ventilation outlet contributions and changes in emissions from motor vehicles using the surface roads needs to be considered.

The likely net change in air quality cannot be quantified without detailed modelling but, in a general sense, emissions from motor vehicles using surface roads would continue to be the more significant factor for determining ambient air quality, based on the information provided in AECOM’s assessment.

·    Moving Tunnel Portal to the North

Another Project alternative raised by the community, during the NorthConnex Information session and workshop held 18 August 2014, was the relocation of the northern tunnel portals.

Conceptually, the proposed alternative would include:

·    Extending the length of the tunnel to the north by approximately one kilometre.

·    Relocating the proposed northern ventilation outlet to the north by approximately one kilometre.

·    Adjusting the grade of the tunnel to minimise the northbound exit grade, currently at 4%.

The relative effect on total tunnel emissions due to the concept outlined above has been quantified using “TRAQ” (Tool for Roadside Air Quality, developed by the Roads and Maritime Services). TRAQ uses information on the traffic volume, fleet composition, road grade, traffic speed and section length, combined with EPA-derived vehicle emission factors to estimate emissions of CO, NOx and PM10.

Two (2) emission scenarios have been compared, as follows:

 

·    Project scenario: 1000 vehicles per hour (hypothetical), 8.75 km section of 0% grade and 250 m section of 4% grade. Default fleet mix and peak speeds.

·    Alternative scenario: 1000 vehicles per hour (hypothetical), 10 km section of 0% grade. Default fleet mix and peak speeds.

 

The calculated mass emission rates in kilograms per hour (kg/h) are shown in the table below. While these results are based on a hypothetical peak hour traffic volume (1000 vehicles per hour) the relative change in emissions provides a useful comparison. Based on these results it can be seen the alternative scenario would lead to mass emission rates that are in the order of 5 to 10 per cent higher than the project scenario (because of the longer tunnel), depending on the pollutant. This increase is indicative of the potential change in emissions from the northern ventilation outlet.

 

Pollutant

Calculated mass emission rate by TRAQ (kg/h)

Project scenario (9 km section)

Alternative scenario (10 km section)

CO

7.99

8.43

NO2

7.96

8.53

PM10

0.57

0.63

 

From AECOM’s modelling, the potential air quality impacts of this alternative scenario can be estimated by shifting the isopleths one kilometre to the north of their current position, to match a shift in the location of the ventilation outlet.

It is likely this alternative scenario could demonstrate no additional excesses of ambient air quality criteria, even with some increases in emissions from the northern ventilation outlet.

However, the level of compliance with air quality criteria would need to be confirmed by site-specific dispersion modelling or similar assessment technique.

 

2.9     Summary

Based on the assessment of the air quality, it is recommended the assessment review the following:

·      Modelled meteorological conditions and terrain data, in particular, Issues 1 and 2 from Section Error! Reference source not found. above.

·      Emission calculations and comparisons between NorthConnex in-tunnel concentrations and measurements from other tunnels.  Refer to Issues 3 to 7 from Section Error! Reference source not found. above.

·      Model receptor resolution and elevated sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the ventilation outlets. Refer to Issues 8 to 9 from Section Error! Reference source not found. above.

All recommendations should be addressed to make sure that the conclusions of AECOM’s assessment remain valid, and that air quality criteria can be achieved at all sensitive receptor locations.

·    Model receptor resolution and elevated sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the ventilation outlets. Refer to two (2) from Section 2.5

·    All recommendations should be addressed to make sure the conclusions of AECOM’s assessment remain valid, and air quality criteria can be achieved at all sensitive receptor locations.

References

AECOM (2014) “NorthConnex Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 3, Appendix G – Technical Working Paper: Air Quality”. Prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd for the Roads and Maritime Services, report dated 1 July 2014.

DEC (2005) “Approved Methods of the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales “ August 2005.

PIARC (2012) “ROAD TUNNELS: VEHICLE EMISSIONS AND AIR DEMAND FOR VENTILATION” PIARC Technical Committee C4 Road Tunnels Operation.

3.  Construction issues

 

General

As indicated in the EIS, the project is to operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week. Where there are residential dwellings in close proximity to the worksite, it is considered the working hours are totally unreasonable and should be restricted to working days, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 7am to 5pm and Saturdays 8am to 1pm.

 

3.1     Northern Construction Compound (off Eastbourne Avenue)

A site construction compound is proposed near the project’s northern interchange, on an area of motorway road reservation, located between the M1 Motorway and Eastbourne Avenue.  Eastbourne Avenue is a quiet residential street within Ku-ring-gai LGA.  The location of the compound and access to/ from the site by both light and heavy vehicles is shown in the diagram below.  The area of the compound appears to be around one (1) hectare.  The compound will accommodate a range of construction related activities.

 

The compound is proposed to contain:

·    a large storage area,

·    large compressor,

·    acoustic shed,

·    workshop,

·    double stacked office/ site amenity buildings,

·    water treatment plant and

·    Substation.

The compound is expected to operate 24 hours a day, seven (7) days per week. This will include, at all hours, of the equipment referred to above.  Access to/ from the site by heavy vehicles is expected during all hours. Activities on the construction compound can be expected to result in constant significant impacts on hundreds of nearby residents, some whose houses border the proposed compound.  Impacts are expected to include noise from a range of sources as well as fumes and dust.

Access to the construction compound by heavy vehicles, will in effect, be left in/ left out from the M1 Motorway. This means heavy vehicles with the compound as their destination, will have to access the M1 Motorway from further north, at either Ku-ring-gai Chase Road at Asquith, or further north, at Berowra.  It is requested access to the compound for heavy vehicles be restricted to / from the M1 Motorway only, as shown in the proposal, with no access to the site from any Council controlled roads, including Eastbourne Avenue and Lucinda Avenue.

It is estimated 1,140 heavy vehicle movements a day are expected to / from the compound, all directly to / from the M1 Motorway. If excavated material is taken to either Hornsby Quarry, or to the Central Coast, as proposed, there will be no need for heavy vehicles to use Pacific Highway, south of Pearce’s Corner and, in fact, movement should be banned.

Details of types of heavy vehicles to be used on the project are not provided, but vehicles are likely to include a large fleet of large tippers with dog trailers, each truck having an aggregate mass exceeding 42 tonnes.

It is noted an enforceable three (3) tonne gross mass limit is applicable to traffic on Fox Valley Road, between Pacific Highway and The Comenarra Parkway, Wahroonga.

Light vehicles are to gain access directly off Eastbourne Avenue and other local streets, including Lucinda Avenue, within Ku-ring-gai LGA.  Eastbourne Avenue and Lucinda Avenue have steep grades, of up to 20%. This means those streets and their residents, will be impacted by noise at all times of day and night by the  approximate additional 200 vehicle movements expected to / from the construction compound.

Direct access to the site to /from the M1 Motorway, for light vehicles only is suggested. This will minimise impacts on local residential streets, particularly during night hours.

It is not clear whether the access road for light vehicles, from Eastbourne Avenue to the construction compound, will be sealed and/or if it will provide for two (2) way traffic movements. Details of the arrangements for traffic movement at Eastbourne Avenue are required.  Due of the number of traffic movements and proximity to houses, it is considered the access road should be two (2) lanes in width (minimum of 7.5 metres) and be sealed to minimise dust.  To minimise noise, the access road off Eastbourne Avenue should not be used between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am daily.   A suitable intersection arrangement will need to be provided at Eastbourne Avenue to ensure traffic on Eastbourne Avenue is not disrupted by construction vehicles and safety is not compromised.

Traffic movements onto / off the access road to the northern compound will be hazardous, because of a pronounced crest in Eastbourne Avenue, approximately 50 metres east of the access road.  Some motorists speed on Eastbourne Avenue and such vehicles could come into conflict with slow travelling, entering / exiting vehicles to / from the compound site.

A road dilapidation report is requested for Eastbourne Avenue, Fox Valley Road and Junction Road, if this road is used. This to ensure any damage, to Council’s roads used by construction traffic for the NorthConnex project, during the life of the project, is identified and repaired to Council’s satisfaction.

It is expected any temporary works, including the northern compound and all access roads will be removed at the end of the project. This includes, in consultation with Council, any bushland area.

 

3.2     Junction Road compound (off Coonanbarra Road, Wahroonga)

A parking area and site office compound is proposed north of the Northern Interchange, near the Junction Road /Edgeworth David Avenue bridge, on an area of motorway road reservation between the M1 Motorway and Coonanbarra Road.  Coonanbarra Road, north of Junction Road is a quiet local residential street within Ku-ring-gai LGA.

The compound is proposed be used as a parking area and site office facility only. Parking for approximately 50 cars is to be provided at the northern end of the compound. The office facilities will be located at the southern end of the compound. Access to the compound would be via an access road off Coonanbarra Road (opposite Carrington Road) which is currently an unformed road. Private property access to 152 Coonanbarra Road is currently provided through this unformed section of road. An open stormwater drain / creek run on the southern side and are parallel to the unformed road.

The compound is expected to operate 24 hours a day, seven (7) days per week. Tunnelling works are expected to occur continuously. Movements to and from the construction compound can be expected to result in impacts to residents in Coonanbarra Road (north of Junction Road). Some of the houses adjoin the proposed compound. Temporary crossing of Cockle Creek is proposed as part of the site works.

Access to the construction compound by vehicles will be from Junction Road. Heavy vehicles would only need to access the site during establishment and dismantling / rehabilitation of the compound. Approximately 15 heavy vehicles are expected per day for 3-6 months during site establishment, with the same number for dismantling / rehabilitation. Table 7-15 from Volume 1B of the EIS suggests heavy vehicles involved in the establishment and subsequent dismantling /rehabilitation of the site would access the site from Myra Street / Ingram Road / Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road.  It is requested  access to the compound for heavy vehicles be restricted to /  from this route only, as shown in the proposal, with no access to the site from any Council controlled roads including Eastern Road / Burns Road and the remainder of Regional Road 2043. It should be noted an enforceable three (3) tonne gross mass limit is applicable to Regional Road 2043.

Approximately 100 light vehicle movements a day or around 16 movements during the am / pm peak hour are expected to / from the compound, to / from Coonanbarra Road and Junction Road. While this is not a significant amount, it probably represents a doubling of existing traffic volumes in Coonanbarra Road. It is suggested light vehicles be made to use the same route to access the site as the heavy vehicles to minimise the impact on Regional Road 2043.

It is not clear whether the access road to the compound will provide for two-way traffic movements.  Because of the number of traffic movements and proximity to houses, it is considered the access road should be two (2) lanes with minimum width of 7.5 metres and be sealed to minimise dust.  To minimise noise, the access road off Coonanbarra Road should not be used between the hours of 8.00 pm and 7.00 am daily. A suitable intersection arrangement will need to be provided at Coonanbarra Road to ensure traffic on Coonanbarra Road is not disrupted by construction vehicles and safety on Coonanbarra Road and Carrington Street is not compromised.

A road condition report is requested for Coonanbarra Road and Junction Road (between Coonanbarra Road and the M1 Motorway), to ensure any damage to Council’s roads used by construction traffic for the NorthConnex project, during the life of the project, is identified and repaired to Council’s satisfaction.

It is expected the compound and all access roads will be removed at the end of the project and this should considered as a consent condition.

 

 

 

4.  Design issues

4.1       Pacific Highway / Pennant  Hills Road / M1 Motorway Interchange

The artist’s impression of the Northern Interchange (view looking Northwest) in Volume 4 of the EIS shows two (2) eastbound / northbound lanes on the M1 immediately beside the tunnel entrance. As the northbound lanes on the M1 Motorway pass under the Pacific Highway bridge, the number of lanes are shown as two (2) lanes, merging to one (1) lane north of the Pacific Highway bridge.

There is concern one (1) northbound lane on the M1 Motorway does not provide sufficient capacity for northbound traffic. This would result in traffic congestion back into Pennant Hills Road. An extra northbound lane should be provided at this location to maintain satisfactory levels of service.

4.2       Edgeworth David Avenue/Junction Road bridge

Figure 5-21 in Volume 1A of the EIS shows the M1 Motorway tie-in works. In particular, under the existing Edgeworth David Avenue bridge, there are four (4) northbound lanes shown in the proposed layout, as well as nominal shoulders and a separation space between the traffic lanes from the northbound tunnel and the northbound M1 Motorway lanes.

In the northbound carriageway, under existing Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road bridge, there are currently three (3) northbound lanes with associated shoulders between the bridge abutment and the central bridge support. It is difficult to see how four (4) northbound lanes, nominal shoulders and a separation space could be accommodated without major modifications to the abutments and central support at the Edgeworth David Avenue / Junction Road bridge. This has not been identified or analysed. Modifications to the bridge would have significant impacts to Edgeworth David Avenue, Junction Road and the Regional Road 2043 route between Roseville and Hornsby.

4.3       Lane Configuration at Northern Portals/Northern Ventilation Facility

The documentation describes tunnels with two (2) lanes in each direction, with the provision for three (3) lanes in each direction to cater for future traffic demand.

It is unclear from the EIS if the southbound entry portal, shown as two (2) lanes wide as part of the current proposal, would need to be widened to three (3) lanes as well. If this is the case, then the proposed southbound bicycle overpass at the southbound entry portal would be impacted and possibly be made redundant. The provision of cycling facilities on the M1 Motorway is questioned, as cyclists tend not to cycle this route.

The following link shows of indications of proposed / existing cycle use in the area:

http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/151.12133/-33.71034/yellow/bike

It would be preferable to improve conditions for cyclists on Pacific Highway at the Northern Interchange as well as at the Millewa Avenue / Alexandria Avenue overbridge, and at the Junction Road / Edgeworth David Avenue overbridge. These are the routes more used by cyclists and roads in the Ku-ring-gai Bicycle Plan which features cycling routes.

Council’s Noise and Vibration consultant has made some recommendations for detailed design considerations. Those being:

Detailed Design Stage Recommendations and Information Requests

·    A detailed design stage background noise monitoring at a receiver located west of the Bareena Avenue Compound should be conducted.

·    Care will need to be taken when installing the Northern ventilation Facility and supporting structure to ensure ground-borne noise is not an issue.

·    For the ventilation fans and jet fans, an assessment to identify any "annoying characterises" such as tonality / low frequency noise will need to be undertaken.

·    Detailed Design stage ground-borne noise predictions will need to be more comprehensive and include predictions associated with cross passage excavation and rock hammers.

·    It is recommended existing noise walls within the Project area, which are not proposed to be replaced with new walls, undergo a condition report and be repaired.

·    EIS should clarify if Woonoona Avenue will be utilised for access to Barenna Avenue compound. If so, a construction traffic noise assessment should be undertaken.

·     The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) will need to provide details and protocols for minimising and managing the risk of noise and vibration impacts from construction activity. Construction noise management and mitigation measures will have to be comprehensively covered within the plan.

·    Assessment of impact on heritage properties should be included in the Conditions of Approval.


 

5.  Ecological issues

A review has been undertaken of an environmental impact statement, more specifically the NorthConnex Technical Working Paper: Biodiversity (Eco Logical Australia 2013) which has been prepared.

An assessment of the potential ecological impacts of the project, with specific reference to vegetation and habitat clearing, connectivity, edge effects, weed dispersal, bushfire risk, riparian and aquatic habitat impacts and soil and water quality impacts.

The assessment must:

·    make specific reference to impacts on threatened species and endangered ecological communities.

 

·    have reference to the Draft Guidelines for Threatened Species Assessment (DEC/DPI, 2005), Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities (DEC), the Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat Management and Fish Conservation (DPI, 1999) and any relevant draft or final recovery plans.

 

·    include details of any offset measures required, including demonstration that the measures are consistent with the NSW offset principles for major projects (state significant development and state significant infrastructure) (OEH, 2013c).

 

5.1     Ecological Impact

The Northern Interchange Compound Site will result in the removal of 1.14ha of Critically Endangered Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) (Eco Logical Australia 2013) which is listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

The 1.14ha of BGHF which is proposed to be removed to establish the NICS is one of the largest stands of critically endangered BGHF outside of local bushland reserves (Dalrymple Hay, Sheldon Forest, Brown’s Forest & Clive Evatt).

The area remaining of BGHF is less than 170ha (OEH 2013c). The project as a whole will result in the removal of approximately 2.81ha or 1.5% of the remainder of BGHF (Eco Logical Australia 2013).

 

5.2     Offsets for BGHF

Offsets are areas of land protected and managed to improve biodiversity values. Requirements for offsets are determined using an objective assessment of predicted loss of biodiversity at the development site and expected gain in biodiversity to be achieved at the offset site.

 

5.3          Biodiversity Credits

Biodiversity credits created for the Biobank site for management actions improve biodiversity values. The number and class of credits created for the Biobank site will be specified in the Biobanking Agreement.

 

To offset the impacts of the loss of 2.81ha of BGHF as a result of the Project, 163 biodiversity offset credits are required (Eco Logical Australia 2013).

The Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) principles for the use of biodiversity offsets in NSW have been reviewed with consideration to achieving the requirement of 163 biodiversity offset credits for the loss of BGHF.

Principle 8 of the principles for the use of biodiversity offsets states:

 “Offsets should be agreed prior to the impact occurring. Offsets should minimise ecological risks from time-lags. The feasibility and in-principle agreements to the necessary offset actions should be demonstrated prior to the approval of the impact. Legal commitments to the offset actions should be entered into prior to the commencement of works under approval”.

No details have been provided to demonstrate offsets can be secured for the loss of BGHF.

Page 124 of the Technical Working Paper: Biodiversity states the following:

 “The credit report identifies that 280 ecosystem credits are required for the clearance associated with the project (Table 16). Based on an average 9.3 credits generated per hectare of Biobank site (based on the OEH credit converter), this would require an estimated 30.1 hectares of offset lands. The quantum and location of offsets would be confirmed in the Offset Strategy”.

Based upon the above assumptions to offset 163 BGHF Biodiversity credits, approximately 17.52ha BGHF is required to be secured and protected as a result of the project. 

The NICS within Ku-ring-gai will result in the loss of 1.14ha BGHF. Therefore the requirement of approximately 65 biodiversity credits, which equates to area of approximately 6.56ha.

5.4          Key Issue

No BGHF biodiversity credits sites have been identified in the NorthConnex Technical Working Paper: Biodiversity. The Technical Working Paper Biodiversity fails to demonstrate compliance with Director General Requirements - (Biodiversity) and fulfil its requirements to offset in accordance with the NSW offset principles for major projects. The project, if approved, would require 10% or 17.52ha of all the remaining BGHF to be protected and conserved. In accordance with the OEH principles, the project should not be approved until such time the offset of 163 BGHF Biodiversity credits can be demonstrated for the loss of 2.81ha of BGHF.

 

 

 


 

 

References:

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (DECC) 2008b. Biobanking Assessment Methodology.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) 2009a. BioBanking Assessment Methodology and Credit Calculator Operational Manual.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) 2009b. Biobanking Credit Calculator.

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW and Water (DECCW) 2008. Principles for the use of Biodiversity Offsets in NSW.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd 2012b. North Wahroonga B2-B3 Corridor – Draft Flora and Fauna Assessment. Prepared for Office of Strategic Lands and Roads and Maritime Services.

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2013, DGRs for F3 to M2 project SSI – 13_6103 (Ref:13/14378), Director Generals Requirements letter addressed to Roads and Maritime Services.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 2012. Draft Operational Manual for using the Biobanking Credit Calculator v2.0. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). 2013c ‘Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - Determination to make a minor amendment to Part 2 of Schedule 1A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act’. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/bluegumhighforest36a.htm [Accessed December 2013].

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). 2013d. ‘Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - critically endangered ecological community listing’. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/BlueGumHighForestEndSpListing.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2013n. NSW offsets principles for major projects (State significant development and State significant infrastructure.

 

6.  Heritage issues

Council engaged NGHEnvironmental Pty Ltd to undertake a review of the heritage impacts on heritage listed properties and the impact on the Heritage Conservation Area of Wahroonga. The report is included in Appendix C of this report. A summary of their findings is as follows:

·    Some of the information used for the Statements of Significance and Statement of Heritage Impacts was outdated. However, it is recognised these oversights do not substantially alter the substance of the heritage impact assessment in relation to most of the items (except 11A Lucinda Avenue) and the Heritage Conservation Area within the Ku-ring-gai Council LGA.

 

·    11A Lucinda Avenue (Hindfell) is a substantially intact property of potential state significance. It is appropriate a more detail impact assessment and vibration monitoring program be established for 11A Lucinda Avenue. The issue of acoustic treatment needs to be addressed with regard to the intactness of the property and its aesthetic significance.

 

The EIS assesses four (4) potential impacts to heritage items. They include:

i)    vibration impacts,

ii)   settlement impacts,

iii)   visual impacts and

iv)  impacts from acoustic treatments.

In summary the following can be summarised:

 

i.    Vibration impacts – The EIS does not define the scope of vibration monitoring works that would be undertaken, in particular how impacts would be addressed if they arise. Also the assessment did not take into account the fabric of the property in its assessment. The vibration assessment on page 78 of the EIS notes that the individual features of the property need to be factored into impact assessments. This should be considered to confirm potential degree of impact and ensure adequate measures are put in place to protect the properties.

 

ii.    Settlement impacts – The EIS determined some properties have the potential to be subject to at most minor cosmetic damage. However, the assessment did not take into account the fabric of the property in its assessment. The vibration assessment on page 78 of the EIS notes  the individual features of the property need to be factored into impact assessments. This should be considered to confirm potential degree of impact and ensure adequate measures are put in place to protect the properties.

 

iii.   Visual impacts – The EIS as confirmed by our review has determined the majority of the visual impact to heritage items would be negligible due to the plan for the replacement of noise walls and revegetation once construction is completed. However, it is noted for 4 Burns Road the potential visual impact described in the EIS will not be screened by neighbouring properties, as these properties are marked for acquisition and demolition. The EIS should be amended to address this potential impact.

 

iv.  Acoustic treatment impacts – The EIS for heritage recommends one property for potential acoustic treatment. The reasons for the selection of this property and the exclusion of neighbouring properties is not stated in the heritage chapter of the EIS and is not made clear in the noise chapter of the EIS. Community consultation has raised the possibility that acoustic treatment is being considered for other properties. If this is the case, the appropriate heritage assessments should be carried out.

 

The heritage chapter of the EIS has inconsistencies and in some cases uses out-dated significance assessments as the basis for investigation of impacts, but the general thrust of the document is considered to be accurate. The project will avoid direct impacts to heritage properties and the Heritage Conservation Area.

However, the potential for impacts has not been adequately addressed. The EIS has left many aspects of future planning to detailed design. This has created confusion and uncertainty in the community and has made it difficult for the community to understand the ongoing process.

In addition, the low legibility of the document, cross referencing to technical papers are not interpreted and difficult to read maps has made it difficult to clarify points of confusion.

 

7.  Noise issues

Please refer to independent assessment prepared for Council by Renzo Tonin and Associates attached as Appendix B to this submission.

The main recommendations of their report relating to noise issues are as follows:

EIS Submission Recommendations and Information Requests

 

Noise Monitoring & Assessment

·    NCAs defined in the EIS-NV should be further subdivided to ensure that each catchment represents a similar existing acoustic environment.

·    Additional noise monitoring should be carried out to determine RBLs for the revised NCAs;

·    Additional noise monitoring should be carried out, where required, to determine existing traffic noise levels for the revised NCAs.

 

Operational Noise Impacts

·    Further information should be provided regarding the Northern Ventilation Facility and tunnel portal jet fans and a review of potential sleep disturbance from the operation of the Northern Ventilation facility.

·    Details should be provided to clarify how the study area was derived (i.e. how was it calculated that the Project adds no more than 2.0 dB(A) to the total noise level) and the boundary of the study area should be defined.

·    Operational daytime LAeq,15hr  and night-time LAeq,9hr traffic noise contours should be provided.

·    Detail should be provided to clarify what receiver heights were assessed as part of the operational assessment.  Confirmation will be required as to whether this affects the outcomes of the noise barrier assessment.

·    More information is required as to how the open graded asphalt (OGA) corrections for the M1 southbound carriageway were derived.

·    With regard to pavement corrections it should be clarified whether the corrections were applied equally for each vehicle emission string (car exhaust/engine; car/truck tyre noise; truck engines and truck exhaust) or just for the car/truck tyre noise emission string.

·    It is not clear why the southbound carriageway of the M1 Motorway has assumed to be resurfaced with open graded asphalt (OGA) for the No Build Opening year and Design year scenarios. This would imply that the resurfacing is not project related and has perhaps already been undertaken post EIS noise monitoring (i.e. after December 2013).

·    Details should be provided to clarify whether ARRB corrections or any other calibration corrections and safety factors have been applied to operational traffic noise predictions.

·    More information is required with regard to the portal correction used in noise assessment.

·    More detailed assessment of maximum noise level impacts associated with the Northern Interchange should be provided.

·    A reasonable and feasible noise barrier analysis in accordance with ENMM Practice Note (iv) should be conducted for Lucinda Avenue properties (including IDs 1617, 1626, 1648, 1656 & 1661) which are located north-east of the on and off-ramp portals.

·    The EIS-NV needs to provide more information to ensure the receivers affected by the Northern Interchange where noise barriers are to be replaced are provided with replacement noise barriers of at least the equivalent performance of the existing barriers

·    A cumulative noise assessment should be included in the EIS to address operational (Northern Ventilation Facility, portal noise) and operational traffic noise.

·    Details should be provided to clarify whether the property treatments identified within Table 59 of the EIS are applicable to the ground floor and/or first floor of multi-storey dwellings.

·    The EIS-NV should include a commitment to provide a road surface with similar acoustic performance to OGA when the road is resurfaced in future.

 

8   Property value issues

There are a number of properties likely to be impacted on by the Project. The main area of concern would be those properties in Lucinda and Eastbourne Avenues where the tunnel will be directly under the properties and fairly close to the surface. The owners of these properties need to be consulted with regard to the possibility of any impacts the tunnel works will have on the structural integrity of the properties and whether any covenants are required.

There is a need to consult with all property owners on what avenues are available for compensation should any damage be caused to properties and what impacts the project will have on property values. Independent valuations need to be sought to determine the effects the project will have on property values that are directly affected by the project and construction compounds.

 

9   Traffic issues

While the project when completed will assist congestion on Pennant Hills Road, there is a four (4) year period of construction that will add additional traffic on the local road network. Council will require consultation on any Traffic Management Plans to ensure residential amenity is protected during construction and Council’s infrastructure is maintained and restored to Council’s satisfaction at the completion of the project.

The use of the compounds in Ku-ring-gai will have a significant impact on local traffic conditions and they need to be managed to reduce the impact on the local community. There are local schools in the vicinity of these compounds and road and traffic safety will need to be included in any consent conditions. This needs to be heavily consulted with Council and representatives of the local schools to ensure the safety of school children.

Incentivise connection between M2 Motorway (east of Pennant Hills Road) to the NorthConnex

From a Ku-ring-gai perspective, the notion of a link between the M1 and M2 Motorway could have had the potential to reduce through vehicle movements through the LGA. However, it’s connection to the M2 Motorway at Pennant Hills Road favours traffic west of Pennant Hills Road, targeting the main north-south heavy vehicle route, and clearly the analysis in section 8.5 of Volume 2 of the EIS indicates reductions in traffic volumes on Pacific Highway (between the M1 Motorway and A3 Ryde Road) are expected to be modest at best. Some increases in heavy vehicles are expected southbound on Pacific Highway (south of the M1 Motorway interchange) due to the North Connex, probably as a result of heavy vehicles avoiding the toll.

While there is provision for stubs at the southern end of the North Connex to permit future connection to the M2 Motorway to the east, under the proposed configuration there would be no incentive for motorists to connect between the North Connex and the M2 Motorway east of the Pennant Hills Road interchange. In particular, the movement from the M2 Motorway (westbound) to the North Connex (northbound) would require traffic to exit the M2 Motorway and be subjected to the traffic signal intersection at Pennant Hills Road and its associated delays. In the reverse, the movement from North Connex (southbound) to the M2 Motorway (eastbound) would be subject to slightly less delays as this would involve a left turn movement which would only be held during certain turning movements.

The proposal should incorporate incentives to facilitate these movements, as this has the potential to further reduce traffic volumes (and heavy vehicles) on the A1 Pacific Highway/A3 Ryde Road-Lane Cove Road route.

Once the North Connex is completed, there would be a significant portion of Sydney’s motorway network managed and operated by Transurban. From the M7 Motorway at Casula, this would incorporate the M2 to North Ryde and the Lane Cove Tunnel to Artarmon.

There is the opportunity, therefore, for Transurban to implement distance-based tolling (as currently applies to the M7 Motorway) to these other sections managed and operated by Transurban. This would provide an incentive for motorists to use a short section of the M2 Motorway to access the North Connex (and vice-versa) and pay a fair amount for doing so, rather than paying a flat fee for the current use of the M2 Motorway. Alternatively, a discount could apply for a vehicle logged using the eastern portion of the M2 Motorway and the North Connex in close time proximity.

 

10   Vibration issues

Please refer to independent assessment prepared for Council by Renzo Tonin and Associates attached as Appendix B to this submission.

Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts

·    The literature source of the sound power level (SWL) of 98 LAeq dB(A) adopted for delivery trucks, truck and dogs and articulated dump trucks should be stated. Justification should be provided as to why this seeming low SWL is applicable.

·    Confirmation is required as to whether a penalty has been applied to noise sources identified in the ICNG (p16) as having particularly annoying characteristics, including jackhammering, rock hammering or rock breaking. 

·    The number of spoil truck movements proposed to occur during the daytime, evening and night-time for the Northern Interchange compound should be quantified. The number of spoil truck movements which have been assumed for the construction noise predictions should be clearly stated. Deciphering the data within the construction road traffic noise assessment, section 4.3 of the EIS, shouldn’t have to be relied on to acquire this information.

·    Review of the EIS-NV found that has not been provided. Further information is required regarding the excavation methodology for the construction of the tunnels near portals.  Due to the close proximity of these works to residential receivers, this stage of construction may cause significant noise impact. 

·    It is not clear in the EIS-NV whether existing noise walls earmarked for replacement have been included in the construction noise assessment.   There should be a commitment in the EIS-NV that where possible, new noise walls should be constructed prior to or as soon as practical after the commencement of construction.

·    Further consideration of the noise benefits of increasing the height of compound perimeter barriers to be explored to address the high level of construction noise impacts predicted within the EIS-NV.

·    A review of on-site heavy vehicle movements at the Northern Interchange compound outside of standard construction hours required to identify potential impacts and confirm that proposed compound mitigation and shed structure will satisfactorily mitigate noise.

 

11 Workshop forum summary

Council held a workshop forum with local residents on 18th August 2014 and below is a summary of the issues raised that need to be addressed in the assessment of the EIS.

TOPIC

ISSUES

REASONS FOR CONCERNS

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

AIR QUALITY

Pollution from vehicle emissions

Inside the tunnel and outside from the stacks

Filtering of stacks

AIR QUALITY

Is the air from the stacks clean

1.4 tonnes of pollution per day and 15 metres from road

Filtering of stacks

AIR QUALITY

Stack emissions

Level of noise and frequency of emissions

Definite calculations required.

AIR QUALITY

 

Is it achievable to have zero reading

 

Independent engineer to assess

Move stacks

Monitor emissions permanently

Extra ventilation and noise monitoring

AIR QUALITY

Are the proposed height of stacks sufficient

Dispersion is too low

Raise the heights

AIR QUALITY

Does it require more stacks

More stacks would disperse and dilute pollution over larger area

Add extra stack in midpoint of tunnel

AIR QUALITY

Asbestos pollution while constructing

Airborne particles

Move stack, filter and monitor

AIR QUALITY

During construction, 56.5 million m3 is expected to be removed

High crystalline free silica in sandstone will this be monitored for cacogenic poisoning 

Construction monitoring

AIR QUALITY

Ventilation

Data reflects outputs of Lane Cove Tunnel & M5 with poor results

 

HERITAGE

Location of stacks

Heritage impacts, close to houses and schools

Move the stacks

AIR QUALITY

Atmosphere at M2 entry

Pollution from different locations entering tunnel

 

AIR QUALITY

Prevailing weather conditions

Weather conditions are known to be different at Wahroonga than presented in EIS

 

AIR QUALITY

Monitoring for 12months after construction considered to be too short

Given all weather and traffic variables, more time would be required.

Monitoring should be longer than proposed.

BIODIVERSITY

Impact on BGHF and riparian zones

Loss of threatened species

Relocate exit and compound

GEOLOGY

At northern entrance there is shale soil

Possible unstable terrain under homes

Risk management strategy for locations of potential impact.

BIODIVERSITY

Head of Cockle Creek is a riparian zone

Pollution, degradation, erosion and vegetation removal

Measures needed to address this issue

BIODIVERSITY

Reserve located at Junction Rd & Burns Rd – how  much trees/vegetation to be removed

Definite details on tree / vegetation are required.

Measures needed to address this issue

BIODIVERSITY

Identified construction compound – Junction Road

What are the plans for restoration as there is a waterway within this compound? Is it to be piped?

Measures needed to address this issue

BIODIVERSITY

Known wild life corridors

Has there been a frog/red crowned toadlet survey done in this area? There is other wildlife such as lyrebirds and swamp wallabies

Measures needed to address this issue

DESIGN

Slope of highway rising some 8 metres before exiting at northern exit

Increased vehicle acceleration causing extra emissions

Move the highway exit and location of stacks, achievable 1/5th less emissions

DESIGN

More lanes are required in the tunnel.

Number of lanes leading from feeder roads into tunnel would create traffic congestion.

Construct extra lanes

PROPERTY

Acquisition of property

Compulsory  acquisition

Relocate exit

NOISE

Is the ventilation noise in addition to traffic noise

Additional and constant noise

Noise attenuation measures required

NOISE

Construction noise is expected for 4 years

Hours of construction noise

Noise attenuation measures required

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Tunnel located under residential properties

Noise and vibration within residential homes

 

Dilapidation surveys required

NOISE

Proposed night work for road integration at M1/Pacific Highway junction

Constant noise, lights and traffic

Reduce working hours at this location

NOISE

Will existing noise walls be removed during construction

 

Build new acoustic walls before removing old existing ones

NOISE

Traffic noise

Heading south – gradient steep, possible increase in air braking.

Heading north – heavy acceleration

 

 

NOISE

Road surface

Surface required to reduce tyre noise and continued maintenance

Open grade asphalt pavement required.

PROPERTY

Property values

Decrease in real estate property $ values

 

PROPERTY

Development opportunities

Building restrictions within the vicinity of the stacks

 

PROPERTY

Visual impact

Not addressed in EIS

 

TRAFFIC

Truck movements

Size of trucks to be used, times of movement, location of spoil

 

TRAFFIC

Provisions of cycleways

Danger to cyclists and exposure to vehicle emissions

Do not acquire land for cycleways

LIGHTING

What is the final lighting to be used on

Illumination concerns

 

LIGHTING

What lighting is to be used during construction and when.

Constant brightness of lights

 

12.  Conclusion

While Council is not objecting to the project proceeding, there are a number of issues of concern to Council and the local community relating to both construction and post construction operations.

Council will require a draft copy of the proposed conditions of consent for review and comment prior to the release of any approval.

The main areas of concern are:

·    Construction traffic

·    Impact on residential properties during construction and post construction

·    Monitoring of pollution from ventilation stacks

·    Treatment of ecological communities

·    Traffic noise and height of noise walls

·    Visual impact of ventilation stacks

·    Location of ventilation stacks


 

 

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY REVIEW


 

 

APPENDIX B –

NOISE AND VIBRATION CONSULTANT REPORT


 

 

APPENDIX C –

HERITAGE CONSULTANT REPORT

 


APPENDIX No: 3 - Appendix A - consultant review - Air Quality Review

 

Item No: GB.1

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 4 - Appendix B - consultant review - Noise and vibration

 

Item No: GB.1

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 5 - Appendix C - consultant review - Heritage

 

Item No: GB.1

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.2 / 200

 

 

Item GB.2

FY00259/7

 

29 August 2014

 

 

Audited General Purpose and Special Purpose Financial Reports for year ended
30 June 2014 and Auditor's Report

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

To present to Council the Annual Financial Statements and audit reports from Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants for the year ended 30 June 2014 and to provide a summary of Council’s financial performance and financial position at 30 June 2014.

 

 

background:

On 26 August 2014 Council resolved to receive and certify the Draft Financial Statements for 2013/2014 and to refer them to the external auditor.  Council also resolved to fix 9 September 2014 as the date for the public meeting to present the statements and audit reports in accordance with Section 419(1) and 419(2) of the Local Government Act.

 

 

comments:

This is the final stage of the process of adopting Council’s Annual Financial Statements for 2013/2014.

 

 

recommendation:

That Council receives the audited Financial Statements and the external auditor’s report from UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants.

 

 

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

To present to Council the Annual Financial Statements and audit reports from Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants for the year ended 30 June 2014 and to provide a summary of Council’s financial performance and financial position at 30 June 2014.

 

Background

 

In accordance with Section 413(2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must prepare a statement on the General Purpose Financial Reports as to its opinion on the reports prior to referring them to audit.

 

On 26 August 2014 Council resolved to receive and certify the Draft Financial Statements for 2013/2014 and to refer them to the external auditor. The following certifications were made by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the General Manager and Responsible Accounting Officer:

 

That Council’s Annual Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with:

 

*     The Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and Regulations made thereunder

*     The Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements

*     The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

 

And that to the best of Council’s knowledge and belief that the statements:

 

*     present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for the year; and

*     are in accordance with Council’s accounting and other records.

 

That Council’s Special Purpose Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with:

 

*     The NSW Government Policy Statement “Application of National Competition policy to Local Government”.

*     The Division of Local Government Guidelines “Pricing and Costing for Council Businesses – A Guide to Competitive Neutrality”.

*     The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

 

And that to the best of Council’s knowledge and belief that the statements:

 

*     present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for each of Council’s declared Business Activities for the year, and

*     are in accordance with Council’s accounting and other records.

 

 

Comments

 

Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants audited the General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2014 and expressed an opinion on the financial statements based on their audit. The Auditor’s letter forms part of the Annual Financial Statements and includes the following opinion:

 

 

Auditor’s opinion

 

In our opinion,

(a)  the Council’s accounting records have been kept in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter 13 part 3, Division 2;and

(b)  the financial reports:

(i)         have been presented in accordance with the requirements of this Division;

(ii)        are consistent with the Council’s accounting records

(iii)       present fairly the Council’s financial position as at 30 June 2014 and  the results of its operations for the year then ended; and

(iv)       are in accordance with applicable Australian Accounting Standards and the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005..

(c)  all information relevant to the conduct of the audit has been obtained; and

(d)  there are no material deficiencies in the accounting records or financial reports that have come to light during the course of the audit.

Subsequent to the meeting on 26 August 2014 and the receipt of the Auditor’s letter, the Annual Financial Statements were placed on public exhibition. Written submissions from the public were invited, but at the time of writing this report none were received.  Submissions received up to 4.30pm on 9 September 2014 will be circulated to Councillors on the night of the meeting.  Section 420 of the Act requires that all submissions in respect of the audited Financial Statements must be in writing and must be lodged with the Council within 7 days after this meeting.  Public submissions may be made up to 16 September 2014.  Copies of all submissions received must be referred to Council’s external auditor.

 

This is the final stage of the process of adopting the Financial Statements for 2013/2014.

 

The audited Financial Statements, together with the audited reports for the year ended 30 June 2014 are hereby presented to Council (Attachment A1). The Financial Statements are also provided under separate cover.

