Ordinary Meeting of Council
TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 11 November 2014 AT 7.00pm
Level 3 Council Chambers
Agenda
** ** ** ** ** **
NOTE: For Full Details, See Council’s Website –
www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting
NOTE:
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of the following Confidential Report and its confidential attachments along with the confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:
C.1 Nominations for Joint Regional Planning Panel Members
GB.9 Reclassification of Council Land - 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield
Attachment A1: Valuation report - 259-271 Pacific Highway - Lindfield - FINAL
GB.11 Tender 20/2014 - Disposal and Processing Green Waste and Dry Recyclables
Attachment A1: List of Tenders received - recyclables
Attachment A2: List of Tenders received - green waste
Attachment A3: Tender Evaluation Panel's assessment - recyclables
Attachment A4: Tender Evaluation Panel's assessment - green waste
Attachment A5: Corporate Scorecard - Financial assessment - Tenderer AR
Attachment A6: Corporate Scorecard - Financial assessment - Tenderer AG
GB.12 Tender 21/2014 - North Turramurra Recreation Area - Stage 3 - Irrigation Works
Attachment A1: List of Tenders received
Attachment A2: Tender Evaluation Panel's assessment
Attachment A3: Corporate Scorecard - financial assessment
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 8
File: S02131
Meeting held 28 October 2014
Minutes numbered 331 to 355
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 Fit for the Future Program 111
File: S09638
To update Council on the release of the State Government Fit for the Future program.
Recommendation:
That Council, consistent with previous resolutions, commence preparation of a “Council Improvement Proposal (Existing Structure)” for submission to the NSW Government by 30 June 2014.
GB.2 Sponsorship Requests 2014 / 2015 173
File: S05650
To advise Council of sponsorship requests, received under Council’s Sponsorship Policy, for 2014/2015, and for Council to approve requests for sponsorship over $5,000.
Recommendation:
That Council approve the sponsorship requests over $5,000 as outlined in the report.
GB.3 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants 177
File: FY00432/6
To advise Council of applications received from community groups for the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants program, and to recommend subsequent funding allocations.
Recommendation:
That Council approve recommendations in this report for funding community and cultural groups.
GB.4 Council Meeting Cycle for 2015 277
File: CY00438/2
To consider the Council Meeting Cycle for 2015 which takes into account school holidays, public holidays and the Christmas recess.
Recommendation:
That Council’s Meeting Cycle for 2015 be adopted.
GB.5 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters - Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections 282
File: S08820
To consider the State Government’s response to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in regard to its inquiry into the conduct of the 2012 Local Government Elections.
Recommendation:
That Council receive and note the response from the State Government to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to an Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections.
GB.6 73 Koola Avenue East Killara - Demolition of Existing Structures and Three Lot Torrens Title Subdivision 298
File: DA0202/14
Ward: Gordon
Applicant: Commander Corporation Pty Ltd
Owner: Ms F M Chia
To determine Development Application No.0202/14 for the demolition of existing structures and a three lot Torrens title subdivision.
Recommendation:
Approval.
GB.7 Lindfield Community Hub - Probity Matters 331
File: S10362
The purpose of this report is to address a number of issues raised by Council’s probity consultant in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub master plan.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt the recommendations in this report in relation to probity matters raised by Council’s probity consultant.
GB.8 Consideration of Submissions on the Planning Proposal to Heritage List the former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway Pymble 403
File: S10293
For Council to consider submissions on the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list the former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble as a local heritage item under the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP 2014)
Recommendation:
That Council proceed with the Planning Proposal without variation, and resolve to make the Plan under S59(2) of the EP&A Act and Regulations.
GB.9 Reclassification of Council Land - 259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield 519
File: S09780
To have Council consider the reclassification of Council land at 259-271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield, also known as the ‘Lindfield library precinct’, from Community to Operational land.
Recommendation:
That Council prepare a Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from Community land to Operational land and that a further report is brought back to Council regarding future divestment following the reclassification process.
GB.10 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice Review 534
File: S10321
To seek endorsement of the proposed contents of a Council submission to the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) as part of the planned review of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice.
Recommendation:
That Council endorses the inclusion of the contents of this report as Council’s submission on the review of the 10/50 Code and that Council provides a submission to the NSW RFS by 14 November 2014.
GB.11 Tender 20/2014 - Disposal and Processing Green Waste and Dry Recyclables 567
File: S10273
To consider Tenders submitted for receipt of Council’s domestic green waste and dry recyclables and appoint the preferred tenderer for each service.
Recommendation:
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the tender submitted by Tenderer ‘AR’ for the paper and mixed recyclables and Tenderer ‘AG’ for the domestic green waste as identified in the Confidential Summary.
GB.12 Tender 21/2014 - North Turramurra Recreation Area - Stage 3 - Irrigation Works 573
File: S09254
To consider the tenders received for the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) – Stage 3 Irrigation works and appoint the preferred tenderer.
Recommendation:
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, and following the request for tender, it is recommended Council accepts the tender submitted by Tenderer ‘A’ as identified in the Confidential Summary attached to the report.
Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting
Motions of which due Notice has been given
NM.1 NSROC Councils and Fit for the Future 579
File: CY00456/2
Notice
of Rescission from the Mayor, Councillor J Anderson and Councillors
Fornari-Orsmond and Citer dated 3 November 2014
We move rescission of Minute Number 346 -Notice of Motion - NM.1 “NSROC Councils and Fit for the Future”, of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 October 2014, namely:
“A. That Councillors receive a formal briefing on Fit for the Future as soon as possible.
B. That Council pursues a strategy in preparing a Fit for the Future application based on continuing as an independent, vibrant and viable Council.
C. That Council continues to discuss all options for reform with surrounding Councils.
D. That the Mayor and / or Council’s second elected NSROC representative Councillor Malicki plus the General Manager attend every meeting called by the NSROC Councils, including those called by individual members, to discuss a response to Fit for the Future or to discuss resource and services sharing. This will include attending the meeting on 30 October called by the Mayor of Ryde City Council.
E. That all Mayoral correspondence on Fit for the Future and all correspondence to or from NSROC or its member Councils be distributed to Councillors within 24 hours of receipt or reply or as soon as reasonably practicable.”
NM.2 Training for Mayor and Deputy Mayor 580
File: S03779/2
Notice of Motion from Councillors Malicki, Pettett, Armstrong, Ossip and Szatow dated 3 November 2014
We all agree that training is most important for elected representatives, and we note that there is to be Leadership Training for all Councillors in December, linked strongly to teamwork with our senior staff.
Given that the roles of Mayor and Deputy Mayor require special skills, we move:
“1. That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor should attend additional training for their specific roles prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting Cycle in 2015.
2. That future Mayors and Deputy Mayors also undertake training for the Mayoral role at the start of their terms.”
BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS
Questions Without Notice
Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS
Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting
C.1 Nominations for Joint Regional Planning Panel Members
File: S08316
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).
Report by Director Development and Regulation dated 25 September 2014
John McKee
General Manager
** ** ** ** ** **
MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 28 October 2014
Present: |
The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson (Chairperson) (Roseville Ward) Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward) Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward) Councillor C Berlioz (St Ives Ward) Councillor D Armstrong (Roseville Ward) 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 Community (Janice Bevan) Acting Director Strategy & Environment (Deborah Silva) Manager Urban & Heritage Planning (Antony Fabbro) Team Leader Urban Design (Bill Royal) Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan) Minutes Secretary (Judy Murphy)
|
The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm
The Mayor offered the Prayer
331 |
File: S02194
|
|
Councillor David Ossip tendered an apology for non-attendance [personal reasons] and requested leave of absence.
NOTE:
The Director Strategy and Environment, Andrew Watson tendered an apology for non-attendance.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Citer/Szatow)
That the apologies by Councillor Ossip be accepted and leave of absence granted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
The Mayor adverted to the necessity for Councillors and staff to declare a Pecuniary Interest/Conflict of Interest in any item on the Business Paper.
The Mayor, Councillor Jennifer Anderson declared a significant non-pecuniary interest in C.1 Audit and Risk Committee – Selection of Independent Members (advised that several decades ago her husband worked in the same firm with one of the applicants) and based on that advice, she will leave the Chamber before the matter.
The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the Agenda:
D Scarlett - Council’s Strategic Plan
A Cameron - DA Application Process
Y Skarvek - Dementia Respite Care
J Watson - Culworth Avenue Car Park
C Pillay - 4 Bent Street Lindfield
DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS
The Mayor adverted to the documents circulated in the Councillors’ papers and advised that the following matters would be dealt with at the appropriate time during the meeting:
Late Items: |
Refer MM.2 – A R Bluett Memorial Award
Refer MM.3 – LATE Mark Matuschka – Kokoda Trail Veteran
|
Memorandums: |
Refer GB.12
Friar’s Field Pymble – Results of Community Consultation into Potential Dog
Off-leash Area – Memorandum
from Acting Director Strategy and Environment dated 23 October 2014 advising
that on the third page of the report the text in the report for Willoughby
Council which states: 10 dog off-leash areas within 50 parks and 34
sportsfield areas,
Refer C.1 – Audit and Risk Committee – Selection of Independent Members – Memorandum from Manager Records and Governance dated 27 October 2014 advising of an error in the Business Papers that the report was by the Director Development and Regulation but, however, should read: Report by Director Corporate dated 15 October 2014.
Refer GB.11 – Turramurra – Ray Street Precinct – Draft Master Plan for Public Exhibition – Confidential Memorandum from Manager Urban Planning and Heritage dated 22 October 2014 with attached confidential supplementary information with regard to financial feasibility assessment to support the figures provided in Confidential Attachment 7 to the report circulated to Councillors, General Manager and Director Strategy and Environment ONLY. |
335 |
File: S02272 Vide: MM.2
|
|
It gives me great pleasure to announce that Ku-ring-gai Council – along with Bankstown Council – have been declared joint winners of the AR Bluett Memorial Award in 2014, in the City and Regional category. The award is widely considered to be the most prestigious in NSW local government. This year was the first time for 25 years the award has been a joint one, reflecting the high standard of entries this year.
The A R Bluett Memorial Award has been awarded annually to NSW councils since 1945, in memory of Albert Robert Bluett. AR Bluett was an outstanding figure in local government, serving as the Secretary and Solicitor to the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW for 30 years and one of the architects of the Local Government Act of 1919.
The A R Bluett Memorial Award is keenly contested each year by Councils who would like to be recognised as being the most progressive in the State in all aspects of their operations and services.
There are two categories in the Bluett Award; the City and Regional Award and the Rural Award. The former is open to Councils in urban areas, cities or large regional towns and the latter to Councils based in rural and country areas.
Nominations open in the middle of each year and finalists announced by September. Finalists are then visited by the judging panel who inspect facilities and ask questions before the awards are announced at the annual conference for NSW local government held in October. The awards are coordinated by LGNSW, the peak body for all 152 NSW Councils.
Winning the Bluett Award is an accolade that opens the door to leadership roles for Councils, an improved public profile and more opportunities to gain grant funding and market their area.
The award was announced at the 2014 Local Government Conference in Coffs Harbour on 22 October.
The judges and LGNSW outlined their reasons for choosing Ku-ring-gai as joint winners in a statement issued to the media.
Trust Chairman Graeme Fleming PSM, said the awards are the premier award for local government in NSW, representing the pinnacle of achievement and the judging proved one of the most difficult ever, as evidenced by the joint winner announcement for Ku-ring-gai and Bankstown.
Ku-ring-gai Council which promotes itself as "Sydney's Green Heart" have been quite strategic with their decisions with a strong emphasis on sustainability from a financial, environmental, social and governance perspective. Some of the achievements during the year have included a $17M fitness and aquatic centre, major upgrade of Gordon Library, establishment of wetlands, extensive upgrades to parks and playgrounds, one of the largest volunteer bush regeneration programs in NSW, a new administrative building with the adaptive reuse of previous commercial building, numerous awards and citations, bio-banking, an enviro YouTube channel, extensive community consultation and engagement, as well as being in a sound financial position with all depreciation fully funded.
As Mayor, I am sure I speak for all the Councillors in expressing our pride in this award and our belief in Ku-ring-gai’s ability to deliver major projects for our community by a combination of good planning, financial acumen and innovation.
The new emergency services headquarters, the new Council depot at Pymble, the refit of Gordon Library, the North Turramurra Recreation Area and the Ku-ring-gai Fitness and Aquatic Centre are just a few of the Council’s major projects in the past two years.
Added to that is our strong financial performance and ability to plan for our expanding population through a comprehensive program of land acquisition for public open space. I note that just in the last two weeks we have been able to announce a budget of over $50 million for local roads over the next five years.
This is in stark contrast to the position we were in 14 years ago, when Ku-ring-gai Council was on the State Government’s ‘watchlist’ for underperforming Councils. At that point we were running operating deficits with no cash reserves, our total roads budget was $1.5 million and we depended on ratepayers for 70% of our income.
In comparison today, we are rated in the top 16 of 152 NSW Councils for financial strength and stability, our budget this year for capital works is $33 million and our dependence on rate income has been reduced to 57%.
What this award shows is that with diligence, innovative thinking, fiscal responsibility and some hard decision-making it is possible to turn things around.
We still have more to do in terms of addressing our infrastructure backlog. However, I firmly believe this Council is on the right path to building substantial infrastructure and providing quality services for all 114,000 of our residents. I also believe our current position should demonstrate unequivocally to the NSW Government that Ku-ring-gai is consistently achieving on behalf of its community.
I thank the Council staff for their hard work that has contributed to this award and my fellow Councillors for their perseverance and commitment to delivering a secure future for Ku-ring-gai.
|
|
That the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
One Minute Silence was observed
PETITIONS
343 |
2 - 4 Culworth Avenue Killara - Demolition of Existing Structures and Construction of a Five-Storey Residential Flat Building containing 44 Units, Basement Car Parking and Associated Site Works
File: DA0088/14 Vide: GB.7
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey residential flat building containing 44 units, basement car parking and associated site works.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Citer)
That the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to DA0088/14 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a five storey residential flat building containing 44 residential units, basement and associated landscaping works on land at 2–4 Culworth Avenue Killara, for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)
The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
2. Amendments to approved plans
The plans subject of this development consent shall be amended in the following ways:
• to ensure the visitability of all units within the development the southern lift core at the ground floor shall be provided with a north and south facing door so that units 5 to 9 can be accessed from the main entry • the access pathway to the communal open space shall be continued through and joined through the main communal open space area linking the front and rear of the building. This path shall be 1.0m in width • occasional seating shall be placed throughout the communal open space areas • the vertical louvers to the rear passageways are to be fixed and of aluminium material finished to be recessive and complement the other materials in the building. The finish shall not be reflective • highlight openable windows in lieu of the glass blocks to the studies or kitchens of units 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35 and 41 shall be provided. These widows shall be provided with a sill height of 1.6m to maintain privacy • where two balconies conjoin and the plans nominates a ‘glass separation’ they are to be separated by fixed, framed opaque toughened glazing that extends to the underside of the balcony above it or in the case of the top most floor to the roof of that storey.