 

 

Financial Position of Council as at 30 June 2014

 

The comments below provide highlights of Council’s financial performance during 2013/14 and financial position at 30 June 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

A summary of the financial results from the Financial Statements 2013/14 is presented below:

 

Income Statement

‘000

Actual

2014

Actual

2013

Income from Continuing Operations

116,869

111,550

Expenses from Continuing Operations

100,828

95,744

Net Operating Result for the Year

16,041

15,806

Net Operating Result for the year before Grants and Contributions for Capital purposes

3,117

4,815

 

Statement of Financial Position

‘000

Actual

2014

Actual

2013

Current Assets

59,425

64,819

Non-Current Assets

1,028,224

995,186

Total Assets

1,087,649

1,060,005

Current Liabilities

25,759

23,641

Non-Current Liabilities

39,630

32,015

Total Liabilities

65,389

55,656

Net Assets

1,022,260

1,004,349

Total Equity

1,022,260

1,004,349

 

Statement of Cash Flows

‘000

Actual

2014

Actual

2013

Net Cash Flow from Operating Activities

34,768

32,559

Net Cash Flow from Investing Activities

(55,922)

(46,456)

Net Cash Flow from Financing Activities

8,076

26,721

Net Decrease in Cash

(13,078)

12,824

Plus: Cash at beginning of year

13,028

204

Cash at end of Year

(50)

13,028

Plus: Investments on hand at end of year

92,462

77,875

Total Cash & Investments

92,412

90,903

 

 

Income from Continuing Operations

 

During the 2013/14 financial year Council received $116.87m in income from Continuing Operations from the following sources:

 

 

Rates & Annual Charges

 

Rates and Annual Charges contributed $72.97m or 63% in 2013/14 ($68.8m in 2012/13). Rates and Annual charges income increased by a total of 6% from the last financial year taking into consideration the approved rate peg increase of 3.4%, as well as supplementary rates during the year from increase in residential properties (503 new residential properties ) and 2 new business properties. Annual Charges, which are predominantly represented by domestic waste charges increased by 10%. This reflects the provision of funds towards the cost of remediating the former tip site at the North Turramurra Recreation Area.  Whilst a major component of these costs was chargeable to the Domestic Waste Management reserve, it is necessary in the short term to fund part of this project from the Infrastructure and Facilities reserve and recover costs in future from increased Domestic Waste charges. No major variance was noted in Rates and Annual charges when compared to original budget.

 

User Charges & Fees

 

User Charges and Fees totalled $11.48m (10%) compared to $12.34m in 2012/13, a decrease of 7%. This category of income includes regulatory/statutory fees and community facilities hire. The principal decreases from 2012/13 were lower income from restoration charges by approximately $1m due to major debtors undertaking self-restorations, as well as decrease in income from North Turramurra Golf Course by approximately $300k principally due to partial closure of the course for construction works. Main increases in income by approximately $200k were from Parks & Sports field income. When compared to original budget the decrease in User Charges & Fees was $705k due to the same factors mentioned above.

 

Interest & Investment Revenue

 

A total of $3.96m (3%) compared to $4.55m in 2012/13 was received from Interest & Investment revenue. The decrease in investment earnings was largely due to lower interest rates (RBA cut the official cash rate by 25bp in August 2013) and lower average invested portfolio during the year.

 

Council’s Cash and Investments at the end of the financial year totalled $92.41m. Notwithstanding the decrease in income from 2012/13, Council ended the year with a strong investment performance which exceeded the bank bill benchmark by 1.59% (the weighted average return for the total portfolio as at end of year was 4.27% compared to the benchmark of the UBS Bank Bill Index of 2.68%). The original budget was reviewed during the year and decreased to reflect the lower interest rates. Compared to revised budget, the net return on investments at the end of June 2014 recorded a favourable variance of $50k.

 

Other Revenue

 

Income from “Other Revenue “totalled $9.31m (8%) compared to $8.25m in 2012/13.

Other Revenue increased by 12.9% compared to 2012/13 which is principally due to higher income from rental properties, parking, licence income and a one-off payment of $345k for surrender lease for 904-914 Pacific Highway.

 

Compared to original budget a favourable variance of $1.3 million against budget was identified in Other revenue. This was achieved primarily due to increased rental income from various projects, including additional Childcare Facilities due to new KU rental agreements, community halls and other properties.

 

Operating Grants and Contributions

 

A total of $4.70m (4%) compared to $6.58m in previous year was received by Council during 2013/14. Grants & Contributions provided for Operating Purposes decreased by 28% on the previous financial year. This was largely due to lower income from the Financial Assistance Grant. The Financial Assistance Grant for 2013/14 reflects a one off reduction due to the fact that this grant is no longer being paid in advance. This does not represent a loss of income but is instead a timing variance. Operating Grants & Contributions income was down compared to original budget by $1.6 million, mainly due to the Financial Assistant Grant no longer being paid in advance.

 

Capital Grants & Contributions 

 

Grants & Contributions provided for Capital Purposes increased by 17.6% on the previous financial

year with $12.92m received in 2013/14 compared to $10.99m in 2012/13. This was largely due to increased Section 94 contributions from developers and additional contribution received from NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure for the B2 Land subdivision.

When compared to original budget, Capital Grants & Contributions income was down by $2.6m mainly due to lower than anticipated Section 94 income received during the financial year.

 

Net Gains from Disposal of Assets

 

Net Gains from Disposal of Assets were $1.51m (loss of $1.22m in 2012/13) largely due to the sale of 9, Havilah Avenue, Lindfield (proceeds -$4.5m) and 12A Park Crescent, Pymble (proceeds - $1.35m) The net gain represents the gross sale price (proceeds) less the written down value of assets.

 

When compared to original budget the Net Gain from Disposal of Assets was lower than budget primarily due to book value of assets sold being higher than anticipated. This occurred as a result of reclassification of community land to operational land for one of Council’s assets that was disposed during 2013/14.

 

Expenses from Continuing Operations

 

Total Operating Expenses for the financial year ended 30 June 2014 were $100.82m, compared to $95.74m in 2012/13, this is an increase of 5% on the previous financial year.

 

 

Employee Benefits & On costs

 

Employee Costs were $35.01m compared to $34.57m in 2012/13, which is an increase of 1.3% on the previous financial year. Major increases relate to higher superannuation guarantee levy and an

increase in fringe benefits tax as a result of a flat statutory rate charged ( 20%) to motor vehicles. Overall the increase in 2013/14 was less than that budgeted by 8%, mainly due to savings across all departments, but partially offset by increased agency and contractor costs.

 

Borrowing Costs

 

Borrowing Costs totalled $1.46m compared to $453k in 2012/13. This was one of the most significant increases in all expense categories (223% on previous financial year) which is largely related to the loan associated with the purchase of the new administration building at 828 Pacific Hwy. A total of $938k, in addition to existing loans, has been accrued /recognised in the accounts during the financial year which was not a cash outflow, but rather an increase in the outstanding balance of the loan. As per the loan agreement Council is required to start interest and principal repayments by 2016/17.

 

When compared to original budget, a favourable variance of $541k in borrowing costs was identified, mainly due to lower actual interest rates compared to forecast rates.

 

Materials & Contracts

 

Materials & Contracts is the second largest category of expenditure representing 31% of the total expenditure after employee costs. A total of $31.10m compared to $28.99m in 2012/13 was spent on Materials & Contracts during 2012/13. This is an increase of 7.2% on the previous financial year. The principal components of this increase are within Contractor & Consultancy costs, in particular, higher Domestic Waste contractor costs, street sweeping, tree maintenance and others. When compared to original budget, a positive variance of $994k was recorded primarily due to lower than budgeted charges for waste collection and savings in legal costs.

 

Depreciation and Amortisation

 

Depreciation and Amortisation has risen by $2.66m or 16.9% on previous year from$15.79m in 2012/13 to $18.45m in 2013/14, primarily due to additional assets recognised in the Recreational Facilities asset class. An audit and inspection of all Recreational Facilities assets to coincide with the implementation of a new Asset Management System was undertaken during the year. This resulted in additional assets being recorded in the Financial Assets Register not previously recognised, thus causing an increase in depreciation expense. An unfavourable budget variance of $1.9m was also recorded due to the factors mentioned above.

 

Other Expenses

 

Material expenditure items in this category include electricity costs, insurance, street lighting, rental rebates and various other expenses. Other Expenses have increased marginally (by $86k or 0.6%) compared to previous financial year. When compared to original budget, a favourable variance of $891k was identified due to an inconsistent breakdown of expenditure categories in the original budget compared to actual. The expenditure categories were realigned in the revised budget.

 

Operating result

 

The operating result is a measure of the increase in the value of Council’s net assets. It takes into account the income received by Council less the expenses from operations including depreciation of assets. The operating result excludes capital expenditure (expenditure on assets).

 

Council’s net operating result for the 2013/14 financial year is disclosed in the Income Statement. For the financial year ended 30 June 2014 Council had an operating surplus excluding revenue from capital grants and contributions of $3.11m compared to an original budget of $1.67m. The operating result including capital grants and contributions is $16.04m, a variance of $1.2m in comparison to an original budget of $17.24m. The variance is mainly due to lower than anticipated capital grants and Section 94 contributions income received during the year and higher depreciation expense due to new assets being recognised during the year.

 

A comparison of Operating Result for 2013/14 to original budget and 2012/13 financial year is provided in the table below:

$’000

2013/14

Actual

2013/14

Original Budget

2012/13

Actual

Net Operating Result

( Surplus)

 

16,041

 

17,241

 

15,806

Net Operating Result

(before Capital grants & contributions)

 

3,117

 

1,678

 

4,815

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s operating result is strong. The operating surplus means that Council’s revenue exceeds both the cost of running its day to day operations and the depreciation of its assets. This surplus is available for capital works.

 

The operating result (shown separately as including and excluding capital grants and contributions) is provided in the chart below.

 

Working Capital

 

Working capital is a measure of Council’s liquidity and ability to meet its obligations as they fall due. It is one of the primary measures of the overall financial position of Council, which allows for unforeseen expenditure or reductions in revenue.

 

Working capital represents Council’s net current assets, after deducting internal and external restrictions.  

 

The available working capital at the end of 2013/14 financial year is $4.69m, marginally above the  target of $4.64m as set in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan. This level of working capital highlights an adequate liquidity position with Council being able to meet its short term liabilities when they fall due.

 

Chart below provides a comparison of Council’s working capital for the last 4 financial years.

 

 

Performance Measurement Indicators

 

The Statement of Performance Measurement (Note 13 of the Draft Financial Statements and Special Schedule 7) provide ratios used to assess various aspects of Council’s financial performance. New performance ratios have been prescribed by the Code of Accounting Practice for 2013/14, which are mainly the financial ratios identified in T-Corp’s Financial Assessment and Benchmarking Report. Four new asset ratios, mainly Building & Infrastructure Renewal Ratio, Infrastructure Backlog Ratio, Asset Maintenance Ratio and Capital Expenditure Ratio have also been reported for the first time and disclosed in Special Schedule 7 “Report on Infrastructure Assets”.

 

The results for all financial indicators, including asset ratios, providing previous year comparisons and commentary are detailed in the table and charts below.  Please note Asset Ratios are provided for two years only.

 

Financial Indicator

 

2013/14

2012/13

2011/12

 

Operating Performance Ratio

Total Operating Revenue (excl Capital grants & Contrib) – Operating Expense

Total Operating Revenue

 

1.56%

5.84%

8.42%

Own Source Operating Revenue

Total Operating Revenue ( less all Grants & Contributions)

Total Operating Revenue

 

84.72%

84.22%

81.80%

Unrestricted Current Ratio

Current Assets( less all External Restrictions)

Current Liabilities (less Specific Purpose Liabilities)

 

2.88:1*

2.04

2.05

Debt Service Cover Ratio

Operating Result before capital excl interest & depreciation

Principal repayments plus borrowing costs

 

4.82

10.88

10.69

Rates, Annual charges, Interest outstanding Percentage

Rates, Annual Charges Outstanding

Rates, Annual Charges Collectible

 

3.25%

3.47%

3.39%

Cash Expense Cover Ratio ( expressed in months)

(Current Years cash & Cash Equivalents ( incl. Term Deposits))

Payments from cash flow of operating and financing activities) X 12

 

8.01

7.68

5.92

Asset Ratios

 

 

 

Building & Infrastructure Renewal Ratio

Asset Renewals (Building & Infrastructure)

Depreciation, Amortisation & Impairment

 

104.46%

94.06%

 

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio

Estimated cost to bring Assets to a satisfactory condition

Total value of Infrastructure, Building, Other Structure and Land Imp Assets

 

0.32

0.30

 

Asset Maintenance Ratio

Actual Asset Maintenance

Required Asset Maintenance

 

0.95

0.81

 

Capital Expenditure Ratio

Annual Capital Expenditure

Annual Depreciation

2.29

4.05

 

*The ratio includes $8.7m of current Assets held for sale

 

Operating Performance Ratio

 

This ratio measures Council’s achievement of containing operating expenditure within operating revenue. It is important to distinguish that this ratio is focussing on operating performance and hence capital grants and contributions, fair value adjustments and reversal of revaluation decrements are excluded. The benchmark is greater than (-4%).

 

Council performance ratio is above the benchmark of (-4%), which means that Council can easily contain operating expenditure (excluding capital grants and contributions) within its operating revenue. The ratio has been above benchmark for the last three years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Own Source Operating Revenue

 

This ratio measures fiscal flexibility. It is the degree of reliance on external funding sources such as operating grants and contributions. Council’s financial flexibility improves the higher the level of its own source revenue. The benchmark is “greater than 60%”.

 

Council’s Own Source Operating Revenue Ratio has remained above the benchmark of

(>60%) in the last  three years.  Council has sufficient level of fiscal flexibility, in the event of being faced with unforseen events.

 

 

 

Unrestricted Current Ratio    

 

 

The Unrestricted Current Ratio is specific to local government and is designed to represent a Council’s ability to meet short term obligations as they fall due. Restrictions placed on various funding sources (e.g. Section 94 development contributions, RMS contributions) complicate the traditional current ratio used to assess liquidity of businesses as cash allocated to specific project is restricted and cannot be used to meet Council’s other operating and borrowing costs. The benchmark is “greater than 1.5”.

 

Council’s Unrestricted Current Ratio is above benchmark of >1.5% and has been outperforming benchmark for the last three years. Council’s liquidity is good and it can readily pay its debts as they fall due.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Service Cover Ratio

 

This ratio measures the availability of operating cash to service debt including interest and principal. The benchmark is “greater than 2”.

 

The Debt Service Cover Ratio has been above benchmark, however it has decreased compared to previous years due to higher principal and interest repayments during the financial year. 

 

 

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest & Extra Outstanding Percentage

 

The purpose of this ratio is to assess the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts.

 

The percentage of rates and annual charges that are unpaid at the end of the financial year is a measure of how well Council is managing debt recovery. Council’s ratio of 3.25% is satisfactory and is better than benchmark of “less than 5%”.

 

 

 

Cash Expense Cover Ratio

 

This liquidity ratio indicates the number of months a Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without additional cash inflow.

 

Council’s Cash Expense Cover Ratio is satisfactory and above benchmark of “greater than 3 months”.

 

 

 

 

Building and Infrastructure Renewal Expenditure

 

This indicator assesses Council’s rate at which buildings and infrastructure assets are being renewed against the rate at which they are depreciating. A ratio of 1:1 indicates that the amount spent on asset renewal equals the amount of depreciation. 

 

Council’s ratio increased to 104.46% in 2013/14, which means that Council is spending sufficient funds to cover Depreciation expense on its assets. Council continues its commitment to maintain financial sustainability and decrease the infrastructure backlog.

 

 

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio

 

This ratio shows what proportion of the backlog is against the total value of a Council’s infrastructure.

 

Council’s Infrastructure Backlog Ratio has been on a downward trend in the last 5 years (0.65x in 2008/09), however, the ratio of 0.32x achieved in 2013/14 indicates that Council still has a sizeable infrastructure backlog. Council is continuing to focus on appropriate asset standards for renewal and maintenance.

 

 

Asset Maintenance Ratio

 

This ratio compares actual versus required annual asset maintenance. A ratio of above 1.0

indicates that the Council is investing enough funds within the year to stop the Infrastructure

Backlog from growing. The benchmark is “greater than 1.0x”.

Council’s Asset Maintenance Ratio of 0.95x is marginally lower than the benchmark ratio of “greater than 1.0x”, which indicates that the level of expenditure on the maintenance of infrastructure assets is not sufficient to prevent the infrastructure backlog from growing. Council is committed to increase expenditure on asset maintenance in future to stop the infrastructure backlog from growing.

 

 

Capital Expenditure Ratio

 

This indicates the extent to which a Council is forecasting to expand its asset base with capital expenditure spent on both new assets, and replacement and renewal of existing assets. The benchmark is “greater than 1.1x”.

 

Council’s Capital Expenditure Ratio of 2.29x continues to be above the benchmark of 1.1x reflecting its significant capital expenditure program on new assets and the renewal of existing assets compared to their depreciation.

 

 

 

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Leadership and Governance

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L3.1 The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making,

efficient management, innovation and quality, customer service.

L3.1.1 Council’s integrity and operating effectiveness is continually being improved through its leadership,

decision-making and policies.

Complete all statutory reporting required under the Local Government Act

and Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

 

Governance Matters

 

In accordance with Section 419(1) and 419(2) of the Act:

 

A council must present its audited financial reports together with the auditor’s reports at a meeting of Council held on the date fixed for the meeting;  and

 

The council’s auditor may, and if so required in writing by the council must, attend the meeting at which the financial reports are presented.

 

In addition, Section 417(5) of the Act states that:

 

As soon as practicable after receiving the auditor’s reports, the council must send a copy of the auditor’s report on the council’s financial reports, together with a copy of the council’s audited financial reports, to the Director General – Office of Local Government and to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

Risk Management

 

Council is financially sound which positions it well to deal with unforseen events as they arise.

 

The Financial Statements are audited by the external auditors who, amongst other things, form an opinion on the Financial Statements whether:

 

·    the Council’s accounting records have been kept in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter 13 part 3 Division 2; and

 

·    the Financial Statements:

have been presented in accordance with the requirements of this Division;

are consistent with the Council’s accounting records;

present fairly the Council’s financial position, the results of its operations and its cash flows; and

are in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia.

 

·    all information relevant to the conduct of the audit has been obtained; and

 

·    there are no material deficiencies in the accounting records or financial statements that the auditors have become aware of during the course of the audit.

 

In accordance with s. 419 (1) of the Act, a council must present its audited financial reports together with the auditor’s reports at a meeting of Council held on the date fixed for the meeting. If Council does not consider the Financial Statements at the appropriate time, it does not comply with the requirements of the Act.

 

 

Financial Considerations

 

Council has achieved a sound financial result for 2013/14. Council’s net operating result for the financial year ended 30 June 2014 was a surplus of $16.04m including Grants and Contributions for capital purposes. After adjusting for Capital Grants and Contributions, the net operating result was $3.11m.The actual working capital as at 2013/14 is $4.69m marginally above the target identified in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan. 

 

 

Social Considerations

 

None undertaken or required.

 

 

Environmental Considerations

 

None undertaken or required.

 

Community Consultation

 

Council’s Financial Statements were on public exhibition from 29 August 2014 seeking comments from the community on the Statements and the Auditor’s Reports.  Section 420 of the Act requires that all submissions in respect of the audited Financial Reports must be in writing and must be lodged with the Council within 7 days after this meeting.  Public submissions may be made up to 16 September 2014.  Copies of all submissions received must be referred to Council’s Auditor.

 

Internal Consultation

 

All departments have been consulted on the end of year financial results for 2013/14.

 

Summary

 

The Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 and audit reports from Council’s external auditor, UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants are presented to Council.  Written submissions from the public have been invited, and may be made up to 16 September 2014.  Copies of all submissions must be referred to Council’s auditor.  This is the final stage of the process of adopting Council’s Annual Financial Statements for 2013/2014.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council receives the audited Financial Statements and the external auditor’s report from UHY Haines Norton Chartered Accountants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angela Apostol

Manager Finance

 

 

 

 

David Marshall

Director Corporate

 

 

Attachments:

A1View

Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014

 

2014/215095

  


APPENDIX No: 1 - Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014

 

Item No: GB.2

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.3 / 342

 

 

Item GB.3

S10083

 

15 July 2014

 

 

Planning Proposal - 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara - Report following the Exhibition and Public Hearing

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

To have Council consider the feedback following exhibition and public hearing for the Planning Proposal- 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara known as the Culworth Avenue car park.

 

 

background:

The planning proposal for the subject site was exhibited from 28 March to 30 April 2014 and a public hearing was held on 26 May 2014. The Chairperson’s report on the public hearing was received on 30 June 2014 and placed on Council’s website on 2 July 2014.

 

 

comments:

In response to the community submissions made during the 2013 reclassification process and arising from the report of the Chairperson following the Public Hearing held in October 2013, a series of additional studies and research were completed to respond to the key issues that were raised.  The community was then given an opportunity to review and provide additional comment on the additional material before a second Public Hearing was held on 26 May 2014.

 

 

recommendation:

To proceed with the reclassification of the property at
20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara known as the Culworth Avenue car park, subject to the detailed recommendations in the report.

 

 

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

To have Council consider the feedback following exhibition and public hearing for the Planning Proposal- 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara known as the Culworth Avenue car park.

 

Background

 

About the project

 

This is a planning proposal to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara from Community Land to Operational Land.  It is one of a series of reclassifications processes currently being undertaken to facilitate the strategic management of Council owned land to underpin the delivery and development of new community assets to support the growing population and changing demographics of the area.

 

What is Community Classified Land?

 

Community Classified Land is a land classification that essentially holds land in a restrictive trust.  Community classification prohibits a Council from selling, exchanging or granting an interest to another party other than in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

What is Operational Classified Land?

 

Operational Classified Land is a land classification that facilitates active management of land for a variety of purposes.  An operational classification permits Council to sell, exchange, or grant an interest to another party other than in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Exhibition and Public Hearing

 

The planning proposal and supporting documentation was exhibited from Friday 28 March to Wednesday 30 April 2014 inclusive (being five days in addition to the statutory 28 period).

 

A public hearing was held at Ku-ring-gai Council on Monday 26 May 2014.

 

Statutory Framework

 

The relevant environmental planning instruments applying to the site of the Culworth Avenue car park, being 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara are:

 

·        Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO) 

·        Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013

 

Below is an outline of how these planning instruments apply to the Culworth Avenue car park site. It should be noted that the reclassification of the land from community to operational will not affect application of any of the planning provisions under the existing or proposed planning instruments.

 

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance 1971 (KPSO)

 

Under the KPSO:

 

·        The site is currently zoned part 5(a) Special Uses (Municipal Purposes) and part 2(d) Residential under the KPSO.

·        There are no development standards applying to that part of the site zoned 5(a) Special Uses (Municipal Purposes).

·        That part of the site zoned 2(d) Residential has a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 and a maximum height of buildings of 3 storeys.

·        The site is identified within Heritage Conservation Area C24 – “Marian Street Conservation Area”.

·        Part of the site is identified as “Areas of Biodiversity Significance” on the Natural Resource Biodiversity Map.

 

Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP)

 

The final Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP) was adopted by Council on 26 November 2013 and will replace the current KPSO.  The draft KLEP is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment to be made. Under the draft KLEP:

 

·        The site is to be zoned part R4 - high density residential and part B1 – neighbourhood centre (17 Marian street).

·        That part of the site zoned R4 has a maximum FSR of 1:1 and a maximum height of 14.5m (4 storeys).

·        That part of the site zoned B1 has a maximum FSR of 0.75:1 and a maximum height of 9.5m (2 to 3 Storeys)

·        The site is identified within Heritage Conservation Area C24 – “Marian Street Conservation Area”.

·        Part of the site is identified as “Areas of Biodiversity Significance” on the Natural Resource Biodiversity Map.

·        The site is listed in Schedule 1 – Additional permitted uses to permit car parking with consent.

 

When Council considered the final draft KLEP on 26 November 2013, it also resolved to prepare a planning proposal to make a number of additional changes to the final adopted KLEP. In regard to the Culworth Avenue car park site, Council resolved to:

 

·        Amend the FSR for 20-28 Culworth Avenue to 1.3:1 and the Height of buildings to 17.5m (5 storeys).

·        Amend the Heritage Map to alter the boundaries of the Marian Street Conservation Area (C24) to exclude the Culworth Avenue car park and adjoining sites at 18 Culworth Avenue and 1 and 3 Marian Street.

 

The planning proposal for these amendments to the KLEP is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination. Should a gateway be issued, then the proposed amendments will be subject to further community consultation and consideration by Council prior to any amendments to the KLEP being made.

 

Comments

 

This section of the report covers the issues arising from - and responses to - the public consultation of the Planning Proposal (Attachment A7) to reclassify the land at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara to operational land.  It addresses the issues raised by the submissions and, as a component of those responses, outlines the role the reclassification of this site plays in the comprehensive community asset renewal and infrastructure delivery programme that is currently underway in Ku-ring-gai.

 

Public consultation for the reclassification of the Culworth Avenue car park

 

In connection with the proposed reclassification of the properties at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara, there were two distinct periods of consultation.  All submissions arising from both exhibitions of the planning proposals and the public hearing processes have been considered and incorporated as part of the preparation of this report.  For purposes of clarity and distinction, these are referred to as the 2013 and the 2014 processes respectively.

 

Additionally many pages of a petition containing several thousand signatures were received progressively over the consultation period.  The petition is specifically addressed in the Community Consultation section of the report.

 

Overview of the 2014 exhibition and reclassification process

 

In response to the community submissions made during the 2013 reclassification process and arising from the report of the Chairperson following the Public Hearing held in October 2013, a series of additional studies and research was undertaken.

 

The primary purpose of these was to address the key issues that were raised within the context of the current Guidelines for Planning Proposals and to place the Planning Proposal for the Culworth Avenue car park within a wider strategic planning and asset management and renewal process.

 

The community was then given an opportunity to review and provide comment on this new material during a second formal exhibition period. All material available during exhibition of the first planning proposal was also made available during the second exhibition. The second exhibition process replaced the 2013 exhibition and submissions were sought to respond the exhibited planning proposal and supporting material.

 

The second Public Hearing was held on Monday 26 May 2014.

 

Key themes arising from the 2014 planning proposal exhibition process

 

The key themes arising from the submissions for the 2014 process are as follows:

 

·        Ongoing need for the provision of commuter parking

·        Ongoing need for the provision of non-commuter car parking (around four to six hours)

·        Ongoing need for availability of weekend parking and evening use

·        Ongoing need for the provision of accessible car parking for aged and disabled users

·        Disputing of utilisation figures / assessment of under-utilisation

·        Adverse effect on nearby streets of any loss of car parking

·        Support for use of public transport (trains) through provision of car parking at stations

·        Rezoning of site under Draft Ku-ring-gai LEP 2013 / Potential for high rise development

·        Perceived overdevelopment / concerns with redevelopment for units

·        Heritage Conservation Area / Biodiversity / Protected trees

·        Excessive consultation / Insufficient consultation / Manner of Public Consultation

·        Council’s presentation of options for consultation as opposed to a single vision

·        Council’s presentation of a fait de compli without consultation

·        Site benefits / impacts compared to Ku-ring-gai area-wide benefits / impacts

·        Retention of infrastructure vs provision of infrastructure

·        Council responsibility to provide infrastructure / community facilities

·        Alternatives for funding Gordon Civic and Community Precinct

·        Labelling of the purchase of the building at 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon as a ‘Taj Mahal’

 

See Attachment A10 for the Submission Summary Table from the 2014 exhibition.

 

Overview of the 2013 exhibition and reclassification process

 

The 2014 public consultation processes were preceded by an earlier process in 2013 which culminated in a report by the Chairperson, Peter Walsh, received on 6 January 2014.  This report recommended additional information be prepared, collated and presented to the community.  While the subsequent process supersedes the preceding process, the submissions made to the 2013 process have been fully considered as part of the present process.

 

All submissions arising from both exhibitions of the planning proposals and the public hearing processes have been considered and incorporated as part of the preparation of this report. 

 

See Attachment A9 for the Submission Summary Table from the 2013 exhibition.

 

Key themes and issues in the proposed reclassification of the Culworth Avenue car park

 

All the submissions that were made during both the 2013 and the 2014 exhibitions and public hearings for the reclassification of the Culworth Avenue car park have been considered and the issues and themes raised are addressed in the sections below.  For readability and coherence, these have been grouped.

 

Themes and Issues: The Demand for Car Parking – Car Park Occupancy – Survey Data

 

Many submissions commented on the ongoing demand for car parking, by a range of people with different needs.  Many submissions also challenged the utilisation rates of car park and disputed that it was underutilised, at least in terms of car parking utilisation.

 

Issue: Insufficient car parking in the area; reclassification will lead to an inadequate provision of parking in the local area; reclassification will lead to a loss of commuter car parking.

Issue: There is little or no car parking available in Killara or Gordon after peak commuting times.

Issue: Reclassification and sale (loss) of the car park will discourage the use of public transport; lead to loss of facility for park-and-ride.

Issue: Loss of the car park would exacerbate mobility issues for elderly and infirm residents.

Issue: Detail lacking on replacement car parking strategies.  Replacement of the car park is impossible.

Issue: Role for Council and State Government for provision of car parking.

Issue: Council should produce statistics of car parking use from revenue collection.

Issue: Continued demand for car parking arising from Selkirk Park and Marian Street Theatre.

Issue: Disputes occupancy statistics and definition of ‘under-utilisation’ and disagrees that it is under-utilised.

 

Response

 

Overview of the Methodology

 

In order to achieve a clear picture of the utilisation of the car park over period of the day, on weekdays and on weekends, extensive surveys were undertaken as follows:

 

·        Tuesday 4 February 2014;

·        Wednesday 5 February 2014;

·        Tuesday 11 February 2014;

·        Thursday 13 February 2014; and

·        Saturday 5 April 2014 (to capture utilisation from Saturday sports at Regimental Park which are scheduled from 8am to 12.30pm).

 

The weekday surveys were undertaken from 8am-6pm, while the Saturday survey was undertaken from 9am-3pm.  The surveys measured utilisation records taken across each nominated day every 30 minutes.  This methodology creates a very comprehensive picture of utilisation over the course of each survey day as opposed to taking single snapshots at random times; it also permits additional data such as the length of stay of each surveyed vehicle present in the car park.  On Tuesday 15 April 2014, an additional utilisation survey, this time in the form of spot checks, was taken as this date was during the school holidays and concurrent with the Royal Easter Show.

 

The data collected during the survey included car park occupancy, turnover/length of stay and the number of vehicles with mobility permits displayed.  Results appear in Summary of Weekday Results and Summary of Saturday Results below.  Independent traffic and transport data specialist Austraffic Pty Ltd was engaged to undertake the data collection as well as conduct a number of survey interviews with commuters.

 

Individual surveys of car park users

 

Commuter interview surveys were conducted on Wednesday 12 February 2014 between 6am and 12pm. Interviewers were located on Werona Avenue and Culworth Avenue just outside the station entrance.  Data collected during the interview surveys included age group; mode of travel to the station, and if the interviewee drove to the station; their postcode of origin; if they displayed a mobility permit; and whether they had parked in the Culworth Avenue car park.

 

Summary of weekday results

 

The weekday occupancy surveys showed the following characteristics:

 

·        average weekday peak occupancy across the 4 week days of surveys was 106 vehicles, or approximately 61% of total capacity (173 vehicles);

·        the maximum number of vehicles recorded at any one time during the 4 weekdays was 113 vehicles;

·        an average of 31 vehicles stayed less than 4.5hrs, while an average of 89 vehicles stayed longer than 4.5hrs across the 4 weekdays surveyed. Short stays represent approximately 25% of total weekday stays;

·        3 mobility permits were recorded being displayed in the car park over the course of the surveys.

 

These occupancy results were found to be broadly consistent with the spot surveys undertaken by Council in July 2002 which was the data exhibited as part of the 2013 exhibition process and updated in response to the first Public Hearing report.

 

Spot checks were undertaken on Tuesday 15 April 2014, which, although also a weekday, was during school holidays and concurrent with the Royal Easter Show.  At midday, 113 vehicles were recorded, which is consistent with the highest reading during the weekday surveys.

 

Summary of Saturday results

 

The Saturday occupancy surveys showed the following characteristics:

 

·        peak occupancy was 86 vehicles at 10.30am, or approximately 50% of total capacity;

·        occupancy after 11.30am was 33 vehicles or less (approximately 19%);

·        Approximately 78% of vehicles stayed less than 1.5hrs;

 

The short duration of stay together with the concentration of use prior to 11.30am, is considered reasonably consistent with the expected pattern of short term sports use by parents, carers and spectators at Regimental Park.

 

Summary of commuter interviews

 

On the day of the commuter interview survey, a total of 903 commuters were interviewed, which represents approximately a 40% sample size (based on 2012 barrier counts into Killara station, NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics). The results of the interview surveys are as follows:

 

·        52% of commuters arriving at Killara railway station walked, 28% drove, 18% were a car passenger and 0.6% rode a bicycle;

·        over 96% of commuters parking at Killara station originated from Ku-ring-gai;

·        104 commuters said they parked in the Culworth Avenue car park, and one of these said they displayed a mobility permit; and

·        over 97% of commuters parking in the Culworth Avenue car park originated from Ku-ring-gai.

 

Age profiles of the 104 users of the Culworth Avenue car park on the day of the interview surveys are shown in the table below:

Age group*

Under 18

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-59

60-69

70-84

85 & over

%

-

1.0%

22.1%

33.7%

22.1%

15.4%

5.8%

-

#

0

1

23

35

23

16

6

0

*Age brackets same as those used in Census

 

The most represented age group was the 35-49 year old group, with thirty-five users. Eighty-one were aged between 25 and 59 in the peak commuter age groups.  Twenty-two users were aged 60 and over. These results suggest that while older users have been recorded using the car park, they have not emerged as the major users. This is not intended to diminish the importance of the car park to members of the community in this age group but the low overall numbers do suggest that this demand can be provided for in time-limited on-street spaces close to the station.

 

Future car parking provision

 

To provide for the current weekday use profile and characteristics, the occupancy survey results indicate that up 120 spaces would be adequate to cater for the average weekday demand of 106 spaces.  Furthermore, the duration of stay results suggest that 25% stays at the car park are shorter stay parking (4hrs-4.5hrs or less), and these could be provided on-street in Culworth Avenue and Lorne Avenue (near the station entrance) with 4 hour restrictions.

 

It is important to emphasise that the demand for car parking at public transport inter-modal hubs such as railway stations, in Ku-ring-gai in general and in the Gordon-Killara-Lindfield area in particular, can be provided in a variety of ways that do not rely on the status quo – i.e. the retention unchanged of the whole of the current site as an at-grade car park, while the surrounding area continues to redevelop to higher density.

 

The surveys clearly revealed a variety of users with a number of reasons for accessing Killara Station and differing needs in relation to access.  Such demand can best be catered for by a mix of car parking provision including:

 

·        The Gordon commuter car park (currently under construction by TfNSW).

·        The Lindfield commuter car park (currently being master planned by TfNSW with Ku-ring-gai Council as part of the linked Lindfield Community Hub and Lindfield Village Green projects which will provide car parking, community facilities and open space in an accessible, central area).

·        A Killara commuter car park (on that part of the Culworth Avenue car park to be compulsorily acquired by TfNSW).

·        Shorter-term (four hour) spaces on the streets immediately adjacent to Killara Station.

·        On-going liaison with TfNSW to provide additional car parking, either informal, or formal, paved spaces including accessible spaces, on the railway corridor land within the rail corridor along the streets which run parallel to the rail line.  This option was investigated in response to a Notice of Motion in February 2014 which is discussed in detail later in the report.

·        On-going liaison with TfNSW to provide an improved zone for a ‘kiss-and-ride’ drop-off and pick-up area on the railway corridor land immediately adjacent to Killara Station.

 

The demand for short term parking currently provided by the Culworth Avenue car park, could be replaced by implementing paid parking (at a flat rate) in approximately 15 unrestricted spaces on one side of Culworth Avenue (adjacent to the station entrance) with 4hr restrictions, from 6am-6pm, Monday-Friday.  Paid parking would mirror the short term characteristics and availability that the fee in the Culworth Avenue car park is providing. During the 6am-6pm period, these spaces could turn over 2-3 times a day, resulting in short stay parking availability for 30-45 vehicles per day.  If additional demand is demonstrated, the on-street time-limited paid-parking system could be extended to Lorne Avenue.

 

Other rail centres such as Gordon have similar 4hr parking restrictions near the railway station for this purpose. The existing P15 minute parking on street in Culworth Avenue would be retained, for passenger drop-off and pick-up or enhanced if TfNSW facilitates the use of the land on the other side of Culworth Avenue.

 

In addition to the 15 spaces above, a further 20 spaces (distributed between Culworth Avenue and Lorne Avenue) could be reallocated from unrestricted parking to longer-stay paid parking (flat rate) from 9am-6pm on weekdays, in order to provide opportunities for longer stays for those commuters who arrive after 9am.

 

Alternatively, all 35 spaces suggested above could be reallocated to paid parking (flat rate) from 9am-6pm on weekdays.  The 35 unrestricted spaces re-allocated to paid parking would be offset by increased free all-day parking in the part of the Culworth Avenue car park that TfNSW have recently acquired.

 

The existing unrestricted spaces in such close proximity to the railway station entrance are too important to remain as unrestricted all-day parking.  A pay-and-display system would provide increased flexibility and turnover for shorter term and elderly parkers.  Many council areas provide specific seniors parking; this could also be considered to cater for this age group.  Current users of these unrestricted spaces would likely be longer stay commuters and would be arriving early at the station - these users could likely find commuter parking in the section of the Culworth Avenue car park acquired by TfNSW, or at other nearby locations including the additional spaces being provided at Gordon railway station as part of the Gordon Bus Interchange and Commuter Car Park project (approximately 165 additional commuter car parking spaces), and, later, in Lindfield, as these projects are progressively delivered.

 

Lastly, there is also an opportunity for sections of the western side of Culworth Avenue (between Stanhope Road and Marian Street), which become unrestricted after 10am on weekdays, to be reallocated for time-limited paid car parking.  This would also suit the short stay characteristics of the users of the Culworth Avenue car park.

 

Demand from Saturday winter sports at nearby Regimental Park would continue to be catered for in the section of the Culworth Avenue car park to be acquired by TfNSW, as well as the opportunity for tailored on-street parking restrictions for Saturday morning to recognise this usage.  There is also scope for out-of-hours use by patrons of the Marian Street Theatre at such time as it is reopened to the public.

 

The Report into the Assessment of Parking utilisation at the Culworth Avenue car park are Attachments A1 and A2 to this report.

 

Themes and Issues: Accessibility for all

 

Many submissions were specifically concerned with role the car park plays in facilitating accessibility for the elderly and infirm as well families with school children to public transport.

 

Issue: Querying degree of integration of car parking strategies by Council and TfNSW at Gordon, Killara and Lindfield.

Issue: Loss of the car park would exacerbate mobility issues for elderly and infirm residents.

Issue: Reclassification and sale (loss) of the car park will discourage the use of public transport; lead to loss of facility for park-and-ride.

 

Response

 

Accessibility - Killara railway station and nearby stations on the North Shore line

 

With respect for the demand for access to Killara Railway station by the elderly and infirm, which was raised by a number of submissions, it should be noted that Killara, unlike the two adjoining stations of Gordon to the north and Lindfield to the south, is not classed as an accessible station.

 

Information from the NSW State Government’s property data sheets notes:

 

Killara Railway station is not wheelchair accessible; it is accessed by stairs which are not complemented by a lift or escalator or ramp.  It does not have platform tactile tiles for the benefit of the visually impaired.  It does, however, have hearing loop.

 

Gordon Railway station is wheelchair accessible; it has a lift and a ramp (1:14 gradient).  It also has a wheelchair accessible toilet and payphone and wheelchair accessible car spaces nearby.  The platforms have platform tactile tiles for the benefit of the visually impaired and a hearing loop.  There is a kiss-and-ride for passenger drop-off.

 

Lindfield Railway station is wheelchair accessible; it has a lift and a ramp (1:20 gradient). It also has a wheelchair accessible toilet.  The platforms have platform tactile tiles for the benefit of the visually impaired and a hearing loop. 

 

Gordon Bus-Rail Interchange with additional commuter car parking is currently under construction by TfNSW and due to open in June 2015.  TfNSW is also planning to deliver commuter car parking at Lindfield and is working with Ku-ring-gai Council to incorporate the delivery of community facilities and urban parks both west and east of the railway line.  This master planning process follows on from the recent reclassification and divestment of the car park at 9 Havilah Lane and the reclassification of the car park at Woodford Lane.  Together with the acquisition of 2-12 Bent Street and 1A Woodford Lane Lindfield for open space and road realignment, this consolidation of land holdings facilitates important infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai and are expected to be delivered in 2016 and 2019.

 

When these projects are complete, both commuter and short stay accessible car parking with much better access and facilities will be available at Lindfield Station compared to Killara Station.  Additional longer stay commuter car parking will be available at Gordon supported by the kiss-and-ride facility.  The acquisition of part of the Culworth Avenue car park by TfNSW and the availability of on-street car parking and the potential for additional accessible parking in the railway corridor combine to support ongoing car parking provision at Killara. 

 

All these facilities providing off-street car parking, together with complementary on-street time-limited (with a range of times), free and paid-parking spaces, combine to address the full range of different car parking and accessibility demands into the future.  The provision of short term (around four hour) paid on-street car parking, with regulatory support, will continue to provide accessible spaces close to the station for older and less mobile patrons of Killara station.

 

This provision of a variety of types of car parking for both commuters and shorter stay patrons, including accessible spaces, at Gordon, Killara and Lindfield Stations, both by TfNSW and by Council also addresses many of the issues raised by the submissions concerned that the effect of the reclassification would be to discourage the use of public transport.  The potential for further spaces and an enhanced drop off/pick up area at Killara on the railway corridor adjacent to Culworth Avenue, would be in addition to the many spaces already anticipated under planned provision by Council and TfNSW.

 

Lastly, the impending acquisition of part of the property for commuter car parking by TfNSW, is considered more likely than not to ensure that the number of trains stopping at Killara is not further reduced as a result of the dominance of investment at Lindfield and Gordon stations.  The on-going commitment of the NSW State Government for access to Killara station could also lead to future accessibility improvements within the hierarchy of staged improvements to Sydney’s stations.

 

Themes and Issues: Future uses of the Culworth Avenue and Marian Street car park

 

Issue: Local infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the influx of cars and people.

Issue: Reclassification will lead to sale of car park and the development of high rise apartments.

Issue: Reclassification will lead to traffic and congestion around the car park.

Issue: Disagrees that a supermarket or additional retail is needed or wanted or would add value.

Issue: The planning proposal will impact on the Heritage Conservation Area.

Issue: Significant trees will be threatened / lost as a result of the proposal including Blue Gum, Blackbutt and Grey Ironbark.

Issue: Concerned about the loss of open space in Killara.

 

A number of submissions directly addressed the effects of prospective redevelopment of the current site on the community and the surrounding area.

 

Response

 

Effect of potential redevelopment on the surrounding area

 

On gazettal of Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013, the Culworth Avenue site will be partly zoned R4 - High density residential and partly zoned B1 - Neighbourhood centre.  The surrounding areas in Lorne Avenue, Marian Street and Culworth Avenue are zoned R4- High density residential and are currently undergoing redevelopment for units.  The adjacent small-row-shops are also zoned B1 - Neighbourhood centre.  Local open space in Selkirk Park is zoned RE1 and the Marian Street Theatre is Zoned B1 - Neighbourhood centre, complete the precinct west of the station. Any future re-development on the car park site for residential purpose would be of a form and scale consistent with the surrounding development patterns. 

 

The land adjoining the site immediately to the west is zoned R2 low density residential with the adjoining property in Lorne Avenue being a heritage item. Any development of the site would be bound by the provisions in the LEP relating to development adjacent to or in the vicinity of heritage items and heritage conservation areas.

 

While the intensification of density may generate additional vehicular traffic for discretionary trips, commuting is facilitated by the immediate proximity of Killara station within walking distance.  Redevelopment around railway stations is supported by successive NSW Government metro strategies.  The increasing numbers of people resident in the area in the units recently built and currently under construction as well as more allowed for by the existing zoning, are also likely to support businesses in the local shops.  It is acknowledged that several submissions and a couple of speakers to the Public Hearing argued that more than one business in these shops had previously failed in disagreement with the highest and best use report prepared by HillPDA, it should be noted that this report focused on the future potential inclusive of future population growth rather than being an immediate prospect.

 

Highest and Best Use Report by HillPDA (Attachment A3)

 

In response to issues and concerns raised during the 2013 process and in the first Public Hearing Report, Council sought specialist advice from land economists on the possible range of land uses that would be viable on the Culworth Avenue and Marian Street sites, particularly those that would provide some community benefit.  HillPDA considered the feasibility of speciality retail shops; a small supermarket (such as an IGA); high density residential uses; and child care facilities.

 

The community benefit associated with retail on the site relates to the provision of services for local residents and commuters although consideration must be given to any negative impacts on existing businesses on the Pacific Highway at Killara. The community benefit of high density residential is associated at a broad level with State planning objectives and the Metropolitan Strategy for higher densities around train stations; at a local scale apartments on this site would help to activate the rail station precinct and provide passive surveillance of surrounding streets. The benefit of child care facilities relates again to the provision of services in a highly accessible location for local residents and commuters.

 

Currently Killara has no village centre for regular food and grocery shopping. Killara residents, and also to a large extent East Killara residents, undertake the majority of their “core” shopping in Lindfield and Gordon. Within walking distance (800m to 1km) of the station the population is expected to grow from around 6,000 residents to around 7,700 residents by 2031 due to the development of apartment buildings in the R4 high density zones.  HillPDA found that retail expenditure forecasting suggests that there could be sufficient demand to warrant a small supermarket of around 2,000sqm with supportive speciality stores.  It should be noted that any future proposal would be subject to a more detailed analysis and would be unlikely to be considered until further redevelopment in the surrounding area was complete and the strength of Lindfield as a shopping destination after the completion of the Lindfield Community Hub and Lindfield Village Green was known.

 

HillPDA found that the residential market is clearly strong in the Ku-ring-gai area due to the area’s amenity and appeal and that apartments are popular with several markets; in particular young professionals looking for place rather than space; to lesser extent older persons looking to downsize closer to public transport; and finally migrants, also have a strong preference for place over space.  HillPDA note that demand appears to be equally strong for 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms.

 

With respect to childcare, the study notes that population growth in family age-cohorts has resulted in a growing demand for child care. There are no vacancies in all four child care places in Killara and the waiting times are considerable. As evident through market data, enquiries, census and population forecasts Hill PDA find there is a strong need for one or more additional child care centres in the locality.

 

In summary, the Highest and Best Use Study found that there is capacity to support retail, residential and/or childcare uses on the site.  Spatially there are restrictions placed on where these can be located and by the size of the land parcels.  Draft Ku-ring-gai LEP 2013 proposes two land use zones across the site being R4 on the main Culworth Avenue site frontages and B1 for 17 Marian Street which adjoins the existing terrace shops as well as the land behind these shops.

 

Heritage and Biodiversity

 

Eleven submissions made specific reference to the biodiversity of the site including the presence of Bluegums, Blackbutts and Ironbarks.  Several submissions also referred to the impact of the loss of the trees and amenity on the Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Response

 

The Planning Proposal to reclassify the car park from Community land to Operational land status will not affect or remove the application of any current or future planning provision applying to the site.  This includes the application of biodiversity protection and heritage provisions under the KPSO or Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013. Any future development on the site would be subject to those provisions regardless of classification of the land.

 

Response

 

Changes to the Heritage conservation area have been outlined under the heading Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 at the beginning of this report. Further community consultation in relation to changes to heritage provisions will occur when the matter is formally exhibited.

 

The Planning Proposal does not alter or affect any of the Biodiversity or Heritage Provision that apply to the site under the KPSO or Draft KLEP 2013.

 

Impact on the adjoining property at 18 Culworth Avenue Killara

 

A matter raised in submissions and at the Public Hearing, is the impact on the adjoining property to the south of the main car park area located at 18 Culworth Avenue Killara. 

 

Response

 

This property is too small to be redeveloped on its own and the only practical option for redevelopment is amalgamation with at least part of the car park.  It is also located south of the car park and, therefore, there is the potential for significant impact on the amenity of the two dwellings in the duplex through overshadowing from any redevelopment on the northern boundary.  In addition to the real impact on the amenity of the property, it is also not desirable that any properties should be isolated with limited development potential.  This has been the subject of specific submissions and representations made at the public hearing.  The Chairperson of the Public Hearing also made specific reference to the need to correct the unfair treatment of 18 Culworth Avenue (p.30).

 

Since the compulsory acquisition of part of the Culworth Avenue car park by TfNSW is underway, there is an increased likelihood that any prospective purchaser of the area adjoining the southern site would also rely on site amalgamation to achieve a viable development site.

 

Issue – Loss of Open space in Killara

 

Response

 

The site is not zoned under the planning instruments or used for open space purposes, nor was it acquired for open space purposes.  Ku-ring-gai Council has recently acquired and opened a new local park and playground, Greengate Park in Bruce Avenue, Killara as part of the ongoing delivery of new parks under the Open Space Acquisition Strategy.  The Culworth Avenue car park is located in close proximity to two existing parks: Selkirk Park and Regimental Park.

 

Themes and Issues: Procedures and community consultation

 

A number of submissions raised concerns about the process of notification and consultation.

 

Issue: A large amount of money has already been spent on the first reclassification process.

Issue: Council appears to be ignoring the recommendations arising from the first Walsh Report.

Issue: Concerns about a lack of community consultation about the proposal.

Issue: Inconsistent with NSW State Government requirements and policy.

Issue: Communication was confusing and unclear.

 

Response

 

Cost and extent of consultation

 

Ku-ring-gai Council is bound by statutory notification requirements and recommendations from the NSW State Government.  The cost of community consultation is an integral part of the core business of Council’s community engagement and is budgeted for annually.

 

There is a statutory exhibition period of 28 days for planning proposals however, in the case of the second exhibition, this period was extended by five additional days due to the Easter Period.  A minimum of 21 days notification must be provided prior to a public hearing.  These notifications cannot be parallel.  While this may have generated confusion or a perception of duplication, Council cannot set aside these statutory requirements.  Details and dates of the exhibitions and hearings appear in the Community Consultation section of this report.

 

Response

 

Ku-ring-gai Council is ignoring ‘the Walsh Report’

 

The report, dated 6 January 2014, by the Chairperson, Peter Walsh, arising from the first Public Hearing on 24 October 2013, made a number of recommendations for Council to act upon.  These recommendations were acted upon and additional supporting information was presented to a second exhibition process and a second Public Hearing, chaired by the same Chairperson.

 

Themes and Issues: Nett Community Benefit Test / 828 Pacific Highway Gordon

 

Issue: No evidence of Council demonstrating a nett community benefit.

Issue: Council should consider alternative funding for a new Chambers / the Sun Building

Issue: Council should sell the Sun Building

Issue: Council is not being honest about its intentions for the sale of the site.

 

Response

 

Nett Community Benefit - Demonstration

 

There have been submissions made regarding the specific requirement under the planning guidelines to address the nett community benefit of the proposal.  In this context it needs to be made clear that there is no current legal requirement for a site-specific nett community benefit test – either with respect to the subject site or in the context of the LGA as a whole.  The requirement for a test of nett community benefit was included within earlier policy documents issued by the former Department of Planning, however the latest Guide for Planning Proposals for reclassification, issued in October 2012 includes no reference to nett community benefit either on a site-specific or LGA wide basis.  This is a quite recent change and it is understandable that this distinction has given rise to some confusion.

 

Notwithstanding the removal of a formal requirement, the level of community concern over the Culworth Avenue car park evident from the first exhibition and public hearing process was considered to warrant the provision of further information as part of the second exhibition.  Information concerning how Council’s considerably varied land holdings enable Ku-ring-gai as a whole to move forward with community and civic asset renewal was included as follows:

 

·        an overview document which included options for master planning the Gordon site for civic, community and cultural purposes;

·        car park occupancy and interview surveys;

·        Draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014;

·        Highest and Best Use Study;

·        valuation report; and

·        a phase one environmental report.

 

There is a great deal more information in the public realm on the overall strategy for supporting the future needs of Ku-ring-gai’s residents and businesses through infrastructure provision at: http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Plans_and_regulations/Building_and_development/Town_planning including:

 

·        Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012;

·        Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (Local Centres);

·        Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013;

·        Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 2010;

·        Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010;

·        Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Parking Management Plan;

·        Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy 2006.

 

These documents (and their predecessors) continue to outline a long-term strategy for the provision of infrastructure to support redevelopment.  Especially in the case of infrastructure funding, it must be emphasised that new development can only be required to contribute a fair and reasonable proportion of the cost that arises from the nett additional demand; it cannot lawfully be levied for the cost of replacing existing assets or that proportional part of an asset that is solely for the existing population.  In the case of existing facilities that are at the end of their economic life and/or by their structural design or location cannot feasibly be extended, a co-contribution is created that Council must fund on behalf of the existing residents for the replacement community asset.

 

Ku-ring-gai is at a point in time when many structural assets – in particular the Council Chambers at 818 Pacific Highway Gordon – are reaching the end of their economic life and many other structural assets are unsuited to the demands of a changing population as we move further into the twenty-first century and a period of intensive urban renewal and demographic change.

 

Ku-ring-gai Council cannot ignore these critical infrastructure issues, in the full knowledge that eventually some of the ageing community assets will fail, in which case Council would have failed to serve both the short and long-term interests of all the residents of Ku-ring-gai both now and future.

 

Gordon Civic Precinct

 

The issue of future library facilities for Lindfield is incorporated within the twin Lindfield projects previously discussed.  The other critical asset, Gordon Council Chambers, is directly related to the property whose reclassification is the subject of this report.  The following information is in two parts: firstly, addressing the issues raised in submissions that direct relate to reasons for the acquisition of the property at 828 Pacific Highway Gordon and, secondly, to the future provision of community facilities and public open space together with civic functions in this precinct.

 

Response

 

Options for alternate accommodation

 

Many of the submissions that elected to use ‘labelling’ in order to diminish and negate Ku-ring-gai’s strategic acquisition of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon as a ‘Taj Mahal’ also proposed a number of options, all of which Council has already considered – and placed the demonstration that it has considered them, over a number of years – in the public realm on its website with direct links from the main Ku-ring-gai webpage at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au.   These documents provide volumes of comprehensive background information which can only be summarised here within another report.

 

Option: Lease office space

 

Gordon is the largest town centre in Ku-ring-gai.  It possesses approximately 133,642sqm of employment floor space – both retail and commercial – and, more remote from railway station access, Pymble (inclusive of the Business Park) possesses 144,480sqm of employment floorspace.  However vacancy rates for consolidated areas of office space of around 3,000sqm or more are not common.  Recently vacated office buildings have been sold to developers for mixed use (predominantly residential) development in Gordon removing them from the office leasing market and, in Pymble, the 3M building on the corner of Mona Vale Road, Ryde Road and Pacific Highway, sold for $16.25M to Bunnings on 21 December 2012.  Ku-ring-gai Council would have required approximately 3,000sqm of consolidated space including capacity to include a Chambers and public / community space as well as office space on a long-term stable lease in an area easily accessible to all the members of the public who do business at Council Offices. 

 

Two office properties currently being offered for lease in the Pymble Business Park indicate that the required floor area would be available at an average annual rent in the vicinity of $1,000,000 for properties that are not easily accessible by public transport for many residents.  Leasing office space also represents a considerable ongoing commitment for ratepayers without the future return of community, civic and cultural assets.

 

The opportunity which arose from acquiring the whole of the adjoining property at 828 Pacific Highway Gordon (Council owned the ground lease) would be unlikely to arise again before the present building condition and accommodation issues reached a critical point.  It should also be noted that Council can continue to lease out the floorspace which is not required for Council use to commercial tenants thus generating an income stream to further assist ongoing infrastructure delivery and asset renewal.

 

Option: Wait until funding was fully in place

 

As noted above, the availability of the building at 828 Pacific Highway Gordon was a once in a generation opportunity.  Reclassification and leverage/divestment processes take several years.  The current condition of the dual extensions behind the historic 1928 Council Chambers at 818 Pacific Highway makes it clear that this building does not have a remaining asset life of another generation.  There is more detail on the condition of 818 Pacific Highway later in this report.

 

Council demonstrated its processes, intentions and funding strategies to the DLG prior to committing to the purchase and has further communicated this to the community in releasing formerly commercial in confidence documents on its website.  Ku-ring-gai Council acted lawfully, decisively and strategically to address a pressing asset issue which has the additional benefits of supporting the timely delivery and co-location of community facilities and open space for Ku-ring-gai as a whole – addressing community infrastructure demands arising from new development and emphasised in submissions as part of the Local Centres LEP exhibition.

 

It is reiterated that substantial information covering investigations and actions from 2008 onwards is in the public domain directly accessible from a link on Ku-ring-gai Council’s main webpage to any reader.

 

Option: A new building isn’t needed …

 

The physical state and economic viability of the current premises at 818 Pacific Highway Gordon is a relevant matter for consideration. Local Government has a legal responsibility to manage and maintain its assets, provide safe public access that complies with the legislation for access and to provide a safe working environment.  Failure in any of these areas may create liabilities.  In context it is noted that information on the state of the current chambers has been on the website for some years including former Mayoral communications, from well prior to the release of information on the processes that lead to the acquisition of the adjoining premises.  More detailed information is contained in the section titled Total Asset Management.

 

Theme and Issues: Strategic Management of Community Assets for all Ku-ring-gai

 

Issue: Council is ignoring the wishes of the public.

Issue: Council elected to govern for all the ratepayers.

Issue: There is no recognition of the broader community impacts of the planning proposal.

Issue: Council should be recycling assets rather than selling.

 

Another key theme in the submissions was the place of the land holding at Culworth Avenue in a wider system of community facility provision for the whole of Ku-ring-gai.  A couple of submissions (both to the exhibition and directly to the public hearing) summarised parts of the Council’s Charter from the Local Government Act.  In particular those clauses requiring a council to:

 

·        provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively;

·        exercise community leadership;

·        have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions;

·        bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively plan for, account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible; and

·        engage in long-term strategic planning on behalf of the local community.

 

Response

 

A responsible local council planning for the future

 

The submissions imply that Ku-ring-gai is not doing these things outlined above by proposing to reclassify the Culworth Avenue car park.  Several also perceived this proposal to be a ‘knee-jerk’ response to one event (the acquisition of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon).

 

It is important to consider the Culworth Avenue car park in its broad strategic context and in the context of all the strategic planning, asset management, asset renewal strategies and Long Term Financial Planning that collectively seeks to ensure that facilities for the growing and changing community are provided in a timely manner for the current and the next generation of Ku-ring-gai residents, visitors, shoppers and workers.  Detailed strategic planning, with costed infrastructure delivery programmes and asset renewal, extends to the 2030s with broader visioning beyond that.

 

Many of the community assets built in the 1950s to the 1970s are ageing, reaching the end of their economic lives and are difficult to adapt to changing usage patterns.  In undertaking comprehensive planning for their replacement - including the funding thereof - Ku-ring-gai Council is engaging in long-term strategic planning, managing community assets for the future public benefit and having regard to the long term effects of its decisions in the context of planning for asset renewal and the continued provision of community services through quality facilities.  Ku-ring-gai Council can exercise leadership in planning for infrastructure delivery and asset renewal in a rolling staged delivery programme, in a timely manner ahead of the time where many of the present community assets will actually reach the end of their economic lives, and before the increasing cost of maintaining and repairing those ageing assets begins to seriously impact on Council’s annual maintenance budget. 

 

The present time, while additional funding is also being levied from new development to address its proportional demand, makes this the critical window to ensure that Ku-ring-gai consolidates and continues to deliver community assets over the next 10-20 years for the 21st Century.  Many are already well underway, particularly in Lindfield, with comprehensive planning commencing for Turramurra.

 

It is recognised and acknowledged that the 173 car parking spaces at Killara are very valuable to the people who use them regularly.  The impending acquisition of part of the property by TfNSW and the reallocation of on-street time-limited car parking by Council, taken in conjunction with works at Gordon and Lindfield, can cater to this demand while allowing the latent value in a property asset, to be leveraged to support further community asset renewal and infrastructure delivery.

 

Purpose of land holding

 

The land at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara was progressively acquired from 1956 to 1959 specifically for the purposes of a new civic centre, baby health centre and possible library.  In 1965, Council determined not to use the property for which it had been acquired and to establish, in 1966, a temporary car park.  The temporary nature of this use has been reiterated in several reports of the intervening period since.  It is now required for the purposes for which it was originally acquired.

 

Ku-ring-gai Council seeks to utilise the full value inherent in the current locational position of the property within a major redevelopment corridor, opposite a railway station and leverage that value to address multiple competing demands including: the retention and provision of commuter and short-stay car parking and divestment for future development and reinvestment in civic and community facilities (realising the vision of the strategic acquisitions of the Ku-ring-gai Council of the 1950s).

 

The subject property is owned collectively by all the ratepayers of Ku-ring-gai.  The 2011 census showed 39,658 dwellings where 109,297 ratepayers and tenant residents lived, and more dwellings have been constructed since leading to an estimated resident population in June 2013 of 119,027.  There are 173 car parking spaces in the Culworth Avenue carpark of which 106 are in regular demand (peaking at 113).  TfNSW has commenced the process to acquire part of the site for car parking, which can, in the future, accommodate additional levels of car parking.   Accessible on-street spaces for elderly drivers and other shorter-term parking can be accommodated with the required regulatory framework to ensure spaces are not taken up by long-term parkers.  The remainder of the property can be divested to support the original reason for its purchase and investment.

 

Agency consultation

 

The following agencies were notified of the Planning Proposal on 13 August 2013 in accordance with the Gateway Determination:

 

·        Transport for NSW;

·        Railcorp;

·        Office of Environment and Heritage (Environment Branch);

·        Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Branch);

·        Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

 

Only one formal response was received, from the RMS, although TfNSW has been closely involved in the progression of the matter.  RMS raised no objection to the proposed reclassification and is noted that they did not have any additional requirements to be addressed arising from it.  No further formal responses were received.

 

Recommendation of the First Public Hearing on held 24 October 2013

Public Hearing Report received 6 January 2014

 

The 2014 exhibition and public hearing process followed an earlier process of exhibition and public hearing.  In the recommendation arising from the initial report, Mr Walsh recommended as follows:

 

That the reclassification not proceed until and unless the four requirements outlined in Section 4.2 are addressed, as expanded upon in Section 3 of the report.

 

1.       More genuinely recognise the community benefits of the current site use, especially in regard to those with disability and seniors, a growing group as identified in the Community Strategic Plan.

2.       Provide an enhanced picture of the overall community benefit of a reclassification and sale (noting the discussion at Sections 3.2 and 3.3 and the need for iteration with regard to conditional factors nominated below).

3.       Demonstrate how this exceeds the current community benefit, for example by drawing relationships to Council’s wider program of planning and community service (including but not necessarily limited to the future project at 828 Pacific Highway). This is concerned with demonstrating there is a long term benefit to the wider Ku-ring-gai community.

4.       Detail any conditions which would be pre-requisites for the land sale, including in regard to local community considerations such as replacement parking strategies, support for higher needs groups (here or relocated elsewhere), special planning controls, processes for preparation of development strategy/masterplan, phasing of parking availability, strategy for providing line of sight between goals and implementation, continuing civic engagement on this matter, and expected fiscal outcomes.

 

In this initial report, Mr Walsh, also discussed the matter of utilisation of the current car parking site:

 

For the writer then, if the bead is drawn on the large policy challenges facing the city as many submissions do, the current status of the subject site as land at Killara Station noting its existing open space resources, no matter if usage levels are 65% or 85% or 100% at-grade usage, is prima facie one of underutilisation. This was also recognised in submissions (around 5%) which suggested the preference here was for multi-level carparking at the site, often suggested as funded by State government. It is accepted that this may not be favoured by some local residents, but a wider community interest may be served. My own view is that the challenge is more so how to retain and/or deliver good levels of amenity and convenience, while also now including the intensity of development which I’m afraid needs to be part of the outlook for urban land near railway stations in Sydney, especially in areas like this which have good levels of accessible employment. So in my view the wider policy questions, and thus interests around overall community benefit, would be more inclined to this strategic site at Killara railway station, being classified as operational land rather than community land, given the improved flexibility for creative community or commercial or housing design and development by public and private sector interests which it provides.”

 

As part of his recommendations, Mr Walsh advised Council to further demonstrate to the community the rationale for seeking to leverage the value of assets for the benefit of with wider community of residents and ratepayers.

 

Following receipt of this report, additional studies were commissioned to demonstrate the broader strategic infrastructure planning context.  This gave rise to the second exhibition and a Public Hearing held on Monday 26 May 2014 which wholly supersedes the first process.  It is emphasised, however, that all submissions to both the 2013 and the 2014 processes have been considered as part of this report and in the responses outlined above.

 

Recommendation of the Second Public Hearing – held Monday 26 May 2014

Public Hearing Report received 30 June 2014 (Attachment A6)

 

In respect of the second Public Hearing held on 26 May 2014, the Chairperson, Mr Walsh, at the conclusion of his report dated 30 June 2014, recommends as follows:

 

“1.     Councillors note the report and numerous submissions outlined herein.

2.       With any decision to reclassify Council adopt an approach and timeline for outline planning for the site with a view to its strategic location and the possibilities for it to meet the needs of a growing future community for activities and facilities, as outlined in Section 4.1 and 4.2

3.       A “threshold” approach for the site outline planning be adopted as indicated in Section 4.2 involving high quality urban design expertise, development finance advice and a deliberative process involving residents and the wider community.  This approach would culminate with the preparation of a masterplan for the local precinct as the thresholds are met.

4.       Subject to the above, the proposed reclassification is seen to have merits and warrant support.”

 

Mr Walsh further emphasises the appropriateness of more detailed site planning within the body of the report as follows:

 

“A view to the future and the introduction of design excellence into what happens next can assist in clarifying the potential to secure a number of additional parts of the project. These include: supply of additional parking eg another layer or half layer on the proposed commuter carpark to assist in the “transport interchange” role, linking in a prospectively significant scale supermarket perhaps under housing, detailed variations to the heritage provisions, design for all construction which is less concerned about absolute height and more about its effects eg privacy, overshadowing and visual impact, correction of the current unfair treatment of 18 Culworth Ave, public domain improvements including highlighting the magnificent tree stand at the site’s north, modifications to zoning as necessary, designing in matters like bus pick-up set-down, with maximising short term fiscal returns to Council important but only part of the equation. In my view the next stage of analysis is best done in partnership with TfNSW rather than excluding that portion of the site now intended for parking only. I believe the classification decision can be taken now, but only with commitment to further efforts to deliver on these higher order benefits for the community. The reason that reclassification can occur now is that for me the benefits of classification are stronger than the need to wait the outcome of the further deliberations described above, and reclassification can provide the required platform and surety for further public investment in a design led process ahead. The first step would be about establishing an approach for Council endorsement.”

 

Site master planning

 

To a significant extent, as is recognised, the recommendation has been impacted by the compulsory acquisition of part of the site by TfNSW.  Ku-ring-gai Council is willing in principle to engage with TfNSW in integrating master planning for the Culworth Avenue car park, as, is already the case for the master planning for the delivery of car parking, community facilities and parkland at Lindfield.

 

Present status of the residual of the Culworth Avenue car park site

 

Culworth Avenue car park is made up of a number of land parcels and, in particular, 17 Marian Street is physically separated from the main car park by a narrow strip of land which is also made up of separate allotments.  Ku-ring-gai Council needs to consider the subdivision and capacity of the land and surrounding streets as a whole to derive the best value for all ratepayers.

 

Of the three master plan concepts for the site exhibited as part of the second exhibition of the Planning Proposal, only a modified Option Three reasonably reflects the acquisition of part of the site acquired by TfNSW and is suitable to carry forward.

 

This includes:

 

·        the creation of a separate lot, with an area of approximately 3,667sqm through the compulsorily acquisition process by TfNSW for use as a public commuter car park;

·        15 metre landscape setbacks to Lorne and Culworth Avenues to protect the existing trees (this would exceed the setbacks for the existing car park); as this requirement exceeds Council’s DCP requirements a Heads of Agreement would be required between Council and TfNSW;

·        the creation of a residual site of 2,480sqm which would allow a 4-storey residential apartment building under the draft KLEP 2013.  It is noted the site is large enough to achieve a 5-storey apartment building which would require Council to amend the draft KLEP 2013.  This potential should be managed to encourage site amalgamation with 18 Culworth Avenue through the supporting DCP.  Site controls required to protect the amenity of 18 Culworth Avenue if it is not incorporated in a development site, could also act as an incentive to consolidation;

·        the provision of 15 to 35 short-stay paid parking spaces on-street in Culworth Avenue (particularly near the station entrance) with 4 hour restrictions. Extension of this system to Lorne Avenue and Marian Street should also be investigated (refer to detail earlier in this report); and

·        the creation of a separate parcel comprising the B1 zoned properties for future commercial or retail use.  The area could be a suitable site for a childcare centre noting the additional potential play area at the rear of the property and pedestrian access from Marian Street via an existing right of way.

 

 

Context – Clarification of the acquisition by TfNSW of part of Culworth Avenue

 

For the purposes of clarity and transparency, the following timeline on the interaction of Ku-ring-gai Council and Transport for NSW is presented as follows:

 

1.       Transport for NSW (TfNSW) first approached Ku-ring-gai Council with the concept, in principle, of purchasing part of the site around the time immediately following the publicity surrounding the first Public Hearing which was held on 24 October 2013;

1.       Ku-ring-gai Council advised Transport for NSW (TfNSW) that, so long as the land remained community classified, formal negotiations were of questionable legality given the inability to reach to a conclusion;

2.       Ku-ring-gai Council obtained legal advice to the effect that it was possible to commence ‘in principle’ discussions provided it was demonstrably clear that nothing could be concluded for so long as the land retained a community classification;

3.       On Thursday 13 February 2014, Councillors were briefed by Council staff outlining possible scenarios for the divestment of all or part of the site to TfNSW for a commuter car park;

4.       At the OMC of 25 February 2014, Council considered a confidential report to authorise the formal commencement of in principle discussions including the preparation of a Heads of Agreement;

5.       At the OMC of 13 May 2014, Council received a report on the current status of discussions and unanimously agreed to further discussions on the potential divestment of part of the land subject to the reclassification of the land to Operational Land and that a further report be brought back following those discussions.  It should be noted that this resolution clearly puts the parties on notice that Council cannot be committed while the land retains a community classification.

6.       At the OMC of 27 May 2014, Council received a report concerning advice from TfNSW that they intended to compulsorily acquire part of the subject land.

7.       In compliance with the resolution of 27 May 2014, the process of divestment of the identified site area to TfNSW as part of a compulsory acquisition process has commenced.

 

Concurrent Council resolutions 

 

There are two Council resolutions in relation to the Culworth Avenue car park which have been passed during the reclassification process that need to be addressed.  These are considered below.

 

Future car parking provision on railway corridor land

 

A Notice of Motion was considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 25 February 2014 to investigate possible future commuter car parking on Rail Corp land adjacent to Killara Train Station.

 

Council Resolved: That consideration of Possible Future Commuter Car Parking on Railcorp Land adjacent to Killara Train Station be deferred pending a site inspection.

 

A site inspection took place on 6 March 2014 attended by the Mayor, several Councillors and Council staff. The site inspection observed site conditions and opportunities and constraints for the provision of additional parking in the road corridor of Culworth Avenue and on adjoining railway land between Powell Street and Stanhope Road. That matter has not been considered any further by Council following that site inspection, accordingly the matter is included as part of this report.

 

Total asset management in the strategic context

 

Ku-ring-gai Council has a comprehensive Asset Management Strategy which enables Council to manage how its asset portfolio will meet the service delivery needs of its community into the future and ensure that Council’s asset management programme is integrated into its long term strategic plan.  Ku-ring-gai Council takes a life cycle management approach to all its assets to optimise asset acquisition, maintenance, service and operational costs, and disposal.  The Asset Management Strategy was built on a comprehensive condition audit of assets and a Risk Management Framework in 2011 (meeting the requirements of ISO31000).  Asset Management represents a considerable risk to Council presented by the age of assets, condition and available resources for asset maintenance and renewal.

 

Within the Asset Management Strategy, critical assets are those on which public health and safety, business continuity and the impact of emergencies are most critical.  There are three such assets: the current administration building at 818 Pacific Highway Gordon, the future administration building at 828 Pacific Highway Gordon and the Works depot at 5 Suakin Street Pymble.  Of these, 818 Pacific Highway Gordon is in poor condition and rapidly reaching the end of its economic life.

 

In this context the following should be noted:

 

Event

Date

Effects

Flooding Event following heavy rain which also impacted on residential areas in Ku-ring-gai.

February 2010

Water ingress at the junction of the historic building and the first extension though levels 5, 4, 3 and down to 2; Loss of furniture, fittings, carpets, technology; hire of large drying fans; archival recovery for paper records; relocation of staff from Levels 4 and 5 for three months.

Air conditioning unit failure, flooding

January 2011

Flooding in Chambers

Flooding Event

June 2012

Flooding to lower entry level

Lift failures

2014 – 4 events to May 2014

2013 – 10 events

2012 – 12 events

Limited accessibility to the building

 

The purchase of 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon can enable a fit-out to 4-star Green Star rating substantially reducing the environmental footprint of Council’s civic and cultural activities as well as day-to-day maintenance and running costs.  It will further enable Ku-ring-gai to lead by example for other development in the area.  The demolition of the 1960s and 1980s rear extensions to 818 Pacific Highway facilitates the delivery of a civic and cultural hub for the community.  The reclassification and potential divestment of a proportion of the properties identified in the report to the OMC of 30 April 2013 is an essential component of achieving this objective.

 

Council’s adopted resourcing strategy – key challenges

 

Since 2009 Council has undertaken a proactive approach to Strategic Asset Management. This has included the development of an Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plans for all asset classes so they can be sustained in the future to meet needs and expectations of the community as identified in our Community Strategic Plan (CSP) and Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP). Council’s adopted an Asset Management Strategy integrates with the CSP, DPOP and Long Term Financial Plan to ensure that adequate funds are allocated and that maintenance and upgrades are scheduled into annual work programs.  A recent NSW Government report completed Treasury Corporation (TCorp) has assessed Council’s infrastructure management and infrastructure financial planning. This independent report has determined Council’s infrastructure management as Strong.

 

Council delivers a variety of services to the community and in doing so, must ensure that the assets supporting these services are managed with a whole of life asset management approach. The life cycle management approach optimises asset acquisition, maximises use of assets and manages service and operational costs. Ku-ring-gai Council’s infrastructure assets represent a vast investment over many generations that support modern living in the community. Millions of dollars are spent annually managing Council’s infrastructure and it is imperative that Council employs the best asset management skills and practices to ensure that related services are delivered economically and sustainably.

 

Council has resolved to fund specific civic and community projects through the sale of underutilised or surplus assets (property). These projects are intent on delivering new civic and community assets and infrastructure either through the acquisition and development of new facilities and/or through Council’s co-contribution to deliver facilities and infrastructure identified in Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.  The Contributions Plan works program for the next 10 years requires substantial Council co-contributions, arising from legally required apportionment, in the order of $54M which has been included in the LTFP.

 

In addition, Council has resolved to progress and fund the following projects through assets sales:

 

·        acquisition of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon as Council’s new Civic and Administration Centre; and

·        redevelopment of West Pymble Outdoor Pool as Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre.

 

The reasoning for Council to divest of these assets is to ensure that our financial sustainability is maintained without the dependency on large long term borrowings and associated interest expense, that adequate funding is invested into asset renewal and upgrade of existing assets, and to reduce the impact of the financial burden on the community through additional levies.

 

The LTFP identifies assets sales as a medium to long term funding strategy which relies on the reclassification of land from Community to Operational.  This will require current and future councils to sustain decisions made by previous Councils to ensure our fiscal sustainability identified in the LTFP is achieved.

 

Responding to population growth and demographic change

 

With population growth, there will be an increasing demand for new and enhanced assets and services. Council spends approximately $22M per annum to fund new and upgraded assets which are funded to a significant degree through the development contributions system under s94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  These assets will require maintenance and renewal in the future, exacerbating the funding shortfall and backlog of asset renewal. As cultural diversity and demographic change continues, there will be competing and changing demands for services, programs and access to community facilities.

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Leadership and Governance

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance.

Appropriate assets are identified for disposal to discharge loan by 2016-17.

 

Access, Traffic and Transport

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

T1.1 A range of integrated transport choices are available to enable effective movement to, from and around Ku-ring-gai.

 

Advocate to relevant Government agencies and private companies for integrated public transport facilities and service improvements that meet community needs.

Participate with TfNSW in the provision of additional commuter car parking at priority rail stations.

 

 

 

 

Governance Matters

 

The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals to reclassify land is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Local Government Act, 1993 (where relevant).

 

The Gateway Determination (Attachment A8) and the Gateway Extension (Attachment A4) for the Planning Proposal authorised Council to exercise the functions of the Minister under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise the Planning Proposal. In cases where the reclassification of land is not seeking to extinguish any interests in the land, Council can resolve to make the plan in accordance with Section 59(2) of the Act and liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required local environmental plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal as well the Minister’s function in making the Plan.

 

Subsequent to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, an agreement has been executed between Council and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for compensation for the acquisition of part of the site under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. The transfer of the land to TfNSW will be complete upon the publication of a notice in the Government Gazette and the registration of new land titles by LPI. Should this process be completed prior to the finalising of the planning proposal and associated amending local environmental plan, it would require a minor amendment to the Planning Proposal in order to incorporate the new property descriptions.

 

Under section 58 of the EP&A Act, if a planning proposal is varied the relevant planning authority is to forward a revised planning proposal to the Minister, who will then determine whether further community consultation under section 57 of the Act is required. It is not clear if Council’s delegated plan making functions apply to section 58 of the Act. As such it would be prudent, for this planning proposal, for Council to decline the delegated plan making functions under section 59, and request that the Minster make the plan, giving consideration, under section 58, to the potential variation to the property descriptions in the Planning Proposal.

 

A key aspect of Governance is Council’s Asset Management Strategy.  This issue has been covered in some detail under Total Asset Management in the main body of the report.

 

Risk ManagemeNT

 

Council is obligated to review and manage all its land holdings in orderly and efficient manner. There may be a risk to Council’s reputation and a potential risk to it financially by not using its land holdings for the highest and best use. This is of particular note for this site that was originally acquired specifically for the purposes of a new civic centre, baby health centre and possible library.  In 1965, Council determined not to use the property for which it had been acquired and to establish, in 1966, a temporary car park.  The temporary nature of this use has been reiterated in several reports of the intervening period since.  It is now required for the purposes for which it was acquired.

 

Financial Considerations

 

Council delivers a variety of services to the community and in doing so, must ensure that the assets supporting these services are managed with a whole of life asset management approach.

 

To ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Council, it is essential to balance the community’s expectations for services with their ability to pay for the infrastructure assets used to provide the services. Maintenance of service levels for infrastructure services requires appropriate investment over the whole of the asset life cycle.

 

The reclassification of the sites to Operational land provides Council with the flexibility required to respond to new development opportunities and provide a range of other community facilities and services. The co-ordinated and orderly use of the land would be best facilitated by classifying the sites as Operational land to enable Council to respond to new opportunities to implement planning strategies contained within the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 and supporting studies such as the Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014 in particular for the Gordon Civic Hub.

 

In January 2010 the Division of Local Government released its Promoting Better Practice Review Report on Ku-ring-gai Council. Such reviews are “designed to act as a ‘health check’, giving confidence about what is being done well and helping to focus attention on key priorities”. In relation to Council infrastructure and accommodation, the report says:

 

“Council has recently built a new depot and purchased a significant amount of public open space in the last two years, to meet the needs of the developing town centres. While this is commendable, much of the Council control/owned infrastructure is relatively old. The need to replace or renew aging infrastructure is a key issue to be addressed by Council, particularly given the prospect of having to serve a larger population with different needs. The quality of the working environment in the Ku-ring-gai Council Chambers and Customer Service Centre needs to be considered by the Council in its strategic planning. Some work areas appear to be very crowded and staff amenities we observed are old and not of a standard one might expect to see in a modern office environment…”

 

Prior to acquisition of the building at 828 Pacific Highway Gordon, Council’s funding strategy was submitted to the NSW Department of Local Government, as required before significant capital expenditure.  The new premises provide significant opportunities for an amalgamated site to deliver identified community facilities for the growing population in a central accessible location near Gordon railway station and bus-stops.  This process will involve extensive consultation with the community of Ku-ring-gai as a whole through a master planning process. 