Reason: To ensure a high level of architectural design is achieved.
3. 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.
4. 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:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
5. 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
6. Lot consolidation
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the dwellings and associated improvements at 2 - 4 Culworth Avenue must be demolished and the lots consolidated. Evidence of lot consolidation, in the form of a plan registered with Land and Property Information, must be submitted for approval of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure continuous structures will not be placed across separate titles.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 Culworth Avenue over the site frontage, including the full intersection. • All driveway crossings and laybacks opposite the subject site.
The report must be completed by a consulting structural/civil engineer. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording (both written and photographic) existing damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing any damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development.
The developer may be held liable to any recent damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded by the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of works.
Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any excavation works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of public infrastructure before works commence.
10. 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.
11. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)
Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:
The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.
In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.
Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.
12. 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 comprising a minimum of six boreholes to at least 3 metres below the proposed basement level, with at least three groundwater monitoring bores, as recommended in the report by Jeffery and Katauskas dated 22 January 2014. The report is to address such matters as:
• appropriate excavation methods and techniques • vibration management and monitoring • dilapidation survey • support and retention of excavates 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.
13. Construction and traffic management plan
The applicant must submit to Council a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), which is to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.
The plan is to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.
The report is to contain commitments which must be followed by the demolition and excavation contractor, builder, owner and subcontractors. The CTMP applies to all persons associated with demolition, excavation and construction of the development.
The report is to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.
The report is to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for an 11 metre long heavy rigid vehicle.
The Traffic Control Plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One must be provided for each of the following stages of the works:
o Demolition o Excavation o Concrete pour o Construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath o Traffic control for vehicles reversing into or out of the site.
Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users.
When a satisfactory CTMP is received, a letter of approval will be issued with conditions attached. Traffic management at the site must comply with the approved CTMP as well as any conditions in the letter issued by Council. Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines may be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction process in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.
14. Work zone
A Works Zone is to be provided in Culworth Avenue 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.
15. 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.
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.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
17. Tree protective fencing type galvanised mesh
The tree protection fencing shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metre spacing and connected by securely attached chain mesh fencing to a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height prior to work commencing.
Reason: To protect existing trees during construction phase.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 Department of Environment and Climate Change 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, churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive equipment • the construction noise objective specified in the conditions of this consent • the construction vibration criteria specified in the conditions of this consent • determination of appropriate noise and vibration objectives for each identified sensitive receiver • noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures • assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed demolition, excavation and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles and any traffic diversions • description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and procedures that will be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction • construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration restrictions, respite periods and frequency • procedures for notifying residents of construction activities that are likely to affect their amenity through noise and vibration • contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non-compliances and/or noise complaints
Reason: To protect the amenity afforded to surrounding residents during the construction process.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
23. Amendments to approved landscape plan
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved landscape plans, listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:
The above landscape plan(s) shall be amended in the following ways:
the proposed location of T20 is to be amended (to minimise spatial conflicts with proposed drainage infrastructure) to be relocated centrally within the communal setback in front of Unit 4 to ensure equitable access through the communal open space the proposed pedestrian path is to be connected from the western to eastern end. The path is to be maintained at 1.0m wide to promote usage of the southern communal open space, occasional seating is to be proposed within the area, particularly towards the southeast corner where there is solar amenity
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the landscape plan has been amended as required by this condition.
Note: An amended plan, prepared by a landscape architect or qualified landscape designer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure adequate landscaping of the site
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.
30. Adaptable units
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the nominated adaptable units within the development application, [3, 12, 13, 23 and 33], are designed as adaptable housing in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS4299-1995: Adaptable Housing.
Note: Evidence from an appropriately qualified professional demonstrating compliance with this control is to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: Disabled access & amenity.
31. Paving near trees
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that paving works within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s will be of a type and construction to ensure that existing water infiltration and gaseous exchange to the tree/s root system is maintained:
Note: Details of the paving prepared by a suitably qualified professional shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
32. Pier and beam footings near trees
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the footings of the approved Unit 6 courtyard wall/fence will be isolated pier or pier and beam construction within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s:
The piers shall be located such that no roots of a diameter greater than 30mm will be severed or injured during the construction period. The beam/s shall be of reinforced concrete or galvanised steel sections and placed in positions with the base of the beam being a minimum of 50mm above existing soil levels.
Note: Structural details of the pier or pier and beam construction shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
33. Noise from road and rail (residential only)
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall submit evidence to Council demonstrating that the development will be acoustically designed and constructed to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:
(a) in any bedroom in the building-35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am, (b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)-40dB(A) at any time.
Plans and specifications of the required acoustic design shall be prepared by a practicing acoustic engineer and shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To minimise the impact of noise from the adjoining road or rail corridor on the occupants of the development.
34. Noise from plant in residential zone
Where any form of mechanical ventilation equipment or other noise generating plant is proposed as part of the development, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority, shall be satisfied 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 level during the day when measured at the site’s boundaries and shall not exceed the background level at night (10.00pm -6.00 am) when measured at the boundary of the site.
C1. Note: A certificate from an appropriately qualified acoustic engineer is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate, certifying that all mechanical ventilation equipment or other noise generating plant in isolation or in combination with other plant will comply with the above requirements.
Reason: To comply with best practice standards for residential acoustic amenity.
35. 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.
C1. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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 under DCP40 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 car park 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.
38. Car parking allocation
Car parking within the development shall be allocated in the following way:
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.
39. Number of bicycle spaces
The basement car park shall be adapted to provide 14 bicycle spaces in accordance with DCP 55. The bicycle parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
Reason: To provide alternative modes of transport to and from the site.
40. 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.
41. Utility provider requirements
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
42. 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.
43. Section 94 Contributions - Centres
This development is subject to a development contribution calculated in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, being a s94 Contributions Plan in effect under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as follows:
The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.
The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and 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:
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Construction noise
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, noise generated from the site shall be controlled in accordance with the recommendations of the approved noise and vibration management plan.
Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity to neighbouring properties.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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 Jeffery and Katauskas dated 22 January 2014 and the report submitted prior to commencement of bulk excavation. Over the course of the works, a qualified geotechnical/hydro-geological 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.
53. Compliance with submitted geotechnical report
A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee excavation.
Geotechnical aspects of the development work, namely:
appropriate excavation method and vibration control support and retention of excavated faces hydro-geological considerations
must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Jeffery and Katauskas dated 22 January 2014 and the report submitted before commencement of bulk excavation. 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).
If the groundwater monitoring indicates that constant pumping would be required for long-term basement drainage, then a tanked basement design is to be adopted. The NSW Office of Water will also require a licence to be obtained for temporary dewatering in excess of 3 megalitres. All requirements of NSW Office of Water are to be met during design, excavation and construction.
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Recycling of building material (specific)
During demolition and construction, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that, in addition to building materials generally suitable for recycling, the following materials have been forwarded to an appropriate registered business dealing in recycling of materials. All materials to be recycled must be kept in good order:
Stone salvaged from existing buildings retained on site and reused in landscaping works.
Reason: To facilitate recycling of materials.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Arborist’s report
The tree/s to be retained shall be inspected, monitored and treated by a qualified Arborist during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the Arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work:
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
65. Cutting of tree roots
No tree roots of 30mm or greater in diameter located within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be severed or injured in the process of any works during the construction period. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
66. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order. All trees to be clearly tagged consistent with the arboricultural impact assessment report.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
67. Hand excavation
All excavation within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
68. 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.
69. Supervision of transplanting
Transplanting of the following trees/shrubs shall be directly supervised by an experienced AQF3 arborist/horticulturist.
Reason: To protect the trees during transplanting.
70. 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.
71. Canopy replenishment trees to be planted
The canopy replenishment trees to be planted shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition until they attain a height of 5.0 metres whereby they will be protected by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Any of the trees found faulty, damaged, dying or dead shall be replaced with the same species.
Reason: To maintain the treed character of the area.
72. 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.
73. 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:
74. 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. 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.
75. 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. 525173M_02 have been complied with.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
76. 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.
77. 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 mechanical ventilation system in isolation and in association with other mechanical ventilation equipment, when in operation will not be 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 unit outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dbA above the background when measured at the nearest adjoining boundary.
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.
78. Completion of landscape works
Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.
Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.
79. 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.
80. 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 BASIX and Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47 respectively, 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
The rainwater certification sheet contained in Appendix 13 of the Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47, must be completed and attached to the certification. Where an on-site detention system has been constructed, the on-site detention certification sheet contained in Appendix 4 of DCP 47 must also be completed and attached to the certification.
Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
81. 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.
82. 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 appendices of Ku-ring-gai Council Water Management DCP 47). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the 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.
83. 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.
84. Certification of as-constructed driveway/carpark - 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:
- Australian Standard 2890.1 - “Off-street car parking”, - 2.6 metres height clearance for waste collection trucks (refer DCP 40) are met from the public street into and within the applicable areas of the basement car park
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.
85. Reinstatement of redundant crossings and completion of infrastructure works
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, and upon the completion of any works which may cause damage to Council property, 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.
86. Mechanical ventilation
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all mechanical ventilation systems are installed in accordance with Part F4.5 of the Building Code of Australia and comply with Australian Standards AS1668.2 and AS3666 Microbial Control of Air Handling and Water Systems of Building.
Reason: To ensure adequate levels of health and amenity to the occupants of the building.
87. 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:
88. 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: 2005 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.
Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.
89. 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.
90. Noise control - plant and machinery
All noise generating equipment associated with any proposed mechanical ventilation 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 unit 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.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
344 |
1B Beechworth Road, Pymble - Supplementary Report
File: DA0518/13 Vide: GB.8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To determine development application DA0518/13 for subdivision of one lot into three lots, upgrade access road, stormwater drainage and ecological regeneration works at 1B Beechworth Road, Pymble.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Malicki)
THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to DA0518/13 for subdivision of one lot into three lots, upgrade access road, stormwater drainage and ecological regeneration works at 1B Beechworth Road, Pymble, for a period of two years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)
The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
2. Inconsistency between documents
In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Dilapidation photos (public infrastructure)
Prior to the commencement of any works on site the applicant must submit to Ku-ring-gai Council and the Principal Certifying Authority a photographic record on the visible condition of Beechworth Road between the site entry and Pacific Highway (in colour - preferably saved to cd-rom in ‘jpg’ format). The photos must include detail of: · The existing footpath · The existing kerb and gutter · The existing full road surface between kerbs · The existing verge area · The existing driveway and layback where to be retained · Any existing drainage infrastructure including pits, lintels, grates. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording any pre-developed damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development (which is not to be repaired by the Applicant as part of the development). The developer may be held liable to all damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded and demonstrated under the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of any works.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
7. Construction and traffic management plan
The applicant must submit to Council a Traffic Control Plan for vehicles reversing into the site (eg for concrete pours for the new driveway).
Construction vehicles are only to use Beechworth Road north of the site entry for approach and departure to and from all directions.
When a satisfactory TCP is received, a letter of approval will be issued . Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines may be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.
Separate approvals must be obtained from Council if it is proposed to stand plant or hoist materials across Council's land http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/I_want_to/Pay_register_request_or_reply/Find_a_form
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.
8. 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.
9. Trunk protection
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the trunk/s are protected by the placement of 50 x 100mm hardwood timbers spaced at 150mm centres and secured by 2mm wire at 300mm wide spacing over suitable protective padding material as per AS4970-2009. The trunk protection shall be maintained intact until the completion of all work on site.
Any damage to the tree/s shall be treated immediately by an experienced AQF3 Horticulturist/Arborist and a report detailing the works carried out shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority:
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
10. 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
11. 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.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
12. Construction details for stormwater management and driveway works
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit construction details for the approved stormwater management and driveway works for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To protect the environment and provide suitable vehicular access.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
16. 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.
17. Section 94 development contributions - other than identified centres (For DAs determined on or after 19 December 2010).
This development is subject to a development contribution calculated in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, being a s94 Contributions Plan in effect under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as follows:
The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.
The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and may vary at the time of payment in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.
Copies of Council’s Contribution Plans can be viewed at Council Chambers, 818 Pacific Hwy Gordon or on Council’s website at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au.
Reason: To ensure the provision, extension or augmentation of the Key Community Infrastructure identified in Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 that will, or is likely to be, required as a consequence of the development.
Notwithstanding the total above, in accordance with the s94E Direction issued by the Minister for Planning dated 3 March 2011, for so long as it remains legally in force, the maximum amount payable for the subject development application shall be $20,000 for each residential lot authorised by the consent (3 lots authorised - 1 existing lot = 2 new lots authorised): 2 x $20,000 = $40,000.
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:
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Construction noise
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, noise generated from the site shall be controlled in accordance with the recommendations of the approved noise and vibration management plan.
Reason: To ensure reasonable standards of amenity to neighbouring properties.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Cutting of tree roots
No tree roots of 30mm or greater in diameter located within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be severed or injured in the process of any works during the construction period. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
34. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
35. Hand excavation
All excavation within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
36. 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.
37. Vegetation management plan
The Vegetation Management Plan, prepared by Keystone Ecological, dated Revised 30th of April 2014, is endorsed in its entirety.
· All weeding removal (Table 1) weed techniques (Appendix 5), environmental protection measures and ongoing maintenance works are to be carried out in accordance with the VMP.
· All noxious and environmental weeds (Table 1) are to be removed from the Blue Gum High Forest community within the site.
· All works at all times within the Blue Gum High Forest community are to be conducted by a suitably qualified bush regenerator. The minimum qualifications minimum qualifications and experience (for bush regenerator) are a TAFE Certificate 2 in Bushland Regeneration and one year demonstrated experience (for other personnel). In addition the site supervisor is to be eligible for full professional membership of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators (AABR).
Reason: To ensure the protection and enhancement of Blue Gum High Forest within the site.
38. 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.
39. 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:
40. Completion of landscape works
Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.
Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Subdivision certificate:
41. Certification of subdivision works
Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate or a Final Certificate of Compliance, the applicant shall submit certification from a suitably qualified and experienced engineer that the stormwater management and driveway works have been carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans.
Works-as-executed plans prepared by a registered surveyor are also to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.
Reason: To ensure that works have been carried out in accordance with the development consent.
42. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
Prior to release of the linen plan/issue of the subdivision certificate, the Section 73 Sydney Water compliance certificate which refers to the subdivision application must be obtained and submitted to the Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
43. Requirements of public authorities for connection to services
Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of any public authorities (e.g. Energy Australia, Sydney Water, Telstra Australia, AGL, etc) in regard to the connection, relocation and/or adjustment of the services affected by the proposed subdivision. All costs related to the relocation, adjustment or support of services are the responsibility of the applicant.
Note: Details of compliance with the requirements of any relevant public authorities are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that services are available to the allotments of land.
44. Infrastructure repair - subdivision works
Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, any infrastructure within the road reserve along the frontage of the subject site or within close proximity, which has been damaged as a result of subdivision works, must be fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer and at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
45. Provision of services
Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, separate underground electricity, gas and phone or appropriate conduits for the same, must be provided to each allotment to the satisfaction of the utility provider. A suitably qualified and experienced engineer or surveyor is to provide certification that all new lots have ready underground access to the services of electricity, gas and phone. Alternatively, a letter from the relevant supply authorities stating the same may be submitted to satisfy this condition.
Reason: Access to public utilities.
46. Issue of subdivision certificate
The subdivision certificate must not be issued until all conditions of development consent have been satisfied.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed prior to transfer of responsibility for the site and development to another person.
47. Submission of 88b instrument
Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the applicant must submit an original instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act with the plan of subdivision, plus six (6) copies to Council. Ku-ring-gai Council must be named as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify the burdens.
Reason: To create all required easements, rights-of-carriageway, positive covenants, restrictions-on-use or other burdens/benefits as may be required.
48. Submission of plans of subdivision (Torrens title)
For endorsement of the subdivision certificate, the applicant shall submit an original plan of subdivision plus 6 copies, suitable for endorsement by Council. The following details must be submitted with the plan of subdivision and its copies:
a) the endorsement fee current at the time of lodgement b) the 88B instrument(s) plus 6 copies c) a copy of the Final Certificate of Compliance for the driveway and drainage works d) all surveyor’s and/or consulting engineers’ certification(s) required under this subdivision consent e) The Section 73 (Sydney Water) Compliance Certificate for the subdivision. f) Proof of payment of S94 contribution
Council will check the consent conditions on the subdivision. Failure to submit the required information will delay endorsement of the linen plan and may require payment of rechecking fees. Plans and copies of subdivision must not be folded. Council will not accept bonds in lieu of completing subdivision works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
49. General easement/R.O.W. provision and certification
Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, a registered surveyor is to provide details to Council that all physical structures are fully contained within the proposed allotments or will be fully covered by the proposed burdens upon registration of the final plan of subdivision. Alternatively, where the surveyor is of the opinion that creation of burdens and benefits is not required, then proof to this effect must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that all physical structures are fully contained within the proposed allotments or will be fully covered by the proposed burdens upon registration of the final plan of subdivision.
INTEGRATED REFERRAL CONDITIONS:
50. Office of Water
a) The Construction Certificate will not be issued over any part of the site requiring a controlled activity approval until a copy of the approval has been provided to Council.
b) These General Terms of Approval (GTA) only apply to the controlled activities described in the plans and associated documentation relating to DA0518/13 and provided by Council:
(i) Site plan, map and/or surveys
Any amendments or modifications to the proposed controlled activities may render these GTA invalid. If the proposed controlled activities are amended or modified the NSW Office of Water must be notified to determine if any variations to these GTA will be required.
c) Prior to the commencement of any controlled activity (works) on waterfront land, the consent holder must obtain a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) under the Water Management Act from the NSW Office of Water. Waterfront land for the purposes of this DA is land and material in or within 40 metres of the top of the bank or shore of the river identified.
d) The consent holder must prepare or commission the preparation of:
(i) Vegetation Management Plan (ii) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (iii) Soil and Water Management Plan
e) All plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the NSW Office of Water for approval prior to any controlled activity commencing. The following plans must be prepared in accordance with the NSW Office of Water’s guidelines located at www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water- Licensing/Approvals/default.aspx
(i) Vegetation management plans (ii) Outlet structures
f) The consent holder must (i) carry out any controlled activity in accordance with approved plans and (ii) construct and/or implement any controlled activity by or under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified professional and (iii) when required, provide a certificate of completion to the NSW Office of Water.
Rehabilitation and maintenance
g) The consent holder must reinstate waterfront land affected by the carrying out of any controlled activity in accordance with a plan or design approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Reporting requirements
h) The consent holder must use a suitably qualified person to monitor the progress, completion, performance of works, rehabilitation and maintenance and report to the NSW Office of Water as required.
i) The consent holder must not locate ramps, stairs, access ways, cycle paths, pedestrian paths or any other non-vehicular form of access way in a riparian corridor other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Disposal
j) The consent holder must ensure that no materials or cleared vegetation that may (i) obstruct flow, (ii) wash into the water body, or (iii) cause damage to river banks; are left on waterfront land other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Drainage and Stormwater
k) The consent holder is to ensure that all drainage works (i) capture and convey runoffs, discharges and flood flows to low flow water level in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water; and (ii) do not obstruct the flow of water other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
l) The consent holder must stabilise drain discharge points to prevent erosion in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Erosion control
m) The consent holder must establish all erosion and sediment control works and water diversion structures in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water. These works and structures must be inspected and maintained throughout the working period and must not be removed until the site has been fully stabilised.
Excavation
n) The consent holder must ensure that no excavation is undertaken on waterfront land other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Reason: Requirement pursuant to Water Management Act 2000.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
345 |
Renewal of Licence to Rotary Clubs of Turramurra and Ku-ring-gai to conduct Markets in Wade Lane Car Park Gordon
File: S02618 Vide: GB.9
|
|
To seek Council approval for the renewal of licence for the continued use of the mid-level of the Wade Lane Car Park to Rotary Club of Turramurra Incorporated and Rotary Club of Ku-ring-gai Incorporated.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)
A. That Council grant the renewal of a 5 year licence to the Turramurra Rotary Club Incorporated and the Ku-ring-gai Rotary Club Incorporated.
B. That Council authorise the issue of a Public Notice as prescribed by Sections 47 and 47A of the Local Government Act 1993.
C. That Council endorse the licence fee being established in accordance with Council’s Policy for the Management of Community and Recreational Land and Facilities and that a 70% rebate apply to the market rate assessed by independent valuation.
D. That Council authorise the Mayor and General Manager to sign licence documentation.
E. That Council authorise the Common Seal of Council to be affixed to licence documentation.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
Motions of which due Notice has been given
346 |
NSROC Councils and Fit for the Future
File: CY00456/2 Vide: NM.1
|
|
Notice of Motion from Councillor Malicki dated 20 October 2014
Ku-ring-gai Council has resolved to oppose the concept of amalgamation since this was first proposed by the NSW Government. (Attachment 1) This is a stance shared by six of the seven Councils in the Northern Suburbs Region of Councils, the only exception to this shared stance being Hornsby Council which has been actively researching amalgamation.
Instead of amalgamation, we have resolved to “encourage and participate with NSROC in investigating opportunities to increase the range of resource and services sharing.” Our stance of collaborating with NSROC Councils to strengthen our capacity as an individual Council is also the formal stance held by the ROC. (Attachment 2).
Following the release of the document “Fit for the Future”, it has become even more critical to work with the region’s Councils in order to formulate a stance for our region that is consistent with the objectives of Fit for the Future but which allows us to retain our individual identities and avoid amalgamation.
The meeting of the NSROC Board on 16/10/14, which the Mayor did not attend, resolved that “NSROC writes to the Minister seeking his in principle agreement to consider a specific proposal from Northern Sydney Councils to deliver the objectives of Fit for the Future and the IILGRP model for joint organisations, which requires mandatory participation in planning and increased service delivery without the necessity of amalgamating councils.” (Attachment 3.).
It is most desirable for the Mayor to attend all such discussions together with the General Manager. As the second Councillor representative on NSROC, Councillor Malicki has attended all relevant meetings available to her, however the Mayor has not attended several of the most recent NSROC Meetings despite the resolution stating Council should “participate with NSROC in investigating opportunities to increase the range of resource and services sharing.” (Attachments 4 and 5).
Councillor Anderson has also apologised for a meeting called for NSROC members by Mayor Bill Pickering from Ryde Council, set for Thursday 30 October, claiming that to attend would “be inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s resolved position on amalgamations which precludes any discussions with individual Councils about mergers or amalgamations.” (Attachment 6). This meeting is not about “mergers or amalgamations” nor is it with an “individual Council”. Mayor Pickering’s letter clearly states “it would be valuable for representatives of the Lower North Shore Councils to meet and discuss possible responses to the State Government’s request for submissions.” (Attachment 7). Mayor Pickering shares Ku-ring-gai’s and NSROC’s opposition to amalgamations and is simply providing an opportunity for his colleagues and General Managers to get together on this matter.
Given that Council has already resolved to work with NSROC Councils on this matter, and that now is a critical time for co-operation, I move the following:
“A. That Councillors receive a formal briefing on Fit for the Future as soon as possible.
B. That Council pursues a strategy in preparing a Fit for the Future application based on continuing as an independent, vibrant and viable Council.
C. That Council continues to discuss all options for reform with surrounding Councils.
D. That the Mayor and / or Council’s second elected NSROC representative Councillor Malicki plus the General Manager attend every meeting called by the NSROC Councils, including those called by individual members, to discuss a response to Fit for the Future or to discuss resource and services sharing. This will include attending the meeting on 30 October called by the Mayor of Ryde Council.
E. That all Mayoral correspondence on Fit for the Future and all correspondence to or from NSROC or its member Councils be distributed to Councillors within 24 hours of receipt or reply or as soon as reasonably practicable.”
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Pettett)
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
For the Resolution: Councillors Berlioz, Pettett, Szatow, Malicki and Armstrong
Against the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Citer, McDonald and Fornari-Orsmond
|
The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson declared a significant non-pecuniary interest
in respect of the following item – C.1 – Audit and Risk Committee –
Selection of Independent Members
and withdrew from the Chamber taking no part
in discussion and voting on the item
The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Fornari-Orsmond assumed the Chair
347 |
Audit and Risk Committee - Selection of Independent Members
File: S07428 Vide: C.1
|
|
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(a), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(a) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors).
Report by Director Corporate dated 15 October 2014
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Malicki/McDonald)
That Mr John Gordon be appointed as an Independent Member and Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee and Mr John Bartrop be appointed as an Independent Member of the Audit and Risk Committee, for a period of two years commencing 1 November 2014.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present |
The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson returned
The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Fornari-Orsmond vacated the Chair
and the Mayor, Councillor J Anderson assumed the Chair
Standing Orders were suspended to deal with items
where there are speakers first after a
Motion moved by Councillors Szatow and McDonald
was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
GENERAL BUSINESS (cont)
348 |
Marian Street Theatre for Young People - Request for Financial Assistance
File: S10095 Vide: GB.1
|
|
The following members of the public addressed Council:
A Poehlmann
|
|
To advise Councillors of a request from the Marian Street Theatre for Young People (MSTYP) for financial assistance to support their operations throughout 2015.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/McDonald)
A. That Council provide the MSTYP financial assistance of $60,000 to support its operations throughout 2015 and that the $60,000 be paid in two equal instalments of $30,000 in March and July.
B. That should Council provide financial assistance to the MSTYP, the MSTYP provide Council with a Business Model for 2015 that incorporates Council funding staged throughout 2015.
C. That should Council provide financial assistance to the MSTYP, Council prepare a funding agreement between Council and the MSTYP following the receipt of the Business Model from MSTYP, and prior to funding being issued to the MSTYP and that a copy of the funding agreement, once completed, be forwarded to all Councillors.
D That should Council provide financial assistance to MSTYP for 2015, the MSTYP prepare a comprehensive long term business model that addresses all options to ensure its ongoing financial viability, to assist it to become financially independent in future years.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Berlioz, Citer, McDonald, Pettett, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Armstrong
Against the Resolution: Councillor Malicki
|
349 |
Marian Street Theatre - Theatre Consultant's Management Report
File: S10095 Vide: GB.2
|
|
The following members of the public addressed Council:
M Inglis D Castle W Blaxland D Newman M McCrae
|
|
To provide Council with a specialist theatre consultant’s report for the management of the Marian Street Theatre (MST) in Killara.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Citer/Szatow)
A. That Council receive and note the specialist Management Report on the Marian Street Theatre undertaken by Les Currie Productions.
B That taking into consideration the future of the MST and the MSTYP, Council engage an independent consultant to determine community priorities for a theatre in Ku-ring-gai and the results of the community consultation be reported to Council.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Berlioz, Citer, McDonald, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond and Armstrong
Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Malicki
The above Resolution was subject to an Amendment which was LOST. The Lost Amendment was:
(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Pettett
A. That Council receive and note the specialist Management Report on the Marian Street Theatre undertaken by Les Currie Productions.
B. That Council engage an independent consultant to determine community priorities for a theatre in Ku-ring-gai, and the results of the community consultation reported to Council.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
A personal explanation was provided by Councillor Szatow advising the meeting that it wasn’t Council that I was talking about that has always supported Marian Street Theatre for Young People. My question to the Director Community was in documents put up by Council Staff. I believe I have read that the Staff have always said that they would support Marian Street Theatre. It hasn’t been a Council resolution. It was simply in reports by Council. Director Bevan is going to have a look at that.
|
350 |
Friar's Field, Pymble - Results of Community Consultation into Potential Dog Off-leash Area
File: S05304 Vide: GB.12
|
|
The following members of the public addressed Council:
L Peason H Morgan S Falster
|
|
For Council to consider the results of community consultation into a potential dog off-leash area at Friar’s Field, Pymble.
|
|
A Procedural Motion was moved by Councillors Fornari-Orsmond and Councillor McDonald requesting the Mayor to seek a vote on the matter as there had been 2 speakers For and 2 Against and was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Fornari-Orsmond)
That Friar’s Field be designated as a dog off-leash dog area between 5.00pm and 10.30am with the exception of times when it is being used by organised sport.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor J Anderson, Councillors Berlioz, Citer, McDonald, Szatow, Fornari-Orsmond, Armstrong
Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Malicki
|
Councillor Szatow withdrew
351 |
Lindfield Village Green - Selection of Preferred Tenderers T17/2014
File: S10291 Vide: GB.10
|
|
To consider the tenders received for the Lindfield Village Green Request for Tender (RFT) no.T17/2014 for provision of design consultancy services, and appoint a short-list of three (3) preferred tenderers to develop concept designs for public exhibition.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Armstrong)
A. That Council accept the submissions from Tenderer ‘A’, ‘E’ and ‘I’ to develop concept designs for the Lindfield Village Green for public exhibition.