 

The acquisition of building as a whole also has the additional benefit of allowing Council to sublet any areas not required for its immediate needs to provide a continuing income stream.

 

The Council building is a space much used by residents who are active in community groups and in local programmes. Every week volunteer community groups use the building and many community services are provided there. Just a few examples include talks on youth suicide, depression and drugs prevention, seniors lectures on subjects like men’s health, Meals on Wheels, non-profit organisations and aged care providers support, vaccination clinics for babies, citizenship ceremonies, inter-school debating competitions and many more.

 

In July, the Office of Local Government released its annual survey rating all NSW councils on their financial viability, ability to deliver essential services, long term strategic planning and efficiency in processing development applications, among others.  It also incorporates Census data showing comparisons in local populations and demographics. The survey found that Ku-ring-gai Council is performing well on the key performance indicators for NSW councils.

 

Key outcomes of the report are as follows:

 

·        Ku-ring-gai has experienced a higher than state average for population increases over the last five years, with a 10.4% increase compared with the average of 9.1%. It also has a higher than average number of residents aged less than 19 years old and those aged over 60 years.

·        The infrastructure audit rated the Council as ‘strong’, acknowledging Ku-ring-gai’s $80 million budget set aside during 2012-2013 for capital works and the large building program it has embarked on.  Ku-ring-gai is also spending $112 per capita on roads and footpaths compared with the average of $86.  Ku-ring-gai has an infrastructure backlog of 31%, compared with 6.8% in the rest of the state.  Ku-ring-gai also has lower than average Council administration costs of $199 per capita, compared with the average of $233.

·        Ku-ring-gai Council’s financial sustainability is rated as ‘sound with a neutral outlook’, meaning that its financial position is stable and not expected to change in the near future.

 

Ku-ring-gai is continuing to deliver a rolling program of infrastructure delivery on a comprehensive twenty year delivery program funded from a variety of sources including the sale of under-utilised assets to support the delivery of new community assets into the future.

 

Social Considerations

 

Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014 (Attachment A5)

 

Ku-ring-gai Council is currently investigating the creation of a community, civic and cultural precinct in Gordon local centre; the new facility could include:

 

·        Central Library;

·        Council Administration;

·        Council Chambers;

·        Civic and Cultural Centre including:

o   a generous, open foyer space with Council customer service point;

o   space for gathering and temporary displays;

o   large hall/auditorium;

o   gallery and exhibition space for permanent and temporary exhibitions;

o   larger meeting/activity spaces;

o   studios and workshop space;

o   potential inclusion of retail space (e.g. a café); and

o   connection to an outdoor public space (e.g. town plaza).

 

The reclassification and sale of the Culworth Avenue car park site is indirectly linked to the provision of these new community facilities in Gordon.  The sale of the land would help to fund the purchase of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon which would allow the Council administration offices to move from the existing building at 818 Pacific Highway.  This relocation would allow the demolition of the 1960s and 1980s extensions (which are in poor condition) to the rear of the heritage building.  The enlarged site at the rear of the heritage listed former chambers building would be suitable for the provision of a new community and cultural centre. 

 

An indicative layout for the Gordon Civic Hub is illustrated below showing scope for a new public park or civic space located on the site of the existing Council car park.  The present car park could be rendered redundant with the move to 828 Pacific Highway although additional public car parking could be provided underneath a civic park.

 

Indicative layout of potential Gordon Civic Hub

 

Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 2010 illustrates the possible character of a new park on the site:

 

·        generally flat open area with northern aspect;

·        stepped terrace linking with civic building;

·        series of retaining walls, levelled terrace areas and gardens;

·        relocation of War Memorial from Pacific Highway;

·        large open formal area for civic ceremonies and community events; and

·        possible public car park under park.

 

In order to more clearly define and document Council plans to deliver new community facilities across the LGA, which to some degree are already defined in the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, Council engaged Elton Consulting to develop a strategy for the provision of community facilities across the Ku-ring-gai LGA by Ku-ring-gai Council. The Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014 at Attachment A5 provides a framework for the future provision of community facilities. It aims to assist Council to take an integrated, strategic approach to the planning and provision of community facilities and to deliver a network of facilities that collectively meet the needs of the Ku-ring-gai community into the future.

 

This strategy will provide Council with a blueprint for the future provision of community facilities across the Ku-ring-gai LGA. It will provide a long term and strategic direction that considers the needs of the whole LGA over the next 20 years.

 

The strategy includes analysis of existing facility provision, identification of gaps, and an analysis of population growth and change to determine future needs and community facility requirements. The study also involved consideration of key trends in community facility provision, development of guiding principles and a proposed hierarchy and standards for community facilities. These principles, hierarchy and standards were then applied to the Ku-ring-gai LGA context to formulate a strategy for community facility provision in the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

 

The Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014 supports Council’s proposal for a community, civic and cultural hub in Gordon. It finds that based on the 2011 resident population of Ku-ring-gai which is 109,146 people (and without taking into account future population growth), the data suggests there is a current and immediate need for a sub-regional level cultural facility to serve the LGA.

 

The study further notes:

 

“As the primary local centre in the LGA, Gordon is the most suitable location for this regional level facility. It offers opportunities for the co-location with other facilities in the local centre”.

 

“A regional level cultural facility presents a more sustainable approach, with resources focused on the provision of a high quality, activated, purpose-built and managed facility with a range of offerings. Future planning works should consider the potential rationalisation of some facilities with suitable uses relocated to the proposed regional cultural facility in Gordon”.

 

The strategy describes the potential character of the new civic hub as a place that:

 

·        offers civic engagement, community pride and celebration;

·        is welcoming, inviting, accessible – a people place not bureaucratic;

·        provides good integration with outdoor/public/civic space;

·        is for community gathering, events, celebrations, performance; and

·        is active, vibrant atmosphere.

 

The map of Ku-ring-gai below, shows a potential new regional civic / cultural facility is shown as R01 in Gordon; district level community hubs are proposed for Lindfield, Turramurra and St Ives (D03, D01 and D02 respectively); and possible new neighbourhood facilities are proposed for Wahroonga and Pymble. In addition the study notes that Council is planning for a new regional outdoor events / entertainment precinct at St Ives Showground (S01)

 

Source: Draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy

 

In summary, if the site was available for sale and redevelopment, which is not now possible under community land classification, this would provide the opportunity for a higher order of benefits for the Ku-ring-gai community as a whole in the form of a site/location for a new cultural facility located in Gordon.  This central location in the main centre of Ku-ring-gai, ensures that the area is accessible to all Ku-ring-gai residents, of all ages and transport dependencies.

 

It must be emphasised that Ku-ring-gai is not attempting to compete with Willoughby City Council or duplicate the facilities available at the Chatswood Concourse, as has been suggested by a number of people.  The Concourse is an accessible location not far from the boundary between Ku-ring-gai and Willoughby at Roseville and will continue to provide services for the residents of Ku-ring-gai and other local areas.

 

Provision of cultural community facilities at Gordon relates to the provision of complementary facilities that reflect the values of Ku-ring-gai residents.  This includes the provision of community space adaptable for cultural use including:

 

·        provision of community display space for key Ku-ring-gai collections including but not limited to Cavalcade of Fashion;

·        provision of community display space for local artists; and

·        provision of a small scale modern performance space / auditorium.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

The site is shown on a biodiversity layer with a number of stands of trees including Blue Gum High Forest, Blackbutt and Ironbark.  There is no change to the Biodiversity status of the site proposed by the reclassification process and Tree Preservation Orders remain in effect.

 

 

Community Consultation

 

The proposed reclassification of the Culworth Avenue car park has been the subject of two exhibitions and two public hearings.  The second process included additional material to clarify many of the key issues those arose as part of the first process.  The key dates in the community consultation process were as follows:

 

First Public Exhibition: Friday 30 August 2013 – Friday 27 September 2013

First Public Hearing: Thursday 24 October 2013 – 5pm-7pm

Second Public Exhibition: Friday 28 March 2014 – Wednesday 30 April 2014

Second Public Hearing: Monday 26 May 2014 – 5pm-7:30pm

 

Both Public Hearings were chaired by the same Chairperson: Mr Peter Walsh.

 

For the 2013 process notification, letters were sent to affected resident properties in the locality and for the 2014 process, letters were sent to all these addresses (on an updated address list) as well as persons who had made submissions as part of the 2013 process.  Advertisements were also included in the Ku-ring-gai Council corporate advertisement in the North Shore Times.

 

All submissions, both to the first and to the second exhibition and both public hearing processes have been assessed and reported as part of this report to Council.

 

All persons who made formal submissions to both the exhibitions of the Planning Proposals and the Public Hearing have been advised of this matter coming back to Council.

 

Petitions

 

A series of petition pages have been received by Council and reported to Council in batches over the course of the exhibition period some of which were under the title Petition to STOP Culworth Avenue Car Park being SOLD for High Rise Residential Development by Council.  The wording of the petitions changed over the period of collection and the two main wordings are presented below:

 

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

 

and

 

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

 

 

 

Response

 

It is noted that no rezoning is proposed as part of this proposal; this proposal relates only to the reclassification of the land from community land to operational land.  There is no sale proposed as part of this proposal; part of the site is under compulsory acquisition by TfNSW during the reclassification process, a fact in the public realm since the time of the first public hearing.  With respect to the residual area of the site, any such proposal in the future would need to be the subject of a separate report to Council.  The car park is not a heritage item and any future redevelopment would be subject to the same controls as any other development within a heritage conservation area. 

 

Whether additional public car parking is included on the site as part of any future divestment or redevelopment of the site, and how much car parking is required for current and future demands, are matters for Council at such time any proposal were available for consideration however the acquisition of part of the site by TfNSW for commuter car parking is an effective guarantee of continued parking on the site.  Should the need for additional commuter parking arise, then it is open to TfNSW to build a multi-deck carpark. 

 

Existing significant areas of biodiversity and vegetation on the site remain subject to specific development controls as do similar areas of development; this is not changing as a result of this proposal.  The potential to include additional residential development, together with such neighbourhood shops and facilities that befit a neighbourhood centre, accords with the Metro Strategy to provide greater densities around railway stations.

 

Analysis of petition

 

The receipt of pages of the petitions in batches and periodic reporting to Council resulted in some duplication of reporting and of signatories and a resulting lack of clarity on both the total number of petitioners and their origin.

 

The petition has been analysed and is summarised as follows:

 

There were a total of 4,849 individual signatories of which 4,255 (88%) resided within the Ku-ring-gai area, 537 (11%) resided outside the Ku-ring-gai area and 57 (1%) provided incomplete addresses that were insufficient to confirm whether or not they lived within the Ku-ring-gai area.

 

Figures of over 5,000 and even 6,000 signatories have been reported however after full data entry, including identification of duplicate pages, the count of individuals was as above (4,849) with a further 476 signatures discovered to be duplications.

 

In context it should be noted that the resident population of Ku-ring-gai is 119,027 (as of June 2013) and growing rapidly having been counted at 109,297 in the census two years before.  Approximately 75% of the population is of voting age.  The Culworth Avenue car park provides 173 off-street spaces of which average weekday peak occupancy has been demonstrated to be 106 spaces; a maximum of 113 spaces.  With reclassification, Ku-ring-gai Council gains the potential, subject to further reporting, to utilise the value of the subject site to continue the program of infrastructure provision and asset renewal for the whole and growing population of Ku-ring-gai LGA.  Car parking will be retained on the site through the compulsory acquisition of part of the site by TfNSW.

 

A change.org petition was also presented to Council.  As of late August 2014, it contains 731 signatures.  These have not been checked for duplication with the above petition due to the nature of online petitions.  The petition contains the following wording and was instigated concurrent with the first exhibition and public hearing process around September 2013:

 

“Since 1981, every time Ku-ring-gai Council has a need for money, it tries to rezone and sell the Culworth Avenue Carpark at Killara Station. Five times, since 1981, the voice of the local residents has defeated the proposition.


Now Council seeks to reclassify the land, such that it will be sold to developers who will replace a vital community facility with another five storey apartment block with more traffic on our already congested and inadequate local streets.


We residents need once more to send a clear message to those elected to represent us that our wish is to retain that land for the benefit of the community for ever.


By signing up to this petition you can send a clear message to the council that we want this land kept for our benefit and not reclassified and sold.”

 

Response

 

Since 2004, Ku-ring-gai has been undergoing significant population growth and redevelopment of traditional low-density areas along the northern railway line.  The ongoing use of this site as an at-grade car park while the area around it intensifies represents an under-utilisation of the site which can, at higher density, provide for additional infrastructure.  Part of the site is to be compulsorily acquired by TfNSW to provide for car parking on an ongoing basis; the option for a future below or above ground multi-deck car park potentially associated with small-scale neighbourhood shops is retained subject to future demand. 

 

The site is large enough to cater for this use as well as provide funding for other community infrastructure projects in Ku-ring-gai specifically the Gordon community, civic and cultural hub.  Ku-ring-gai has an extensive delivery program of new community assets and asset renewal both in response to new development and as part of the strategic management process of a large portfolio of ageing community assets.  These concepts have already been expanded upon in the section of the report responding to the individual submissions.

 

Internal Consultation

 

All Departments of Council have been consulted (where relevant) in the preparation of this report.

 

Summary

 

The land at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara was progressively acquired between 1955 and 1959 for the purposes of a Civic Centre.  In 1965 Ku-ring-gai Council resolved to utilise the property as a temporary car park which commenced from 1966.  The property is currently zoned Special Uses (Municipal Purposes) and has been for many decades.  That the use of the property for car parking was always intended to be an interim use until such time as the property was required for its original purpose has been reiterated on many occasions over the intervening years.  The provision of commuter car parking is a core responsibility of the NSW State Government.  The property is located directly opposite a railway station in an area that is rapidly transitioning from low-rise to medium density units and has a latent capacity beyond the present at-grade car park.  The compulsory acquisition of part of the site by TfNSW for commuter parking, noting that the area acquired has potential for more than one level of car parking, ensures the retention of car parking on the site.  The foregoing report outlines a suite of mechanisms to ensure that both commuter and short-term car parking, with easy access to modal interchange, can be provided in Gordon, Killara and Lindfield via both on and off street parking provision.  The latent value in the property is now required to support ongoing infrastructure delivery in Ku-ring-gai in accordance with adopted strategic plans, asset renewal strategies, asset management plans and the Long Term Financial Plan.

 

It is recommended that the reclassification of the car park at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara to operational land status proceed in accordance with the Planning Proposal.

 

Any decision to dispose of any of the subject land will be subject to separate specific reporting to Council.

 

Recommendation:

 

A.       That the properties at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara, collectively known and utilised as ‘the Culworth Avenue car park’ be reclassified from community land to operational land as per the Planning Proposal.

 

B.       That Council declines to use its plan making delegations under Section 59 of the EP&A Act and the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment in accordance with section 58 of the EP&A Act, and request that the Minister make the plan.

 

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

 

D.       That, prior to, or concurrent with, any reduction of public car parking availability on the Culworth Avenue site, facilities for short term paid car parking be installed in Culworth Avenue and Lorne Avenue and, if required, Marian Street.

 

E.       That all persons who made a submission be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Co-ordinator

 

 

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

 

 

Joseph Piccoli

Strategic Traffic Engineer

 

 

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

 

 

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

 

 

Attachments:

A1View

Culworth Avenue Carpark - Weekday Occupancy and Interview Surveys Summary Report

 

2014/074050

 

A2View

Culworth Avenue Carpark Weekend Occupancy Survey

 

2014/091409

 

A3View

Culworth Avenue - Highest and Best Use Report

 

2014/071537

 

A4View

Gateway Extension

 

2014/066390

 

A5View

Draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014

 

2014/065798

 

A6View

Chairpersons Report dated 30 June 2014 for Public Hearing 26 May 2014

 

2014/158540

 

A7View

Planning Proposal

 

2014/073484

 

A8View

Gateway Determination

 

2013/207344

 

A9View

Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

2014/215550

 

A10View

Submission summary table 2014 exhibition

 

2014/215141

  


APPENDIX No: 1 - Culworth Avenue Carpark - Weekday Occupancy and Interview Surveys Summary Report

 

Item No: GB.3

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 2 - Culworth Avenue Carpark Weekend Occupancy Survey

 

Item No: GB.3

 


APPENDIX No: 3 - Culworth Avenue - Highest and Best Use Report

 

Item No: GB.3

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 4 - Gateway Extension

 

Item No: GB.3

 


APPENDIX No: 5 - Draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014

 

Item No: GB.3

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 6 - Chairpersons Report dated 30 June 2014 for Public Hearing 26 May 2014

 

Item No: GB.3

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 7 - Planning Proposal

 

Item No: GB.3

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 8 - Gateway Determination

 

Item No: GB.3

 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20-28 CULWORTH AVENUE & 17 MARIAN STREET, KILLARA

SUBMISSION SUMMARY TABLE

2013

 

 

 

 

Key themes arising from the 2013/ 2014 Planning Proposal Exhibition Process

In connection with the proposed reclassification of the properties at 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street Killara, there were two distinct periods of consultation.  All submissions arising from both exhibitions of the planning proposals and the public hearing processes have been considered and incorporated as part of the preparation of this report.  For purposes of clarity and distinction, these are referred to as the 2013 and the 2014 processes respectively.  It became apparent that submissions for both rounds of exhibition raised the same issues and concerns and for purposes of consistency, the issues in this table have been addressed in the 2014 Submission table – which encompasses all key themes arising from both periods.

The key themes arising from the submissions for the 2014 process are as follows:

·    On-going need for the provision of commuter parking

·    On-going need for the provision of non-commuter car parking (around four to six hours)

·    On-going need for availability of weekend parking

·    On-going need for the provision of accessible car parking for aged and disabled users

·    Disputing of utilisation figures / assessment of under-utilisation

·    Adverse effect on nearby streets of any loss of car parking

·    Support for use of public transport (trains) through provision of car parking at stations

·    Rezoning of site under Draft Ku-ring-gai LEP 2013 / Potential for high rise development

·    Heritage and Biodiversity / Protected trees

·    Perceived overdevelopment / concerns with redevelopment for units

·    Council’s presentation of options for consultation as opposed to a single vision

·    Council’s presentation of a fait de compli without consultation

·    Excessive consultation / Insufficient consultation / Manner of Public Consultation

·    Labelling of the purchase of floor space at 828 Pacific Highway as a ‘Taj Mahal’

·    Site benefits / impacts compared to Ku-ring-gai area-wide benefits / impacts

·    Retention of infrastructure vs provision of infrastructure

·    Alternatives for funding Gordon Civic and Community Precinct

 

 

 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

TRAFFIC/PARKING

Issue/Concern

Submission is opposed to the proposal.

Submission raises a concern over the loss of parking and argues that there is already traffic and safety issues around the area because of the car park has restricted 2 way traffic.

Local residents are already dealing with an issue related to unauthorised parking by non-residents.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Argues the carpark is frequently heavily used

·    The alternative all-day commuter car parks at Gordon are always full. They are being refurbished but it will be many years before they are extended in capacity.

·    The reason for selling the site is not sufficient to justify the loss of community owned land which can never be replaced. Council should find other ways to limit its expenditure and its need of evermore office space.

Submission also argues that if the land was sold off to Developers it would allow further development of an already over developed area of Killara, increasing traffic, noise & lack of natural light due to the shadows 4 & 5 story buildings cast. It is well documented that medium to high density living is in fact killing of communities & civic pride, not enhancing it, neighbours no longer see neighbours to meet and chat.

Submission strongly objects to the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue Carpark as it would lead to high rise apartments to an already overdeveloped area. Local infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the influx of cars and people.

Submission highlights that the train station and its parking supply is a large draw card for residents who chose to move to the area. The submission also observes that the car park is regularly 70% full.

Submission raises concern over an increase in vandalism and safety as a result of the proposal and a reduction in people using Killara Train station.

Submission objects to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street, Killara for three reasons:

·    It would impact commuters’ ability to get to work each day

·    Residents would feel a lot safer having the car park directly opposite the station.

Submission highlights factors not given adequate consideration in the reclassification planning proposal

documentation:

1.   Increase in demand for use of public transport and commuter car parking

2.   Loss of commuter car parking

Submission identifies factors not evaluated which have a negative impact on the reclassification planning proposal:

·    Current Usage of the car park: On Saturdays, when junior soccer is played on Regimental Park the entire car park is full and the available parking in the surrounding streets is saturated

·    Transport for NSW Plans: The proposed increase in commuter car parking at Gordon and Lindfield by Transport for NSW does not take into account the impact of the loss of commuter car parking at Culworth Avenue, Killara.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

Submission raises concern that it will enable the development of high-rise residential accommodation.

Submission raises the concern of the loss in parking and the subsequent impact on commuters.

Submission raises the concern of the loss in parking and the subsequent impact on commuters.

Submission raises concern that Planning proposal will lead to high rise development with no need for low cost parking.

Submission raises concern over loss of car parking for commuters.

Submission objects to the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue Carpark due to the loss of commuter car parking.

Submission raises concern over loss of commuter carparking and already existing traffic and congestion around the carpark.

Loss of commuter car parking

·    Council should be planning for the future when there will be many more commuters.

·    Making people drive to Gordon or Lindfield to the new (not yet built) car parks will just increase traffic problems in these areas.

·    This car park is fully utilized when matches and games are being played at the Regimental park sporting field - there would then be no parking for the sporting field

·    Displaced commuters and users of the sporting ground will be forced to park in the residential streets surrounding the station, causing problems to residents.

The government is encouraging one and all to use the public transport system. It is important to keep such a valuable community asset which is so useful to so many residents.

There is limited long day street parking of Lorne Ave, Culworth Avenue and Marion St as well as Werona Ave, Locksley St, Arnold St, and Lynwood Ave

Submission is against proposal and highlights that it would ultimately increase demand for on-street parking by commuters which will add to already existing congestion.

Submission also states that the Government is going to great lengths to get residents to use public transport and that council is being short-sighted with taking away a facility that supports that.

Submission highlights scarcity of parking between 8am and 9 and in general.

Submission strongly objects to the proposal as it is an important transport facility for families in Killara. 

Submission is concerned for the loss of commuter car parking.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara for reasons including:

·    Increasing pressure on the already limited street parking in the vicinity of Killara Station.

·    Loss of the car parking spaces.

·    This is the only paid car park in the vicinity. The advantage is that it doesn’t fill early unlike the free commuter car parks notably at Gordon station. This is a great boon for people travelling a little later in the day – particularly of the elderly and parents who start later after dropping children off at school.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara for reasons including:

·    It means a huge inconvenience to parents having to use the carpark whilst they wait for a childcare to open – as such – by 8.15am – the car park is full.

·    The buses to do not run at a convenient frequency and train is really the only option.

Submission requests that Council consider keeping the car park open as residents would even be open to paying higher fees to help with keeping the car park open.

Submission objects to the planning proposal to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street for the following reasons:

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    With the increased densities and increased population there is a greater need for dedicated car parking.

·    The subject site is not an underused site

The surrounding roads are narrow. The traffic demands on them are already high. There is some restricted car parking on these roads already.
Both 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street currently serve a real community purpose by providing car parks for:

·    rail commuters

·    people attending the multiple activities at the nearby Regimental Park

·    people attending the activities at the Marian Street Theatre for the Young

·    people using the local commercial centre on Marian Street and for

·    people visiting the area with its increased residential densities.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

·    It would lead to increased high rise development.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Increased congestion on roads already choked due to increased development on Culworth Avenue

·    Reduced parking for residents commuting during the week

·    Reduced parking for locals when Saturday morning sports are held at Regimental Park

·    Increased hazard due to heavy machinery for the multiple school children using Killara Station to get to school. Many are dropped off and picked up on the Culworth Avenue side of the station.

·    Severe disruption to the traffic flow during construction

Submission is against the planning proposal and argues that it should be retained for car parking purposes.

Submission argues that by 8am the Gordon carparks are full, and so there is no real alternative when travelling to the city by rail after the peak hour. Submission raises concern over loss of commuter carparking and it is not consistent with public transport initiatives set out by the State Government

Submission argues that, at a minimum, space needs to be retained for 200 cars, even if part of the site is to be reclassified and subsequently sold.

Submission argues that the fact that the Culworth Avenue Car Park is less than full is due to it being the only Car Park in Ku-ring-gai that charges a $5 fee, Monday - Friday.

Submission highlights that to fill the carpark, council should allow free commuter parking.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara due to the change in the flow of traffic caused by the reclassification/ redevelopment will decrease the level of safety for pedestrians and drivers.

Submission raises objection to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara from Community Land to Operational Land. The decision will leave the Killara area without a parking area and the railway commuters will have to park in the narrow streets.

Submission strongly objects to the proposed reclassification of the subject property from community land to operational land for the following reasons:

·    The car park offers an amenity to residents of the local area.

·    The comment about the provision of car parks at Gordon and Lindfield is misleading as it fails to mention that those car parks are filled to capacity on weekdays. It also fails to address the reduction of 77 parking spaces during the construction phase of the Gordon interchange. The proposal also fails to mention that the council limited on street car parking along one side of Lorne Ave, denying parking to commuters. Colossal

·    The reclassification and sale of land will result in an increase in traffic and congestion in surrounding areas.

·    mobility impaired parking will be lost should the site be altered.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    It is unsafe at night for women to have to walk further to their cars than the car park. There have been a number of attacks in this area on women over the years.

Encouragement should be given to people to use public transport – the alternative is that people are forced to use their cars to travel to work because there is no parking.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking

·    Discourages use of public transport

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    There are no other areas to park between 8-9am on weekdays.

·    It will force more cars onto the street creating congestion

·    There is no infrastructure to support a population increase.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking

·    Discourages use of public transport

Submission is against the planning proposal.

Submission does not raise any concern over the $5 parking fee.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

·    Creation of one way streets around Killara Station.

·    There should be no change to the existing facility in Culworth Avenue until these new facilities are built

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking

·    Discourages use of public transport

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking

·    Discourages use of public transport

·    Killara parking is the only people friendly parking available, especially for seniors or retired people that use the parking daily to be able to catch trains to city and elsewhere and happy to pay parking fees.

·    Impacts upon parking issues for friends of local residents.

·    Roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic now and state govt. want more use of trains.

·    When any major events are held in our city, Killara car park is full and needed.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

Submission proposes an adjustment in the pricing of the carpark to increase car park use and revenue. It is underutilised for a reason. This carpark could be full everyday if Council took the simple decision to change the fee from

$5 a day to $2 or $3 a day.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking

·    Discourages use of public transport

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

·    Creation of one way streets around Killara Station.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

Submission states that Council should put the charge up to $6.00 if it saves the car park.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Fears that the development on the land would not be of great quality.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

Submission believes the carpark should be retained for commuter parking.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Loss of commuter car parking.

·    Increased street parking leading to congestion and traffic issues.

·    Discourages use of public transport.

·    Lack of parking anywhere else on weekday mornings within a reasonable distance.

Submission objects to the above reclassification of Council property for the following reasons:

 

1.   There are not enough car parking facilities within a reasonable distance from Killara Station given the number of residents who wish to take trains to their place of work or leisure.

2.   The removal of this area from public access would extend street parking much further from the station. It is already hard for visitors to residents who live near the station to find suitable parking, and this can include tradespeople who would have materials and equipment on board that could not be conveyed some distance on foot.

Submission is concerned about the impacts the proposal will have on the availability of commuter carparking in Killara. The submission also argues that the disabled and the elderly, many of whom may have restricted range driving licences will be greatly impacted.

Submission objects to this proposal based on the following reasoning:

·    Concerns over high rise development

·    Loss of commuter car parking

·    No alternative car park for the elderly and retired community.

Submission is strongly opposed to the sale of the Culworth Avenue car park at Killara station.

This car park is used not only by residents across Ku-Ring-Gai but also by residents from as far away as the northern beaches.

After that time commuters use the car park which, most days is 70% full.

Submission raises question:

Has the RTA and Sydney Trains been informed of the plan?

Government policy was to get the cars off the road and people in to public transport.

Submission raises two factors relating to the proposed development of the land now containing the current Culworth Ave carpark and that both of these factors can be satisfied by sound planning and administration. The factors are:

 

(1)  The land is grossly under-capitalised in its present state. Clearly this is an obvious and valuable development site and as such high rise residential development should be allowed to go ahead.

 

(2)  There is a fundamental need for commuter parking spaces near to railway stations and it is a clear responsibility of all levels of government to provide such facilities. There can be no excuse for existing commuter car parking spaces to be removed.

 

Fortunately the above factors are not mutually exclusive and with a genuine regard for community welfare, the land can be developed, with an appropriate caveat, so as to provide the same number of underground commuter car spaces as currently exist above ground.

 

Obviously this caveat would require a larger and deeper excavation and it might be necessary to lower the sale price of the land to offset the added cost of construction.

Submission raises strong objection to the proposed reclassification of the commuter car park at Culworth Avenue in Killara.

 

The amenity of the area will only be preserved if public transport infrastructure is maintained and improved. This includes commuter parking facilities.

 

Better utilisation of the car park could be readily encouraged – The car park at Culworth Avenue has an old coin operated ticket system that precludes parking if the commuter does not have the correct change available.

 

Submission is concerned that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the safety of the elderly residents.

 

The failure to invest in improvements to the car park suggests a view of community land as a dormant asset rather than essential infrastructure. What is not clear is where the 132 cars that currently utilise the car park will go when it is no longer available.

Submission raises strong objection to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue from Community to Operational (i.e. High Rise Development) Land.

The sale of this land will leave 4 major groups seriously disadvantaged. These include:

 

1.   Regular commuters who travel from many suburbs and hence reduce congestion on our major (and city) streets.

 

2.   Folk (especially seniors who find this location so convenient) who travel by train for medical or social reasons.

 

3.   Major events attendees who take advice and travel by train.

Local residents who already suffer from limited street parking - the closure of this carpark facility will really exacerbate things for us.

Submission objects to the planning proposal for the following reasons:

·    Increase in demand for commuter car parking

·    Increase in traffic and congestion

·    What are council’s plans for replacement car parking?

The proposed sale funds should not go to the cost of the West Pymble Aquatic Centre.

 Reclassifying the car park will increase congestion and traffic.

Submission raises strong objection to the sale of Culworth avenue carpark based on loss of commuter car parking.

Submission strongly urges Council to reject any such proposal.

Submission highlights importance of Killara train station as a major hub for commuters and as such adequate parking is provided.

Additional cars driving around seeking street parking (which would otherwise park in the subject carpark) would put at risk the large number of these children who walk from the station to school each day.

The car parking should remain available to encourage train travel

Submission raises concern over the loss of car parking.  One hundred car parking spaces in the proposed development is not enough to accommodate residents and their guests resulting in increased congestion

Submission objects to the reclassification.

1.   In the documentation provided by Council there is no mention of the strategy to put in Place substitute car parking at Killara except for the possible provision of 100 underground spaces. Resulting in a loss of 204 parking spaces.

2.   Increased local traffic, parking problems and a detrimental change to this quiet residential area..

Submission is against the reclassification of the site. The reclassification will reduce the available car parking near the railway station.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification of the site. There has been an increase of housing density which results in a decrease of all day parking for commuters. The reclassification reduces the use of public transport and managing the increase of urban density.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification. The loss of a car park spaces at Killara station will result in more cars being parked in the surrounding streets. The construction of high or even medium density commercial or residential property on the site will result in increased local traffic

Submission is against the reclassification for a number of reasons

·    The car park has operated on the land since the 1960's. 

·    Gordon and Lindfield car parks are filled to capacity on weekdays. Also there will be a reduction of 77 parking spaces during the construction phase of the Gordon interchange.

·    There is limited street parking along one site of Lorne Ave.

·    There will be increase of traffic resulting in decrease in safety of pedestrians.

·    Mobility impaired parking will be lost should the site be altered.

·    Sale of the property will reduce recurrent council income and forfeit a community asset.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification. 

Presently approximately 200 commuting cars can use the space each day. The car park would be full everyday if the surrounding streets were signposted appropriately. At present, commuter cars clog the southern end of Culworth Avenue such that opposing vehicles cannot pass in safety. The State Rail Authority owns the Gordon railway car park. It is free and full by 7am during the week. The streets adjacent to Killara station are parked out each day. Rezoning would increase the local traffic and congestion. Council has proposed sale of the site 5 times since 1983 and each time the motion to rezone has been declined

Submission is against the reclassification. Commuters who utilise the parking area are required to seek parking elsewhere in nearby roads such as Culworth Ave, Marian Street, and Lorne Ave which results in increased traffic.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. The car park allows spaces for customers of Marian St theatre.

Submission is against the reclassification of the site and questions the future plans to provide parking for commuter who use the train.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site.

Increased use of public transport is becoming a key solution to road traffic congestion and pollution in

NSW. Provision of accessible parking near to rail stations at reasonable cost is to encouraging use of public transport and is a solution to road traffic congestion and pollution

Submission is against the reclassification of the site.

As the volume of cars using the car park and surrounding streets has increased substantially over the last few years and further high rise development is planned for Killara the suburb needs more not less car parking space.

Submission is against the reclassification. To eliminate this car parking facility would create difficulty for people wishing to park within close proximity of a station.  At 9.30am it is estimated to be 50% full and at 3.00pm it is normally over 90% full. All the surrounding streets are occupied by 7 or 8.00am. The car park is used by the older community who need a car park close to a station. In addition, most of the footpaths are unsafe for the elderly to walk. The cost at $5.00 is reasonable and could be increased.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. Removing the car park would potentially add to the already overcrowded street parking.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site

The car park currently offers an amenity to the residents of the local area. Without the car park, pressure for car parking will increase on Lorne Ave. Lorne Ave is already utilised by Regimental Park (sports oval) as parking space. The comment about the provision of car parks at Gordon and Lindfield is misleading as it fails to mention that those car parks are absolutely filled and at capacity on weekdays. It also fails to address the reduction of 77 parking spaces during the construction phase of the Gordon interchange. In addition, there are already enough high rise developments in the area. The car park is a rare amenity that should be preserved for community use. It encourages public transportation and sustainable practices.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification.

Council is considering eliminating 204 commuter parking spaces when our state government is trying to reduce the number of cars entering the Sydney CBD.

·    Council should be encouraging commuter parking and increasing existing car parks not eliminating them.

·    Council claim the car park averages 65% occupancy. This is due to the cost of the parking.

·    There is no condition to developer that they will add 100 public parking spaces to the new development.

There should be an overall master plan taking into consideration the increase in population density and the necessary infrastructure to accommodate such increase by a future development.

Submission expresses concern over the reclassification. Commuters are encouraged to "park and ride" however new multi storey car parks at Gordon and Lindfield will relieve the congestion of commuter car parking in streets in those suburbs; losing the car parking. Older residents are assured of finding an available car space when they travel later in the day. Although a survey concludes that the car park's maximum usage is 65%, Council's responsibility is to plan for future usage.

Submission is against the reclassification of the site. For a number of reasons.

1.   The car park encourages the use of public transport. As it is, on weekdays, this car park and all the surrounding streets are full with commuters' cars. The removal of this car park will make on-street parking congested and the old and the handicapped will be forced to abandon public transport.

2.   Culworth Avenue is a narrow street and there are already a number of large high-rise residential developments. Further development of this kind will create even more serious traffic and parking problems.

3.   Council should be looking at increasing parking facilities and not reducing them. Council may in fact consider constructing a multi-level public parking station on this site to increase parking capacity and, if a moderate fee is charged, increase revenue.

4.   To sell and reclassify the Culworth Avenue Car park site will benefit no one except the developers.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. Council has tried to sell the car park approximately three times and the local community has opposed this without success each time. Residents use this car park for conveniences of public transport access and attending the Marian Street theatre during school holidays and other functions.

Submission is against the reclassification. Encouragement of the use of public transport is a government objective to reduce increasing congestion on Sydney’s roads and to minimise carbon emissions.

The car parking areas in Gordon are often at capacity and with increased density of population through high rise developments the need for commuter parking will increase exponentially. If existing parking facilities are converted to other use, more vehicles will be forced to park along the streets at Killara.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site and sale of community asset.

·    The car park is a community asset is regularly used by many in the area. The ticket issuing machines are often not functioning properly; the revenue raised does not reflect the actual use.

·    As early as 8.30 am street parking at Killara Station is difficult.

·    Those who wish to park after 10.00 am at present have the choice of Culworth Avenue or the car park. With the car park gone Culworth Avenue will be full. Users of the station will be forced to walk the length of Arnold and Locksley Streets as closer parking will not be available.

·    Killara Station may experience a reduction in users because of the lack of available parking.

·    There is overwhelming support for the improvement of Public Transport. Closure of the car park goes against this.

Submission objects to planning proposal to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue and requests to maintain Culworth Avenue for commuter parking. The car parks at Gordon &

Lindfield fill very quickly and there is limited street parking around Killara station. The available street parking has been reduced by the increase in the number of apartments that have been built in recent years and the increase in resident cars in the vicinity

Submission objects to the reclassification for a number of reasons:

·    the current land use is as a commuter car park

·    outside of school holidays, the car park currently runs at around 70-85% capacity

·    the local area continues to increase its household density

·    increased need to access public transport

·    increase the traffic volume on surrounding roads

·    regular track work already increases traffic flows on weekends via replacement commuter buses and the SRA work teams.

·    Marian St theatre generates significant traffic flows (and car parking need) during school holidays, especially with charter bus groups.

Traffic management – local

·    Culworth Ave is a narrow one lane between Stanhope Rd and Marian St

·    The size of the parcel of land proposed for reclassification indicates more than 100 residential dwellings could be constructed.

·    Increased noise from traffic movements along Marian St and Culworth Ave.

Submission is against the reclassification and removal of a car park opposite a railway station when they are constantly being told to use public transport to ease the terrible congestion on our roads and in particular the Pacific Highway.

Submission is against the rezoning of the site. The car park facilitates commuter use of public transport. Rezoning the car park is not worth the funds it would generate.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site.

The Culworth Avenue car park serves the general community and people wishing to travel by train into the city and elsewhere. The Marian Street Theatre premise, has a car park, has a capacity of 38 parking spaces. In addition, the theatre is also right next door to Selkirk Park and this increase the number of car spaces taken up. Ku-ring-gai Council is now considering expanding the use of Marian Street Theatre to allow other theatre companies to bring adult theatre to the area. This will result in an increase in demand for car spaces.

Ku-ring-gai Council is also holding its very first Twilight Concert in Selkirk Park on 19 October this year. This will possibly become a yearly event. The Marian Street car park will not be available for this increase in commuters. 

The safety of children will be compromised if cars are forced to park on streets. Killara is already overcrowded and overpopulated and residents need an increase in facilities not a decrease

Submission request to retain the site as public land. There is a suggestion that because State Railways will be increasing parking at Gordon and Lindfield stations at some unspecified time, the Killara parking will not be required. To encourage more public transport usage more parking will be required in Killara. Unless the site is used to provide several levels of underground parking for public use, the streets around Killara station will become more congested.

Submission objects to rezoning of the site for residential development.

1.   There is a need to encourage people to use public transport. The car park provides easy access to a railway for the ageing population.

2.   The car park is used extensively for sport on the weekends, particularly soccer played on Regimental Park. Often it is completely full.

1.   Commuter parking already utilizes all of the long stay parking spaces in Lorne Avenue, Marian Street and Culworth Avenue. If the existing 65% utilization of the Council car park is forced out on to the surrounding streets there will be no capacity for local residents to park in the street.

2.   Council should maintain the existing public parking capacity of 200+ spaces in underground car parking.

Submission is against the reclassification of the site. If the car park is lost, more cars will be on the streets. Children’s safety will be compromised by the traffic. When parking is difficult it discourages residents to use public transport and result in increased congestion on roads.

Submission request the site remain as community land and as a car park for local community. Council did not consider the benefits and impact of the community. The Culworth Ave car park is well patronised and provides significant utility to our aged members who find the level surface and access to the railway station safe and convenient. The planning proposal does not mention the replacement of parking space in new development. The sale of Culworth Car Park is disconnected with the state government transport policy of providing commuter parking adjacent to train stations.

Submission requests that the new home unit development to include a car park for 204 car spaces if the land were to be sold and redeveloped. The property has 3 street frontages which would enable separation of traffic from the public car park and the private car parking areas Council would retain the rights to charge commuters.

Submission is against the reclassification of the site for the following reasons:

1.   Loss of disabled parking.

2.   Services such as road sweeping and garbage collection will be compromised because of the parked cars.

3.   Stanhope Rd is already affected. Gutters, full of leaves and bark cannot be cleared because of all day parking by commuters.

4.   Culworth Avenue, between Stanhope Rd and Marian St is already a difficult road, especially after 10 am when parking is permitted it virtually becomes a single lane of traffic.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. The current amenity keeps cars off the narrow streets. The car park is only 60% utilised due to Lorne Avenue offers free street parking. If Council were to allow commuters the same free parking as Gordon, there will be an increase in usage.

Submission is against the reclassification of the site.

The new apartments in the area have given Killara lots of traffic problems. There will be loss of parking space for commuters.

Submission does not support the reclassification of the site. It currently provides a very useful backup to the Gordon rail car park which is typically filled early by city workers.  Culworth Ave and Lorne Ave in particular, are being filled with multiple high rise apartments. Part of the Culworth parking area could therefore be converted to a community park for recreational use by adjacent apartment dwellers. Continued Council ownership of this area and its use as a community facility is compatible with its location within a Heritage Conservation Area.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site as it is used a commuter’s car park. It is the only place where residents can park on the North shore with convenience & safety and in the hours without an exorbitant rate.

Submission is also concerned about the loss of parking and increase in congestion on roads.

The planning proposal does not provide evidence to support the survey on the maximum occupancy of the car park. The car park is not only used by commuters but by those visiting Regimental Park.

Submission is against the reclassification of the site. Commuters would be deprived of car parking spaces and cause overflow of parking in the surrounding streets. Many 5 storey apartments have been built which increases congestion in Killara.

The current planning proposal will result in the loss of 170 commuter car parking spaces at Killara. The car park generates $100,000 per year to Council. It is also used heavily on weekends.  All available parking in the streets surrounding the Railway is full during weekdays affecting traffic flow

The road Culworth Avenue is already too narrow, and the Pacific Highway is too busy. Residents will suffer traffic congestion at all times.

Residents regularly rely on it, being the only zoned parking area. Street parking along Lorne Avenue, Marian Street, and Culworth Avenue are already regularly in high occupancy and the loss of car parking will increase congestion

Submission raises concern over the loss of car parking for commuters. There needs to be access to a car park to encourage commuters to take public transport.

Submission expresses concern over loss of parking. The car park will be of further use when huge new units are sold.

Submission is against the reclassification. The car park is well used and used to be free parking. The community is deprived and is a violation of the Charter of Human Rights. The loss of parking would be discouraging for the residents with mobility impairment, and commuters in general. In return, this would act as an incentive to drive to work, and add more cars to the road, just the opposite effect to what the Government is trying to implement.

Submission objects to the reclassification. Disabled residents will be forced to use shop front parking if there is loss of parking at Culworth. The car park is essential for commuters who use the train to travel. In addition, visitors to Regimental Park and Marian Street Theatre will suffer from the loss of parking space.  Parking is full during peak hours and spills into Marian Street. An underground car park is not secure for commuters. There are enough unit blocks around already. The biodiversity around the car park needs to be conserved.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification for the following reasons:

·    The proposal states the site is not being used in as its original purpose. However the car park has operated on the land since the 1960's and that the council has charged for its usage.

·    Gordon and Lindfield parking is filled to capacity on weekdays. The reduction of 77 parking spaces during the construction phase of the Gordon interchange needs to be addressed

·    Safety of residents will be compromised by the increase in traffic.

·    Mobility impaired parking will be lost

·    Sale of the property will reduce recurrent council income and forfeit a community asset.

·    Lorne Ave does not have adequate parking

·    Loss of parking for sporting events

 

Submission is concerned with the loss of parking.  Surrounding roads are already filled with cars using free car parking. Having more apartment blocks will limit visitor car parking in the area. The increase in population also increases the demand for facilities. 

Submission objects to the reclassification due to the loss of parking. Retired residents that live around the area use the car park frequently.  Submission disagrees that the car park is underutilised and questions that other community facilities such as the tennis courts and netball courts are underutilised

Submission request that Culworth Car park be retained for commuter parking. There is limited commuter parking around Turramurra and Pymble and impossible to find parking at Gordon.

Submission objects the reclassification of the site to allow residential development. There is a need for parking close to railway stations. Submission suggests a multi-storey car park being built on the site.

Submission objects to the reclassification for the following reasons:

1.   There is no public transport alternative for people to commute to the Killara station

2.   The parking and facilities at the Gordon and Lindfield station will be pressured

3.   In the documentation provided by Council there is no mention of the strategy to put in place substitute car parking at Killara except for the possible provision of 100 underground spaces

4.   Increase in local traffic.

Submission does not support the reclassification for the following reasons

·    The purpose of purchase was relevant since 1966.

·    Culworth car park is the only council car park with a parking charge. If the charge was lifted then the car park wouldn’t become underutilised.

·    Surveys conducted in 2002 and 2004 would not be relevant since a number of dwellings and units have been constructed since 2004.

·    The proposal states that there are 204 parking spaces whereas the ‘Car Parks- Generic Plan of Management’ (Feb 2009) states there are only 173 spaces with 2 disabled.

·    Reduction of amenity in adjacent streets from the loss of parking.

The area in the vicinity has had a rapid increase of high density building in recent years and many building sites are vacant and abandoned. Council has a responsibility and duty to protect the amenity of the area.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification. Providing "Park and Ride" at suitable points in the district encourages the use of public transport. The car park at present is always full during the week days, as are the surrounding streets including the upper part of Spencer Road. The removal of the car-park will also increase the current amount of curb-side parking in the area making access more difficult for the local residents and raising safety issues for pedestrians crossing roads.

Submission objects to the reclassification.

Residents use the car park to park their cars and catch the train to work. To reclassify to the land it would deny residents the opportunity to catch the train to work. Submission questions the need to reclassify the land when there is already been a large number of developmental sites in Killara.

It is the only facility that older residents who still drive can use to park near enough to the railway station. This parking is also for the support of those who access the Marian St Theatre.

There is a need to ensure that support of public transport is maintained by providing parking and commuter ‘drop off/pickup’ facilities at railway stations.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site due to the loss of parking. The car park is used by residents that park their cars and use the train. Street parking is impossible during the day.

 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

PROCESS

Issue/Concern

Submission objects to the proposal arguing that it is inappropriate to alter the zoning of this property. The asset should remain as a facility for the residents of the area.

Submission raises objection to the proposal to reclassify 20 – 28 Culworth & 17 Marian St Killara from “Community land” to “operational land” as it would allow the council to sell it or change its use without consulting ratepayers.

Submission is against planning proposal. Removing this car park opposite a train station for a short term financial gain to pay for new council offices would be a ridiculous decision, and I would expect better from elected council members.

Submission advises that Council, in consultation with ratepayers, develop an overall master plan for this Marian Street precinct which incorporates a strategy for the future use and improvement of its facilities, attributes and the needs of ratepayers given the significant increase in population density as a result of the high rise residential development which has taken place in the immediate vicinity.

 

Submission identifies factors not evaluated which have a negative impact on the reclassification planning proposal:

 

·    $100,000 a year in revenue to Council from parking costs

 

·    The subject site was progressively acquired by Council using ratepayer’s funds from 1956- 1959 for a proposed new Civic Centre. However, this concept did not proceed and in 1965 Council developed the site for what has been termed a ‘temporary’ car park. This car park over nearly 50 years has been formalised as a permanent ‘pay and display’ commuter car park for commuters catching trains at Killara Station.

No explanation of  development opportunities to raise funds for the purchase of the “SUN” building

This is community land and should remain available for use by the community.

Submission strongly objects to the proposed reclassification of the subject property from community land to operational land for the following reasons:

·    sale of the property will reduce recurrent council income and forfeit a community asset.

·    a sale and development may take place resulting in shadowing of community areas.

·    it is financially imprudent to sell the asset into a market that already has one stalled development over the road

Submission raises concern over the timing of a public meeting to be 5pm. Most affected by this possible sale are still at work at that time. 

Submission objects to this proposal. The submission also suggests that the proposal has to be seen as a seemingly easy way to dress up the Council’s budget in utter disregard of the need to provide vital transport services.

Submission strongly opposes this planning proposal. It argues that although Council needs funds, no doubt, the car park is such a valuable amenity for Ku-ring-gai rail travellers that its retention is essential.

Submission suggest Council’s priority should be to maintain the land opposite 30-40 Culworth Avenue by removing all rubbish, noxious vegetation, installation of stormwater drainage and installation of pedestrian lighting

Council in consultation with ratepayers should develop an overall master plan for this Marian Street precinct that incorporates improvement of its facilities

Submission objects to rezoning of the site for residential development.

1.   Why did the Council buy the adjacent building when there was no certainty that if the Councils were amalgamated?

2.   The impact to future generations needs to be addressed.

3.   Could the State Government buy the land from Council and maintain the car park?

4.   Because of poor financial management, the Council appears to be in need of selling under-utilised assets.

Submission suggests that there should be a subsidy for residents that are impacted by this.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site.

1.   In the documentation provided by Council there is no mention of the strategy to put in place substitute public car parking except for the possible provision of 100 underground spaces. It seems inevitable that there will be a loss of 204 car park spaces.

2.   The BBC Consultant Planners report dated July 2013 claims midday, weekday utilization of the existing car park to be around 65%. This totally ignores the high utilization on weekends when Regimental Park is in use

3.   The Business B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned land certainly requires the provision of car parking for both owners/tenants and customers

4.   Council in consultation with ratepayers should develop an overall master plan for this Marian Street precinct that incorporates improvement of its facilities and consideration of development codes and building covenants to achieve ‘Mirvac quality and style’.

Submission is concerned that the community was not properly informed about the reclassification.  There needs to be improvement in community facilities. Submission questions the short term gain of removing the car park and future revenues. In addition, feedback was given by a member of council that the Marian Street streetscape would not be impacted but if the entire street was rezoned then changes would happen. The value of property will be affected along with stamp duty payments.

There are many other ways which the Council can seek to finance and develop their new chambers.

Council in consultation with the ratepayers should develop an overall master plan for Marian Street precinct. This should incorporate a strategy for the future use and improvement of its facilities.

Submission indicates that there has been no discussion of this proposed rezoning in the local press.

Submission raises concern over the reclassification of the site. When consulted with a planning officer from Council a couple months ago, no change to the usage of the site was advised. Submission suggests that money should be raised elsewhere, not selling off community assets.
The topography of the land would appear to allow for two levels of commuter parking plus one for the residents of any development without a deep/major excavation.

 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

HERITAGE/BIODIVERISTY

Issue/Concern

Heritage significance: the site is within a heritage conservation area C24.

Biodiversity Significance: The Culworth Avenue Car Park contains a number of significant mature trees scattered throughout the car park

Loss of a beautiful area with many important trees and native plants.

Submission objects to the planning proposal to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue and 17 Marian Street for the following reasons:

·    The Gordon Henry Street site is severely constrained by the presence of the Annie Wyatt Garden land mark Lemon Scented Gum, the roots of which will be impacted by the excavation required for the proposed underground parking.

·    The site is graced by significant mature canopied trees

·    Past Land & Environment Court Judgment pertaining to development in Ku-ring-gai has recorded the importance of individual Blue Gums and the need to retain individual trees.

·    The subject site lies within Heritage Conservation Area [C24].

 

Submission indicates gum trees that surround the car park will be damaged or poisoned to improve the views of residents or damaged by developers.

Submission notes that the Culworth Avenue Car Park presently is included in the C24 Marian Street Conservation Area and I strongly request that if the reclassification takes place it should remain in the Heritage Area. If it is removed from the Heritage Area I request that the property at 18 Culworth Avenue should also be removed from the Heritage Area.

 

 

Two of these unit blocks (18 Culworth Ave and 1 Marian St) have been classified as Heritage under the Local Environment Plan of 2012. The heritage value of these unit blocks would be diminished if they were overshadowed by unit blocks that are effectively 7stories tall.

It would lead to loss of heritage

Submission is against the reclassification of the site. The natural environment of Ku-ring-gai should be preserved.

There are significant trees surrounding the site

Lorne Avenue possesses significant trees which would be threatened. 

The car park contains a number of significant mature trees such as Blue gum, Blackbutt and Grey Ironbark.

The current car park has a number of mature trees including Blue gum, Blackbutt and Grey Ironbark which will be lost if the site if redeveloped. Should Council decide to proceed with any form of reclassification it will do so in consultation with local ratepayers.

Submission is also concern about the native environment nearby. The gum trees in area the will be threatened.

The housing around the car park has heritage orders on them, and this needs to be preserved.

Native landscape such as gum trees that surround the car park may be damaged or lost with any change of use.

There is a need for tree preservation

The Culworth Avenue Car Park contains a number of significant mature trees such as Blue gum, Blackbutt and Grey Ironbark.

Submission does not support the reclassification. The car park provides 204 car spaces and the current use also preserves biodiversity in the area.

It is also within a declared Local Heritage Conservation Area (C24).

Gum trees will be threatened

Submission is against the removal of heritage items and iconic residential streets. Submission mentions plans to renovate a property however it was denied by Council under the grounds of biodiversity and streetscape impacts. However there are a number of semi complete buildings in the area that have impacts to streetscape. Submission questions the equality in this.

The Culworth Ave car Park contains a number of significant mature trees such as Blue gum, Blackbutt and Grey Ironbark

 

 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

COMMUNITY BENEFIT

Issue/Concern

Submission indicates the net benefit to the community is unclear

There is little benefit to ratepayers and residents for this new building, only the council. Selling off the car park just means more profits to developers.

The proposal is not in the best interest of the residents and ratepayers.

There is no recognition of the broader community impacts of this proposed planning decision. It is unclear whether the loss of a revenue stream to Council, increased commuter travel time and travel costs to access

The car park is a useful amenity for residents, especially the elderly. The council should act in the best interest of the ratepayers.

Greater transparency is need from the Council in terms of consultation with the rate payers and any cost benefit analysis that was conducted. In addition, council should address the significant increase in population density and lack of parking in the vicinity of Killara Station

Submission objects to the reclassification.

The proposal does not meet NSW Department of Planning requirements and is inconsistent with the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036

There is no reference at any point in the entire Planning Proposal to the Net Community Benefit Test. The proposal does not provide a valuation of the car park land or a projection of its eventual sale price, nor provide figures for the current and possible future revenue from the car park.

There is no recognition in the council documentation of the impacts of this proposed planning decision on the broader community.

There is no recognition in the supporting documentation of the broader community impacts of this proposed planning decision.

 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

ACCESSIBILITY

Issue/Concern

Submission is against the planning proposal and argues that it should be retained for car parking purposes. It should be in close proximity to the station to allow those wishing to catch a train, especially the elderly, the handicapped and families with small children, easy access to the station.

 

Submission strongly objects to the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue Carpark as it would lead to high rise apartments and discourage residents to use public transport. 

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for it is ideal for people who only occasionally use the train station for a day trip to the city

Submission feels that Council is very short sighted and without thought for its older residents.

The car park is the remaining central parking to gather for outings both by coach and train.

There are many elderly or infirm residents who, if able to use the train, still need to drive and park as close as possible to the station, and restricted times in street parking are not always adequate.

Submission strongly objects to the Council’s proposal to sell the Culworth Car Park and describes the reclassification as ‘lunacy’. Argues that the car park is well used already and an honest study will show that its use is increasing annually over the past 5 years. Furthermore the car park is used extensively on weekends when children's sport is played on Regimental Park. Elderly residents of Ku-ring-Gai make regular use of the car park. It is the closest Council owned car park to a train station, and although there is not a lift at present, many elderly residents who can slowly use the steps find the car park to be valuable

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. Residents who park for close access to Killara station will be disadvantaged. People should be encouraged to use public transport & avoid using their cars to travel to work

Submission is against the reclassification. The site provides access to dedicated parking close to the station for effective access to public transport, and residents living close to the station need to retain access and safe road conditions in their locality. It is not sufficient to rely on parking space being available in the street.  Some of the available street parking is quite dangerous it eliminates visibility for oncoming traffic. Elderly members of community use the car park to access the train, particularly during the day.  If the car park is currently being underutilised perhaps the car park charges are too high.

Killara Railway Station can only be accessed via stairs, which creates access problems for the elderly, families with young children and prams and people with limited mobility.  In addition, the lack of community facilities for the increased number of children living in this area. Selkirk Park is already in urgent need of an upgrade to both the play equipment and seating areas. The provision of a small park in Bruce Avenue does not address nor solve the problems with Selkirk Park.

The three hour parking period at Gordon car park is not sufficient for commuters travelling to the city. Culworth car park provides an easy access to the train station for elderly residents.


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

INFRASTRUCTURE/OPEN SPACE

Issue/Concern

Submission is concerned over loss of open community space as there is already limited supply available.

Infrastructure does not adequately support the current level of high density living.

Too many blocks of units in Culworth Street already. Some have only just been completed (others yet to be built) and are not yet occupied. Council should wait to see the impact of these fully occupied unit blocks has on the road, traffic and services like sewage, water, electricity etc. before allowing more to be built in this immediate area. Spread the units out more.

Submission highlights that the carpark also provides useful public open space and is concerned that its loss will be detrimental to families around the area. 

Submission is against the reclassification of the public land occupied by the car park at Killara Station. This car park is an important facility for commuters who live in the area and there inadequate infrastructure to support increased population density.

Submission raises concern over loss of green spaces.

Reclassification will allow the council to sell the land for the development of home units. Inadequate infrastructure to support increased population density

Lack of infrastructure to support growing population.

Submission takes no issue with increasing the density of housing around public transport nodes. That said, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the level of amenity improves in line with the density, not decrease it.

Submission also raises concerns about loss of open space.

Killara’s infrastructure does not facilitate for the increase of housing density. Killara public school has seen an increase in enrolments of circa 30% in the last 7 years.

Submission is against the plan to increase the population of Sydney any further without increasing the infrastructure.

The infrastructure is hardly able to support the population already. Street parking is already a major problem.

There is a significant rise in development activity in the area which has resulted in a percentage of unsold apartments. Residents have not seen an increase in infrastructure to support these developments.

The current infrastructure cannot support the increase in housing.

There is increasing population demands for new and denser housing however more infrastructures were never addressed. Once this land is sold off it will lose its income generating capacity, other than for rates and levies. Submission suggests that the parking rate could be increased to $10 a day.

 


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

OVERDEVELOPMENT/HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT

Issue/Concern

Submission in concerned about the increase in development.

Submission strongly objects to the planning proposal due to the development of high rise residential developments.

Submission is against the proposal to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Ave car park and supports the concern and actions proposed by Mr Brian Watson in his petition or letter to Council and the consequences thereof.

Submission strongly objects to the proposal and argues that it will lead to undesired high rise development.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara as it is totally commercially driven and will turn Killara into a ‘concrete jungle’.

Submission concerned that adjacent Lorne Avenue, Marian Street and Culworth Avenue are bulging with over-development apartment blocks already; yet have never enjoyed full occupancy. The vacant lot still stands empty, directly opposite the Car Park on the Lorne Avenue side. Fraser Construction Company completed their first venture at 29 Lorne Avenue, demolished and dug further down Lorne Avenue, then walked off that job. The entire 'aspect' of one of Killara's most pleasant streets was ruined.

Submission is against the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue, Killara from community land to operational land as proposed by Kuring-gai council in order for more high rise apartments to be developed.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for it will lead to an increase in high rise development.

The area already has enough recently build home units while no further provision of local amenities to those new residents has been provided.

Submission raises concern that the planning proposal will lead to additional unnecessary high rise development and is a “money grabbing exercise” by Council.

Submission raises concern that the planning proposal will lead increased high rise development.

Submission is against the reclassification if the intention is to saturate the existing area with five storey units, this would create an eyesore which would generate other unwanted vehicles on local street places. Also if, as proposed on No.17 Marian Street, Council allowed the creation of a mini supermarket or similar food store, the submission would strongly oppose such a plan.

Submission raises concern that the planning proposal will lead to unsightly high rise development.

Submission raises concern that the planning proposal will lead increased high rise development

The multi-level apartments have turned our area into an eye sore.

Submission raises concern that the planning proposal will lead to unsightly high rise development.

It is against Liberal party promises of no more high rise development in this area.

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara for reasons including:

·    Overshadowing: existing unit blocks would be significantly overshadowed by any new development.

·    The impact of higher density development

·    It would lead to increased high rise development

Unsightly high rise development.

It would lead to increased high rise development

Submission is against council's proposal to sell then rezone for high rise development the public car park in Culworth

Avenue for the purpose of financing the acquisition of extra accommodation for council staff on the highway at

Gordon.

It would lead to increased high rise development

It would lead to increased high rise development

More unit blocks may be convenient for those who happen to live there, but this convenience would be at the expense of other residents of Killara and elsewhere who need the use of daylong parking space, which also is not available at Lindfield Station.

Submission raises concerns over reclassification leading to an increase in high density residential developments around the area.

The area around Killara station has been infiltrated by many high rise blocks of unit

Submission strongly objects to the selling by the Council of the Culworth Avenue Car Park.

Submission asks:

If the Council is prepared to sell the land for highrise development, why not sell it for a high-rise car park?

Submission is concerned about the impacts on the elderly community who rely on the carpark.

Submission argues the proposal will lead to intensive development of units between the train line and place pressure on local roads, schools and facilities.

Submission is opposed to high rise development replacing the car park and the loss of commuter car parking will discourage people from using public transport.

Submission opposes to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue, Killara. Several units have been built in the area already and there is already limited street parking. 

Submission is opposed to high rise residential development in Culworth Ave car park.

The surrounding area has already been overdeveloped.

Submission is against the reclassification. Parking fees are a stable income for the council. There is plenty of other land in the area that could be redeveloped as high density housing.

Submission is against the reclassification for a number of reasons:

·    The area already has enough recently build home units while no further provision of local amenities to those new residents has been provided.

·    It is financially imprudent to sell the asset into a market that already has one stalled development over the road.

·    A sale and development may take place resulting in shadowing of community areas.

Submission objects to the reclassification and the development of high density residential.

Submission is against the reclassification. New apartment blocks will add to the congestion on the streets.

Submission is against the reclassification and rezoning of the site to R4 high density residential. However submission has no problem with the proposal to rezone 17 Marian Street as B1 (neighbourhood centre).

Submission suggests high rise development will ruin the aesthetics of the area.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site.

Council and our local NSW Liberal government members want to minimise the higher density living. There is enough high density housing in Marian and Lorne Ave already. There needs to be more parking to accommodate the increase in population. There is an increase of traffic and congestion on street parking.

Submission suggests high rise apartment blocks should be discouraged.

Over the last decade rate payers are aware of large amounts of council funds being used to oppose the destruction of older properties in favour of high rise developments.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. Overdevelopment will ruin the beautiful surrounding in Ku-ring-gai and the car park is used by elderly residents who take public transport

Submission indicated new development will cause overshadowing and intrusion on privacy

There are already enough 5 storey high rise developments in the area.

High density residential development will increase local traffic and be a detrimental change to this quiet residential area.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the site. The increase of units in the area is possibly due to the increases of revenue brought about in the increased number of dwellings. 

Submission is against the reclassification and rezoning to R4 high density residential. High density residential development increases demand for the use of public transport and access to commuter car parking in and around railway stations. The site adjoins R2 development which has interface issues. The development of another high density residential building will put further pressure on trains in this area.

Submission objects the reclassification of the land and subsequent use for high rise development. The land should be maintained for car-parking purposes for people travelling by train from Killara Station.

Submission objects to the reclassification of the land to be sold to build high rise residential development

Submission is against the reclassification. There is already an overabundance of developments within the suburb during recent times.

Submission expresses opposition to the re-zoning and potential conversion of the Culworth Avenue Car Park into a high rise residential lot

Submission raises concern over the reclassification for the following reasons:

·    There are already enough home units in the area.

·    Shadowing of community areas.

Submission is concerned with the increase in high density residential development in the area. There are three large residential apartments that are empty near Culworth car park. There is no need for further development.

Submission objects to Culworth Ave Car Park being planned for high rise residential development

Submission objects to the reclassification for the following reasons:

·    Increase in density with new development and the reduction of public space and amenity available.

·    Council does not need to add into the redevelopment of buildings


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

GENERAL OBJECTION

Issue/Concern

Submission strongly opposes the redevelopment of Culworth carpark and highlights how often it is used by nearby residents who are commuting to the city

Submission wishes to second the sentiments (objection to planning proposal) expressed by Mr Brian Watson in his petition or letter to Council concerning the reclassification of the Culworth Ave Carpark land and the consequences thereof.

Submission is against the planning proposal by Ku-ring-gai Council to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue, Killara from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ and its rezoning to R4 [high density residential].

 

Submission strongly objects to the reclassification of Culworth Avenue carpark in Killara.

Submission strongly opposes the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue carpark.

 

Submission strongly opposes the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue carpark.

Submission is against development of Culworth Avenue Car Park.

Submission requests that council keep Culworth Ave car park for commuter parking.

Submission objects to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara NSW and requests it be retained for commuter parking.

Submission would like to register objection to the reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara NSW and requests it be retained for commuter parking.

Submission raises strong objections to the current proposal for reclassification of 20-28 Culworth Avenue from community to operational land.

Submission raises objection to reclassify 20-28 Culworth Avenue Killara from Community Land to Operational Land.

Submission is against planning proposal

 

Submission strongly objects to the proposal to re-classify the Culworth avenue car park.

Submission is against the proposal to reclassify the said land.

Submission is against the proposal and argues that it will seriously disadvantage elderly/ pensioners.

Submission strongly objects to the rezoning of the Culworth Avenue carpark. Submission argues that rezoning the carpark is not worth the funds it would generate.

Submission is against the reclassification of the Culworth avenue car park.

Submission is against the reclassification. The car park is used by senior citizens and work commuters.

Submission is against the reclassification.


APPENDIX No: 9 - Submission summary table 2013 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

SUPPORT

Issue/Concern

Submission supports the planning proposal to reclassify 17 Marian Street, Killara from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ and its rezoning to B1 [neighbourhood centre].

Submission supports the planning proposal if the intention is to park commuter vehicles in an underground car park as current commuter vehicles have no other place to park.


APPENDIX No: 10 - Submission summary table 2014 exhibition

 

Item No: GB.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20-28 CULWORTH AVENUE & 17 MARIAN STREET, KILLARA

SUBMISSION SUMMARY TABLE

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic/ Parking

 

Traffic/ Parking

Issue/Concern

Comment

Submission argues that all levels of government should promote the use of public transport. Local and state government should promote the use of the railway by providing car parking close to railway stations that is easy to access and free or at low cost.

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so commuter parking will be maintained on the site. Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

It IS the role of Council to provide parking for residents. Examples include Wade Lane Car park, St Ives Village Shopping Centre and smaller centres in Turramurra, West Pymble etc.

Council should produce these statistics from the revenue collected, and if they are not readily available, then the financial system must be able to produce them. If not, then why not?

All information relating to council’s revenue and other financial statements is made available as part of Council's annual reporting process as required by the NSW Local Government Act.

 

 Council will lose weekly revenue that the carpark generates.

Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc. This re-allocated parking could even be in the form of paid parking option (subject to consultation and council approval), to mirror the characteristics that the $5 fee currently provides on the Culworth Avenue car park site

 

 I question, has this been taken into account in the valuation obtained by Council? Also, has the Council obtained advice from a qualified Quantity Surveyor?

A valuation report on 20-28 Culworth Avenue & 17 Marian Street, Killara, was conducted by Corporeal Pty Ltd on the 19th December 2013 and provided as supporting documentation in the 2014 Public Exhibition of the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth avenue carpark.

 

Submission does not agree that the carpark is “underutilised”

Surveys undertaken by independent traffic and parking consultants demonstrate that the car park is typically about 60% utilised, with about 40% of the spaces vacant during weekdays

 

What is the plan for council for additional car parks?       

                 

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so commuter parking will be maintained on the site. Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

 

 

Submission asks council to provide information on replacement car parking if the sale goes ahead.

 

Submission argues that for years residents have been ‘extorted’ to park their cars then use public transport and thus relieve traffic and congestion.

The $5 charge was in place during the surveys, and the results of the surveys reflect the fact that the parking fee results in commuters being selective as to where they park.

 

Submission argues that if the pay structure on the car park was changed so that it was more affordable for regular commuters to use, with some system set up so that only local residents could use it, the car park would be 100% full every week day.

 

Submission argues that residents do not mind paying the $5 required as it ensures there will be a spare parking place for them. A 100 space car park, half what we have now, 3 or 4 floors below ground level will NOT suffice.

 

Submission argues that the car parking spaces should be at no charge or at a very low charge.

 

Submission argues that underground carparking should be made a condition of development approval for any building that may be erected on the said land and this should be made clear to any developer.

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so commuter parking will be maintained on the site. Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

 

 

No mention in proposal documentation of substitute car parking at Killara except for the possible provision of 100 underground spaces.

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so commuter parking will be maintained on the site. Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

Replacement parking strategies

There is no mention of the strategy to put in place substitute car parking at Killara except for the possible provision of 100 underground spaces. It seems inevitable that the loss of nearly 200 car park spaces will result in more cars being parked on the streets around Killara station.

Submission argues that given the reasoning in the rest of the paper and the absence of any reference to replacement parking, this means that there will be no replacement parking as this would lessen the value of the site to a developer.

Already traffic and congestion / Reclassification will lead to existing traffic and congestion around the carpark

 

Submission highlights that the lack of parking and increasing congestion in the area is making Culworth avenue an unsafe place that proposes threats to pedestrians and driver safety

Reclassification process itself would not lead to traffic and congestion. This would depend on any future uses on the site.

 

The NSW Roads & Maritime Service raised no objection to the proposed reclassification.

Any potential redevelopment will be dealt with under the draft KLEP 2013 and draft KDCP 2014 local traffic considerations and ultimately any matters identified  at the development application stages


Since Transport for NSW has acquired part of the site for commuter car parking, the traffic characteristics would not be expected to significantly change. Should a proposal for residential flat buildings be considered on the site, then close proximity to Killara railway station suggests that traffic generation of would not be significant and unlikely to impact on the operation of the surrounding road network.

Interview surveys by independent traffic and parking consultants reveal that approximately 50% of commuters arriving at Killara station on weekdays walked, which indicates that residents living in apartments near railway stations access the station by walking due to their close proximity.

 

Already/ Reclassification will lead to shortage/ inadequate/ insufficient parking in local area.

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so a significant part of the site will remain commuter parking. Council also has local parking plans in place that can reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no / inadequate parking available at Killara or Gordon after 7.00am/7.30am/8.00am/8.30am.

Council can manage local parking demand through reallocating some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

 

Transport for NSW

 

Issue/Concern

Comment

 

Submission argues that Transport NSW is only focusing on the major stations. If our own council does not continue to service our needs at Killara station, are we now saying that Killara train station is no longer of importance so we have no need to provide parking there?

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so commuter parking will be maintained on the site. Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

.

 

 

 

Submission challenges how Council’s plans strategically tie into those of Transport for NSW and planned parking improvements around Gordon and Lindfield Stations, if at all and if not, why not?

 

Reclassification will lead to loss of commuter carparking

 

Submission argues replacement of car park is an impossibility.

 

 Council would remove a net 84 spaces around the station, and with the clause “if economically feasible”, most likely many more.

 

The Council referring to the possible provision of “up to 100 car spaces” in the development with the let-out clause of “if economically feasible” – this is a total cop out. With the costs of constructing underground carpark - it would be at least $50,000 per car space.

 

Submission argues that Council stating that the new spaces under the units are subject to "economic feasibility" sounds like a get-out clause – a very flimsy offer to placate the community.

 

Submission argues there is virtually no parking provided that is over 2 hours per day. Any person who was not capable of walking more than 300 metres to the station was greatly disadvantaged.

 

Local businesses rely on the car park for their viability

 

Reclassification and sale (loss) of the carpark will discourage use of public transport.

Commuter parking will be maintained on the site, and the proposal to re-allocate some on-street parking in close proximity to Killara station would still encourage use of public transport.

 

 


 

Process and Procedures

Process and procedure

Issue/Concern

Comment

Submission highlights concern with lack of community consultation for the proposal

Council has conducted the planning proposal, including community and agency consultation, in accordance with relevant NSW planning guidelines.

This includes, but is not limited to,

2013:

 

·   An advertisement in the North Shore times advising of the 2013 Public Exhibition.

·   A public exhibition between Friday 30th August 2013 to Friday 27th September 2013 and local resident notification.

·   All Planning proposal documents and supporting documentation being made available on Council’s website.

·   An advertisement in the North Shore times on advising of the 2013 Public Hearing.

·   An independent  Public hearing held on Thursday 24 October 2013

·   Staff have been made available to answer enquiries over the phone throughout this period.

 

2014:

 

·   An advertisement in the North Shore times advising of the 2014 Public Exhibition and local   resident notification.

·   A public exhibition between Friday 28th March and Wednesday 30th April 2014

·   All planning proposal documents and supporting documentation being made available on Council’s website.

·   An advertisement in the North Shore times on advising of the Public Hearing.

·   An independent Public hearing held on Wednesday 28th May 2014

·   Staff have been made available to answer enquiries over the phone throughout this period.

Council is ignoring the wishes of the public

There is no transparency with the proposal

Submission concerned that the report justifying the purchase of 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon is misleading to the councillors and public.

The process for planning proposals to reclassify land is established by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Local Government Act, 1993. Council is bound by these processes and is required to comply with the relevant NSW planning proposal guidelines and practice notes

 

Council has conducted the planning proposal, including community and agency consultation, in accordance with relevant NSW planning guidelines.

 

There is no recognition of the impacts upon surrounding residents within the planning proposal

Issue/Concern

Comment

There is no recognition in the supporting documentation of the broader community impacts of this proposed planning decision.

The Planning Proposal to reclassify the carpark from Community land to Operational land status will not affect or remove the application of any current or future planning provision applying to the site.  This includes zoning, development standards and the application of biodiversity protection and heritage provisions.

 

Any re-development that may occur on the site will be dealt with accordingly under relevant LEP's and DCP's and at the development assessment stage.

No attempt is made to evaluate the cost to the community of the loss

Submission argues that more attention needs to be given to how this plan will affect the people who live, work and are part of the Killara community.

Submission argues that this land use change will adversely impact the character of the suburb.

Submission highlights the vast demographic profile of people it services for varying purposes.

Large amount of money already spent on first planning proposal for the reclassification.

 

Issue/Concern

Comment

 

Large amount of money already spent on first planning proposal for the reclassification.

The process for planning proposals to reclassify land is established by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Local Government Act, 1993. Council is bound by these processes and is required to comply with the relevant NSW planning proposal guidelines and practice notes. The costs of the reclassification process is covered by Council’s Urban Planning budget..

 

Council seems to be ignoring the recommendations from the Walsh Report / Public Hearing in Oct 2013

Issue/Concern

Comment

Council seems to be ignoring the recommendations from the Walsh Report of the Public Hearing last October

The report, dated 6 January 2014, by the Chairperson, Peter Walsh, arising from the first Public Hearing on 24 October 2013, made a number of recommendations for Council to act upon.  These recommendations were acted upon and additional supporting information was presented to a second exhibition process and a second Public hearing, chaired by the same Chairperson.

Various procedural & consultation issues

Issue/Concern

Comment

Council’s letter to the Department of Planning dated 20 February 2014 requesting an extension of time for the Gateway determination was 10 days out of time for the original Gateway determination completion (10 February 2014).

The process for planning proposals to reclassify Council land is established by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Local Government Act, 1993. Council is bound by these processes and is required to comply with the relevant NSW planning proposal guidelines and practice notes.

 

The planning proposal submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure was required to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements relevant planning guidelines including consistency with state government planning policies and strategies. The issuing of the Gateway Determination to proceed with the planning proposal indicates a view by the Department and the Minister’s delegates that the Planning Proposal does comply with the relevant statutory requirements state government planning guidelines, policies and practice notes. Similarly, the issuing of the gateway extension demonstrated that the Departments requirements were satisfied.

 

Council has conducted the planning proposal, including community and agency consultation, in accordance with relevant NSW planning guidelines.

 

The Gateway Determination authorised Council to exercise the functions of the Minister under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise the planning proposal. As the reclassification is not seeking to extinguish any interests in the land, Council can resolve to make the plan in accordance with Section 59(2) of the Act and liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required local environmental plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal as well the Minister’s function in making the Plan

 

 

Failure to meet NSW Department of Planning requirements

 Inconsistent with the NSW government metropolitan plan for Sydney 2031 and 2031

Submission does not believe Council has complied with a ‘guide for the preparation of a local environmental plans’ and a ‘guide to preparing planning proposals’.

It is inconsistent with the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Plan for Sydney.

Submission also argues that Council does not have the authority to conduct this process without the consent of the community elected councillors.

Submission also argues that the NSW Government encourages commuters to use public transport to avoid clogging the already overloaded roads.

Submission suggests that an independent body without a conflict of interest such as the Minister of Planning and Infrastructure should make the final determination of the application.

Submission also states that prior mistakes should not be compounded by poor decision making in disposing of key community assets.

Inconsistent with the State Government's Business Plan NSW 2021 Goals 7 & 8.

Submission argues that Part 3 ‘Justification’ section for the proposal is deficient in that it fails to identify this as the justification for the proposed reclassification.

Submission argues that planning proposal is inconsistent with the State Government's 'rail corridor' development plans.

Submission argues that the removal of the car park is contradictory of every local and state initiative to encourage residents to use public transport.

Submission argues exhibition material was irrelevant and unhelpful and that council has handled the matter poorly.

Council seems to go to extreme lengths to refute the argument that these car parks and indeed Killara Station are popular with an older demographic – this almost verges on offensive.

Potential development options for the site are not well thought through and unnecessary in the area

Submission believes the issues to be adequately covered by other submissions but makes comment on the cynical determination with which Council has continued to pursue its goals.

Submission believes the proposal to be in complete contradiction to the recent awards of recognition of Parks and Leisure Australia Awards of Excellence – in particular the award for Greengate Park.

Submission demands that an independent body/tribunal rule on the this proposal, or if not, that it be put to a proper vote by all resident rate payers of Ku-ring-gai Council.

Submission highlights concern with the wording of the letter to residents regarding the planning proposal – as to what Council has or has no power to do is at first instance curious and on further reading almost incomprehensible.

Submission highlights obscurities in councils planning proposal and areas that are still unclear:

Submission highlights the difficulty in obtaining exhibition documents and requests a copy of the “overview of additional supporting information (march 2014)’.

Submission concerned Council not being honest about intentions for the sale of the site and the impartiality of the background report

Issue/Concern

Comment

Submission concerned Council not being honest about intentions for the sale of the site and the impartiality of the background report

Council has been clear with its intentions since the April 30th 2013 Council report where it was resolved to commence the process to reclassify 17 sites including Culworth Avenue carpark.

 


 

Heritage/Biodiversity

 

 Heritage/Biodiversity

Issue/Concern

Comment

Submission argues that planning proposal will impact upon heritage conservation areas within the area.

 

The Planning Proposal to reclassify the carpark from Community land to Operational land status will not affect or remove the application of any current or future planning provision applying to the site.  This includes zoning, development standards and the application of biodiversity protection and heritage provisions

 

Submission also has concerns that there are a large number of mature trees on the site, and these are subject to Council’s own tree preservation order. If Council re-classified the site and then sold the site those trees would be lost.

Submission notes that setbacks are planned to accommodate the trees on site.

There are significant trees on the site that will be removed if the land is sold.

Submission has raised concerns over the impact of the planning proposal upon heritage and endangered tree species in the local area.

Submission has raised concerns over the impact of the planning proposal upon heritage in the local area by having no regard to the traditions of the community.