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 Szatow returned
352 |
Turramurra - Ray Street Precinct - Draft Master Plan for Public Exhibition
File: S09969 Vide: GB.11
|
|
To present to Council an assessment of design options and a preferred option for the Turramurra Community Hub for public exhibition.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Szatow)
That the matter be deferred until Council is briefed on the Turramurra Community Facilities Study by Elton Consulting as soon as practical.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
353 |
Ku-ring-gai Fitness Aquatic Centre Opening
File: S04066/10 Vide: QN.1
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Armstrong
With the Pool officially opening on 8 November 2014, what program is going to be happening on that day?
Answer by Director Community
We are still in the process of planning with the YMCA but I can tell you that we do have a quite a well-known Olympian swimmer coming along. It is going to be a family fun day and there will be an official opening as well, but I could send you more information once we have it all finalised.
|
354 |
Bushfire Mapping - 10/50 Vegetation Code
File: S10321 Vide: QN.2
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki
Have we received the template and process for changing the bushfire mapping areas in order to reduce the 10/50 area available for additional lopping because Mr O’Farrell is writing to residents stating that Council has the authority to revise bushfire map areas and to ensure the State regulations apply only to areas genuinely ‘bushfire’ affected?
Answer by the General Manager
I’ll take that on notice but not to my knowledge. I certainly had no feedback to that affect.
|
355 |
Setting of Meeting between Rural Fire Service Commissioner and Ku-ring-gai Council
File: S10321 Vide: QN.3
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki
Has a meeting been arranged with the Rural Fire Service (RFS) Commissioner and Council’s Staff yet?
Answer by Director Operations
I have discussed the matter with Mr Drago and I believe the letter has gone but I will get confirmation of that.
|
The Meeting closed at 11.15pm
The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 October 2014 (Pages 1 - 103) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 11 November 2014.
__________________________ __________________________
General Manager Mayor / Chairperson
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.1 / 105 |
|
|
Item GB.1 |
S09638 |
|
3 November 2014 |
Fit for the Future Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To update Council on the release of the State Government Fit for the Future program. |
|
|
background: |
On 10 September 2014 the State Government released the Fit for the Future program. On 31 October 2014 more detailed guidelines were released in relation to Fit for the Future, specifically on “Council Merger Proposals” and “Council Improvement Proposals”.
|
|
|
comments: |
The Fit for the Future program requires submissions by 30 June 2015 on how councils plan to become “Fit for the Future”. In order to be considered Fit for the Future, councils must be sustainable, efficient, have effective services and infrastructure, and have scale and capacity to effectively engage across community, industry and government.
Rather than amalgamate, Council has the option of preparing a “Council Improvement Proposal (Existing Structure)” in order to demonstrate that it is Fit for the Future.
|
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council, consistent with previous resolutions, commence preparation of a “Council Improvement Proposal (Existing Structure)” for submission to the NSW Government by 30 June 2014. |
Purpose of Report
To update Council on the release of the State Government Fit for the Future program.
BACKGROUND
The Independent Local Government Review Panel was appointed by the Minister for Local Government in March 2012.
By April 2013 the Review Panel had released its report “Future Directions for NSW Local Government - Twenty Essential Steps” for consultation with Councils.
On 13 August 2013, Ku-ring-gai Council resolved as follows:
A. That Council not proceed with discussions on amalgamation as the disadvantages for Ku-ring-gai residents far outweigh any perceived advantages.
B. That we encourage and participate with NSROC in investigating opportunities to increase the range of resource and services sharing.
The Review Panel report was released to local government in January 2014 with formal responses from councils to the State Government required by 4 April 2014. In the Review Panel’s report titled “Revitalising Local Government”, the following options for Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai councils were listed, with their preferred option identified in the report in bold:
• Amalgamate or
• Combine as strong Joint Organisation and
• Boundary with Parramatta shifted to M2
The rationale for the Review Panel’s recommendation for Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai was brief, as follows:
• Projected 2031 population 348,800 (would be reduced somewhat by boundary change)
• See comments above re Parramatta boundary change
• Strong socio-economic and urban links
Recommendation 41 of the Review Panel’s report was:
41. Seek evidence-based response from metropolitan councils to the Panel’s proposal for mergers and major boundary changes, and refer both proposals and responses to the proposed Ministerial Advisory Group (section 18.1) for review, with the possibility of subsequent referrals to the Boundaries Commission (13.3).
Ku-ring-gai Council’s response to the State Government on the Review Panel’s report was adopted at the Ordinary Meeting on 25 March 2014. Council’s response to Recommendation 41 was as follows:
This Recommendation is not supported. The Panel has not substantiated why it has put forward the various proposals for mergers and boundary changes. It has provided no quantification, nor evidence, as to the benefits or costs. The panel has simply drawn lines on a map and now seeks evidence-based responses from the affected councils. The panel should fully justify its proposals, including quantification of costs and benefits, before councils incur substantial costs and disruption to the conduct of ordinary service provision in order to prepare a response.
In proposing a merger of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils, the Panel has ignored the impact on ratepayers, amongst other things. In particular, Ku-ring-gai residents would be cross-subsidising the residents of Hornsby. This is because Council rates are based on land values and the residential land values in Ku-ring-gai are on average 50% higher than in Hornsby. If the two Council areas merged the rates paid in the Ku-ring-gai area are likely to increase substantially.
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 August 2014, Ku-ring-gai Council considered a report prepared for Hornsby Council by KPMG titled “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014”. Council resolved as follows:
That Council note that the report commissioned by Hornsby Council “Analysis of local government reform options in the Northern Sydney area – 22 May 2014” does not support the case for amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils as the forecast saving is small compared to the risks involved, representing only 1.6% of the combined budgets over 10 years. This forecast:
i. Is based on simplistic assumptions derived from case studies of Council amalgamations of much larger scale and range of services offered.
ii. Is likely to be optimistic and does not include an adequate allowance for transition costs.
iii. Does not provide an adequate return for the substantial risks and disruption involved in an amalgamation.
iv. Does not take into account the impact on Ku-ring-gai ratepayers in sharing in substantial costs to rehabilitate and stabilise the Hornsby Quarry.
v. Does not take into account the impact of rates redistribution on Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to higher land values, resulting in an increase in rates likely to be much greater than the forecast savings from amalgamation.
vi. Does not address the loss of councillor representation, nor the operational difficulties, social challenges, town planning issues and political complexities in managing an amalgamation of two large, diverse council areas that stretch from the rural locality of Wisemans Ferry through to the urban suburb of Roseville, some 65 km to the south.
vii. That Ku-ring-gai Council’s response to the report commissioned by Hornsby Council be sent to the State MPs for Ku-ring-gai, Davidson and Hornsby
On 10 September 2014 the State Government released the Fit for the Future program. Attachment A provides a copy of “Fit for the Future – A Roadmap for Stronger, Smarter Councils”.
On 28 October 2014 Council considered a Notice of Motion on NSROC Councils and Fit for the Future and resolved as follows:
A. That Councillors receive a formal briefing on Fit for the Future as soon as possible.
B. That Council pursues a strategy in preparing a Fit for the Future application based on continuing as an independent, vibrant and viable Council.
C. That Council continues to discuss all options for reform with surrounding Councils.
D. That the Mayor and / or Council’s second elected NSROC representative Councillor Malicki plus the General Manager attend every meeting called by the NSROC Councils, including those called by individual members, to discuss a response to Fit for the Future or to discuss resource and services sharing. This will include attending the meeting on 30 October called by the Mayor of Ryde Council.
E. That all Mayoral correspondence on Fit for the Future and all correspondence to or from NSROC or its member Councils be distributed to Councillors within 24 hours of receipt or reply or as soon as reasonably practicable.”
On 31 October 2014 more detailed guidelines were released by the State Government in relation to Fit for the Future, specifically on “Council Merger Proposals” (refer Attachment B) and “Council Improvement Proposals” (refer Attachment C).
COMMENTS
The Fit for the Future program requires submissions by 30 June 2015 on how councils plan to become “Fit for the Future”. In order to be considered Fit for the Future, councils must be sustainable, efficient, have effective services and infrastructure, and have scale and capacity to effectively engage across community, industry and government.
The Fit for the Future documents provide that the first issue to consider is scale and capacity. To meet this requirement the guidelines provide that the starting point is the recommendation of the Independent Panel, or alternatively a different proposal that is broadly consistent with the Panel’s recommendations. For Ku-ring-gai Council, the Panel recommended a merger with Hornsby (refer Attachment D). However, the guidelines also provide that if a Council decides that it is already of the appropriate scale and capacity, it should complete a Council Improvement Proposal. This Improvement Proposal would need to demonstrate why the council is not proceeding with the recommendation made by the Panel and show that the council has sufficient scale and strategic capacity.
The elements required to demonstrate strategic capacity are:
· Robust revenue base and increased discretionary spending
· Scope to undertake new functions and major projects
· Ability to employ a wider range of skilled staff
· Knowledge, creativity and innovation
· Advanced skills in strategic planning and policy development
· Effective regional collaboration
· Credibility for more effective advocacy
· Capable partner for State and Federal agencies
· Resources to cope with complex and unexpected change
· High quality political and managerial leadership
A Council Improvement Proposal consists of the following
elements:
· Executive summary (up to 500 words)
· Scale and capacity - to explain the rationale behind your council’s decision (up to 500 words)
· Key characteristics of the local government area (economic, social, demographic)
· Key challenges and opportunities
· Performance against Fit for the Future financial benchmarks
· Improvement strategies and outcomes (2016/17 to 2019/20 to align with the next cycle of Integrated Planning and Reporting)
· Improvement Action Plan – specific actions to deliver the improvement objectives
· Other strategies considered – how broadly council considered its options when preparing its improvement action plan (eg reducing services, selling /decommissioning assets)
· Expected outcomes – improvement against Fit for the Future benchmarks
· Implementation – establishes implementation plans for the proposal
For councils that decide to pursue amalgamation in order to be Fit for the Future, a Council Merger Proposal consists of the following elements:
· The proposed merger – identify the councils that have agreed to amalgamate and the date each council resolved to amalgamate.
· Agreed boundary changes – clarify additional boundary changes as part of the new structure
· Scale and capacity – confirm that the new structure will create and capacity broadly consistent with the recommendations of the Independent Local Government Review Panel
· Delivering key priorities and addressing challenges – defines the community, economic, social and environmental priorities for the new council and describes how the merger will assist in delivering these priorities and meeting the challenges that the councils currently face
· Considering benefits and costs of the proposal
· Community involvement – identify the level of community awareness of the proposal
· Community response – identify the benefits and concerns highlighted in the community
· Expected performance improvement – future performance against each of the Fit for the Future benchmarks
The State Government is offering support to councils to prepare proposals for amalgamation, including:
· A panel of experts to help merging council explore options
· Access to fully funded facilitators to help councils begin discussions about how to merge
· Access to technical experts to help prepare the proposal
For Councils that amalgamate, financial support is available in the form of $10.5m for each newly merged council with a population of 250,000, and an additional $3 million for each additional 50,000 in population above 250,000. In the case of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai, the merged population of 271,000 would entitle the Councils to share in $10.5 million total to assist to cover the costs of the merger.
The Fit for the Future proposals will be reviewed by an independent expert panel that will make recommendations to the Minister by October 2015. Subsequently councils will begin the implementation phase, with new elections held for the amalgamated councils in September 2016 and implementation of other Fit for the Future improvement strategies from 2016/17 to 2019/20 to align with the next cycle of Integrated Planning and Reporting.
Fit for the Future councils, including councils that choose not to amalgamate but are assessed by the expert panel as being Fit for the Future, will also receive the following benefits:
· Access to streamlined IPART processes to make it easier for councils to increase rates
· Access to loan borrowing from T-Corp at lower interest rates
· Priority access to State funding and grants
· Eligibility for additional devolved planning powers in relation to the making of environmental plans and development decisions, and opportunities for devolving further planning powers
Joint Organisations:
The State Government plans to establish 15 Joint Organisations in regional NSW from September 2016, following a pilot in four regions. The joint organisations are intended to assist in formulating ideas and priorities for Local and State Government at a regional level, and could possibly achieve the following:
· Regional strategic planning and prioritisation
· Intergovernmental collaboration
· Regional advocacy
· Improving transport and freight links
· Attracting education and industry
· Improving land use planning
· Cutting red tape
· Pooling resources to build major works
· Integrating management of major infrastructure
· Undertaking critical infrastructure and skills gap analysis
· Supporting rural councils
Each Joint Organisation will:
· Receive $300,000 to get established
· Be enabled through legislation
· Be flexible to accommodate regional differences
· Be based on an agreement with the State Government to work with councils through these new regional bodies
· Be developed with councils over the next 12-18 months through a co-design and pilot process.
At this stage Joint Organisations are only proposed by the State Government for regional areas. However, NSROC councils have discussed the possibility of putting forward a proposal to also form a Joint Organisation. This cooperation could provide additional scale and capacity for both newly merged councils in the region, if any, along with councils that choose to retain the current structure.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
A shared long-term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement. |
Council's responses to government policy and reforms are guided by and aligned with the adopted Community Strategic Plan 'Our Community Our Future 2030'. |
Analyse and provide appropriate submissions to government proposals affecting the local government industry. |
Governance Matters
The State Government has released the Fit for the Future program. This requires Council to prepare a submission on how it will be Fit for the Future, by 30 June 2015.
Risk Management
An amalgamation of Ku-ring-gai Council with Hornsby Council would expose Ku-ring-gai Council to a wide range of risks including:
· Reduced representation and less say in decision making for the local area; the risk of decisions about the Ku-ring-gai area being made by a majority of councillors elected from the Hornsby area due to a larger population
· Increased rates for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to redistribution of the rates burden from areas of lower land value (Hornsby) to areas of higher land value (Ku-ring-gai)
· Unknown financial liabilities such as for the rehabilitation of the Hornsby Quarry
· Impact on the composition, quality and quantity of services due to the rationalisation of facilities and services
· Uncertainty about the accuracy of reported asset backlog as reported in Special Schedule 7 of each council’s financial statements (it should be noted that this schedule is currently unaudited)
· Disruption to service provision, loss of skilled workers, fall in staff morale and productivity loss
· Forecast financial savings identified in a report commissioned by Hornsby Council are small in comparison to the substantial risks and disruption from amalgamation.
Financial Considerations
A report by KPMG commissioned by Hornsby Council identified possible budget savings of only 1.6% over 10 years in a merger with Ku-ring-gai Council. Putting aside the uncertain nature of this forecast saving, it does not take into account the impact of rates redistribution on Ku-ring-gai ratepayers due to higher land values, resulting in an increase in rates likely to be much greater than the forecast savings from amalgamation.
The KPMG Report acknowledges the issue of rates revenue redistribution resulting from amalgamation as follows:
“The financial analysis only considered whole-of-council level impacts. It is noted that there may be some distributional impacts as part of reform options, in particular in relation to rate revenue. For example, the aggregate rate revenue would be expected to be unchanged by reform options, however, potential differentials in property values may mean that individual rate liabilities are impacted by reform.”
This means that because council rates are based on land values, an amalgamation of two council areas would result in changes to the amount of rates paid by all properties.
As the Local Government Act only allows for one Residential Rate across the whole of an urban council area, the status quo cannot remain and a new Residential Rate covering the amalgamated council area would need to be implemented.
The residential land values in Ku-ring-gai are on average 50% higher than in Hornsby. The total residential land value in Ku-ring-gai is $23.3 billion (for approx. 39,500 properties) while in Hornsby it is $20.7 Billion (for approx. 54,000 properties). If the two Council areas merged the rates paid in the Ku-ring-gai area would increase and the rates paid in the Hornsby area would decrease. Ku-ring-gai residents would be cross-subsidising the residents of Hornsby.
Assuming the total rates raised for an amalgamated Council remained the same as the sum of the rates raised by the individual councils, preliminary calculations indicate that the rates for properties in the former area of Ku-ring-gai could increase by up to 17% in an amalgamation with Hornsby. Even if the Ku-ring-gai rates increased by a more modest amount of 10% in an amalgamation, this would result in an additional $5 million pa indexed, or $57.5 million additional rates paid by Ku-ring-gai ratepayers over ten years. These additional rates would be more than double Ku-ring-gai Council’s possible share of the hypothetical savings forecast by KPMG in an amalgamation with Hornsby.
Social Considerations
The KPMG Report that was commissioned by Hornsby Council and previously reported to Council, provides the average number of residents per council across capital cities in Australia in 2011 at Table 2.2. The average for Sydney is 106,408, Melbourne is 131,517, Perth 56,535, Adelaide 66,882, Hobart 42,941 and Darwin is 42,500 (Brisbane follows a different centralised local government model and has a much larger population). With the exception of Brisbane, compared to Australian capital cities Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby councils are already large by population. If Ku-ring-gai (population 114,000) and Hornsby (population 157,000) were to amalgamate the resulting population of 271,000 would be one of the largest in Australia, with an area of some 594 square kilometres.
An amalgamation with Hornsby Council would necessarily result in a loss of local councillor representation as there would be a similar number of councillors representing more than double the population. In addition, Ku-ring-gai residents would have fewer councillor representatives compared to Hornsby residents, based on overall population size, as the population of Hornsby is 40% greater than Ku-ring-gai.
There are significant differences in the profiles of the Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby council areas. For example, while the land use of the Ku-ring-gai Council area is predominantly residential, Hornsby Council is a predominantly rural and residential area. Agricultural land use makes up 31% of the Hornsby area, while residential is 11% with the remainder being largely parkland.
Hornsby Council stretches as far as Wisemans Ferry to the north and takes in Brooklyn, Arcadia, Berowra, Mount Colah, Canoelands, Fiddletown, Milsons Passage and Dangar Island. There are many villages, islands and river communities.
Balancing councillor representation, along with varied planning issues and contrasting service delivery requirements, from the rural community of Wisemans Ferry in the north through to the urban area of Roseville some 65 kilometres to the south, would be operationally difficult, socially challenging and politically complex.
Environmental Considerations
There are various environmental concerns regarding the Hornsby Quarry including its stability and potential sources of contamination. The rehabilitation of the Hornsby Quarry has previously been reported to Hornsby Council as costing up to $200 million. A recent report to Hornsby Council on 8 October 2014 identified a possible reduction in costs by partly utilising fill from the NorthConnex tunnel project, however there were no financial estimates of costs or savings provided.
Community Consultation
The local government reform process has involved ongoing discussions with the Independent Local Government Review Panel, industry bodies and representatives of other councils. There have been information sessions and briefings. Council has previously submitted formal responses to the Local Government Review Panel. If Council decided to pursue amalgamation, the Fit for the Future guidelines require community consultation.
Internal Consultation
All departments of Council will be involved in the preparation of a proposal to the State Government on Fit for the Future.
Summary
The State Government has released a program titled Fit for the Future. This requires all councils to prepare a submission by 30 June 2015 on how it plans to become Fit for the Future. In order to be considered Fit for the Future, councils must be sustainable, efficient, have effective services and infrastructure, and have scale and capacity to effectively engage across community, industry and government.
When a council considers whether it meets the criteria for scale and capacity, the recommendations of the Local Government Review Panel are the starting point. For Ku-ring-gai, the Review Panel recommended an amalgamation with Hornsby Council. This has been considered by Council on a number of occasions since 13 August 2013 when Council considered the review panel recommendations. Council’s position has consistently opposed amalgamation.
A report commissioned by Hornsby Council identified possible budget savings of only 1.6% over 10 years in a merger with Ku-ring-gai. Putting aside the uncertain nature of this possible saving, it does not take into account the impact of rates redistribution on Ku-ring-gai due to significantly higher land values than in Hornsby. This would result in an increase in rates for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers likely to be much greater than the forecast savings from amalgamation.
Rather than amalgamate, Council has the option of preparing a “Council Improvement Proposal (Existing Structure)” in order to demonstrate that it is Fit for the Future.
That Council, consistent with previous resolutions, commence preparation of a “Council Improvement Proposal (Existing Structure)” for submission to the NSW Government by 30 June 2015.
|
David Marshall Director Corporate |
John McKee General Manager |
A1View |
A Roadmap for Stronger, Smarter, Councils |
|
2014/276396 |
|
|
A2View |
Council Merger Proposal |
|
2014/275943 |
|
A3View |
Council Improvement Proposal |
|
2014/275937 |
|
A4View |
Panel Recommendation for Council |
|
2014/276394 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.2 / 166 |
|
|
Item GB.2 |
S05650 |
|
29 October 2014 |
Sponsorship Requests 2014 / 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To advise Council of sponsorship requests, received under Council’s Sponsorship Policy, for 2014/2015, and for Council to approve requests for sponsorship over $5,000. |
|
|
background: |
Council sponsors public and private sector activities through direct funds and in-kind support according to the Sponsorship Policy. In the 2013/14 financial year Council sponsored a number of organisations including Carols in the Park, Welcome Basket, the Ku-ring-gai Arts Society, the St Ives Food and Wine Festival and the Ku-ring-gai Chase Fun Run. |
|
|
comments: |
Council has recently undertaken an Expressions of Interest process inviting submissions for sponsorship proposals for 2014/15. A number of requests for sponsorship have been received, and, according to Council’s Sponsorship Policy, all proposals over $5,000 are to be approved by Council. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council approve the sponsorship requests over $5,000 as outlined in the report. |
Purpose of Report
To advise Council of sponsorship requests, received under Council’s Sponsorship Policy, for 2014/2015, and for Council to approve requests for sponsorship over $5,000.
Background
Council sponsors a number of public and private sector activities through direct funding and in-kind support according to the Sponsorship Policy. In turn, sponsorships provide a range of benefits to Council such as Council logos on promotional material, community information stalls, signage, and recognition of Council sponsorship in speeches and media releases.
The range of sponsorship is varied – some of the organisations sponsored by Council include Carols in the Park, Ku-ring-gai Chase fun run and community event, Welcome Basket, St Ives Food and Wine Festival and the Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra.
Comments
Expression of Interest Process 2014/15
Last financial year Council received requests for sponsorship that exceeded the set sponsorship budget, therefore an Expression of Interest process was conducted for the 2014/15 round of sponsorship. This ensured that all organisations and events had equal access to Council’s sponsorship funding for that period.
Under the new process Expressions of Interest will be invited once only, at the commencement of the financial year - they will then be received and reviewed by staff, and a report containing recommendations for a complete sponsorship program for that year will come to Council for approval.
As a result of the Expressions of Interest process, based on last year’s sponsorship program, the following requests for sponsorship were received for 2014/2015:
Organisation |
$ |
Carols in the Park |
10,000 |
Ku-ring-gai Art Society |
2,000 |
Ku-ring-gai Chase fun run and community event |
4,000 |
The Welcome Basket |
5,000 |
St Ives Food and Wine Festival |
3,000 |
UN International Day of Peace |
2,000 |
Turramurra Bowling Club |
900 |
Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra |
20,000 |
Total |
46,900 |
Council’s total budget for sponsorship for 2014/15 is $61,300. It is anticipated that the excess funding ($16,100) will be used for sponsorship for additional proposals that may come to Council throughout the remainder of 2014-15, including the Centenary of First World War events.
Under Council’s Sponsorship Policy, all requests under $5,000 can be assessed and determined by staff, however Council is required to formally resolve all sponsorship requests over $5000. This year the requests that over $5000 are:
* Carols in the Park for $10,000
* The Welcome Basket for $5,000
* Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra for $20,000.
integrated planning and reporting
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
C2.1 A harmonious community that respects, appreciates, celebrates and learns from each other and values our evolving cultural identity.
|
Opportunities are identified, provided and promoted for the community to share cultural experiences.
|
Promote opportunities for cultural groups to stage events consistent with Council’s Sponsorship policy.
|
Governance Matters
Sponsorship proposals comply with Council’s Sponsorship and Donations Policy. Council is required to approve all sponsorship requests over $5,000.
Risk Management
The current Expression of Interest process was introduced for the 2014/15 financial year. Previously sponsorship requests came to Council throughout the year, and, after staff had assessed the request, any proposals over $5,000 came to Council for approval in separate reports.
Once the funding had been exhausted however, any requests for sponsorship had to be refused due to lack of funding. The current process will ensure equal access to sponsorship funding for all groups, and will not penalise those organisations or events that lodge their applications in the latter half of the year.
Prospective recipients will also need to address set criteria when applying for sponsorship, and will be required to report on how sponsorship funds were spent.
Financial Considerations
Council has $63,000 in its 2014/15 sponsorship budget, the amount requested for sponsorship is $46,900. It is anticipated that the excess funding ($16,100) will be used for sponsorship for additional proposals that may come to Council throughout the remainder of 2014/15, and for the Centenary of the First World War events in 2015.
Social Considerations
Council’s sponsorship of organisations and events promote community spirit and engagement.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with this report.
Community Consultation
There is no direct community consultation associated with the writing of this report.
Internal Consultation
Consultation is undertaken with Community staff if there is a cross over to the Community Grant program.
Summary
Council has a budget of $61,300 for sponsorship for 2014/15. This year Council has received requests for sponsorship in response an Expressions of Interest process based on the recipients of past sponsorship.
All requests are able to be met by the sponsorship budget this year.
Council is required to formally resolve all sponsorship requests over $5000. This year the requests over $5000 are:
* Carols in the Park for $10,000
* The Welcome Basket $5,000
* Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra for $20,000.
It is recommended that Council support these sponsorship proposals.
That Council approve the sponsorship requests for Carols in the Park for $10,000, the Welcome Basket for $5,000 and the Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra for $20,000.
|
Virginia Leafe Manager Corporate Communications |
Janice Bevan Director Community |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.3 / 170 |
|
|
Item GB.3 |
FY00432/6 |
|
31 October 2014 |
2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To advise Council of applications received from community groups for the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants program, and to recommend subsequent funding allocations. |
|
|
background: |
Each year Council calls for applications from community and cultural groups for grant funding to assist in providing much needed services to people in the Ku-ring-gai area. Applications totalling $183,074 have been received from 58 community and cultural groups. |
|
|
comments: |
A total of $97,900 is available for the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program - the grants assessment panel has recommended a total of $97,875 for distribution to community groups, which also includes the rates for Eryldene. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council approve recommendations in this report for funding community and cultural groups. |
Purpose of Report
To advise Council of applications received from community groups for the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants program, and to recommend subsequent funding allocations.
Background
Each year Council calls for applications from community and cultural groups for grant funding to assist in providing much needed services to people in the Ku-ring-gai area. Applications totalling $183,074 have been received from 58 community and cultural groups.
To assist groups in completing the applications forms, Council also conducted a Grant Submissions Workshop and Information Session to outline the funding guidelines, selection criteria and priority funding areas.
Comments
Council has $97,900 available in the 2014/15 budget for the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program.
Council officers evaluated all applications for financial assistance (Attachments A1– A3) according to the criteria outlined in the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program – General Information and Guidelines (Attachment A4 – A7). After assessment by Council officers a sum of $94,150 for community groups, plus $3,725 for the rates and garbage rebate for Eryldene, (a standing resolution of Council), was recommended, totalling $97,875.
It is regretted that not all the organisations that have applied will be recommended for financial assistance, and in some cases the full amount could not be granted.
integrated planning and reporting
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
C1.1 An equitable and inclusive community that cares and provides for its members
|
C1.1.1 Council’s policies, programs and advocacy address the social and health needs of all age groups, reduce disadvantage and address gaps in service provision.
|
Resource and support local initiatives and organisations through the Ku-ring-gai Community Grants program.
|
Governance Matters
The 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program is supported by adopted guidelines, funding categories, eligibility criteria and application and selection process information.
Risk Management
Priority funding areas have been identified for each category, e.g. Small Equipment, Community Development and Arts/Cultural grants, to assist all potential applicants. The program covers a range of projects and within each project there are a variety of associated risks. Council has in place a number of measures to mitigate those risks including a formal Funding Agreement and Acquittal Process (Attachments A8– A9). Each organisation receiving funding must comply with the terms and conditions of the program.
Financial Considerations
Council has $97,900 available in the 2014/15 budget for the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program. This amount consists of $94,150 for community and cultural groups and $3,725 for the rates and garbage rebate for Eryldene, (a standing resolution of Council), totalling $97,875.
Social Considerations
The 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Program is supported by priority funding areas based on identified social and arts/cultural needs in the Ku-ring-gai area. A key component of this program is to provide opportunities for residents to participate and engage in their local community.