Submission is concerned with the loss of local amenity, character and environment in the area.

Council is proposing to remove its own substantial properties but leave our small property within the C24 Heritage Conservation Area. Our property will then be the only piece of land in Culworth Avenue included in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Planning proposal indicating that the reclassification to operational status will not reduce the heritage conservation standards is contrary to the amendment to the boundary of Marian Street Heritage Conservation Area.

This area has been identified as an area of biodiversity. Mature trees include Bluegum, Blackbutt and Grey Ironbark. These would be destroyed as part of a redevelopment – the planning proposal requires additional tree planning documentation.

 

 

 

Community Benefit

 

Community Benefit

Issue/Concern

Comment

 No evidence of Council demonstrating the net community benefit associated with the proposed reclassification.

Notwithstanding the removal of a formal requirement, the level of community concern over the Culworth Avenue carpark evident from the first exhibition and public hearing process was considered to warrant the provision of further information as part of the second exhibition. 

Information concerning how Council’s considerably varied land holdings enable Ku-ring-gai as a whole to move forward with community and civic asset renewal was included as follows:

• An overview document which included options for Masterplanning the Gordon site for civic, community and cultural purposes;
• Car Park occupancy and interview surveys;
• Draft Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy 2014;
• Highest and Best Use Study;
• Valuation Report;
• Phase One Environmental Report.

There is a great deal more information in the public realm on the overall strategy for supporting the future needs of Ku-ring-gai’s residents and businesses through infrastructure provision at: http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Plans_and_regulations/Building_and_development/Town_planning including:
• Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012
• Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012
• Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013
• Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan 2010
• Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010
• Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Parking Management Plan
• Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy 2006

These documents (and their predecessors) continue to outline a long-term strategy of the provision of infrastructure to support redevelopment.  Especially in the case of infrastructure funding, it must be emphasised that new development can only be required to contribute a fair and reasonable proportion of the cost that arises from the nett additional demand; it cannot lawfully be levied for the cost of replacing existing assets or that proportional part of an asset that is solely for the existing population.  In the case of existing facilities that are at the end of their economic life and/or by their structural design or location cannot feasibly be extended, a co-contribution is created that council must fund on behalf of the existing residents for the replacement community asset.

Ku-ring-gai is at a point in time when many structural assets – in particular the council chambers at 818 Pacific Highway Gordon and the Library at Lindfield – are reaching the end of their economic life and many other structural assets are unsuited to the demands of a changing population as we move further into the twenty-first century and a period of intensive urban renewal and demographic change.

Ku-ring-gai Council cannot ignore the issues, in the full knowledge that eventually some of the ageing community assets will fail, in which case Council would have failed to serve both the short and long-term interests of all the residents of Ku-ring-gai both now and future.

 

Accessibility

 

Accessibility

Issue/Concern

Comment

Reclassification and sale of land would severely disadvantage the disabled, families with children, and the elderly community.

Surveys undertaken by an independent traffic and parking consultant indicate that  elderly and disabled users are not significant users of the car park. Nonetheless, a proposal to reallocate existing unrestricted on-street spaces in close proximity to the station entrance to shorter term parking would maintain a degree of easier access and proximity to the railway station entrance.

There is no public transport alternative for people to commute to the Killara station.

Commuter parking would still be maintained in close proximity to Killara station

 

Redevelopment

 

Alternative development options

Issue/Concern

Comment

There are other options for the development of the site that do not involve the sale of the land. These should be considered

To a significant extent, as is recognised, the recommendation has been impacted by the compulsory acquisition of part of the site by TfNSW.  Ku-ring-gai Council is willing in principle to engage with TfNSW in integrating master planning for the Culworth Avenue car park, as, is already the case for the master planning for the delivery of car parking, community facilities and parkland at Lindfield.

 

Any re-development that may occur on the site will be dealt with accordingly under relevant LEP's and DCP's and at the development assessment stage.

Submission argues that an alternative might be to sell the CONCESSION (along with say a 50 year lease) on the site for a commercially operated car park and cafe.

Submission argues that council should be spending money on is a tunnel under Werona Ave from 60 metres down Locksley Street, to provide ramp access to the station. Currently we have infrastructure from 1910 – sixty two steep steps to access the train station.

Submission argues that Council should talk about "recycling" infrastructure rather than simply of sales for alternative uses which are not consistent with the neighbourhoods or current residents it is there to serve.

Submission advocates further options being explored, such as a partial sell-off that might satisfy Council's apparent need for funds, yet still leave significant parking space for local residents.

An upgraded town hall

Better location of parks

Increased facilities and services

More commuter parking

Retail facilities including a new supermarket

A garden park for the disable & local residents to use as it is flat

Community Garden

Reclassification will lead to sale of car park and the development of the high rise apartments

Any future divestment of the site would be subject to Council’s adopted Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy September 2009. However, it would be considered on its merits and would be dealt with in a separate process with further Council reporting and consideration. 

 


 

 

Infrastructure

 

 

 Infrastructure

Issue/Concern

Comment

Submission does not agree that the valuation commissioned by Council for our Car Park that suggested that the addition of a supermarket would add value to the project.

Objection noted.

Local infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the influx of cars and people.

Both NSW Roads & Maritime Services, and Transport for New South Wales have raised no objection to the proposed reclassification.

It should also be noted that the reclassification will not result in any change to the carpark or the surrounding infrastructure. Any potential redevelopment will be dealt with under the draft KLEP 2013 and draft KDCP and ultimately at the development application stages.

Submission argues that with the increasing population any public amenities there are need to be maintained, not decreased.

Transport for NSW has recently acquired part of the Culworth Avenue car park site, so commuter parking will be maintained on the site. Council proposes to reallocate some on-street parking around Killara railway station to shorter stay parking, to allow for short trips to Chatswood/City etc.

 


 

 

Submissions of support

Submissions of support

Issue/Concern

Comment

Submission agrees with and supports all the reasons put forward by the thousands of Ku-ring-gai residents opposed to the planned sell-off.

Support noted.

Supports the option of high rise development on the site

Submission supports reclassification of  Culworth Avenue Carpark:

Submission supports the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue Carpark.

Submission supports the planning proposal by Ku-ring-gai Council to reclassify 17 Marian Street, Killara from ‘community land to ‘operational land’.

Submission supports the proposal with conditions.

As the land was originally purchased to build a new chambers I believe it is most appropriate to sell this land in order to fund the new council building.

Submission is in favour of redevelopment of Killara carpark as long as it is done in sympathy with its surrounds e.g. maximum 5 storeys and combination of business and residential with same number of cheap public car spaces.

 


 

 

Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous

 

Issue/Concern

Comment

 

Submission strongly objects to the planning proposal to reclassify Culworth Avenue Carpark and the creation of a ‘Taj Mahal’

 

Council notes that this has been a recurrent theme in a number of submissions though few of these also demonstrate any knowledge or understanding of the physical state and economic viability of the current premises at 818 Pacific Highway Gordon or acknowledge that Local Government has a legal responsibility to manage and maintain its assets, provide safe public access that complies with the Disability Discrimination Act and to provide a safe working environment.  Failure in any of these areas would create significant financial liabilities for all current and future ratepayers. The office accommodation at 828 Pacific Highway, Godon is of a normal standard expected for a modern workplace that complies with the Building Code of Australia.

 In context it is noted that information on the state of the current chambers has been on the website over time including former Mayoral communications, from well prior to the release of information on the processes that lead to the acquisition of the adjoining premises. 

 

Submission quotes a Council report of “Occupancy and Interview Surveys’ dated March 2014. The charge of $5 all day parking has an adverse impact on usage of the car park when compared to Gordon station. In addition The new railway timetable introduced in spring 2013 has reduced the number of services available at Killara station thus creating a disincentive to park at Killara. Furthermore to the report, there is no mention of a proposed restoration of Marian Street Theatre. The parking for staff, performers and patrons are hardly satisfied with the 35 spaces at the rear of the theatre building.

The $5 charge was in place during the surveys, and the results of the surveys reflect the fact that the parking fee results in commuters being selective as to where they park.

Local community considerations not addressed:

 

·      continuing civic engagement on this matter

·      expected fiscal outcomes

·      processes for preparation of development strategy/masterplan

·      special planning controls

·      strategy for providing line of sight between goals and implementation

·      support for higher needs groups

Three master plan concepts for the were site exhibited as part of the second exhibition of the Planning Proposal, only a modified Option Three reasonably reflects the acquisition of part of the site acquired by TfNSW and is suitable to carry forward.   Development of the precinct will be guided by the relevant Ku-ring-gai Principal LEP's and DCP and there will be further opportunities for local consultation during the development assessment stage.

Council can reduce its needs for new office space:

·      elimination of non-value adding activities, processes and functions; and

·      improved IT systems and platforms

 

Local Government has a legal responsibility to manage and maintain its assets, provide safe public access that complies with the Disability Discrimination Act and to provide a safe working environment.  Failure in any of these areas would create significant financial liabilities for all current and future ratepayers.  In context it is noted that information on the state of the current chambers has been on the website over time including former Mayoral communications, from well prior to the release of information on the processes that lead to the acquisition of the adjoining premises. 

Submission highlights that over 5000 local residents and rate payers have signed a petition calling for the retention of the car park.

Council has acknowledged the petition in along with all of the submissions. Additionally, the petition and all submissions were provided to the chairperson at the time of the public hearing and assisted in the delivery of the chairperson’s report.

Submission argues that council should find an alternative source of funds if it needs to raise money for a new chambers.

Ku-ring-gai is continuing to deliver a rolling program of infrastructure delivery on a comprehensive twenty year delivery program funded from a variety of sources including the sale of under-utilised assets to support the delivery of new community assets into the future.

 

The report to Council on 30/4/2013 outlined the relevant funding strategies for the acquisition of 828 Pacific Highway Gordon.

Submission argues that council should find an alternative source of funds if it needs to raise money for the new SUN Building

Submission is concern about the sale and loss of open space within Killara.

The land is currently zoned under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance as Part Residential 2(d) & Part Special Uses 5(a) (Municipal Purposes). It is proposed as R4 residential under the Draft KLEP 2013. The site has never been zoned for open space. The reclassification of the site will have no effect on the provisions of the draft KLEP – as such, there will be no loss of parkland, open space, or green spaces.

 

 


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.4 / 647

 

 

Item GB.4

S09780

 

2 December 2013

 

 

Lindfield Community Hub - Woodford Lane - Report on Progress

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

To seek Council’s approval of three preferred land use scenarios for the Lindfield Community Hub as the basis for engaging architectural consultants to prepare illustrative concept designs for public engagement and exhibition.

 

 

background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 May 2013 Council resolved to undertake a master planning process for a site on the western side of the Pacific Highway, Lindfield, in the vicinity of Woodford Lane, known as the Lindfield Community Hub.

 

The planning process for this project is underway and a Project Working Group (PWG) has been established with representatives of Council and Transport for NSW (TFNSW) to inform the preparation of the master plan. This report will summarise the planning process to date and recommending the next steps.

 

 

comments:

The primary objective of the project is to create a new community hub consisting of a multi-purpose community centre, a branch library, a new park and town square and public car parking.

 

Jones Lang LaSalle Pty. Ltd. were engaged to undertake preliminary economic feasibility assessment of development scenarios for the site, with a range of building heights and densities, which incorporate residential and retail uses as well as the proposed community infrastructure.

 

 

recommendation:

That Council proceed to engage an architectural consultant to prepare illustrated concept plans, based on the three preferred land use scenarios recommended in this report, and to seek the community’s views on the options.

 

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

To seek Council’s approval of three preferred land use scenarios for the Lindfield Community Hub as the basis for engaging architectural consultants to prepare illustrative concept designs for public engagement and exhibition. 

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 May 2013 Council resolved to undertake a master planning process on the western side of the Pacific Highway, Lindfield, in the vicinity of Woodford Lane. The area, henceforth known as the Woodford Lane Site, consists of the following lands:

 

·        a public car park at 8-10 Tryon Road; and 3 and 5 Kochia Lane, Lindfield;

·        a public car park at 19 Drovers Way and 1B Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield;

·        2-12 Bent Street, Lindfield;

·        1 Woodford Lane, Lindfield; and

·        Drovers Way (part) public road.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 December 2013 a report to Council gave an update on the Lindfield Community Facilities Study and Council resolved to locate the proposed Lindfield branch library on the Woodford Lane Site.

 

lindfield              

Figure 1– Woodford Lane Site                                     Figure 2 – Woodford Lane Site

 

The planning process for this project is well underway and a Project Working Group (PWG) has been established with representatives of Council and Transport for NSW (TFNSW) to inform the preparation of the master plan. This report will address Resolution D by summarising the planning process to date and recommending the next steps.

 

This project has been largely on hold since December 2013 for two reasons:

 

·        uncertainty regarding the Minister for Transport’s commitment to funding commuter car parking on the site; and

·        the acquisition of lands zoned RE1-Public Recreation and identified in the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 Land Acquisition Map was not complete.

 

With regard the former, funding has now been clarified with Transport for NSW following a meeting with Council staff and the Mayor on 27 February 2014. TFNSW have indicated they will fund up to 240 commuter car parks on the site, this does not include replacement of 40 existing Council managed commuter spaces. Further discussions are currently occurring as to whether a portion of this parking (approximately 100 spaces) will be provided on the eastern side of the centre below the proposed Lindfield Village Green. This is anticipated to be resolved over the coming months.

 

With regard the former, Council resolved on 24 June 2014 to proceed with the acquisition of the final parcel of land identified in the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 Land Acquisition Map; settlement is anticipated to be finalised over the next few months. Council will soon be the owner of all lands within the site and be in a better position to develop a master plan for the site.

 

The only remaining requirement for Council to fully consolidate the site into one lot is the closure of the portion of Drovers Way north of Beaconsfield Parade which is a public road.  Council’s DCP and contribution plan proposes to replace this road with a new public road along the western boundary of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Council compulsorily acquires the portion of Drovers Way north of Beaconsfield Parade for the purpose of creating the Lindfield Community Hub in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. The section of road is shown on Figure 3 below.

 

Figure 3 – Proposed road closure and road realignment

 

Comments

 

As discussed in previous reports to Council the primary objective of the project is to create a new community hub consisting of a multi-purpose community centre, a branch library, a new park and town square and public car parking. The key community infrastructure components of the project are listed below with the associated funding source, where applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

New Community Infrastructure

Size

Funding source

S94 % funded

New Public park and town square

3,800m2

Fully funded by Development Contributions (S94)

100%

New Branch library

 

1,265m2

Part funded by Development Contributions (S94) & part funded by Council co-contribution/project funded

Approximately 33%

New Multi-purpose community centre

1,190m2

Part funded by Development Contributions (S94) & part funded by Council co-contribution/project funded

Approximately 33%

New commuter car park

(excluding replacement of 40 existing council managed commuter spaces)

up to 240 spaces

Fully funded by Transport for NSW

0%

Replacement of Council’s existing short stay car spaces in new basement parking.

up to 72 in total

 

Development Contributions (S94) funds parking for community facilities requirement only

 

Part funded by Council co-contribution/project funded

Approximately 70%

Pedestrian bridge over Pacific Highway

 

Fully funded by Council co-contribution/project funded

0%

 

In relation to funding the following is noted:

 

·        Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 - Works Programmes: Local recreational and cultural facilities, and Local social facilities allocates funding for a new multi-purpose community building and a new branch library. Due to apportionment, about 33% of the cost of the community buildings would be funded by development contributions the remainder would be required to be funded by Council from other sources; this results in a funding shortfall for the buildings in the order of $8.7 million (or 77%) based on the estimated construction cost in Council’s contribution plan.

 

·        The Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 (KCP) allocates funding of $2.49 million for the design and construction of 50 basement car park spaces required for library and community facilities (KCP, page 210). This will go part way to replacing Council’s existing car parking on the site. There is likely to remain an estimated shortfall of over $1 million.

 

·        Consultation to date has indicated that the community would like to see a pedestrian bridge connecting the west side of Lindfield to the rail station over the Pacific Highway. A feasibility study has been completed and the estimated cost is expected to be in the range of $2.7 million to $4.6 million; this project is unfunded (refer Attachment A1 for full study).

 

Jones Lang LaSalle P/L (JLL) have been engaged to undertake preliminary economic feasibility assessment of a range of development scenarios, with a range of building heights and densities, that incorporate residential and retail uses as well as the proposed community infrastructure; and to assess the scenarios for their potential financial return/loss to Council.

 

Jones Lang LaSalle has prepared a Stage 1 report (Confidential Attachment A2) which was completed in December 2013 and the Addendum (Confidential Attachment A3) which was completed in August 2014; the results of these are summarised below.

 

Lindfield Community Hub - preliminary feasibility assessment

 

The study was broken down into the following tasks:

 

·        Market appraisal – review of market demand for retail, commercial and residential uses and provision of advice on the potential mix of floor space for the subject site.

·        Preliminary economic feasibility assessment - conduct preliminary assessment of land use scenarios for the subject site including a preliminary financial appraisal of each option.

·        Preferred option - assist Council with the development of a preferred option balancing the requirements of traffic, urban design and community. 

·        Preliminary economic feasibility assessments – undertake preliminary assessment of the preferred option and recommend modifications as required.

·        Delivery method – provide advice on the preferred delivery method for the project which will maximise the economic, social, and environmental outcomes for Council.

 

Methodology

 

The consultant commenced the project with a full review of background material on the project, including Council reports, previous feasibility and market appraisal studies as well as Council’s Development Contributions Plan. In conjunction with the review, the consultant conducted a market appraisal on the current economic conditions to determine the mix of uses that could be supported on the Woodford Lane site.

 

Upon completion of the market appraisal, Jones Lang LaSalle prepared a 3 stage financial analysis of land use scenarios:

 

Stage 1 – Five preliminary land use scenarios (completed December 2013)

Stage 2 – Refinement of scenarios (completed December 2013)

Stage 3 – Final land use scenarios (completed August 2014)

Stage 1 – Five preliminary land use scenarios

 

The five scenarios were developed through discussions between Council staff and the consultants; the aim was to test a wide range of possible scenarios.

 

It is important to note that this analysis was based on current zoning under the KLEP 2012 which restricts the development footprint to the southern portion of the site as the northern portion, fronting Bent Street, is zoned RE1 – Public Recreation.

 

The options analysed are as follows:

 

·        Option 1 - Community facility with secondary/specialty retail and residential; new park on Bent Street; and three storey height limit.

·        Option 2 - Community facility with major and secondary/specialty retail as well as residential; new park on Bent Street; and three storey height limit.

·        Option 3b - Community facility with major, mini-major and secondary/specialty retail as well as residential; new park on Bent Street; and five storey height limit.

·        Option 4 - Community facility with residential only; new park on Bent Street; and five storey height limit.

·        Option 5 - Full line supermarket (4,200sqm) with community facility, secondary/specialty retail, additional car spaces and no residential accommodation; new park on retail podium; and three storey height limit.

 

Analysis revealed that only one of these options would give a return to Council, all other options represent a financial loss to Council.

Figure 4 – Summary of preliminary Land Use Scenarios assessment

Stage 2 – Refinement of scenarios

 

Based on further market analysis and discussions with Council these options were further refined and three preferred scenarios were developed. The preferred scenarios are:

 

·        Option 1 (Version 2) - Community facilities with reduced secondary/specialty retail; new park on Bent Street; residential uses; and three storey height limit.

·        Option 3b (Version 2) - Community facilities with major retail (supermarket 3,400sqm in size), reduced secondary/specialty retail as well as residential; new park on Bent Street; and five storey height limit.

·        Option 4 (Version 2) - Community facilities with residential only; new park on Bent Street; and five storey height limit.

 

Refinement of the options involved reduction in retail floor space and an increase in community floor space to include both a community facility and a branch library to be consistent with findings from the Lindfield Community Facilities Study; Option 5 was deleted as a full-line supermarket (4000sqm +) was found to not fit on the site when taking into account the current RE1 zone; Option 2 was deleted as it is similar to Option 3b (Version 2).

 

The gross floor areas of the refined options are set out in the Table below; in all cases a park of 3,800sqm is provided on Bent Street.

 

Figure 5 – Gross floor areas, building heights and FSRs for refined options

 

The findings of the feasibility analysis are set out in the Table below

 

Figure 6 – Summary of results of preliminary feasibility assessment – refined options (version 2)

 

In summary:

 

·        Option 1v2 may represent a significant loss to Council. This means that Council would need to make a monetary contribution in the order of $10 million to make the development economically feasible. In other words this option would not fund the proposed community facilities.

·        Option 3b v2 may provide a small return to Council or a small loss depending on the economic analysis method used.

·        Option 4v2 may provide a substantial return to Council.

 

Stage 3 – Final land use scenarios

 

Given that the earlier analyses were undertaken in December 2013, a review and update of the feasibility study was warranted in addition a number of other matters had arisen in the meantime that required consideration, these include:

 

·        updated assumption on the income or equity contribution from Council (total of $6,223,138 from S94) which has not been escalated;

·        inclusion of the development costs associated with the pedestrian bridge ($3,275,000);

·        updated market based considerations inclusive of updated gross realisations;

·        updated car parking assumptions i.e. 79 spaces for the Council car parking provision down 40 from our earlier analysis; and

·        inclusion of a 5% construction contingency across the whole development.

 

The details of the final land use scenarios are set out below.

 

Figure 7 – Gross floor areas, building heights and FSRs for final land use scenarios

 

Three variations of Option 3b have been considered; the first is a five storey scenario with 73 residential units; the second is a 7 storey scenario with 109 residential units and the third is 7 storeys with 125 residential units. The latter two variations consider an additional contingency of between 5-10%

 

Provided below is the financial outcomes of the three scenarios tested. The objective of undertaking this analysis is to provide Council with an understanding of the viability of these options to a developer – with any shortfall requiring top up contribution from Council.

 

Figure 8 – Summary of results of preliminary feasibility assessment – final land use scenarios (version 3)

 

Staff commentary and recommendations

 

Council is required to consider a broad range of factors, not just financial, in order to determine a preferred option, including importantly community consultation. As this master planning process is still in its early stages it is considered too early to determine a preferred option. It is therefore recommended that Council proceed to a community consultation stage with the three land use scenarios. The benefit of this approach is that it would allow the community to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each option; some of these are described below:

Option 1 - Version 3 – Residential / community / park / speciality retail / 3 storeys

Advantages

·        Limits building heights to 3 storeys which is likely to be supported by the community;

·        No requirement for rezoning / planning proposal as it complies with existing height and FSR controls on the site in the local centres KLEP 2012; and

·        Would likely present the least impact on surrounding residents in terms of traffic.

Disadvantages

·        represents a very significant financial loss to Council ($17-18 million) which would need to be supplemented by funds from other sources such as asset divestment;

·        includes residential uses which may not be supported by the community;

·        does not take advantage of the proximity to the rail station by optimising residential or retail uses;

·        will not encourage a significant revitalisation of western side of Lindfield due to lack of retail;

·        would not provide full replacement of Council’s existing short stay car spaces;

·        would not fund a pedestrian bridge over Pacific Highway; and

·        would not fund the funding shortfall for proposed new community facilities.

Option 3b - Version 3 (tipping point 5% contingency) – Supermarket / community / speciality retail / residential / new park / 7 storeys

Advantages

·        no financial loss to Council;

·        provides Council with two new community facilities;

·        would fund replacement of Council’s existing short stay car spaces;

·        would fund a pedestrian bridge over Pacific Highway;

·        optimises location in terms of residential and retail uses;

·        includes a supermarket which may be supported by the community;

·        potential for another significant retail anchor which is a desirable planning outcome in a centre with an undersupply of supermarket floor space; and

·        potential for increased exposure to Council facilities by way of passing trade visiting a supermarket;

·        TFNSW support for a supermarket associated with commuter parking as this allows commuters to park and shop in on location.

Disadvantages

·        Increases building heights to 7 storeys which may be unpopular with the community and would a require rezoning process;

·        increases density (FSR) on the site which would a require rezoning process;

·        potential for impact on surrounding residents as a result of building height;

·        potential for higher traffic impacts on local streets as a result of supermarket.

Option 4 - Version 3 – residential / community / 5 storeys

Advantages

·        provides Council with two new community facilities;

·        provides a small financial return to Council;

·        would fund replacement of Council’s existing short stay car spaces

·        would fund a pedestrian bridge over Pacific Highway;

·        moderate visual impact on surrounding residents; and

·        low traffic impacts on local streets (no major retail use).

Disadvantages

·        Building heights up to 5 storeys may be unpopular with the community;

·        predominantly residential uses may be unpopular with the community;

·        requires a rezoning / planning proposal to provide additional height and FSR on the site;

·        may not encourage a significant revitalisation of the area due to lack of retail; and

·        does not take advantage of the site location.

 

These options will provide the community the opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of each option. For example option 1 may maintain low building heights but would require a significant sale of land or other assets to make the project viable; comparing this to option 3b which may be feasible but has greater building heights and a new supermarket which may have traffic impacts on local streets; and option 4 which would allow 5 storey buildings and may result in a net financial gain but may not meet the objective of activating Lindfield.

Next Steps

 

The following indicative programme is proposed for the master plan process.

 

Task Name

Date

OMC - Report to Council - approval of land use scenarios

9 Sept 2014

Advertise tender – design consultant services

Sept-Oct 2014

Assess tender

Oct-Nov 2014

Report to Council

09 Dec 2014

Consultant – Preparation of 3 concept plans

Jan-Feb 2015

Exhibition and community workshops

February 2015

Consultant - Economic Feasibility Assessment - Stage 2

March 2015

Consultant - traffic assessment - final

March 2015

Consultant – community assessment - final

March 2015

OMC - Report to Council - preferred concept plan for exhibition / commence planning proposal

April 2015

Consultant – Preparation of draft illustrative master plan

Apr-May 2015

Public Exhibition and information sessions - draft master plan

June 2015

Council - assessment of public submissions

July 2015

OMC - Report to Council – final master plan

August 2015

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Theme - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure - P4 Revitalisation of our centres

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program Term Achievement

Operational Plan Task

A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place.

Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

Implement a place management approach for the local centre improvements to coordinate works and achieve quality outcomes.

 

An improvement plan for Lindfield centre is being progressively implemented in collaboration with owners, businesses and state agencies.

Engage with relevant stakeholders to establish timing, extent and partnership opportunities.

Undertake due diligence and undertake project scope.

Identify and engage with the key stakeholders.

 

Theme - Community People Culture - C4 Healthy lifestyles

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program Term Achievement

Operational Plan Task

A healthy, safe, and diverse community that respects our history, and celebrates our differences in a vibrant culture of learning.

New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.

 

Complete the design for identified parks and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.

Construct Parks at identified locations and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.

 

Governance Matters

 

A Project Working Group has been established for the Lindfield Community Hub which includes representatives from Transport for NSW. The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) have been engaged through the Lindfield traffic study.

 

A probity consultant has been engaged and is currently preparing a probity plan for the project.

 

Senior Council staff have visited and met with the General Manager and Director of Planning from North Sydney Council to discuss and learn from their experiences in managing similar projects.

 

Risk Management

 

This project is in the early planning stages and a full risk management plan is yet to be prepared; the key risks identified at this stage are:

 

·        Council does not progress the project as quickly as is practicable to meet community expectations;

·        Council does not progress the project as quickly as is practicable and TFNSW decide not to withdraw funding for a commuter car park; and

·        The Woolworths proposal gains community support without discussion of alternatives and impacts.

 

The greatest risk at this stage in the project is to Council’s reputation. There is significant interest in the project from ‘Support Lindfield’ a community group with a large membership and an active voice in the community around the project. Support Lindfield are keen to see the project proceed as quickly as possible. To mitigate the risk of loss of reputation it is recommended that Council proceed to the next stage of the project as recommended in this report and that Council adopt the proposed project programme/timeline.

 

With TFNSW as a significant partner in the project there is a risk that funding for commuter car parking is lost should the project timeframe be significantly extended for the Community Hub project. The provision of commuter parking is strongly supported by the community and the loss of it represents a reputational risk. To mitigate this risk, Council has written both to the Minister for Transport and the Premier to ensure that the funding is available and remains available for the duration of the project (Attachment A4). A response from the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian was received on 19 November 2013 and 28 November 2013; the letters are attached to this report as Attachment A5 & A6. In the letter the Minister confirms that

 

“Council may be assured that the NSW Government will honour its $34 million commitment to this project. However, I do wish to stress the importance to our customers of having these additional parking spaces delivered sooner rather than later”.

 

In the second letter the Minister states:

 

“…the approximate cost of the Lindfield commuter car park project is now estimated at $12 million, and therefore the NSW Government commits that amount of money to this project.”

 

A follow-up meeting was held on 27 February 2014 with the General Manager, Land Use and Integrated Transport Planning and Programs, from Transport for NSW who confirmed that there was some flexibility in the proposed funding for commuter parking.

 

In the same meeting TFNSW also confirmed they will consider Council’s proposal for providing some of the commuter parking on the Tryon Road site on the eastern side of the rail line. A copy of the email is attached Attachment A7.

 

Woolworths is actively engaging with the local community and promoting their proposal for Council’s land which involves:

 

·        a community centre of 1284sqm;

·        a library of 892sqm (approximately 370sqm smaller than Council’s requirements);

·        scout hall of 176sqm;

·        over 8,000sqm of retail including a supermarket of 4,000sqm; and

·        675 public car parking spaces.

 

The risk to Council is that the community have seen only one possibility at this stage and to manage this risk it is important that Council independently prepare development options for the site that are realistic alternatives to the Woolworth’s proposal and offer the community an opportunity to consider the costs and benefits of all options. It is therefore recommended that Council proceed to the next stage of the project as set out in this report.

 

Financial Considerations

 

As the project is still in the early planning and development stage the financial considerations relate to the funding of background studies and master planning. At the OMC 28 May 2013 Council allocated funds of $250,000 to the project for the year 2013-2014. To date most of these funds have been used to prepare a traffic study, an economic feasibility study, a community facilities study as well as staff time.

 

The next stage of work will involve a tender process to select a consultant team lead by an architect to prepare master plan options based on the land use scenarios described in this report. Additional funds are required to progress to the next stage and it is recommended that $250,000 are allocated to the project for the year 2014-2015 from the S94 reserve – pre-1993 and 1993 Plan - car parking.

 

In terms of the full project it is intended that it be financially feasible; assumptions at this stage are as follows:

 

·        the construction of the public parkland and town square will be fully funded by development contributions;

·        the cost of construction of an underground car park to accommodate up to 240 commuter car spaces will be funded by TFNSW;

·        relocation of Council’s existing short stay car spaces (up to 72 in total) to a new basement parking will be partly funded by development contributions and partly project funded;

·        the new community facilities will be partially (33%) funded by development contributions and partly project funded; and

·        uses such as residential, retail and/or commercial will be included in the master plan to provide additional funds to cover part or all shortfalls related to community infrastructure;

·        where this does not satisfy community expectations other funding sources, such as asset divestment, will be identified as an alternative; and

·        funding of a pedestrian bridge over the Pacific Highway, if found to be required, is unfunded and will need to be project funded or funded by other sources, such as asset divestment.

 

Social Considerations

 

Currently the site is utilised for car parking by shoppers, commuters and local business owners, beyond this function the sites provide very little social benefit to the community. The site has the potential to provide new community infrastructure that will provide high levels of social benefit to the community.

 

A Lindfield community facilities strategy undertaken on behalf of Council by Elton Consulting P/L in 2014 prepared an audit of the existing community facilities in Lindfield. The study found that both of Council’s facilities require replacement. An extract of the findings, from page 31, is below in Figure 9.

 

Discussions with Council’s library staff identified a number of gaps that prevent the library from delivering modern services to meet the needs of the community including:

 

·        inadequate space for all activities and collections;

·        a shortage of shelving;

·        lack of study and reading spaces;

·        an inadequate children's area and lack of separation of this area;

·        inadequate space for events; and

·        a lack of contemporary technology inclusions.

 

Council’s Library and Cultural Services Manager also identified a lack of adequate parking as well as issues relating to access, with vehicular access to the library from the Pacific Highway viewed as unsafe, particularly by older people.

 

Figure 9 – Extract Lindfield Community Facilities Study, Elton Consulting, 2014

 

The Lindfield Community Facilities Study, 2014 recommends a new community hub be located on the western side of Lindfield combining a branch library and community centre with a total area of over 2,455 square metres. This proposal was adopted by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 December 2013.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

The development of the Lindfield Community Hub may lead to impacts on a stand of trees (5 x Eucalyptus paniculata, 1 x Eucalyptus punctata). The Local Centres LEP 2012 Natural Resources Biodiversity Map shows the stand of trees as having biodiversity significance (refer Figure 10). The trees are mapped on Council’s GIS as Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF). The mapping and vegetation conformity has been verified by staff inspections.

 

Whilst the trees in question do not conform to EPBC- STIF condition criteria they nevertheless require threatened species assessment of significance under TSC Act, EPA Act (Part 4, 5) and consideration under EPBC with reference to the condition criteria for exemption. Council may explore options for recognising the environmental attributes of the trees and look at appropriate offsets, or as a second alternative Council may consider one development option that will protect the stand of trees within the proposed parkland.

 

Figure 10 – Areas of biodiversity significance – Woodford Lane site

 

Community Consultation

 

Council will need to be seen to have a high standard of consultation with the community; in conjunction with a well-executed communications strategy demonstrating Council’s pursuit of the best community outcomes. An engagement strategy has been prepared and is discussed in detail below.

 

Work undertaken to date by Council includes:

 

·        workshops and interviews associated with the Lindfield Community Facilities Strategy;

·        workshops and meetings with key stakeholders – TFNSW and RMS;

·        attendance and presentation at a Support Lindfield Forum April 2014;

·        a new website for ‘Activate Lindfield’; and

·        telephone calls and emails addressing enquiries.

 

Consultation is planned as part of the next stage of the process. An engagement strategy has been prepared by council’s community engagement and research planner and is outlined below.

 

Engagement strategy – Activate Lindfield

 

Ku-ring-gai Council will undertake extensive and multi-modal consultation to ensure all community stakeholders are informed, engaged and collaborate on Activate Lindfield.

 

The Woodford Lane site represents a distinct opportunity for our community; it will have its own unique functions, uses and aesthetics. To ensure we comprehensively examine the site, we propose a strategy to engage the site separately from the Tryon Road site.

 

The objectives of our engagement strategy are to:

 

·        increase community awareness of Activate Lindfield and the benefits the project will bring to the local and broader community;

·        tap into local knowledge and expertise on Lindfield including local businesses, residents and community groups;

·        deliver creative and engaging opportunities for stakeholders to collaborate with Council in designing, delivering and managing the Activate Lindfield sites;

·        determine community priorities for Activate Lindfield including the negotiable and non-negotiable for each site; and

·        meet TFNSW and Council requirements in delivering Activate Lindfield, including commuter car parking, new parks and civic spaces and community facilities.

 

The community engagement process will be divided into a series of phases:

 

1.       Multi-channel communications to inform stakeholders on the Activate Lindfield project and possible options for the site. Activities will include:

 

·        local newspapers;

·        letterbox drop;

·        website – Council and Have Your Say Ku-ring-gai; and

·        Email newsletters;

·        community networks – organisations, associations, staff networks;

·        rates notice; and

·        social media campaign.

 

2.       Online discussion forum – open to all community stakeholders prior to formal consultation

 

3.       Concept design workshops and place performance evaluations:

 

·        deliberative workshops to examine options for Woodford Lane site;

·        education workshop on site – review options; presentation from technical experts (including TFNSW);

·        deliberative forum to examine options and opportunity for the site;

·        final option review and agreements; and

·        examination of most preferred option.

 

4.       Place making and partnership forums to set the way forward for Lindfield

 

Internal Consultation

 

Extensive internal consultation has occurred as part of the Lindfield Community Facilities Study including staff from Operations, Community, Strategy and Environment, Corporate and Development and Regulation.

 

Summary

 

Council has resolved to undertake a master planning process for the Woodford Lane Site in Lindfield. On the site it is proposed to place the existing car parking underground and construct a new “community hub”.

 

To date Council has engaged consultants to provide background studies:

 

·        Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study;

·        Lindfield Community Hub - Preliminary Feasibility Assessment (stage 1 complete); and

·        Lindfield Community Facilities Study (complete).

 

This report provides an update on the results to date of the economic feasibility study and makes a range of recommendations for moving forward on each project. This report recommends the following:

 

·        That council prepare three illustrative options for Lindfield Community Hub for public comment being:

 

-     Option A (the same as option 1 version 3) – residential / community / specialty retail / park / 3 storey height limit;

-     Option B (the same as option 3b version 3, 5% contingency) – supermarket / community / specialty retail / residential / park / 7 storey height limit; and

-     Option C (the same as option 4 version 3) – residential / community / park / 5 storey height limit.

The next steps in the process are:

 

·        prepare a design services consultant brief and advertise a Request for Tender (RFT) and select consultant by December 2014;

·        selected consultant team will prepare three draft illustrative concepts during January – February 2014;

·        community consultation on the options will take place in February 2015, guided and facilitated by Council;

·        consultation will be conducted on the three illustrative master plans focusing on the costs and benefits of each option to inform a preferred community outcome;

·        in April 2015 a report to Council will be prepared recommending a preferred option to form the basis of further planning and detailed development of the project; and

·        the preferred master plan for the Lindfield Community Hub to be placed on public exhibition by June 2015.

 

The master plan will inform the principles and criteria upon which Council may undertake an Expression of Interest (EOI) process seeking private sector interest in the delivery of the project including the funding of new community infrastructure. The master plan would also form the basis of a Capital Expenditure Review and Department of Local Government submission.

 

Additional funds are required to progress to the next stage and it is recommended that $250,000 are allocated to the project for the year 2014-2015 from the S94 reserve – pre-1993 and 1993 Plan - car parking.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council:

 

A.       Adopts the following land use scenarios as the basis for preparing illustrative concept plans for community consultation and further technical assessment:

 

·        Option A (the same as option 1 version 3) - Community facilities with secondary/specialty retail and residential; a new park; and three storey height limit.

·        Option B (the same as option 3b version 3 & 5% contingency) - Community facilities with major retail/secondary/specialty retail as well as residential; a new park; and seven storey height limit.

·        Option C (the same as option 4 version 3) - Community facilities with residential only; a new park; and five storey height limit.

 

B.       Adopts the preliminary project programme as follows:

 

·        Advertise tender for design services and assess tender, Sept-Nov 2014

·        Report to Council preferred tender, Dec 2014

·        Preparation of 3 concept options, Jan-Feb 2015

·        Exhibition and community workshops, February 2015

·        Assessment of options, March 2015

·        Report to Council - preferred concept plan for exhibition, April 2015

·        Consultant – preparation of draft illustrative master plan, Apr-May 2015

·        Public Exhibition and information sessions, June 2015

·        Assessment of public submissions, July 2015

·        Report to Council – final master plan and planning proposal, August 2015

 

C.      That pursuant to sections 186(1) and 187(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council compulsorily acquires the portion of Drovers Way north of Beaconsfield Parade for the purpose of creating the Lindfield Community Hub in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.\

 

D.      That for the purposes of section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the Council, as the owner of the road, agrees to the road being acquired for compensation in the amount of $1.00.

 

E.      That Council delegate to the General Manager or his delegate the power to do anything further as necessary to give effect to the compulsory acquisition including obtaining any necessary approvals and publishing any necessary notices in the Gazette.