Environmental Considerations
The various projects funded under this program contribute to a sustainable community and some contain elements with environmental benefits.
Community Consultation
To assist groups in completing the applications forms, Council also conducted a Grant Submissions Workshop and Information Session to outline the funding guidelines, selection criteria and priority funding areas.
Internal Consultation
Where appropriate, advice was sought from relevant Council departments and those comments have been referred to in the individual assessments.
Summary
Projects funded under the 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants
Program cover a range of target groups including, children, young people, older
people, people with disabilities and people from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds. The grants provided will enhance the capacity of community
groups to provide much needed support services to the community. The
arts/cultural projects proposed will foster celebrations and promote the
development of artistic pursuits in
Ku-ring-gai.
A. That the community and cultural groups, as listed under each category, receive the recommended amount of financial assistance from Council in 2014.
1. Category: Small Equipment
2. Category: Community Development
3. Category: Arts/Cultural
|
Danny Houseas Manager Community |
Janice Bevan Director Community |
A1View |
Small Equipment - Individual Assessment |
|
2014/276224 |
|
|
A2View |
Community Development - Individual Assessment |
|
2014/276227 |
|
A3View |
Arts Cultural - Individual Assessment |
|
2014/276235 |
|
A4View |
General Information for Applicants |
|
2014/112516 |
|
A5View |
Small Equipment Guidelines and Application Form |
|
2014/112513 |
|
A6View |
Community Development Guidelines and Application Form |
|
2014/112511 |
|
A7View |
Arts Cultural Guidelines and Application Form |
|
2014/112509 |
|
A8View |
2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Funding Agreement and Conditions of Funding |
|
2014/276262 |
|
A9View |
2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Acquittal form to be filled in by recipients |
|
2014/276273 |
APPENDIX No: 8 - 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Funding Agreement and Conditions of Funding |
|
Item No: GB.3 |
APPENDIX No: 9 - 2014 Ku-ring-gai Community Grants Acquittal form to be filled in by recipients |
|
Item No: GB.3 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.4 / 269 |
|
|
Item GB.4 |
CY00438/2 |
|
16 October 2014 |
Council Meeting Cycle for 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To consider the Council Meeting Cycle for 2015 which takes into account school holidays, public holidays and the Christmas recess. |
|
|
background: |
Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to give notice to the public of the times and places of its meetings. It has been Council’s practice in the past to resolve to amend its meeting cycle to take into account the school holiday breaks, public holidays and the Christmas recess. |
|
|
comments: |
A draft Council Meeting Cycle for 2015 has been prepared for Council’s consideration. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council’s Meeting Cycle for 2015 be adopted. |
Purpose of Report
To consider the Council Meeting Cycle for 2015 which takes into account school holidays, public holidays and the Christmas recess.
Background
Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to give notice to the public of the times and places of its meetings. It has been Council’s practice in the past to resolve to amend its meeting cycle to take into account the school holiday breaks, public holidays and the Christmas recess.
Comments
The school holiday periods for 2015 are;
Term 1: Friday, 3 April 2015 to Friday, 17 April 2015
Term 2: Monday, 29 June 2015 to Friday 10 July 2015
Term 3: Monday, 21 September 2015 to Monday, 5 October 2015
Term 4: Monday, 21 December 2015 to Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Council has in the past resolved to reschedule meetings that would otherwise fall during school holidays. To avoid the school holiday period and spread the meetings more evenly, the cycle should be amended.
It is recommended to amend the proposed Meeting Cycle for 2015 as follows:
School Holidays: 3 April to 17 April 2015
21 April 2015 OMC (transferred from 14 April 2015)
School Holidays: 29 June to 10 July 2015
There are no proposed scheduled meetings during this school holiday break.
School Holidays: 21 September to 5 October 2015
15 September 2015 OMC (transferred from 22 September 2015)
6 October 2015 OMC (transferred from 13 October 2016 due to extended time between meetings)
School Holidays: 22 December 2014 to 26 January 2015
There are no proposed scheduled meetings during this school
holiday break.
Local Government Association Conference
The 2015 Local Government NSW Annual Conference will be held from Sunday, 11 October – Tuesday, 13 October 2015, therefore these dates do not interfere with any proposed meetings.
Christmas Recess 2015/2016
Council has traditionally held the last Council meeting for the year on the second Tuesday in December and resumed meetings in the first week of February the next year.
It is recommended that the last Ordinary Meeting of Council be brought forward to the second Tuesday in December being 8 December 2015. It is also recommended to cancel the 1 December 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council as, if not amended, the meeting cycle would have 3 consecutive meetings in as many weeks.
Following the Christmas recess, it is further recommended that the first meeting for 2016 be held on Tuesday, 2 February 2016 with the normal meeting cycle to resume on Tuesday, 23 February 2016.
Therefore the proposed scheduled meeting cycle for 2015 is as follows:
February 3 February 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
24 February 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
March 10 March 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
31 March 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
April 21 April 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
28 April 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
May 12 May 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
26 May 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
June 9 June 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
23 June 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
July 14 July 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
28 July 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
August 11 August 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
25 August 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
September 8 September 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
15 September 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
October 6 October 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 October 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
November 10 November 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
24 November 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
December: 8 December 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
Ensure effective and efficient conduct of Council and committee meetings for the benefit of councillors and the community.
|
Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes.
|
Business Papers and associated Minutes are published in an accurate and timely manner for public scrutiny and encourage community participation.
|
Governance Matters
Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to give notice to the public of the times and places of its meetings.
Risk Management
The scheduling of Council meetings during school holidays could affect the ability of some community members to attend meetings.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial considerations associated with this report.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations associated with this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with this report.
Community Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Internal Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Summary
Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to give notice to the public of the times and places of its meetings. It has been Council’s practice in the past to resolve to amend its meeting cycle to take into account the school holiday breaks, public holidays and the Christmas recess.
A. That the proposed scheduled meeting cycle for 2014 is as follows:
For 2015:
February 3 February 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 February 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
March 10 March 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 31 March 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
April 21 April 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 April 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
May 12 May 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 May 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
June 9 June 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 June 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
July 14 July 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 July 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
August 11 August 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 August 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
September 8 September 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 15 September 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
October 6 October 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 October 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
November 10 November 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
December: 8 December 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council
B. That the first meeting of 2016 be held on Tuesday, 2 February 2016 with the normal meeting cycle to resume on Tuesday, 23 February 2016.
|
Matt Ryan Manager Records & Governance |
David Marshall Director Corporate |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.5 / 274 |
|
|
Item GB.5 |
S08820 |
|
28 October 2014 |
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters - Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To consider the State Government’s response to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in regard to its inquiry into the conduct of the 2012 Local Government Elections. |
|
|
background: |
The terms of reference given to the Committee allowed it to examine matters relating to the cost of the elections, the experience of councils that conducted their own elections, and any issues arising from non-residential voting. The Committee was also to consider possible legislative changes to improve the efficiency of the election processes and remove any barriers to candidate participation. |
|
|
comments: |
The State Government have now provided a response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters final report (see Attachment A1). |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council receive and note the response from the State Government to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to an Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections. |
Purpose of Report
To consider the State Government’s response to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in regard to its inquiry into the conduct of the 2012 Local Government Elections.
Background
The 2012 Local Government Elections were held on Saturday, 8 September 2012. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was requested to conduct an inquiry in to the elections. The Committee is a current joint standing committee of the Parliament of NSW, first established in May 2004. The Committee primarily oversights the activities of the NSW Electoral Commission, undertakes periodic audits of electoral legislation, and reviews the conduct of State and Local Government elections following each round of elections.
The terms of reference of the Committee enable it to examine, inquire into and report on matters related to the functions and operations of the Commission. These matters may be referred to the Committee by either House of Parliament, or by a Minister. On the 12 November 2012, following a referral from the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Don Page MP, the Committee adopted terms of reference to inquiry into and report on the 2012 Local Government Elections.
In December 2012, the Committee invited Councils to make submissions to the Committee in regard to the conduct of the Local Government Elections. Council lodged a submission to the Inquiry on the 4 March 2013.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters released its final report in March 2014. The report contained a list of fifteen (15) key recommendations to improve the administration of future Local Government elections for review by the State Government. The State Government’s response to these key recommendations are summarised as follows;
Recommendation 1
The Committee supports the current arrangements that grant local councils the authority to conduct their own elections. However, the Committee recommends that both the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters review the administration of future elections.
Response
The State Government will continue to support future inquiries by the Committee to support accountability in the process. The Office of Local Government is still considered to be best placed to continue to review council run elections. An amendment will be proposed to amend the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation) to require the NSW Electoral Commissioner to report to the Minister on the council elections that the NSW Electoral Commission have administered.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that each council that administers its own election be required to submit information relating to candidate participation and voter turnout to the Division of Local Government.
Response
The Government proposes to add to the data that is currently already collected by the Office of Local Government any information about candidate membership of registered political parties for the purpose of identifying candidate participation trends to inform future policy development. This will apply to all council elections including those administered by the NSW Electoral Commissioner. The Government will also amend the Regulation to include information on voter turnout at council administered elections.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that each council that resolves to administer its election in-house be required to prepare a report for the Office of Local Government in which it demonstrates its capacity to conduct a successful election. This report should include council’s access to suitably qualified returning officers, as well as possible substitutes, and be prepared no later than 15 months prior to the 2016 elections.
Response
It is the Government’s view that the responsibility for ensuring that councils who decide to administer their own elections actually have the capacity to do so to remain a decision for the council itself.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Department of Premier and Cabinet takes steps to ensure that all councils not utilising the services of the Electoral Commission, or that are conducting their elections in-house, have secured contracts with an electoral service provider at least 15 months prior to the 2016 elections.
Response
The Government proposes to seek amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) to provide that where a council does not intend to enter into an arrangement with the Electoral Commissioner to administer its elections, it must, at least 18 months before the next ordinary election, demonstrate to its community that it has the capacity to successfully administer its own elections by way of a resolution of the council that provides (1) that it proposes to administer its own elections, (2) whether it proposes to administer the elections itself or appoint another contracted electoral service provider to do so and (3) if it proposes to administer the election itself, whether it has access to a suitably qualified returning officer to oversee the election as well as one other appropriate qualified substitute returning officer.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Office of Local Government provide guidance to the Electoral Commission with respect to the extent and mode of electoral role data that can be disclosed to councils that conduct their own elections. Particular weight should be given to ensuring councils are granted sufficient access to roll data, while safeguarding elector privacy. If this is not possible, the committee believes it is the democratic obligation of the Electoral Commission to provide soft copy access to rolls so that Councils can exercise their right to undertake their own elections, should they decide to do so.
Response
The Government proposes to seek amendments to the Act to require the Electoral Commissioner to provide councils that administer their own elections with access to such soft copy information contained in the electoral roll reasonably necessary for the effective administration of their elections whilst only using the information solely for the purpose of administering their elections.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Government raise the threshold for a candidate to open a campaign account to $2,500, indexed annually to inflation.
Response
The Government supports in principle amendments to the Election Funding Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 to address this, but considers that any proposed amendments should be deferred pending the completion of the work by the Expert Panel on Political Donations so that this issue may be considered in the context of the outcomes of that review.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Government remove the mandatory requirement for a candidate to appoint an official agent but that candidates may choose to appoint an official agent if they wish.
Response
The Government supports in principle amendments to the Election Funding Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 to address this, but considers that any proposed amendments should be deferred pending the completion of the work by the Expert Panel on Political Donations so that this issue may be considered in the context of the outcomes of that review.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Government remove the requirement that a candidate information sheet is made in the form of a statutory declaration.
Response
The Government does not support the proposal to remove the requirement for the candidate information sheets to be made in the form of a statutory declaration.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends the introduction of a countback system, modelled on the one currently operating in Victoria, as an option for councils when casual vacancies arise within 18 months of the original election in lieu of a by-election.
Response
The Government proposes to amend the Act to introduce a countback system for vacancies that arise within 18 months of an ordinary election however this countback system will not be available where the vacancy arises in the office of a popularly elected Mayor. The use of such a countback system will also not be available where the election was uncontested meaning that there are no alternative candidates to replace the departing councillor. Also, as there is a risk that councils could make a decision on whether to use a countback system to fill a vacancy based on knowledge of the outcome that this decision will make, it is intended that councils will be required to decide by resolution at the start of their term that if such a vacancy was to occur if it is intended to use the countback system. Councils would not be allowed to change this decision retrospectively.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Government abolish the existing eligibility requirements with respect to whether an elector is qualified to cast a postal vote.
Response
The Government proposes to abolish the current postal voting eligibility requirements for all electors for the City of Sydney. If successful, it is proposed to expand this to all other council areas in the future.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that each council be granted the option to conduct its elections via a postal ballot in lieu of attendance voting on a designated polling day.
Response
The Government is supportive of the user of postal voting as an alternative to attendance voting. However further work needs to be completed to ensure systems are in place to support universal postal voting. It is considered unlikely to occur prior to the September 2016 Local Government elections.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the Government abolish existing eligibility requirements with respect to whether an elector is qualified to cast a pre-poll vote. Further, the Committee recommends that the Government retains the existing two week pre-poll period.
Response
The Government is supportive of maintaining the existing 2 week pre-polling period and to abolish the criteria electors must meet before being able to cast a pre-poll vote. However, as with the recommended abolition of the current postal voting eligibility requirements, further work needs to be completed to prepare for implementation. The Government proposes to do this first for the City of Sydney before extending it to other councils in the future.
Recommendation 13
The Committee recommends that the Government extend technology-assisted voting (or iVote) to be available to all electors ahead of the 2016 Local Government elections and subsequent State Elections. The Committee recommends that there is an independent software review and report on the integrity of iVote systems prior to implementation.
Response
The Government acknowledges the potential benefits of extending the availability of iVote to all electors however a number of logistical questions would need to be settled including the feasibility of its use, the likely costs and its availability. Considering councils need to make a decision in regards to the conduct of the 2016 Local Government elections by March 2015 it is considered unlikely to be available to councils for the 2016 elections but instead the Government will explore the feasibility of its use at the 2020 Local Government Elections.
Recommendation 14
That the Government amend the Local Government Act 1993 to provide for permanency of the non-residential roll across all NSW Councils so that electors are not required to re-apply for inclusion prior to each election.
Response
The Government proposes to address the frustration and red-tape burden on non-residential electors having to re-enrol and will therefore seek an amendment to the Act to make the non-residential rolls permanent.
Recommendation 15
The Committee recommends that the Government introduce the model used by the City of Melbourne for the City of Sydney in all its respects including the deeming provisions and the compulsory voting aspect for electors on the non-residential roll. Furthermore, the Government consider applying this model to City Council areas with significant economic centres such as Newcastle, Wollongong and Parramatta.
Response
The Government supported the Bill introduced into the Parliament by the Shooters and Fisher’s Party to amend the City of Sydney Act 1988 which gave effect to the Committee’s recommendation to introduce the model for non-residential elector enrolment used by the City of Melbourne. This was supported on the basis that the amendments sought to address issues of fairness and to improve the operation of the Act. The key changes to the legislation include allowing two (2) eligible persons to be enrolled per business address, non-residential electors only being able to vote once, to be eligible a non-residential elector will need to be an Australian citizen living in NSW and all non-residential electors will now be automatically enrolled to vote. These changes however will only apply to the City of Sydney but possible extension to other major economic centres such as Newcastle, Wollongong and Parramatta may be considered in the future.
The Government’s response in full has been included as an attachment to this report.
Comments
The State Government have now provided a formal response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters final report (see Attachment A1).
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
A shared long term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement. |
Council's responses to government policy and reforms are guided by and aligned with the adopted Community Strategic Plan 'Our Community Our Future 2030'. |
The organisation responds flexibly, proactively and equitably to challenges and opportunities arising from government policy changes and reforms. |
Governance Matters
Local Government Elections are administered by the General Manager of Council, or by the NSW Electoral Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of Section 296 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Risk Management
There are no major risk management considerations associated with the recommendation in this report.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial management considerations associated with the recommendation in this report.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations associated with the recommendation in this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with the recommendation in this report.
Community Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Internal Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Summary
The 2012 Local Government Elections were held on Saturday, 8 September 2012. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was requested to conduct an inquiry in to the elections. The Committee is a current joint standing committee of the Parliament of NSW, first established in May 2004. The Committee primarily oversights the activities of the NSW Electoral Commission, undertakes periodic audits of electoral legislation, and reviews the conduct of State and Local Government elections following each round of elections.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters released its final report containing fifteen (15) key recommendations to improve the administration of Local Government elections. The State Government has now reviewed the report and has provided a response in relation to the key recommendations contained within the report.
That Council receive and note the response from the State Government to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to an Inquiry into the 2012 Local Government Elections.
|
Matt Ryan Manager Records & Governance |
David Marshall Director Corporate |
A1View |
State Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report no. 4/55 into the 2012 Local Government Elections |
|
2014/271244 |
APPENDIX No: 1 - State Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report no. 4/55 into the 2012 Local Government Elections |
|
Item No: GB.5 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.6 / 289 |
|
|
Item GB.6 |
DA0202/14 |
|
22 October 2014 |
development application
Summary Sheet
Report title: |
73 Koola Avenue East Killara - Demolition of Existing Structures and Three Lot Torrens Title Subdivision |
ITEM/AGENDA NO: |
GB.6 |
Application No: |
DA0202/14 |
Property Details: |
73 Koola Avenue, East Killara Lot & DP No: Lot A DP311107 Site area (m2): 3,345mm2 Zoning: Residential 2(b) |
Ward: |
|
Proposal/Purpose: |
To determine Development Application No.0202/14 for the demolition of existing structures and a three lot Torrens title subdivision. |
Type of Consent: |
Local |
Applicant: |
Commander Corporation Pty Ltd |
Owner: |
Ms F M Chia |
Date Lodged: |
4 June 2014 |
Recommendation: |
Approval. |
Purpose of Report
To determine Development Application No. 0202/14 for demolition of existing structures and Torrens title subdivision of one lot into three lots.
The application is required to be determined by full Council as staff do not have delegation to approve a development application that proposes the Torrens title subdivision of land contained within a “hatched area” on Council’s Bushfire Prone Land Map. The “hatched areas” on this map prohibit the undertaking of development pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces & Infrastructure
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai |
Applications are assessed in accordance with State and local plans |
Assessments are of a high quality, accurate and consider all relevant legislative requirements |
Executive Summary
Issues: |
None |
Submissions: |
No submissions received |
Land and Environment Court: |
N/A |
Recommendation: |
Approval |
History
Site
Council’s records indicate that the site has been historically used for residential purposes.
DA History
4 June 2014 |
Application lodged. |
|
|
16 June 2014 |
The application was notified for a period of 14 days. No submissions were received. |
|
|
7 August 2014 |
Council sent a letter to the applicant advising of issues relating to:
- stormwater management - tree impacts |
|
|
3 September 2014 |
An amended stormwater management plan and arborist’s report were submitted. |
|
|
10 September 2014 |
A revised arborist’s report was submitted. |
The Site
Site description
The subject site is legally identified as Lot A in DP311107 and is known as 73 Koola Avenue, East Killara. The site is irregular in shape with the following dimensions:
- 65.9 metres street frontage to Koola Avenue (western boundary)
- northern side boundary length of 41.96 metres
- southern side boundary length of 82.39 metres
- eastern rear boundary width of 52.16 metres
The site has an area of 3,345m2. Vehicular access is provided by a circular driveway with dual access points along the Koola Avenue frontage.
The site supports numerous trees and has a gentle cross fall from west to east towards the rear of the property, with a level difference of approximately 5 metres. A 1.83 metres wide easement for drainage exists along the northern side boundary of the site.
The site is currently occupied by a two storey dwelling house. The site also supports a detached, single storey pool house and in-ground swimming pool in the northern side setback, timber deck area adjacent to the north-eastern corner of the property, tennis court and pavilion adjacent to the south-eastern corner and various formal and informal landscaping works, including pathways, ponds and planting areas.
Surrounding development
The development surrounding the subject site consists mainly of one and two storey dwellings of varying architectural styles. East Killara commercial precinct is located approximately 80 metres to the south-west of the site.
The Proposal
The application proposes the demolition of certain existing structures on the site and Torrens title subdivision of one lot into three lots, as follows:
Demolition works
Demolition of the existing dwelling, pool house, swimming pool and tennis court pavilion is proposed. The existing tennis court and timber deck area are to be retained. Two portions of the existing circular driveway will be retained for vehicular access to two of the proposed allotments from Koola Avenue.
Subdivision
Proposed Lot 53 (northern lot)
Site area: 841m2
Frontage: 21.33 metres
Proposed Lot 52 (central lot)
Site area: 1,500m2
Frontage: 22.325 metres
This lot will contain the existing tennis court.
Proposed Lot 51 (southern lot)
Site area: 1,005m2
Frontage: 22.245 metres
Additional works
The application also proposes stormwater drainage works, including a connection for each of the proposed allotments into the inter-allotment drainage easement located at the north-eastern corner of the property.
Consultation
Community
In accordance with Development Control Plan No. 56, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. No submissions were received.
Amended plans and information received 3 September 2014 and 10 September 2014
The amended plans and information did not alter the proposal in a way that would likely result in a greater environmental impact than the original scheme. Therefore, as per the provisions of Council’s DCP56, notification of the amended plans was not required.
Within Council
Engineering
Council’s Development Engineer provided the following comments:
All of the allotments will have individual frontages and access to Koola Avenue. Physical works proposed as part of this application involve demolition, interallotment drainage works and the provision of services.
A Section 73 Certificate will have to be obtained prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, to confirm that each lot has its own water and sewer connection.
Stormwater disposal
A detailed stormwater management plan has been received. The plan provides inter-allotment drainage for each of the lots, including a new pipeline and pits located along the rear (easter) side of the property. The plan also seeks to capture and control surface runoff from the existing concrete tennis court. The inter-allotment pipe is to be directed to the existing Council 1.8m wide drainage easement containing a 600mm pipe, which is acceptable.
The proposed inter-allotment drainage system has been sized to have capacity to carry the 1 in 100 year ARI uncontrolled runoff generated from the subject property. The design requires an 225mm and 300mm diameter pipe to be provided within a 1m wide easement. The minimum easement widths for the proposed inter-allotment pipes are to be 1.2m and 1.3m respectively as per Appendix 7.2 (c) of Council’s Water Management DCP No.47 (Condition No. 16).
Each lot will be able to implement its own water management system as part of any future residential development without affecting the other lots, so it is not considered necessary for systems to be provided at subdivision stage.
The project arborist raises no objection to the proposed pits and pipes with respect to tree impacts. All means to preserve the tree roots are to be as per the arborist’s recommendations.
Vehicular access
Indicative building footprints and driveways have been shown on the drawings accompanying the development application. The plans indicate that existing gravel driveways for Lot 51 and Lot 52 will be retained and a new access driveway proposed for Lot 53. The access driveway and any future turning bays can be constructed as part of any future residential development. The existing gravel driveway will need to be upgraded at this time.
Recommendations
From an engineering perspective there are no objections to approval of this application, subject to conditions.
Landscaping
Council’s Landscape and Tree Assessment Officer provided the following comments:
Tree impacts
The arborist’s report indicates that six trees will require removal to enable the installation of the proposed stormwater works. No objection is raised to the removal of these trees as they are not considered significant in the broader landscape setting.
The trees to be removed are as follows:
Tree/Location |
Comments |
T12 – Macadamia tetraphylla (Macadamia) / Eastern boundary of Lot 53 |
8 metres high in good condition |
T13 – Macadamia tetraphylla (Macadamia) / Eastern boundary of Lot 53 |
8 metres high in good condition |
T14 – Michelia alba (White Sandalwood) / North-eastern corner of Lot 53 |
10 metres high in good condition |
T18 – Salix babylonica (Weeping Willow) / Eastern boundary of Lot 52 |
Exempt species |
T19 – Juniperus sp. (Juniper) / Eastern boundary of Lot 52 |
5 metres high in good condition |
T20 – Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) / Southern boundary of Lot 53 |
20 metres high, displays good vigour. Large basal wound with extensive decay into the main trunk. Potentially unstable. |
Section 88b instrument for Tree 2 – Quercus robur (English Oak)
Tree number T2 is 20 metres high with an 18 metres canopy spread. The arborist has stated that there are multiple vertical striations on the lower trunk of the Oak tree which is characteristic of canker infection. Regardless of the canker infection, the tree is in good health and displays good vigour. The arborist has confirmed that the infection is unlikely to cause any significant impacts on the long term health of the tree.
Tree T2 has high retention value and is visually significant within the landscape. It is considered to be one of the largest English Oak trees sited in the Ku-ring-gai area.
To preserve T2 for the long term, it is recommended that a Section 88b instrument be imposed (Condition No.50). The propsoed10 metres exclusion zone around the tree will not require any amendments to the indicative building envelope on Lot 51and will not unreasonably constrain development of the site.
Stormwater plan
An amended stormwater plan has been submitted indicating detailed inter allotment drainage works. Concurrence is given to the arborist assessment of impact and subsequent tree protection recommendations which are intended to preserve existing trees (Condition No’s 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 38, 50).
Conclusion
The proposal is acceptable in relation to landscape issues, subject to conditions.
Statutory Provisions
This application is deemed to be ‘Local Development’ under Part 4 of the EP and A Act, 1979 and requires development consent pursuant to the KPSO.
State Environmental Planning Policies
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land
The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of residential use and as such, it is unlikely to contain any contamination. Further investigation is not warranted in this case.
Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005
SREP 2005 applies to the site as the site is located in the Sydney Harbour Catchment. The Planning Principles in Part 2 of the SREP must be considered in the preparation of environmental planning instruments, development control plans, environmental studies and master plans.
The proposal is not affected by the provisions of the SREP which relate to the assessment of development applications as the site is not located in the Foreshores and Waterways Area as defined by the Foreshores and Waterways Area Map.
Local Content (LEP, KPSO, etc)
Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance
Permissibility
Subdivision within the Residential 2(b) zone is permissible under Clause 23 of the KPSO. Clause 58A of the KPSO provides that a person shall not subdivide land to which the Ordinance applies except with the development consent.
Clause 58B sets out the subdivision requirements for dwelling house lots and provides the following minimum requirements for Residential 2(b) subdivisions:
Development standards
Development standard |
Proposed |
Complies |
Subdivision for dwelling houses |
|
|
Minimum site area: 836m2 (min) [cl.58B (3) (A-i)] |
Lot 51:1,005m2 Lot 52: 1,500m2 Lot 53: 841m2
|
YES YES YES |
Site width: 18m (min) at a distance of 12.2m from the street alignment [cl.58B (3) (A-ii)]
|
Lot 51:18.3m Lot 52: 18.5m Lot 53: 18.3m
|
YES YES YES
|
Clause 38B – Services
Clause 38B states that consent must not be issued to the carrying out of development on land unless access to a water supply, drainage and a sewerage system will be available.
Council’s Development Engineer has recommended that conditions be imposed to ensure access to these services will be available for each individual lot to be created (Condition No’s 44 and 45). Specifically, a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney Water will be required to ensure each allotment is services by water and sewer. Additionally, prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that connections to gas, electricity, telephone lines and any other necessary service will be available.
Clause 61D – Heritage conservation
The subject site is not heritage listed, is not contained within a Heritage Conservation Area and is not within the vicinity of any listed items.
Schedule 9: Aims and objectives for residential zones
The proposed development is assessed as being consistent with the stated aims and objectives for residential zones as set out under Schedule 9 of the KPSO.
Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013
The draft comprehensive Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (DLEP) seeks to replace the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance by bringing the principal planning instrument of the LGA in line with the standard instrument. The draft LEP was exhibited from 25 March 2013 to 6 May 2013. The particular aims of the draft LEP are to guide the future development of land and the management of environmental, social, economic, heritage and cultural resources within Ku-ring-gai. The subject site is zoned under the draft LEP and as such the draft LEP forms a consideration for the assessment of this application.
The Draft LEP seeks to rezone the subject site to ‘R2 – Low Density Residential’. The subdivision of land will remain permissible within this zoning, as will the construction of new, single dwellings upon any allotments created. However, Clause 4.1 of the Draft LEP proposes a minimum lot size of 1,500m2 for each newly created allotment.
With respect to the subject application, only proposed Lot 52 (with an area of 1,500m2) will comply with this requirement. Proposed Lot 51 (1,005m2) and Lot 52 (841m2) incorporate site areas that are substantially less than the minimum set out under the Draft LEP. Nonetheless, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the stated objectives of Clause 4.1, as follows:
(a) to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions are able to accommodate development consistent with relevant development controls
The Draft LEP only proposes two numerical development controls that are of relevance to the future development of the proposed allotments. The first is a maximum building height of 9.5 metres set out under Clause 4.3. It is considered that any dwellings constructed on the proposed allotments will be able to comply with this control. The second is the maximum floor space ratios for each of the proposed allotments set out under Clause 4.4. The maximum FSR for the allotments is relative to the size of the site, as follows:
Lot |
Maximum FSR |
Proposed Lot 51 |
0.37:1 |
Proposed Lot 52 |
0.31:1 |
Proposed Lot 53 |
0.39:1 |
Based on the indicative building footprints submitted by the applicant, it is considered that each of the proposed allotments could be developed in a manner that would allow a development that would attain a reasonable FSR consistent with the allowable ratio for each allotment.