 

G.      That $250,000 be allocated to the project for the year 2014-2015 from the S94 reserve – pre-1993 and 1993 Plan - car parking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

 

 

 

 

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

 

 

 

 

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

 

 

 

Attachments:

A1View

Lindfield Community Hub - Pedestrian Overbridge Feasibility Study - final report

 

2014/202614

 

A2

Lindfield Feasibility Study - stage 1 report - FINAL

 

Confidential

 

A3

Lindfield Community Hub - Updated Scenarios - economic feasibility - Addendum - FINAL

 

Confidential

 

A4View

Letters to Minister for Transport and Premier regarding proposed commuter car park at Lindfield

 

2013/302259

 

A5View

Response from the Minister regarding the proposed commuter car park at Lindfield

 

2013/302784

 

A6View

Advise - NSW Government commits 12 million to car park project - Commuter car park at Lindfield

 

2013/310141

 

A7View

Lindfield Community Hub - TFNSW - possible commuter car park on Tryon Road site

 

2014/203173

  


APPENDIX No: 1 - Lindfield Community Hub - Pedestrian Overbridge Feasibility Study - final report

 

Item No: GB.4

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


APPENDIX No: 4 - Letters to Minister for Transport and Premier regarding proposed commuter car park at Lindfield

 

Item No: GB.4

 


 


APPENDIX No: 5 - Response from the Minister regarding the proposed commuter car park at Lindfield

 

Item No: GB.4

 


APPENDIX No: 6 - Advise - NSW Government commits 12 million to car park project - Commuter car park at Lindfield

 

Item No: GB.4

 


APPENDIX No: 7 - Lindfield Community Hub - TFNSW - possible commuter car park on Tryon Road site

 

Item No: GB.4

 


 


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.5 / 703

 

 

Item GB.5

S09529

 

7 March 2014

 

 

Lindfield Village Green - Confirmation of Preliminary Scope of Works, Project Budget and Program

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of Lindfield Village Green project including recommending a preliminary project construction budget, an updated project program and clarification of scope of works.

 

 

background:

A total of six reports have come to Council since December 2011 regarding this project; key resolutions of Council include the following:

 

·        adoption of an open space acquisition strategy for Lindfield which includes the Lindfield Village Green;

·        in-principle support for the project to proceed;

·        allocation of seed funding to commence the project planning stage;

·        allocation of proceeds from the sale of no. 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield to the project budget;

·        commencement of a concept plan and community consultation; and

·        approval to commence compulsory acquisition of the unnamed lane forming part of the site.

 

 

comments:

Many aspects of the project have already been reported to Council and have Council approval, key outstanding aspects are:

 

·        basement car park construction funding;

·        project scope and program; and

·        project budget.

 

 

recommendation:

That Council adopts the preliminary project budget, project program and scope of works as the basis for moving forward with the project.

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of Lindfield Village Green project including recommending a preliminary project construction budget, an updated project program and clarification of scope of works.

 

Background

 

A total of six reports have come to Council since 2011 regarding this project; the reports are summarised below.

 

a)     Ordinary Meeting of Council 13 December 2011 - Confidential item C.1 – Open Space Acquisition - Lindfield

 

The purpose of this report was to review open space acquisition in Lindfield and recommend an acquisition program which is consistent with the funds available from the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 and with the acquisition criteria within the Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy 2007. Council resolved as follows:

 

“That Council proceeds in the manner outlined in the report.”

 

The open space acquisition strategy for Lindfield includes the Lindfield Village Green; planning for the project has proceeded on this basis.

 

b)     Ordinary Meeting of Council 9 April 2013 - GB.6 - Lindfield Village Green - Stage 1 - Project Commencement

 

The purpose of this report was to seek Council’s commitment to commencing the first stage of the Lindfield Village Green project; Council resolved as follows:

 

“A.     That Council confirm their in principle support for the proposed location of the new Lindfield Village Green.

 

B.     That $100,000 from development contributions (local parks) is allocated as seed funding to undertake stage 1 of the project for the year 2012-2013.

 

C.     That Council advertise an Expression of Interest seeking potential joint venture partners for the project.

 

D.     That a report be brought back to Council on the results of the EOI with recommendations for funding of the project.

 

E.     That a consultant be engaged to prepare Community Consultation Strategy for Council’s approval.”

 

These resolutions have all been actioned and completed. Studies recently completed include preparation of a land survey, geotechnical investigations and a contamination assessment.

 

 

c)     Ordinary Meeting of Council 9 April 2013 - GB.5 - Reclassification of Council Land – 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield - Report following Exhibition and Public Hearing

 

This report provided a summary of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, and the outcome of the Public Hearing for the proposed reclassification of 9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield. Specifically in regard the Lindfield Village Green Council resolved:

 

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

 

This resolution has been actioned.

 

d)     Ordinary Meeting of Council 13 August 2013 - GB.6 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

 

The purpose of this report was to provide Council with an overview of key activities and highlights in the development contributions system over the past six months and anticipated highlights for the coming twelve months. The report provided an update on the Lindfield Village Green EOI; in this regard Council resolved:

 

“B.    That Council does not progress the Lindfield Village Green EOI process due to the non-compliant nature of the submissions and that those persons who made submissions are notified of Council’s decision.”

 

This resolution has been completed. The implication of not proceeding with the EOI is that Council will fully fund the project; this will be further discussed later in this report.

 

e)     Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 December 2013 - GB.19 - Lindfield Village Green - Tryon Road - Project Update

 

This report provided an update to Council on the progress of the master planning for Lindfield Village Green and outlines the next steps for the project. Council resolved:

 

“A.    That the proposed Lindfield branch library and the proposed Lindfield Community Centre are to be co-located on the Woodford Lane site.

 

B.    That Council continues to actively investigate the potential to provide some of the commuter car parking proposed by Transport for NSW under the proposed Lindfield Village Green.

 

C.    That Council prepares an illustrative concept design for the Lindfield Village Green and proceed to public engagement and, following this, the draft concept is to be reported to Council for their endorsement prior to public exhibition.

 

D.    That pursuant to sections 186(1) and 187(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council compulsorily acquire the unnamed public road shaded in grey and marked as ‘Proposed partial road closure’ in Figure 2 of the report to the Council dated 10 December 2013 for the purpose of creating the Lindfield Village Green in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

E.     That for the purposes of section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, the Council, as the owner of the road, agree to the road being acquired for compensation in the amount of $1.00.

 

F.     That Council delegate to the General Manager or his delegate the power to do anything further as necessary to give effect to the compulsory acquisition including obtaining any necessary approvals and publishing any necessary notices in the Gazette.”

 

These resolutions are currently being actioned. This report provides more detail in relation to resolutions A and D.

 

f)     Ordinary Meeting of Council 4 February 2014 - GB.11 - Update Report on the Development Contributions System

 

The purpose of this report was to provide Council with an overview of key activities and highlights in the development contributions system over the past six months and anticipated highlights for the coming twelve months. With regard the Lindfield Village Green matters reiterated include community facilities planning, road closures, the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane and next steps. Council resolved:

 

“…That the latest update report on the development contributions system in Ku-ring-gai be received and noted.”

 

This resolution is noted.

 

 

Project Status

 

In summary Council has resolved the following in relation to the Lindfield Village Green project:

 

·        an open space acquisition strategy for Lindfield which includes the Lindfield Village Green;

·        in-principle support for the project to proceed;

·        allocation of seed funding to commence the project;

·        allocation of proceeds from the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane Lindfield, to be held as a restricted asset to contribute to the project budget;

·        to locate the Lindfield branch library on the western side of Lindfield;

·        to prepare a concept plan and undertake community consultation;

·        to undertake compulsory acquisition of the unnamed lane that forms part of the site; and

·        to investigate the potential for commuter car parking on the site in consultation with TfNSW.

 

 

 

 

Comments

 

Many aspects of the project, as noted above, have already been reported to Council and have Council approval, key outstanding aspects are:

 

·        Basement car park construction funding – the key factor influencing this is the number of car spaces to be provided on the site.

·        Project scope – two aspects require further resolution which will in part affect the project budget.

·        Project program – particularly in relation to construction timing, Council elections and other developments on adjoining sites.

·        Project budget – the Tender will require a project construction budget to allow consultants to quote on the various stages of work involved. Council has engaged a quantity surveyor to provide a preliminary cost report to confirm the project budget.

 

Basement car park construction funding

 

Council intends to utilise development contributions funds (Local Parks & Sporting Facilities - South) collected under the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 (KCP) to fund the construction works associated with the new underground car park. The use of development contribution funds in this project differs to other situations, such as the new Greengate Park in Bruce Avenue, Killara. In the latter case Council purchased private properties, demolished the houses and built a new park. In the case of the Lindfield Village Green it is proposed to utilise contribution funds to pay for the cost of constructing an underground car park on the site; this will allow relocation of the existing surface parking to below ground, thereby creating a free site to build a new park on top of the new underground car park.

 

The KCP on page 116 specifically foreshadows this option in part 3.11 Innovative avenues for the provision of new local parks where it is stated:

 

“In an established area such as Ku-ring-gai, there may be circumstances where the purchase of land currently occupied by existing development may not the most cost effective means of providing all new parks and civic spaces. Preliminary investigations in respect of the Lord Street car park in Roseville indicated that the indicative cost of undergrounding the existing car park and establishing a new park on top ….was likely to be less than the estimated cost of acquiring the equivalent amount of land in Roseville with the associated demolition and embellishment costs….

 

Accordingly, where, upon further detailed investigation, it is conclusively established that an innovative solution can be identified that will result in a quality park that meets nexus requirements, being delivered in a more cost-effective way than the acquisition and embellishment of land, then this Contributions Plan specifically permits the allocation of contributions levied for the provision of new parks to facilitate such a park to be provided in the manner indicated.

 

….. achievement of a better located park is considered to be the prime criterion in the establishment of nexus…”

 

Legal advice has confirmed the legitimacy of this approach; Lindsay Taylor Lawyers have confirmed that Council can expend funds on the construction of the Works (being an underground car park and new civic square) providing they were collected for local parks and sporting facilities – south. The advice also notes that if this approach is adopted then the requisite investigations must be carried out to confirm that the approach is more cost-effective than land acquisition. A copy of the legal advice is provided in Confidential Attachment A1.

 

In order for Council to justify the use of development contributions funds (Local Parks & Sporting Facilities - South) it must be confirmed that the Lindfield Village Green project is cost-effective; there are five key considerations in this regard:

 

·        the estimated cost of constructing a basement car park;

·        the number of car spaces to be provided on the site;

·        the potential area of parkland to be provided;

·        the cost of land acquisition in the context of Lindfield local centre (as an alternative to the proposed project); and

·        the qualitative aspects of the proposed site versus other similar sites within close proximity.

 

a)      Estimated cost of basement car park construction

 

Council has engaged three quantity surveyors to independently prepare cost estimates for the project; the estimates are based on a sketch plan prepared by Council’s traffic consultants for the basement car park; the plan shows that up to 80 spaces can be achieved in one level of parking; and 181 spaces over a two level car park.

 

 

Figure 1 – preliminary sketch basement car park level B1

 

Figure 2 – preliminary sketch basement car park level B2

 

Wilde and Woollard P/L. have estimated the total cost of a single level of basement car parking (with up to 80 spaces) to be in the order of $8,245,000.00 or $103,000 per space; and for a two level car park (with up to 180 spaces) the cost estimate is $13,954,000 or $77,000 per space. These costs exclude contingency allowances; professional fees; fees and charges; and staff time. The full estimate is in Confidential Attachment A2.

 

Muller Partnership P/L. have estimated the total cost of a single level of basement car parking (with up to 80 spaces) to be in the order of $2,489,000.00 or $31,000 per space; and for a two level car park the cost estimate is $3,782,000 or $21,000 per space.  These costs exclude contingency allowances; professional fees; fees and charges; and staff time. The full estimate is in Confidential Attachment A3.

 

Altus Page Kirkland have estimated the total cost of a single level of basement car parking (with up to 80 spaces) to be in the order of 7,110,726.00 or $88,800 per space; and for a two level car park (with up to 180 spaces) the cost estimate is 10,806,772.00 or $60,000 per space.  These costs exclude contingency allowances; professional fees; fees and charges; and staff time. The full estimate is in Confidential Attachment A4.

 

There is wide variation in costs at this early stage and this can be partly attributed to the level of documentation available to the quantity surveyors to estimate costs.  It is considered prudent to adopt the highest cost estimate for the next stage, as it is broadly within the order of costs anticipated and is broadly within the available budget. Following completion of the concept plan the budget can be revised if necessary.

 

b)      Number of car spaces to be provided on the site by Council

 

Council’s strategic traffic planner has undertaken an analysis of the future parking demand for the precinct, based on the Town Centres Parking Management Plan 2010, and has found that in the future Council will be required to provide a minimum 100 public short stay spaces; this represents a reduction of 38 spaces when compared to the current provision. The basis of this calculation is shown in Figures 3 and 4 below.

 

It is important to note the results set out below represent a future scenario when there will be an additional 117 new public car spaces in the precinct (55 spaces within the proposed development at 23-37 Lindfield Avenue and 62 new public car spaces within the proposed development at 43-51 Lindfield Avenue). These additional spaces will allow Council to reduce its current parking provision. The discussion below will consider what a reasonable reduction could be.

Figure 3 – Lindfield Local Centre – Eastern Precincts - Parking Management Strategy - parking calculations

 

Figure 3 shows the total future short stay parking supply for the precinct will be between 370 & 373 spaces including public parking on private land, Tryon Road car park and on-street parking on surrounding streets.

 

The calculated total future theoretical short stay parking demand will be between 228 & 249 car spaces on Thursday evening and Saturday morning – which are the busiest times in the area. This number has been quantified by calculating existing and future floor space in the precinct and applying Council’s DCP parking requirements. As a cross-check the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) guide suggests that 251 parking spaces would be adequate for the theoretical parking demand based on the commercial floor space in the area.

 

The bottom line of Figure 3 shows that in the future, once the proposed new developments have occurred on Lindfield Avenue there will be an over-supply of between 121 & 145 spaces on Thursday evenings and Saturday mornings. This result suggests that there is potential to reduce the number of spaces on Council’s land.

 

Figure 4 shows that if the number of car spaces in the Tryon Road car park were to be reduced by 38 spaces to a total of 100 spaces (shown highlighted in yellow) there would be a total of between 332 and 335 short-stay spaces available on Thursday evenings and Saturday mornings; with a theoretical demand for short-stay parking of between 228 & 249 the total additional capacity would be between 83 and 107 spaces when compared to demand.

 

Figure 4 – Lindfield Local Centre – Eastern Precincts - Parking Management Strategy – revised parking calculations

Based on the previous discussion this would require Council to provide up to 80 spaces in a basement car park and an additional 20 spaces on-grade within the site.

 

Note: Table 4 does not take account of the additional 100 spaces that might be provided by Transport for NSW as a second basement level of parking which would be in part available on Thursday evenings and weekends.

 

c)      Potential area of park land

 

The area of land that could be made available for a new park on the subject site is about 2,700 m2 this is shown indicatively on Figure 5.

 

Figure 5: Approximate location and size of proposed park

 

As discussed above the cost of constructing a basement car park with an 80 car capacity below the park would be in the order of $8,245,000.00 or $103,000.00 per space as per the estimate prepared by Wilde and Woollard; this equates to the equivalent of acquiring the subject site as a 2,700m2 park at a value of $3,053.00 per m2. Taking into account contingencies, professional fees and other allowances the actual cost of the car park structure is likely to be about 30% higher than the $8.2 million quoted suggesting that the actual acquisition/construction cost will be closer to $4,000 per m2.

 

d)      Estimated cost of land acquisition versus cost of underground car park construction

 

The next question to determine is what amount is acceptable for Council to spend before it becomes cheaper or more cost effective for Council to acquire land for a park or town square in a nearby location to the subject site?

 

The first matter to consider is whether there are in fact alternative locations on the eastern side of Lindfield. The reality is that given the amount of apartment building developments in the locality over the last 10 years there is very limited land available that is located within close proximity to the rail station and would meet Council’s acquisition criteria (as per the Open Space Acquisition Strategy, 2006).

 

Those lands that are available have been assessed and reported to Council. Council has thoroughly assessed and analysed over twenty different location options for a new park location on the eastern side of Lindfield; the most comprehensive of these is a report to the Extraordinary Meeting of Council on 15 July 2008. Based on these assessments it is considered that the proposed location of the Village Green is superior to all other locations in qualitative terms because:

 

·        it meets community expectations;

·        it meets the relevant planning criteria as identified in the OSAS;

·        the site is owned by Council and can be delivered relatively quickly;

·        there is no delay to the project caused by owner-initiated acquisition or possible compulsory acquisition timeframes; and

·        the land is flat and centrally located - which is a rare commodity in Lindfield;

 

A detailed analysis has been undertaken of land values in the Lindfield area in Confidential Attachment A5. Comparing the cost of providing an underground car park with the data in Confidential Attachment A5 it can be shown that the use of $9,450,000 (or $3,500 per m2 for a 2,700 mpark) for construction of the car park can reasonably be justified before it becomes more cost-effective to consider an alternative location. This will leave Council with a shortfall in funding for the car park which will be discussed in the Finance section of this report.

 

Summary

 

It is recommended that Council allocate $9,450,000.00 from S94- Local Parks and Sporting Facilities – South for the construction of a single level underground car park; the preceding discussion has established that this funding strategy will meet the requirements of the Contribution Plan by establishing that the proposal will “…result in a quality park that meets nexus requirements, being delivered in a more cost-effective way than the acquisition and embellishment of land…”

 

Council’s CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM & OPERATIONAL PROJECTS 2015/2016 identifies a total of $7,542,400.00 for the acquisition of land in the southern part of the LGA. Funds totalling $1,907,600.00 will need to be brought forward from S94- Local Parks and Sporting Facilities – South to meet the budget requirement; this is discussed further in the financial considerations section of this report.

 

PROJECT SCOPE

 

In previous reports the scope of the project has been described in some detail; the discussion above has clarified the number of car parks to be provided on the site. The scope of the project therefore is:

 

·        provision for up to 100 Council owned car spaces on the site;

·        construction of a new single level basement public car park;

·        construction of a new park / civic space with a minimum size of 2,700sqm;

·        streetscape works to adjoining streets and lanes (extent and detail defined in Contributions Plan - Work Programs); and

·        road and transport works to adjoining streets and lanes (extent and detail defined by Contributions Plan - Work Programs).

 

There are three additional components that need further discussion:

 

·        commuter parking;

·        public amenities building; and

·        temporary parking during construction

 

Public amenities building

 

As per Council’s resolution of 12 December 2013 the Lindfield Branch Library is proposed to be located on the western side of Lindfield; given the library is no longer proposed for this site it will be necessary to provide some form of public amenities on the site such as toilets and change rooms etc. In addition the lift from the basement car park will need to be housed in a structure. Given these considerations there may be some benefits to Council, including financial, if the Village Green were to accommodate a single storey pavilion structure that could integrate public amenities, the lift from the basement car park as well as an undercover public seating area. The structure may also provide a small leasable commercial space for a café.

 

It is proposed to further develop this idea as part of the concept design stage of the project.

 

Commuter parking

 

Council has resolved to continue to actively investigate the potential to provide some of the commuter car parking proposed by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) under the proposed Lindfield Village Green. Recent discussions with representatives from TfNSW indicate that the State Government is willing to consider this option only if there is a strong rationale for doing so; a clear benefit to future users and is cost effective. At the Lindfield Village Green Project Working Group meeting on 29 April 2014 it was agreed that Council would engage a quantity surveyor to prepare a cost estimate for the construction of a two level basement car park including a second level of parking for commuters.

 

This work has been completed and the results reported above, the next step will be to issue the completed cost estimate to TfNSW for an official response from the Minister as to whether TfNSW wish to be a partner in the project. The intention is to bring another report to Council once an official response from Minister TfNSW has been received.

 

It is not anticipated that this additional work will delay the concept design process.

 

Temporary parking during construction

 

A critical consideration for this project is the provision of public parking during construction of the new car park. The best case scenario would see one of the adjoining sites on Lindfield Avenue redeveloped in the period prior to Council commencing construction. The proposed developments at 23-37 Lindfield Avenue and 62 and 43-51 Lindfield Avenue will provide up to 117 new public car spaces in the precinct. Unfortunately the timing of these works is outside Council’s control.

 

Council’s Town Centres Parking Management Plan provides some strategies on p-116 proposing 55 new 2 hour spaces during the construction period on Havilah Road, Milray Street and Tryon Road to replace commuter car parking.

 

Other strategies that Council may consider to make up the shortfall of parking during construction are:

 

·        utilisation of the Council owned land at 265-271 Pacific Highway (Lindfield library / seniors centre site) for temporary parking; and/or

·        negotiations with the owners of 12-18 Tryon Road (adjoining building) to allow temporary use of the basement car park area for public parking; and/or

·        utilisation of a nearby development site for temporary parking (if available).

 

PROJECT PROGRAM

 

The project will be implemented in three broad stages:

 

Stage 1 – Preliminary concept design

 

·        request for Tender (RFT) for design consultants;

·        a short list of up to three (3) multi-disciplinary teams will be invited to prepare concept plans for public exhibition;

·        each consultant team will be payed a fixed fee;

·        concept plans will be assessed by Council and Council’s consultants based on set criteria;

·        the preferred concept plan will be reported to a meeting of full Council for approval / adoption; and

·        finalisation of the concept plan and associated documentation to meet Council resolutions as required.

 

Stage 2 – Architectural commission

 

·        Second RFT for design services including:

 

-        design development and development application (DA) documentation; and

-        construction documentation.

 

Stage 3 – Tender for construction and construction

 

-        construction services; and

-        post-construction services.

 

Indicative contract stages, milestones and dates are outlined below.

 

Key Milestones

Dates

Full council approval of project budget, scope and program

OMC 9 Sept 2014

Stage 1

 

Advertise Request for Tenders

26 Aug 2014

Evaluation of tenders and short-listing

Sept- Oct 2014

Full council approval of short-listed consultant teams

28 October 2014

Prepare concept designs

Oct 2014 – Jan 2015

Public exhibition of 3 concept designs

Feb 2015

Full Council approval of preferred concept design

April 2015

Stage 2

 

Design development, development application (DA) documentation and

construction documentation

May 2015 – Dec 2016

Stage 3

 

Commence construction

Dec 2016

Construction complete

Dec 2017

Post-construction (52 weeks)

Dec 2018

 

Construction is planned to commence late 2016. At this stage it is envisaged the car park could be completed and opened by mid-2017 following this, the park is planned to open in late 2017.

 

It is noted that the timing of the project construction stage may intersect with construction of the proposed development at 23-37 Lindfield Avenue, Lindfield. The current estimate of this work is a period of two years from August 2014 to August 2016. Council has written to Anka Property Group seeking clarification of their construction programme however to date no response has been received. In the intervening period, it is understood that Anka have on-sold the site and development consent.

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure - P4 Revitalisation of our centres

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place.

P4.1.1

Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.

Implement a place management approach for the local centre improvements to coordinate works and achieve quality outcomes.

 

P4.1.4

An improvement plan for Lindfield centre is being progressively implemented in collaboration with owners, businesses and state agencies.

Engage with relevant stakeholders to establish timing, extent and partnership opportunities.

 

Undertake due diligence and undertake project scope.

 

Identify and engage with the key stakeholders.

 

 

Governance Matters

 

A probity consultant has recently been engaged to prepare a Probity Framework for the two projects Council is managing in Lindfield.

 

A key focus of the provision of probity services is to assist Council in managing the conduct of the community and stakeholder engagement, the procurement processes, the Council’s statutory and development roles to ensure that they are conducted in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements and general probity guides. This focus on compliance and advising on a fair process is required to assist Council to achieve its objectives without any undue delays due to process breaches.

 

 

Risk Management

 

The key risks for the next stage of the project are that:

 

·        the consultants do not prepare a concept plan that is supported by the community; and

·        the consultants prepare a concept plan that exceeds the project budget.

 

The first risk has been mitigated by a creating a process whereby three consultant teams will be engaged to prepare three different concepts; consultants will be selected based on a number of factors which will allow selection based on differing approaches and styles. This will allow an exhibition where residents will have the opportunity to vote on their preferred concept. To further support this approach information sessions will be held for the community, during the exhibition period, to hear presentations from the design consultants on their concept plans.

 

The second risk has been mitigated by requiring by two quantity surveyors: the first engaged by the head consultant; and the second engaged by Council. The head consultant will engage a quantity surveyor to provide cost advice during the design and documentation stages (stage 1 and 2). Council will independently engage a quantity surveyor to audit the work of the design team’s quantity surveyor and to provide cost planning advice to Council through all stages of the project (stages 1 and 2).

 

Financial Considerations

 

Council’s Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 Draft Operational Plan 2014 – 2015 (pages 92-100) allocates funds for the project in the Capital Works Program and Operational Projects 2015-16 spread sheets under the following headings:

 

·        Open Space Acquisition – LGA south

·        Lindfield Village Green

·        Town Centre Streetscape

·        Roads Program – Lindfield

 

The total allocation of development contributions is $16,555,300.00 allocated over the three financial years from 2015-2017. If Council accepts the recommendation that additional funds be brought forward from 2010 Plan - Local Parks and Sporting Facilities – South, to top-up the funds as per previous discussion of $1,907,600.00, then the total funds available will be $18,462,900.00.

 

The table below shows the breakdown of funds within the Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 Draft Operational Plan 2014 – 2015.

Figure 6 – breakdown of funds within the Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 Draft Operational Plan 2014 – 2015.

There are two scenarios:

·        Scenario 1 – one level car park, Council funds project; or

·        Scenario 2 – two level car park jointly funded by Council and TfNSW.

 

Scenario 1, where the total funds available would be $18,462,900.00, and using the quantity surveyor estimate for a project with a one level car park which is $19,430,000.00 (Confidential Attachment A2), the project would have a fund shortfall in the order of $967,100.00.  In addition the quantity surveyor does not include (or excludes) the cost of staff time in their estimate and it is therefore recommended that an additional $300,000 be included in the project budget to cover this item.

 

As noted in the Background to this report Council has previously resolved to allocate the proceeds from the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane, being $4,550,000.00, to be directed to the project budget for the provision of underground car parking and a civic square / village green precinct. Under this scenario it would be necessary to utilise $967,100.00 of this budget to make up the shortfall plus $300,000.00 for staff time; a total of $1,267,100.00.

 

In terms of the current budgets there are adequate funds available from Open Space Acquisition – LGA South to fund the car park construction and construction of the new park with just over $4.3 million remaining in the account. The proposed road works budget is $1,093,300.00, this would require further borrowing across the plan as this account currently has a negative balance. There are adequate funds available to fund streetscape and transport works with just over $3.8 million remaining in the account.

 

The break down is shown in the Figure 7 below.

 

Figure 7 – Comparison of proposed project budget with current budgets in Restricted Assets Actual June 2014

 

In terms of Scenario 2, the quantity surveyor cost estimate for a two level car park is $26,638,000.00 (Confidential Attachment A2), the funds to be contributed by Council and TfNSW still needs to be determined. Written advice from TfNSW is also required to determine whether they are willing to fund a second level of parking as part of the project. One advantage of this scenario is that a shortfall can be avoided as there are cost savings (relating to efficiencies of a two level car park) that could be shared between the two parties.

 

In summary it is recommended that Council progress with the project with a total project budget of $19,730,000.00 allocated to the project, this includes all contingencies, professional fees, staff time and other costs; and comprises:

 

·        $16,555,300.00 from the Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 Draft Operational Plan 2014 – 2015;

·        $1,267,100.00 from the proceeds from the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane for the year 2016-2017;

·        $1,907,600.00 brought forward and allocated from the 2010 Plan - Local Parks and Sporting Facilities - South for the year 2016-2017 for the car park construction; and

·        that following further discussions and advice from TfNSW the project scope and budget is reviewed if TfNSW agree to be a partner in the project.

 

Social Considerations

 

Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area has been going through a period of change commencing in 2004. This is bringing about population growth following years of declining and stable population since the 1980s. Infrastructure is essential to support and encourage the integration of the new residents of Ku-ring-gai, both among residents of the new dwellings being built and those moving into larger existing housing vacated by the members of Ku-ring-gai’s older population who have ‘downsized’ into smaller local accommodation.

 

The provision of additional community infrastructure providing both outdoor and indoor community spaces will continue to support this process and help Ku-ring-gai continue to be a vibrant and popular place to live for all ages

 

Environmental Considerations

 

Council has engaged a number of consultants to undertake due diligence on the site of the new park. The full reports can be viewed on Council’s website at: http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Projects_and_priorities/Development_and_upgrades/Activate_Lindfield/Lindfield_Village_Green

 

Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation

 

Investigations, assessment and reporting completed by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, confirms:

 

·        there is a low to negligible risk potential for unacceptable concentrations of contamination to be present in project site soils; and

·        the site is considered suitable (from a contamination perspective) for the proposed redevelopment.

 

Waste classification & VENM assessment

 

Fieldwork and reporting completed by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, including soil samples taken from five (5) soil bores sites drilled across the site. Based on the site area and thickness of filled observed at each of the sampling points, an estimated of 1,250m3 of fill soil has been identified for offsite disposal during the proposed project basement excavation. Samples were subject to laboratory analysis with the outcomes summarised as follows:

 

·        fill soil material would classify as General Solid Waste (no-putrescible); and

·        natural soil material would classify as virgin excavated natural material (VENM) and also be classified as GSW (non-putrescible).

 

The only risk arising for the project from these results is the additional costs associated with disposal of the fill material.

 

Geotechnical investigations

 

Fieldwork, investigations and reporting completed by Asset Geotechnical Engineering Consultants were based on four (4) non-core boreholes to depths from 2.4-10.5m and one cored bore hole to rock refusal at 4.45m depth and continued coring to 7.6m.

 

Soil analysis results are as follows:

 

Layer

Depth Range

Pavement

0.05m

Fill

0.05 - 0.5m

Residual Clay:

0.25 - 3.9m

Bedrock – Shale (very low to low strength)

1.0 - 6.7m

Bedrock – Shale (low strength)

5.5 – 10.5m

 

 

 

Groundwater detected at a range of 3.5 to 4.5m depths.

 

The report outlines comprehensive recommendations in relation to:

 

·        construction sequence;

·        temporary shoring and permanent retaining walls: outlining advantages and disadvantages for both single and double level basement structures;

·        design approach;

·        groundwater control;

·        earthworks, including excavation, subgrade preparation, filling, batter slopes;

·        lot classification; and

·        footings: strip & pad foundations vs basement slabs.

 

The main risk that the site presents is the presence of groundwater and the method of inflow control on the proposed basement structure will be a key design factor. The risk can be mitigated by fully waterproofing the car park structure (impermeable retaining walls & floor structure – or “tanking”) for both a single and double level basement. Council’s quantity surveyors have taken this factor into account when preparing the estimates.

 

 

Land survey

 

Digital survey data has been received from surveyors. No underground services are located on within the Tryon Road car park site.

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Key external stakeholders include:

 

·        local community – residents, businesses, workers, visitors

·        community groups

·        authority stakeholders

·        Transport for NSW

·        Roads and Maritime Service

 

Council has started the conversation with the local community on the opportunities and vision for the new Village Green.

 

In early 2014, we promoted the ‘Activate Lindfield’ initiative to revitalise Lindfield with new community facilities, parking, parks and village greens. Over 120 residents, business owners and other interested stakeholders signed up the Activate Lindfield e-newsletter.

 

 

Family Fun Day

 

On Wednesday 26 February, Council hosted a family fun afternoon on the site of the new village green from 3pm and 6pm. We created a public area with active and passive activities to encourage locals to begin the conversation on possible functions and uses for the new village green.

 

Council staff hosted the event with approximately 600 people of all ages dropping in to speak to staff, play on the jumping castles, visit the animal farm or relax on the benches. We spoke to workers, residents, parents, commuters, shoppers, business owners with over 120 surveys completed.

 

People told us they wanted a village green with different nodes of activity in a contained and protected precinct away from traffic. People drew inspiration and ideas from the Concourse at Chatswood, Lane Cove village, sites along Sydney Foreshore and Manly.

 

The primary issues identified by participants included parking, traffic, new development and project timing. Council has analysed the survey results and a summary is presented below.

 

Survey results

 

The majority of survey respondents were visitors attending the Family Fun Event with the majority consisting of local residents with their partners and/or children.

 

Lindfield local centre “Like”

 

1.       Types of shops and services, ie. food & café; community services and church

2.       Parking & Lindfield station accessibility

3.       Village-community atmosphere

 

Special character

 

1.       Lack of unique character & amenities

2.       Village feel, sense of community and local environment ie. heritage buildings including surrounding residential architecture & surrounding vegetation

3.       Access, railway, car park

 

Local centre main attraction:

 

·        35% do multiple things

·        27% only do one or two things only

·        25% do something else1

·        14% only stay for extended periods of time

 

Frequently visited places:              Within KMC                    Regional Places:

 

Restaurants                                     55% East Lindfield               Chatswood/Concourse

Cafes                                                         45% Roseville                       Lane Cove

Water, play, pool area                     28% Wahroonga Park           Cammeray Square

Bars & Hotels                                  9%                                          Harris Farm markets

 

Requests: Most popular activities for the Village Green

 

1.       Socialising

2.       Shopping

3.       Eating

4.       Kid’s activities/relaxing

5.       Sitting

 

Requests: Most popular features for the Village Green

 

1.       Seating

2.       Shade

3.       Cafes

4.       Easy access

5.       Parking

 

The survey results confirm that Lindfield local centre is overwhelmingly underutilised and has extraordinary potential to increase user visitation. The results of this survey will be used to contribute to the project brief for the design of Lindfield Village Green

 

  

Figure 8 – Lindfield Family Fun Day, Tryon Road                             Figure 9 – Lindfield Family Fun Day, Tryon Road

 

  

Figure 10 – Lindfield Family Fun Day, Tryon Road                    Figure 11 – Lindfield Family Fun Day, Tryon Road

 

 

 

 

Internal Consultation

 

Key internal stakeholders include:

 

·        Community Department

·        Corporate Department

·        Development & Regulation Department

·        Operations Department

·        Strategy and Environment Department

 

The urban design team has undertaken a series of briefing sessions for staff from the above departments to ensure all relevant parties are aware of the project.

 

Strategy & Environment department is responsible for the delivery of the final concept plan for the project. The Team Leader Urban Design and the Public Domain Projects Officer will be the regular contacts for the head consultant and will co-ordinate communication between the consultant team together with Council’s internal and external stakeholders.

 

A Project Control Group has been established to oversee the project development; the members are:

 

·        Director Strategy and Environment

·        Director Operations

·        Director Corporate

·        Manager Projects Operations

·        Manager Strategic Projects

·        Manager Corporate Communications

 

A working group has been established to develop the project programme and procurement process, the group comprises:

 

·        Manager Strategic Projects

·        Manager Procurement & Contracts

·        Manager Projects Operations

·        Team Leader Urban Design

·        Public Domain Projects Officer

 

Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of a preliminary project budget, scope of works and programme and for the Lindfield Village Green project.

 

A total of six reports have come to Council since December 2011 regarding this project; key resolutions of Council include the following:

 

·        Adoption of an open space acquisition strategy for Lindfield which includes the Lindfield Village Green;

·        In-principle support for the project to proceed;

·        Allocation of seed funding to commence the project planning stage;

·        Allocation of proceeds from the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane, Lindfield to the project budget;

·        Commencement of a concept plan and community consultation; and

·        Approval to commence compulsory acquisition of the unnamed lane that forms part of the site.

 

This report defines the scope of the project as follows:

 

·        provision for up to 100 public (Council owned and managed) car spaces on the site;

·        construction of a new single level basement public car park;

·        construction of a new park / civic space with a minimum size of 2,700m2;

·        streetscape works to adjoining streets and lanes (extent and detail defined in Contributions Plan - Work Programs)

·        road and transport works to adjoining streets and lanes (extent and detail defined by Contributions Plan - Work Programs)

 

The report finds that in the future Council will be required to provide a minimum 100 public short stay spaces on the site; this represents a reduction of 38 spaces when compared to the current provision. Based on the preliminary car park plans prepared this would require Council to provide up to 80 spaces in a basement car park and an additional 20 spaces on-grade within the site. The report notes that this quantum does not take account of the potential additional 100 spaces that might be provided by Transport for NSW as a second basement level of parking which would be in part available on Thursday evenings and weekends.

 

A detailed analysis has been undertaken of land values in the Lindfield area and a comparison with the cost of providing an underground car park. The report finds that the use of $9,450,000 (or $3,500 per m2 for a 2,700 mpark) for construction of the car park can be reasonably justified before it becomes more cost-effective to consider an alternative location.

 

The report recommends a preliminary programme for stage 1 – Concept Design with the following key milestones:

 

·        Advertise Request for Tenders - August 2014

·        Evaluation of tenders and short-listing- September to October 2014

·        Full Council approval of short-listed consultant teams - October 2014

·        Prepare concept designs - October 2014 to January 2015

·        Public exhibition of 3 concept designs - February 2015

·        Full Council approval of preferred concept design - April 2015

 

In summary the report recommends that Council progress with the project with a total project budget of $19,730,000.00 allocated to the project, this includes all contingencies, professional fees, staff time and other costs, comprising:

 

·        $16,555,300.00 from the Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 Draft Operational Plan 2014 – 2015

·        $1,267,100.00 from the proceeds from the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane for the year 2016-2017; and

·        $1,907,600.00 brought forward and allocated from the 2010 Plan - Local Parks and Sporting Facilities - South for the year 2016-2017 for the car park construction

·        That following further discussions and advice from TfNSW the project scope and budget is reviewed if TfNSW agree to be a partner in the project.

 

Recommendation:

 

That:

 

A.       Council adopts the revised project scope which includes:

 

·        Provision of a minimum of 100 public car spaces on the site;

·        Construction of a new single level basement public car park to be owned and operated by Council;

·        Construction of a new park / civic space with a minimum size of 2,700m2;

·        Streetscape works to adjoining streets and lanes (extent and detail defined in Contributions Plan - Work Programs); and

·        Road and transport works to adjoining streets and lanes (extent and detail defined by Contributions Plan - Work Programs).

 

B.       Council progress with the project with a total project budget of $19,730,000.00, this includes all contingencies, professional fees, staff time and other costs; the budget comprises:

 

·        $16,555,300.00 from the Revised Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 Draft Operational Plan 2014 – 2015 from development contributions 2010 Plan

·        $1,267,100.00 from the proceeds from the sale of no.9 Havilah Lane for the year 2016-2017; and

·        $1,907,600.00 brought forward and allocated from the 2010 Plan - Local Parks and Sporting Facilities - South for the year 2016-2017 for the car park construction

·        That following further discussions and advice from TfNSW the project scope and budget is reviewed if TfNSW agree to be a partner in the project.

 

C.       Council adopts the preliminary project programme for Stage 1 of the project which plans for construction of the project to commence in late 2016; and that any revisions to this programme be reported to Council following exhibition of concept designs:

 

·        Advertise Request for Tenders - August 2014

·        Evaluation of tenders and short-listing - September to October 2014

·        Full Council approval of short-listed consultant teams - October 2014

·        Prepare concept designs - October 2014 to January 2015

·        Public exhibition of 3 concept designs - February 2015

·        Full Council approval of preferred concept design - April 2015

 

D.       Council write to the Minister for Transport with details of the cost of a second level of basement parking seeking confirmation that TfNSW wish to participate in the project, and that a further report is bought to Council advising of the Minister’s decision once an official response has been received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Royal

Team Leader Urban Design

 

 

 

 

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

 

 

 

 

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

 

 

 

Attachments:

A1

Lindfield Village Green - Legal advice regarding use of development contributions

 

Confidential

 

A2

Lindfield Village Green - Concept Estimate (Final) - Wilde and Woollard - July 2014

 

Confidential

 

A3

Lindfield Village Green - cost estimate - Muller Partnership

 

Confidential

 

A4

Lindfield Village Green - Project Cost Estimate - Option 1 and 2 - Altus Page Kirkland

 

Confidential

 

A5

Lindfield Village Green - cost of land acquisition versus cost of underground car park construction

 

Confidential

  


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.6 / 725

 

 

Item GB.6

S06604/2

 

29 August 2014

 

 

Amendments to Sports Facilities Plan of Management for Public Exhibition

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

To rectify an anomaly in the Sports Facilities Plan of Management to bring the permitted hours of clubhouse use in line with the permitted hours of sportsground use so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the Plan of Management; and to permit earlier tennis court hire at appropriate locations.

 

 

background:

The Sports Facilities Plan of Management (SFPOM) was adopted by Council on 20 April 2010. It approved the use of sportsgrounds for organised sports competitions on Saturday evenings until 8.30pm (with lights permitted until 9pm for pack up of the ground), however the intensity of clubhouse use on Saturdays was unintentionally left unchanged from the previous plan of management at 8am-6pm.

 

 

comments:

When the SFPOM was prepared and adopted in 2010 it was intended that the permitted hours of use for clubhouses and amenities at sportsgrounds would correspond with the permitted hours of use for the ground itself. Due to an error the permitted hours on Saturdays were left unchanged at 6pm, and hence do not correspond with permitted use of sportsgrounds or allow clubs to host occasional functions or events. This situation needs to be rectified so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the SFPOM and brought to an ordinary meeting of Council for approval. It is also considered appropriate to permit tennis court bookings at certain courts that are not close to residents to commence at 7am instead of 8am.

 

 

recommendation:

That Council place on public exhibition an amendment to the SFPOM to permit the use of clubhouses and amenities until 10pm on Fridays and Saturdays, and 12am when the club is hosting a club function or special event and has given surrounding residents at least seven days’ notice in writing and that Council also place on public exhibition an amendment to permit tennis court hire from 7am at appropriate locations.

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

To rectify an anomaly in the Sports Facilities Plan of Management to bring the permitted hours of clubhouse use in line with the permitted hours of sportsground use so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the Plan of Management; and to permit earlier tennis court hire at appropriate locations.

 

Background

 

The Sports Facilities Plan of Management (SFPOM) was adopted by Council on 20 April 2010. It approved the use of sportsgrounds for organised sports competitions on Saturday evenings until 8.30pm (with lights permitted until 9.00pm for pack up of the ground), however the intensity of clubhouse use on Saturdays was inadvertently left unchanged from the previous plan of management at 8.00am-6.00pm.

 

This matter was reported to Council on 14 May 2014 and it was resolved in Minute No.138 that consideration of the matter be deferred pending a further report from Council staff.

 

Comments

 

Under the current SFPOM, clubhouse and amenities use is permitted until 10.00pm on weekdays and 6.00pm on weekends.

 

Unfortunately, due to an error in the current SFPOM, the permitted hours of use for clubhouses and amenities do not correspond with the permitted hours of use of sportsgrounds, which is 9.30pm weekdays, 9.00pm Saturdays and 6.00pm Sundays. It was undoubtedly the intention of the SFPOM when it was prepared and adopted in 2010 for the hours of use of sportsgrounds to correspond with the hours of use of clubhouses and amenities, however due to an editorial oversight the clubhouse permitted hours on Saturdays were inadvertently left at 8.00am-6.00pm.

 

This situation needs to be rectified so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the Sports Facilities Plan of Management and brought to an ordinary meeting of Council for approval.

 

It is considered appropriate for clubhouse and amenities use on Fridays and Saturdays to be permitted until 10.00pm. It is also considered appropriate to permit clubs to host occasional club functions and events until 12.00am (midnight). In order to keep residents informed of any potential impacts, the SFPOM and any future renewal of a clubhouse lease and licence will include a requirement for the club to give at least seven days’ notice in writing to all residents in adjacent streets on any occasion that a function or event to be held at the clubhouse is expected to extend past 10.00pm.

 

Sundays would retain the existing limit of 6.00pm.

 

Council officers have also used this opportunity to review the rest of the SFPOM and identified an issue relating to tennis courts that needs to be addressed. Currently Council’s 71 tennis courts are not permitted to be hired before 8.00am. At some locations where courts are very close to residents this is a reasonable time, however at other locations such as Regimental Park courts, Killara and Tryon Road courts, East Lindfield, there are no adverse impacts on residents at any time of the day caused by the playing of tennis and the courts are sitting idle when they could be used. 

 

It is therefore recommended that the SFPOM be amended to permit tennis courts to be booked from 7.00am seven days per week at certain locations where it is considered appropriate, subject to Council approval. This situation would be continually monitored by staff and if any issues arise at any particular location bookings at that location revert back to 8.00am. This extension of time for tennis court usage will encourage and facilitate a healthy recreational activity within the community and may also potentially increase court hire revenue for Council.

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Community Strategic Plan - Theme P7 Enhancing community buildings and facilities

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P7.1 Multipurpose community buildings and facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.

P7.1.2 Usage of existing community buildings and facilities is optimised.

 

Community leases are reviewed and implemented in line with leasing policy.

 

 

Governance Matters

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Section 38 Public Notice of draft Plans of Management:

 

(1)     A council must give public notice of a draft plan of management.

 

(2)     The period of public exhibition of the draft plan must be not less than 28 days.

 

(3)     The public notice must also specify a period of not less than 42 days after the date on which the draft plan is placed on public exhibition during which submissions may be made to the council.

 

(4)     The council must, in accordance with its notice, publicly exhibit the draft plan together with any other matter which it considers appropriate or necessary to better enable the draft plan and its implications to be understood.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Section 40 Adoption of Plans of Management:

 

(1)     After considering all submissions received by it concerning the draft plan of management, the council may decide to amend the draft plan or to adopt it without amendment as the plan of management for the community land concerned.

 

(2)     If the council decides to amend the draft plan it must either:

 

(a)     publicly exhibit the amended draft plan in accordance with the provisions of this Division relating to the public exhibition of draft plans, or

(b)     if it is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, adopt the amended draft plan without public exhibition as the plan of management for the community land concerned.

 

(2A)   If a council adopts an amended plan without public exhibition of the amended draft plan, it must give public notice of that adoption, and of the terms of the amended plan of management, as soon as practicable after the adoption.

 

Following public exhibition and consideration of any submissions received a report will be brought back to Council to adopt the plan of management.

 

Risk Management

 

Any risk management issues will be identified and addressed in the lease, licence and hire agreements for each clubhouse.

 

Financial Considerations

 

The extension of time for tennis court usage may potentially increase court hire revenue for Council.

 

Social Considerations

 

This amendment will allow community clubs to enter into licence agreements with Council for the use of clubhouse facilities during similar hours that sportsgrounds are in use.

 

The extension of time for tennis court usage will encourage and facilitate a healthy recreational activity within the community.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

It is not considered that bringing clubhouse use into line with sportsground use will lead to any significant environmental impacts. If there are any impacts at a particular location these can be dealt with through clauses in the respective licence agreement and, if necessary, revocation of a licence.

 

Community Consultation

 

Under Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993 Council is required to publicly exhibit the draft Plan of Management for a period of 28 days plus a further 14 days to receive submissions. Public exhibition will commence as soon as practicable following the Council resolution to proceed.

 

The public exhibition will include public notification of the exhibition period in the North Shore Times, on Council’s website and at Council’s Administration Centre and libraries.

 

Additionally, residents living in streets adjacent to all sportsground clubhouses who could potentially be impacted by the amended clubhouse hours will be notified in writing about the public exhibition of the draft plan of management.

 

Internal Consultation

 

Council officers in the Community Department and Strategy and Environment Departments have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

 

Summary

 

The permitted hours of use for clubhouses and amenities at sportsgrounds should correspond with the permitted hours of use of the ground itself. This was undoubtedly the intention of the Sports Facilities Plan of Management when it was prepared and adopted in 2010, however due to an editorial oversight clubhouse hours on Saturdays were incorrectly left at 8.00am-6.00pm while the ground can be used until 9.00pm on Saturdays. This situation needs to be rectified so that licence agreements with sporting clubs can be negotiated in accordance with the Sports Facilities Plan of Management and brought to an ordinary meeting of Council for approval.

 

It is considered appropriate for clubhouse and amenities use on Fridays and Saturdays to be permitted until 10.00pm. It is also considered appropriate to permit clubs to host occasional club functions and events until 12.00am (midnight). In order to keep residents informed of any potential impacts, the SFPOM and any future renewal of a clubhouse lease and licence will include a requirement for the club to give at least seven days’ notice in writing to all residents in adjacent streets on any occasion that a function or event to be held at the clubhouse is expected to extend past 10.00pm.

 

An issue relating to tennis court hiring times in the SFPOM has also been identified. Currently Council’s 71 tennis courts are not permitted to be hired before 8.00am. At some locations where courts are very close to residents this is a reasonable time, however at other locations there are no adverse impacts on residents at any time of the day caused by the playing of tennis and the courts are sitting idle when they could be used by the community.

 

It is therefore recommended that the SFPOM be amended to permit tennis courts to be booked from 7.00am seven days per week at certain locations where it is considered appropriate, subject to Council staff approval. This situation would be continually monitored by staff and if any issues arise at any particular location bookings at that location revert back to 8.00am.

 

Recommendation:

 

A.       That Council place on public exhibition the recommended amendments to the Sports Facilities Plan of Management.

 

B.       That Council amend the Sports Facilities Plan of Management to permit the use of clubhouses and amenities until 10.00pm on Friday and Saturday evenings and until 12.00am on Friday and Saturday evenings for occasional club functions and special events.

 

C.       That the Sports Facilities Plan of Management and future renewal of club leases and licences require clubs to give at least seven days’ notice in writing to all residents in adjacent streets on any occasion that a club function or event to be held at the clubhouse is expected to extend past 10.00pm.

 

D.       That the Sports Facilities Plan of Management be amended to permit tennis courts to be booked from 7.00am seven days per week at certain locations where it is considered appropriate, subject to Council staff approval.

 

E.       That Council staff continually monitor tennis court bookings prior to 8.00am and if any issues arise at any particular location bookings at that location revert back to 8.00am.

 

 

 

 

 

Roger Faulkner

Team Leader Sport & Recreation Planning

 

 

 

 

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

 

 

  


 

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 September 2014

GB.7 / 730

 

 

Item GB.7

S10030

 

12 August 2014

 

 

Draft Policy for Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

purpose of report:

To consider the draft policy for use of overt electronic surveillance in public places for crime prevention associated with illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

 

background:

Incidents of illegal dumping have increased significantly incurring substantial costs to Council in collection and disposal costs as well as impacting negatively on the amenity and the environmental within the community. With assistance of funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and in accordance with the State’s Waste Strategy, Council can conduct overt electronic surveillance to gather evidence to assist in the investigation and regulation associated with these incidents. Council is required to formalise a policy on how and where this type of surveillance can occur and identify the provisions for the storage and access of this information.

 

 

comments:

Council has obtained legal advice to ensure the policy complies with the Privacy and Personnel Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) , the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013 and the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places.

This activity will be part of a range of overt activities included in preventing illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

 

recommendation:

That Council place the draft policy for the use of overt electronic surveillance in public places on public exhibition for 28 days and that a further report be presented to Council on completion of the exhibition period.

 


  

Purpose of Report

 

To consider the draft policy for use of overt electronic surveillance in public places for crime prevention associated with illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

Background

 

Incidents of illegal dumping have been increasing significantly over the last few years. This is attributed to the escalation in disposal costs and service providers in the private sector seeking to obtain a financial gain or competitive advantage by avoiding disposal cost.  Incidents have included truckloads of demolition waste, wood chippings and mixed waste from residential/commercial premises. These have been dumped in Council’s car parks, parks, reserves and access ways to fire trials. The removal has resulted in significant cost to Council. Incidents involving legal dumping have arisen from 691 incidents in 2011/2012 to 1225 incidents for 2013/2014.

 

Other incidents involving littering, vandalism and graffiti can be prevented or minimised by the use of overt electronic surveillance in public places. Graffiti incidents are currently consuming 330 hours of operational time at a cost of $215,876 for 2013/2014.

 

Comments

 

With assistance of funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and in accordance with the State’s Waste Strategy, Council has the opportunity to conduct overt electronic surveillance to gather evidence to assist in the investigation and regulatory action of illegal dumping at locations where incidents have been regularly occurring.

 

The range of activities where electronic surveillance will be employed includes illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti hot spots.

 

The draft Overt Electronic Surveillance Policy will require public exhibition for 28 days to allow community engagement, education and comment. It will assist with data collection associated with the subject of anti-social behaviour.

 

The installation of electronic surveillance is part of a broad range of measures, including community education, to be employed in assisting Council for any regulatory action it may elect to take.

 

Council is required to formalise a policy on how and where types of overt electronic surveillance can be employed and to identify the control provisions for storage of relevant information, who will be authorised to access information and for what purpose the information will be used.

 

To ensure Council is legally able to conduct this activity, the attached draft policy has been compiled to reflect directions from the Privacy and Personnel Information Protection Act (PPIP act) the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013 and the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places.

 

The following guidelines have been provided by the NSW Government as steps to follow when considering the introduction of CCTV surveillance.

 

1.   Identify there is a crime problem which may be addressed by the introduction of CCTV. Council’s statistics indicated illegal dumping is increasing significantly with dumping numbers moving from 691 incidents in 2011/2012 to 1225 in 2013/2014. This, together with escalating disposal costs, is causing impacts on Council’s ability to respond to these incidents in a timely fashion. Graffiti is on the increase with incidents occurring over 2013/2014 costing $215,876.

 

2.   Establish a Community Safety Committee. 

It is proposed to utilise the existing Ku-ring-gai Local Area Community Safety Precinct Committee as the forum for information sharing, technical discussion on crime prevent methods and community feedback to Police and Council.

 

3.   Conduct crime Assessment to identify the crime problems and when and where they are happening.

Council data indicates illegal dumping is increasing together with graffiti as indicated previously in this report.

 

4.   Consult with the Community on the proposed installation of CCTV.

The Draft Policy for Overt Camera Surveillance placed on public exhibition for 28 for community comment.

 

5.   Develop a Crime Prevention or Community Safety Plan.

Council has proposed a Code of Practice and Standard Operating Procedure to assist in this process. Copies of these documentations are attached to this report.

 

6.   Set Objectives for the CCTV Scheme and develop evaluation mechanism.

A CCTV evaluation program is currently being developed including a timetable for evaluation, feedback from stakeholders and interested parties including the formation of an Evaluation Committee with a final report on the operation of the scheme.

 

7.   Determine roles and responsibilities of key players in managing and operating the program.

The proposed Code of Practice and Standard Operating Procedure indicates the roles and responsibilities of officers in operating the program.

 

8.   Development a Code of Practice for operation of the scheme.

Refer to attached Policy and Operating Procedure.

 

9.   Develop Standard Operating Procedure.

Refer to attached Operation Procedure.

 

10. Develop on-going monitoring and auditing mechanisms for the scheme.

These will be managed as part of the evaluation report and audit.

 

 

 

 

11. Determine the technical requirements of the scheme.

Council has reviewed camera types and modes of operation including discussion with other organisations that have operated CCTV schemes. Technical details are indicated in the Code of Practice.

 

12. Develop and Implement a complaints mechanism.

Council’s current Complaints Management Policy and Privacy Management Plan will be used to respond to complaints regarding this scheme.

 

13. Development information strategies to inform the public about the scheme.

Council will use a range of communication methods including appropriate signage, public exhibition of the Draft Policy concerning this scheme, and the evaluation assessment conducted each 12 months being posted on Council’s webpage.

 

14. Install and trail the CCTV scheme.

The initial CCTV installation will run for 12 months as the trial. Subject to the 12 month review, further consideration will be given to the operation of the scheme.

 

15. Conduct an evaluation of the trial and its outcomes and disseminate the results to the relevant parties.

The assessment report will communicate the outcomes after the 12 months trial.

 

16. Review the trial outcomes and determine the need for continued support for the scheme. The assessment report will consider the matters for continued operation of the scheme.

 

The draft policy does not contemplate or provide for surveillance of Council employees. However, due to the possibility cameras may unintentionally capture images of staff, it is appropriate to note the draft policy will operate in conjunction with Council’s Workplace Surveillance Policy.

 

The Workplace Surveillance Policy provides for how Council meets its obligations under the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 ,in relation to surveillance of employees, including through cameras.  Under Section 10 of the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005, Council must give notice of surveillance of an employee to the employee in writing, in accordance with the information specified in the Act. The overt surveillance program is not for surveillance of employees but for investigative purposes in the prevention of illegal dumping and malicious damage.

 

All overt investigations will be in accordance with the Code of Practice for investigations under the direction of processing of personal information by public sector agencies in relation to their investigative functions. 

 

integrated planning and reporting

 

Places, Space and Infrastructure

 

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

Preserving the unique character of Ku-ring-gai

 

Ku-ring-gai`s unique visual character and identity is maintained

 

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance

Ku-ring-gai`s unique landscape character.

 

 

Governance Matters

 

This activity crosses community awareness, amenity and regulation activities. The purpose of the policy is to help improve the appearance of the Council’s areas of responsibility.

 

Risk Management

 

The purpose of this policy is to provide Council with the powers to undertake electronic surveillance in accordance with the legislation governing this type of activity and thereby reducing Council’s risk exposure. The purpose of the policy, Code of Practice and procedures is intended to minimise Council’s risk associated with the use of CCTV.

 

Financial Considerations

 

Funding for this activity is from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)  Grant for reducing illegal dumping and will assist in reducing Council`s costs of collection and disposal and other operational costs associated with illegal dumping over the next three (3) years. As the function of the scheme is to assist in providing a higher level of evidence in the regulation of illegal dumping and graffiti other on-going operational costs will be via the current operating resources employed by Council in both Council’s Operations and Regulatory Services Departments.

 

Social Considerations

 

The social benefits include enhancement to the visual amenity of areas known to be regular dumping locations, improved environmental outcomes and social benefits of greater awareness to issues concerning illegal dumping and vandalism.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

Environmental benefits will be achieved with reduction in illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti and enhancement to visual amenity.

 

Community Consultation

 

The draft policy will be placed on exhibition for 28 days for public comment wherein a further report will be considered by Council.

 

Internal Consultation

 

Staff from Civic, Open Space, Development and Regulatory Services and Operations were consulted in relation to the implementation of electronic surveillances.

 

 

 

Summary

 

Incidents of illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti are significant offences which impact on the Ku-ring-gai area’s visual character associated with public land such as parks, reserves and footpaths. The removal required from these incidents imposes significant cost to Council and staff resources.

 

Grant funding from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has become available to support a range of measures to educate the community and to employ tools to assist with deterrent and regulatory actions in which to prevent illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

To comply with the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013, Council is required to formalise a policy detailing the way in which this information is captured and stored and who will have access to the film footage.

 

All overt investigations will be in accordance with the Code of Practice for investigations under the direction on processing of personal information by public sector agencies in relation to their investigative functions.

 

Recommendation:

 

A.   That Council place the draft Policy for Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places on public exhibition for 28 days.

 

B.   That a report be brought back to Council after the completion of the exhibition period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colin Wright

Manager Waste

 

 

 

 

Greg Piconi

Director Operations

 

 

Attachments:

A1View

Draft Policy  - Overt Surveillance in Public Places

 

2014/067016

 

A2View

Code of Practice for Overt Surveillance

 

2014/134142

 

A3View

Standard Operating Procedure for Overt Surveillance

 

2014/134147

  


APPENDIX No: 1 - Draft Policy  - Overt Surveillance in Public Places

 

Item No: GB.7

 

 

 

 

DRAFT POLICY FOR

OVERT ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

IN PUBLIC PLACES

 

 

1.   Purpose

 

The purpose of this Policy is to ensure Council can conduct electronic surveillance operations using remote cameras (CCTV) for covert investigative surveillance to assist with controlling illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

 

2.   Objectives

 

The objectives of this Policy are:

 

·    To ensure Ku-ring-gai complies with the requirements of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIP Act) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013 for crime prevention via CCTV surveillance.

·    To assist with identifying the persons or company responsible for illegal dumping, littering, vandalism or graffiti.

·    To provide evidence in any regulatory action Council may pursue against persons or a company for illegally dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti.

 

 

3.   Policy

 

Council will provide Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) electronic surveillance to nominated locations in the Council LGA in accordance with the objectives and stated principles to assist in preventing or minimising illegal dumping, littering, vandalism and graffiti as part of a range of measures to manage and prevent illegal dumping, littering, vandalism, and graffiti.   

 

Overt cameras will be used for crime prevention adhering to the principles as outlined in the Code of Practice for Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places.

 

 

 

 

 

Doc distribution

Internal

Doc status

Draft

Trim No

S10030 / 2014/067016

Document owner

Dir. Operations

Contact officer/s

Colin Wright/Kathryn Odgers/Andrew Heathcote

Approval date

 

Approved  by

 

Effective date

 

Review period

3 year

Review date

 

History of Approved Versions

Version

Effective date

Summary of changes

1.0

9/9/2014

Draft policy

 

 

 

4.   Definitions

 

Definitions having specific meaning under this Policy are:

 

Public Place

Defined from the Local Government Act 1993 and refers to public reserves, public bathing reserves, public baths or swimming pools, public roads, public bridges, public wharfs or public road-ferries with the additional of public transport and car parks.

Closed Circuit TV (CCTV)

Surveillance by means of camera monitors, recording visual images of activities, in a public place.

Illegal Dumping

Depositing of any waste other than litter, upon public or private land or waters where no consent has been obtained from the Council or the granting of an environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority.

Littering

Unlawfully depositing of waste materials in a public place.

Vandalism

Wilful destruction of public property including buildings, signage, and street furniture.

Graffiti

Application of paint or other material used to create images, writing, or changes to the colour of building surfaces or other public hard surface areas not authorised by the Council or any other jurisdiction.

Lawful investigation

An investigation carried out by an agency under specific legislative authority or where the power to conduct the investigation is necessarily implied or reasonable contemplated under an Act or other law.

 

 

5.   Principles

 

The following principles are to be adhered to in the implementation of the overt crime prevention program.

 

Overt Crime Prevention Program

 

1.   The CCTV Project will be operated fairly, within applicable law, and only for the purposes for which it is established or which are subsequently agreed in accordance with the Code of Practice.

2.   The CCTV Program will not limit the privacy and civil liberties of individual members of the public, including the rights to freedom of religious and political expression and assembly. 

3.   Ku-ring-gai Council has primary responsibility for compliance within the purposes and objectives of the CCTV Program for the maintenance, management and security of the Program and the protection of the interests of the public in relation to the CCTV project.

4.   Ku-ring-gai Council will be accountable to the public for the effective operation and management of the program.  This will be done through regular evaluation and monitoring of the program.

5.   The public will be provided with clear and easily accessible information in relation to any operation of the CCTV scheme.

6.   Information recorded will be accurate, relevant and not exceed that necessary to fulfil the purposes of the CCTV Program.

7.   The retention of, and access to, recorded material will be only for the purposes provided by this Code of Practice or applicable laws.  Recorded materials will be retained for 28 days unless they are required for law enforcement purposes or other lawful requirements.

8.   All contact between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Police, in relation to the CCTV Program, will be conducted strictly in accordance with the Code of Practice. Everything reasonable within the power of Ku-ring-gai Council will be done to prevent unauthorised use or discloser of the information.

 

6.   Operations

 

Monitoring of cameras will be the responsibility of the Waste Section of Operations and limited to the nominated responsible officers:

 

·    Manager Waste,

·    Waste Contracts and Projects Officer, and

·    Building Assets Coordinator. 

 

When an incident is identified to which a response or action is required, the responsible officer will record the incident in the secured record system by:

 

·    Logging the incident with a detailed description;

·    Record date, time and location of the incident;

·    Attaching any images recorded of the offence;

·    Record outcome of any investigation into the incident; and

·    Subject to the evidence, refer the matter for legal proceedings.

 

Images will be retained for a minimum period of seven (7) years or such longer period as the General Manager may determine as necessary.

 

7.   Accountabilities

 

General Manager is accountable for:

 

·    ensuring a budget is available to meet policy objectives; and

·    ensuring compliance with policy standards.  

 

Directors are accountable for:

 

·    developing appropriate systems and processes, within their department, which meets the requirements of the legislation and this policy; and

·    ensuring compliance with this policy and procedures.

 

 

 

 

Managers and supervisors are accountable for ensuring:

 

·    Familiarity with the legislation, this policy and procedures; and

·    to inform their employees about the legislation, this policy and procedures.

 

All other employees, volunteers and contractors are accountable for:

 

·    Familiarising themselves with this policy and procedures and seeking clarification on any aspect of the policy from their supervisor.

 

8.   Associated Documents

 

·    Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (CCTV) Regulation 2013

·    Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act)

·    Direction on Processing of Personal Information by Public Sector Agencies in relation to their Investigative Functions, 23 December 2013

·    NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places

·    Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW)

·    Workplace Surveillance Policy 2007

·    Local Government Act (1993)

·    Draft Graffiti Policy (2014)

·    Complaints Management Policy (2001)

·    Privacy Management Plan (2013)

·    Surveillance Devices Act 2007


APPENDIX No: 2 - Code of Practice for Overt Surveillance

 

Item No: GB.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ku-ring-gai Council

 

 

Covert Surveillance in Public Places

 

Code of Practice

 

 

August 2014

 

 

Contents

1.      OVERVIEW... 3

2.      INTRODUCTION.. 3

3.      KEY PRINCIPLES.. 3

Principle 1. 3

Principle 2. 4

Principle 3. 4

Principle 4. 4

Principle 5. 4

Principle 6. 4

Principle 7. 4

Principle 8. 4

4.      DEFINITIONS.. 5

5.      OBJECTIVES.. 5

6.      OWNERSHIP OF THE PROGRAM.. 5

7.      PUBLIC INFORMATION.. 6

8.      CONFIDENTIALITY AND ACCESS.. 6

9.      SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN.. 7

10.        CAMERA LOCATION.. 7

11.        MONITORING.. 7

12.        EVALUATION.. 8

13.        BREACHES OF THE CODE.. 8

 

 

 


 

1.         OVERVIEW

 

The Code of Practice has been complied for Ku-ring-gai Council’s Public Place CCTV Program.

 

This Code of Practice contains the aims, objectives and basic standards under which the CCTV Project will be operated.  The Code of Practice will be accompanied by a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) for authorised Ku-ring-gai Council staff to manage the system.  These guidelines and standards are required to ensure confidentially, correct procedure and privacy of all persons authorised to manage the program.

 

Authorised staff must be fully aware of the contents of this Code of Practice.  The credibility of the program relies on complete understanding and full knowledge of correct policies and procedures.

 

These guidelines have been prepared by Ku-ring-gai Council utilising the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places.    It has been developed to ensure compliance with all relevant State and Federal legislation and policy guidelines pertaining to the use of surveillance cameras in public places.  This includes but is not limited to:

 

·    Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

·    Surveillance Devices Act 2007

·    Local Government Act 1993

·    Australian Standard 4806.1-2006 – Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Part 1: Management and Operation.

·    Australian Standard 2342-1992 Development, testing and implementation of information and safety symbols and symbolic signs

·    Workplace Surveillance Act 2005

 

2.         INTRODUCTION

 

In an effort to identify illegal dumping and littering offences across the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area, Council will utilise surveillance cameras as one of multiple methods to reduce the upward trend in dumping.

 

In an effort to reduce graffiti and vandalism on public property, Council will also utilise surveillance cameras.  These are one of several initiatives that have been developed to reduce the incidences of illegal dumping, littering and malicious damage on public land and public buildings.

 

3.         KEY PRINCIPLES   

 

The code is based on eight (8) key principles

Principle 1

 

The CCTV Project will be operated fairly, within applicable law, and only for the purposes for which it is established or which are subsequently agreed in accordance with this Code of Practice.

Principle 2

 

The CCTV Program will not limit the privacy and civil liberties of individual members of the public, including the rights to freedom of religious and political expression and assembly. 

Principle 3

 

Ku-ring-gai Council has primary responsibility for compliance within the purposes and objectives of the CCTV Program for the maintenance, management and security of the Program and the protection of the interests of the public in relation to the CCTV project.

Principle 4

 

Ku-ring-gai Council will be accountable to the public for the effective operation and management of the program.  This will be done through regular evaluation and monitoring of the program.

Principle 5

 

The public will be provided with clear and easily accessible information in relation to the operation of the CCTV Project for public safety in town centres.

Principle 6

 

Information recorded will be accurate, relevant and not exceed that necessary to fulfil the purposes of the CCTV Program.

Principle 7

 

The retention of, and access to, recorded material will be only for the purposes provided by this Code of Practice or applicable laws.  Recorded materials will be retained for 28 days unless they are required for law enforcement purposes or other lawful requirements.

Principle 8

 

All contact between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Police in relation to the CCTV Program will be conducted strictly in accordance with the Code of Practice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.         DEFINITIONS

 

CCTV

Closed Circuit Television

Audit

A systematic, independent and documented verification process of objectively obtaining and evaluating audit evidence to determine if the Code of Practice.

Public Place

Depositing of any waste other than litter, upon public or private land or waters where no consent has been obtained from Council or the granting of an environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority.

Littering

Unlawfully depositing of waste materials in a public place.

Vandalism

Wilful destruction of public property including buildings, signage, and street furniture.

Graffiti

Application of paint or other material used to create images, writing, or changes to the colour of building surfaces or other public hard surface areas not authorised by Council or any other jurisdiction.

 

5.         OBJECTIVES

 

To inform the community, if and when,  camera surveillance is being carried out in relation to any operation of the CCTV Project for public safety in town centres to act as a deterrent to individuals or companies from causing the illegal dumping, littering, vandalism or graffiti offences. 

 

6.         OWNERSHIP OF THE PROGRAM

 

Ku-ring-gai Council is the owner of the CCTV Program.  Ku-ring-gai Council staff are authorised for the operation, monitoring and retrieval of recorded footage and materials of the Surveillance Program. 

 

Procedures will be put in place to ensure access to the surveillance monitoring equipment is restricted to authorised officers and equipment is protected from unauthorised access.

 

Operators of camera equipment will act in accordance with the highest level of probity.

 

The circumstances in which Police or other authorised persons are able to access recorded materials and footage will be carefully controlled and outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

 

 

 

 

7.         PUBLIC INFORMATION

 

Copies of the Code of Practice will be available for the public.  Council will establish a dedicated CCTV webpage on Council’s website where information about the CCTV Program will be made available.

 

Where cameras are installed in town centres for public safety, clear and visible signage stating CCTV cameras are operating will be displayed at the perimeter of the area covered by the system.  These signs will:

 

·    Inform the public -cameras are in operation.

·    Identify Council as the owner of the system and give a telephone number if there is a problem, enquiry or complaint.

·    Inform the public of the hours of operation.

 

Enquiries regarding the CCTV Program and its operation can be made in writing to:

 

The General Manager

Ku-ring-gai Council

Locked Bag 1056

Pymble  NSW  2073

 

Or by Telephone on (02) 9424 0000.

 

8.         CONFIDENTIALITY AND ACCESS

 

Under no circumstances is any technical information relating to the Surveillance Program, including the number of authorised staff, camera capability or police procedures is to be provided to any unauthorised person. 

 

Access to and use of recorded material will be facilitated by Council and will only take place:

 

·    in compliance with the needs of the NSW Police in connection with their law enforcement functions;

·    if necessary for the purposes of legal proceedings; and

·    other lawful requirements.

 

Recorded material will not be sold or used for commercial purposes.

 

Images from recorded material will not, under any circumstances, be used to publicise the existence of success of the CCTV program.

 

Appropriate security measures will be taken against unauthorised access, alteration, disclosure, accidental loss or destruction of recorded material.

 

All requests for surveillance footage are to be made in writing and will remain confidential.  Only requests for footage for a lawful purpose will be considered.

 

Information collected by the CCTV Program is subject to the information protection principles of The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

 

9.         SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN

 

The program involves two (2) cameras initially, which could be added to in the future, connected to workstations in the Operations Building by a wireless network. The system will record all images digitally from the cameras onto appropriate and secure recording equipment.  The level of monitoring is considered as ‘passive’.  Passive monitoring is defined as no deliberate monitoring by security personnel. 

 

Technical details:

St Ives Showground – Static CCTV

See attached GV-Tower NVR system information.

 

·    1 x BL3410 Bullet Zoom camera on light pole approx. 40 metres from the Front gate.

·    1 x VAR-18-2 Infra Red Illuminator adjacent to the camera.

·    1 x Nanobridge WiFi system to operate between the light pole & the building.

·    1 x Pacom 16ch DVR including cabinet in the building.

·    2 x Maxon 3G Modems, one in the building cabinet at the Showground and the other at the Council’s office at Gordon.

 

10.       CAMERA LOCATION

 

Cameras are installed in areas within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area and have been identified as being subject to a high incidence of illegal dumping, littering, vandalism or graffiti activity.  These locations are determined on the basis of incidents identified by Council staff.  The number and location of cameras may vary from time to time and will be subject to approval from the General Manager and Director of Operations.  

 

Cameras will operate on a 24 hour basis.

 

11.       MONITORING

Monitoring of cameras will be the responsibility of the Waste Section of the Operations Department and limited to the nominated responsible officers including:

 

·    Manager Waste,

·    Manager, Development & Regulatory Services,

·    Waste Contracts and Projects Officer, and

·    Building Assets Coordinator. 

 

When an incident is identified to which a response or action is required, the responsible officer will record the incident in the secured record system by:

·    Logging the incident with a detailed description;

·    Record date, time and location of the incident;

·    Attaching any images recorded of the offence;

·    Record outcome of any investigation into the incident; and

·    Subject to the evidence, refer the matter for enforcement and/or legal proceedings.

 

12.       EVALUATION

 

Council is responsible for ensuring the CCTV Program is subject to a regular evaluation to identify whether its purposes are relevant and whether objectives are being achieved.

 

Council will produce an evaluation as part of the Quarterly Update every three (3) months for the first 12 months and then annually.  The annual report will be presented to the Director of Operations and General Manager.  A copy of the report will be circulated to Councillors and made available for public inspection.

 

An annual audit of the Program will be carried out by an independent assessor.  The results of the evaluation will be taken into account in the future function, management and operation of the CCTV Program.

 

13.       BREACHES OF THE CODE

 

Ku-ring-gai Council will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Code of Practice.

 

Council is required to investigate any alleged breach of the Code.  If a breach is found to have occurred, Council will remedy that breach to the extent possible under the Code.

 

Complaints in relation to any aspect of the management or operation of the CCTV Program may be made in writing to Council in accordance with Council’s Complaints Management Policy and Privacy Management Plan addressed to:

 

The General Manager

Ku-ring-gai Council

Locked Bag 1056

Pymble  NSW  2073

 

or by telephone on 02 9424 0000 or email to kmc@kmc.nsw.gov.au.

 

The Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998 authorises the Information and Privacy Commission to receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of privacy.  Any member of the public is entitled to lodge a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commission. 

 

Information and Privacy Commission can be contacted at:

 

Information and Privacy Commission

GPO Box 7011

Sydney NSW  2001

Telephone: 1800 472 679       Fax: (02) 8114 3756               Email:  ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au

 


APPENDIX No: 3 - Standard Operating Procedure for Overt Surveillance

 

Item No: GB.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ku-ring-gai Council

 

 

CCTV Program

 

Overt Electronic Surveillance in Public Places

 

Standard Operating Procedure

 

 

August 2014

 

 

 

Contents

1.      Introduction. 3

2.      Monitoring Equipment 3

3.      Camera  Equipment 3

4.      Access to recorded images. 3

5.      Confidentiality. 4

6.      Primary Duties. 4

7.      Response to identified incidents. 4

8.      Other Authorised Access. 4

Appendix. 5

 


 

Standard Operating Procedures

 

 

1.         Introduction

 

The Standard Operating Procedure has been developed by Ku-ring-gai Council as a requirement of the Code of Practice and following the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment of Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places. 

 

2.         Monitoring Equipment

 

The monitoring equipment used will be desk top computers and smart phones located with the Waste Contracts and Projects Officer and Building Assets Coordinator.  Ku-ring-gai Council has chosen not to have a control room.

 

The monitoring equipment will be positioned so the public are not able to view it.

 

The monitoring equipment will only be used for the objectives detailed in Section 5 of the Code of Practice

 

The monitoring equipment will only be used by those authorised whose details appear on the Register of Authorised Persons.

 

Each authorised person is to be aware of and agree to abide the Code of Practice and Standard Operating Procedure.

 

Each authorised person will be issued with a username and password that must be used to log onto the screen.

 

3.         Camera  Equipment

 

The camera equipment will be operated by Ku-ring-gai Council.  The NSW Police will not have access to the camera equipment.

 

The camera equipment will be located at the selected project area.

 

Recordings will be made to a web-based platform and may be transferred to a storage device when the images are required for further investigation of an incident, for evidence in court or for other lawful reason.

 

4.         Access to recorded images

 

Ku-ring-gai Council will be solely responsible for allowing access to recorded material in accordance with the Code of Practice.

 

When images are recorded to a storage device then an entry into the Register of Access is to be made by Council.

 

5.         Confidentiality

 

Any Council staff or contractors involved in any of the processes described in these Standard Operating Procedures will be required to sign a confidentiality document stating they will not disclose to anybody, or any organisation, unless otherwise lawfully directed to do so, any information about any image which they observed generated by the CCTV Cameras.  A copy of the confidentiality agreement is attached.

 

6.         Primary Duties

 

The prime duties and responsibilities of authorised staff are, but not limited to:

 

·        Operation and maintenance of the surveillance equipment and software;

·        Retrieval of footage and other recorded materials of the surveillance system;

·        Respond to requests from Police relating to incidents and recorded material/footage;

·        Adherence to policies, rules of conduct and procedures;

·        Undertaking basic maintenance and housekeeping;

·        Reporting technical problems effecting the equipment to the Manager, Waste.

 

7.         Response to identified incidents

 

Whenever a response is deemed appropriate to an identified incident, the authorised Council person must record the following in the Incident Log:

 

·    Type of incident including description

·    Date and time of incident

·    Person/s making response.

·    Notify the Police as to the circumstances of any criminal event.

·    Ensure footage is secured, saved and marked appropriately in the event that it is required for legal purposes.

 

8.         Other Authorised Access

 

Parties who should be able to show adequate grounds for disclosure for the purposes of providing evidence in criminal proceedings, providing evidence in civil proceedings, the prevention and reduction of crime and disorder, the investigation and detection of crime and antisocial behaviour are:

 

·    NSW Police;

·    Statutory authorities with powers to prosecute;

·    Solicitors; and

·    Other agencies, according to purpose and legal status.


 

Appendix

Confidentiality Agreement

 

Operation of CCTV Cameras

 

 

 

 

 

I _______________________________________ an employee of

    (full name printed)

 

________________________________________________________

   (print name of Organisation)

 

1.         Will not disclose, unless lawfully directed or as a bona fide part of my employment, any matter or information which comes to my knowledge in relation to or emanating from the operation of the CCTV cameras owned by Ku-ring-gai Council.

2.         Acknowledge that this agreement is not limited to my current period of employment or to any time limit period.

3.         Understand that failure to observe this confidentiality may result in legal action being taken against me and/or employment disciplinary action.

 

 

 

 

___________________________________                         __________________________

   (signed)                                                              (date)

 

 

 

___________________________________                         ___________________________

   (witness)                                                              (date)

 

 


 


APPENDIX No: 3 - Standard Operating Procedure for Overt Surveillance

 

Item No: GB.7

 

 

 

Register of Authorised Persons

 

Name of Authorised Person

Title

Date authorised

Authorised by

Date Authorisation removed

Removed by

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Register of Access to CCTV Footage

 

Type of Application

(Police, GIPPA, PIPPA)

Date and Scope of Application

Details of person/organisation

Period, date and time of recorded images requested

Date and Time requested actioned

Person who copied images

Date images provided to applicant

Trim reference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Hierarchy of Management Responsibilities

 

 

                                        

 


APPENDIX No: 3 - Standard Operating Procedure for Overt Surveillance

 

Item No: GB.7

 

 

REQUEST FOR A COPY OF RECORDED MATERIAL FROM KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL SURVEILLANCE CAMERA PROGRAM

 

 

1, ____________________________________ (print name), _______________________ (rank),

 

 

_____________________ (Police ID#)

 

 

Of NSW Police, _________________________ (location/unit).

 

 

Request a copy of images recorded by Ku-ring-gai Council’s CCTV cameras. 

The images I request relate to the following:

 

 

Time and Date:              ____________________________________

 

 

Location:                        ____________________________________

 

 

Incident/COPS No:                ____________________________________

 

 

I require a copy of the images for the purpose of:

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

I acknowledge that I will not make a copy of these images or disclose the images to any other persons unless lawfully required to do so.

 

Signed by recipient: ________________________  Date  ______________________________

 

 

Witnessed by Local Area Commander  _____________________________________________

                                                     (Signature)  



[1]  https://www.airportlinkm7.com.au/about-airportlinkm7/environment-sustainability/air-quality-monitoring.aspx