Therefore, on the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed allotments are of sizes and dimensions that would be able to accommodate development consistent with the relevant development controls.
(b) to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features including heritage items, remnant vegetation, habitat and waterways, and provide for generous landscaping to support the amenity of adjoining properties and the desired character of the area
The indicative building footprints submitted by the applicant demonstrate that each of the allotments can be developed in a manner that protects the key natural features of the site, primarily existing significant vegetation. Additionally, sufficient area for landscaping purposes will be available on the sites which would to contribute to the character of the surrounding area and to protect the amenity of adjoining properties.
(c) to ensure that subdivision of low density residential sites reflects and reinforces the predominant subdivision pattern of the area
The subdivision pattern of the area surrounding the subject site is detailed in Figure 1, below:
Figure 1: Existing subdivision pattern of the area surrounding the subject site, incorporating the allotments detailed in Figure 2, below.
All properties shown in Figure 1 are subject to the minimum1,500m2 lot size for subdivision under Clause 4.4. However, as shown in Figure 2, below, a 1,500m2 lot size is not characteristic of the predominant subdivision pattern of the area:
Street No. |
Existing lot area |
Complies with Draft KLEP / (1,500m2) (extent of variation) |
69 Koola Avenue |
1,461m2 |
NO / 2.7% |
77 Koola Avenue |
872.6m2 |
NO / 41.9% |
79 Koola Avenue |
853.6m2 |
NO / 43.2% |
2 Saiala Road |
847m2 |
NO / 43.5% |
4 Saiala Road |
834.7m2 |
NO / 44.4% |
6 Saiala Road |
1,707m2 |
YES |
8 Saiala Road |
1,922m2 |
YES |
10 Saiala Road |
815.2m2 |
NO / 45.6% |
10A Saiala Road |
1,217m2 |
NO / 19% |
12 Saiala Road |
841m2 |
NO / 44% |
14 Saiala Road |
1,005m2 |
NO / 33% |
16 Saiala Road |
986.4m2 |
NO / 34.3% |
18 Saiala Road |
961.1m2 |
NO / 36% |
10 Redfield Road |
919m2 |
NO / 38.8% |
12 Redfield Road |
948.5m2 |
NO / 37% |
3 Savoy Avenue |
923.2m2 |
NO / 38.5% |
5 Savoy Avenue |
923.2m2 |
NO / 38.5% |
7 Savoy Avenue |
942.2m2 |
NO / 37.2% |
9 Savoy Avenue |
929.5m2 |
NO / 38.1% |
11 Savoy Avenue |
1,005m2 |
NO / 33% |
15 Savoy Avenue |
986.4m2 |
NO / 34.3% |
17 Savoy Avenue |
961.1m2 |
NO / 36% |
19 Savoy Avenue |
942.2m2 |
NO / 37.2% |
21 Savoy Avenue |
1,012m2 |
NO / 32.6% |
Figure 2: extent of lot size variation from Draft KLEP provisions –all lots are contained within the bounded area of Figure 1.
Therefore, on the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed allotment sizes reflect and reinforce the predominant subdivision pattern of the area. The shapes of the proposed lots follow the traditional configuration of the surrounding properties and the proposed subdivision would not represent an undesirable or adverse planning precedent nor would it be inconsistent with Council’s new planning regime for this locality.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Draft LEP in all other relevant respects.
Policy Provisions (DCPs, Council policies, strategies and management plans)
Development Control Plan No. 38 - Ku-ring-gai Residential Design Manual
The application does not propose to construct any dwellings upon the allotments to be created. As such, the controls for residential dwellings contained within DCP38 do not apply. Nonetheless, as any future dwellings to be constructed will be subject to the controls of this policy, it is prudent to give consideration as to whether a dwelling could be reasonably constructed on the new allotments in accordance with this policy.
In this regard, the applicant has submitted a plan detailing indicative building footprints for each of the proposed allotments that show the following:
- building setbacks that provide adequate separation between boundaries and neighbouring developments that will retain residential amenity and allow for screen and tree plantings
- the retention of existing significant vegetation
- an appropriate balance between hard and soft landscaping areas
- the ability to construct dwellings with floor areas characteristic of current new home sizes and designs within the area
- adequate areas of private open space
- the ability to provide adequate vehicle parking and manoeuvrability areas
- sufficient separation between buildings for the retention of solar access and privacy amenity
On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed allotments will be able to accommodate reasonably sized dwellings in accordance with the controls of the DCP. Additionally, the proposed allotments will also be able to accommodate dwellings constructed pursuant to the Complying Development provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. While it is noted that the existing tennis court does not comply with the 3 metres setback requirements of the DCP to the eastern and southern boundaries of proposed Lot 52, the setback of the tennis court in relation to these boundaries will not be altered as an outcome of the proposal.
Development Control Plan No. 40 – Waste Management
The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan in relation to the proposed demolition works. This plan is acceptable.
Development Control Plan No. 43 – Car Parking
Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the proposal is acceptable with regard to vehicular access. In this regard, it is noted that the application only proposes the provision of vehicle access points to the respective sites and that on-site car parking and vehicle manoeuvrability will be assessed as part of the future development of the new allotments.
Development Control Plan No. 47 – Water Management
Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable with regard to stormwater management.
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010
The proposal is subject to Council’s Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010. Pursuant to the plan, the creation of two additional lots attracts a contribution of $42,508.24.
Key Community Infrastructure Amount
Local parks and Local sporting facilities $35,900.37
Local recreational and cultural, Local social facilities $6,607.87
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS $42,508.24
Likely Impacts
The impacts of the proposed development have been considered in detail in this report and are acceptable.
Suitability of the Site
The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.
Public Interest
The approval of the application is considered to be in the public interest.
Conclusion
Having regard to the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved.
That Ku-ring-gai Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to DA0202/14 the demolition of existing structures and Torrens title subdivision of one lot into three lots on land at 73 Koola Avenue, East Killara for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
1. Approved architectural plans and documentation
The development must be carried out in accordance with the work shown on the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
2. Inconsistency between documents
In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
3. No demolition of extra fabric
Alterations to, and demolition of the existing building shall be limited to that documented on the approved plans (by way of notation). No approval is given or implied for removal and/or rebuilding of any portion of the existing building which is shown to be retained.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the development consent.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
4. Asbestos works
All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie. Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
5. Tree identification
Prior to works commencing the existing trees noted in the arborist report shall be numbered in accordance with the arborist report and/or the approved plans. Trees shall be clearly tagged with confirmation from the project arborist that all marked trees correspond with those shown on the approved plan.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
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. Tree protection fencing
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy is fenced off at the specified radius from the trunk/s to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
9. 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/No access · This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the tree/s and their growing environment both above and below ground · The name, address, and telephone number of the developer/builder and project arborist
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
10. Trunk protection
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the trunk/s are protected by the placement of 2.0 metres lengths of 50 x 100mm hardwood timbers spaced at 150mm centres and secured by 2mm wire at 300mm wide spacing over suitable protective padding material. The trunk protection shall be maintained intact until the completion of all work on site.
Any damage to the tree/s shall be treated immediately by an experienced Horticulturist/Arborist, with minimum qualification of Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate and a report detailing the works carried out shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority:
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
11. 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.
12. 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.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
13. Project arborist
A project Arborist shall be commissioned prior to the release of the Construction Certificate to ensure all tree protection measures are carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.
The project arborist shall have a minimum AQF Level 5 qualification with a minimum of 5 years experience. Details of the arborist including name, business name and contact details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with a copy to Council.
Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Interallotment drainage design
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit, for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority, full hydraulic design documentation for the required interallotment drainage system from the subject property to the approved point of discharge to the public drainage system. Plans are to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47 and AS3500.3 (2003) Plumbing Code. New pipes within the downstream easement drainage system must be sized to have adequate capacity to carry uncontrolled runoff from the contributing catchment and an associated overland flow path is to be provided in the event of blockage of the interallotment line. The plan(s) must be based on the Stormwater Plan drawing No. H-01 issue ‘A’, dated 15 August 2014, prepared by WKL & Associates.
The design requires an 225mm and 300mm diameter pipes to be provided. The minimum easement widths for the proposed interallotment pipes are to be 1.2m and 1.3m, respectively, as per Appendix 7.2 (c) of Council’s Water Management DCP No.47.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory design of the interallotment drainage in accordance with relevant codes and Australian Standards.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
17. 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.
18. Section 94 development contributions - other than identified centres (For DAs determined on or after 19 December 2010).
This development is subject to a development contribution calculated in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, being a s94 Contributions Plan in effect under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as follows:
The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.
The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and may vary at the time of payment in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.
Copies of Council’s Contribution Plans can be viewed at Council Chambers, 818 Pacific Hwy Gordon or on Council’s website at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au.
Notwithstanding the total above, in accordance with the s94E Direction issued by the Minister for Planning dated 3 March 2011, for so long as it remains legally in force, the maximum amount payable for the subject development application shall be $20,000 x 2 = $40,000.
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:
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Demolition works near trees
To avoid tree impacts demolition of the tennis hut shall be carried out by hand within the specified radius of the trunk of the following tree.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Certification of footings & excavation adjacent to easements
During demolition and construction, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that:
· footings, and any required permanent excavation or drainage easement support, are constructed in accordance with the conditions of this consent relating to footings and excavation adjacent to drainage easements and/or drainage pipes · footings allow for complete future excavation over the full width of the easement to a depth of the invert of the pipe, without the need to support or underpin the subject structure
Reason: Safety.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Arborist report
The tree/s to be retained shall be inspected and monitored by an AQF Level 5 Arborist in accordance with AS4970-2009 during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the project arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work including date, brief description of the works inspected, and any mitigation works prescribed.
All monitoring shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
· All works as recommended by the project arborist are to be undertaken by an experienced arborist with a minimum AQF Level 3 qualification.
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
37. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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:
41. Easement drainage line construction
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the required interallotment drainage system has been installed and surveyed under the supervision of a designing engineer or equivalent professional.
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 existing drainage easement(s)
Reason: To protect the environment.
42. Infrastructure repair
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that any damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub-contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council Development Engineer and at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Subdivision certificate:
43. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
Prior to release of the linen plan/issue of the subdivision certificate, the Section 73 Sydney Water compliance certificate which refers to the subdivision application must be obtained and submitted to the Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
44. Requirements of public authorities for connection to services
Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of any public authorities (e.g. Energy Australia, Sydney Water, Telstra Australia, AGL, etc) in regard to the connection, relocation and/or adjustment of the services affected by the proposed subdivision. All costs related to the relocation, adjustment or support of services are the responsibility of the applicant.
Note: Details of compliance with the requirements of any relevant public authorities are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that services are available to the allotments of land.
45. Provision of services
Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, separate underground electricity, gas and phone or appropriate conduits for the same, must be provided to each allotment to the satisfaction of the utility provider. A suitably qualified and experienced engineer or surveyor is to provide certification that all new lots have ready underground access to the services of electricity, gas and phone. Alternatively, a letter from the relevant supply authorities stating the same may be submitted to satisfy this condition.
Reason: Access to public utilities.
46. Issue of Subdivision Certificate
The Subdivision Certificate must not be issued until all conditions of development consent have been satisfied and an Occupation Certificate has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed prior to transfer of responsibility for the site and development to another person.
47. Submission of 88b instrument
Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the applicant must submit an original instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act with the plan of subdivision, plus six (6) copies to Council. Ku-ring-gai Council must be named as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify the burdens. The easement width shall be in accordance with Appendix 7.2 (c) of Council’s Water Management DCP No.47.
Reason: To create all required easements, rights-of-carriageway, positive covenants, restrictions-on-use or other burdens/benefits as may be required.
48. Submission of plans of subdivision (Torrens title)
For endorsement of the subdivision certificate, the applicant shall submit an original plan of subdivision plus 6 copies, suitable for endorsement by Council. The following details must be submitted with the plan of subdivision and its copies:
a) the endorsement fee current a the time of lodgement b) the 88B instrument plus 6 copies c) a copy of the Occupation Certificate issued for DA0202/14 d) all surveyor’s and/or consulting engineers’ certification(s) required under this subdivision consent e) The Section 73 (Sydney Water) Compliance Certificate for the subdivision. f) Proof of payment of S94 contribution
Council will check the consent conditions on the subdivision. Failure to submit the required information will delay endorsement of the linen plan and may require payment of rechecking fees. Plans and copies of subdivision must not be folded. Council will not accept bonds in lieu of completing subdivision works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
49. General easement/R.O.W. provision and certification
Prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate, a registered surveyor is to provide details to Council that all physical structures are fully contained within the proposed allotments or will be fully covered by the proposed burdens upon registration of the final plan of subdivision. Alternatively, where the surveyor is of the opinion that creation of burdens and benefits is not required, then proof to this effect must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that all physical structures are fully contained within the proposed allotments or will be fully covered by the proposed burdens upon registration of the final plan of subdivision.
50. Tree protection - Section 88b instrument
Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be provided with evidence of the creation of a restriction on the use of land under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the area of land beneath the canopy of the following tree for a specified radius in metres from the trunk of that tree, the terms of which state that any excavations, soil level changes or construction works are prohibited with the exception of any works as approved by Council:
Reason: To protect the environment.
|
Stuart Ratcliff Senior Development Assessment Officer |
Shaun Garland Team Leader Development Assessment South |
Corrie Swanepoel Manager Development Assessment Services |
Michael Miocic Director Development & Regulation |
A1View |
Location sketch |
|
2014/266927 |
|
|
A2View |
Zoning extract |
|
2014/266934 |
|
A3View |
Subdivision plan |
|
2014/265962 |
|
A4View |
Stormwater plan |
|
2014/220867 |
|
A5View |
Site Management Plan |
|
2014/136009 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.7 / 319 |
|
|
Item GB.7 |
S10362 |
|
1 October 2014 |
Lindfield Community Hub - Probity Matters
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
The purpose of this report is to address a number of issues raised by Council’s probity consultant in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub master plan. |
|
|
background: |
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 9 September 2014 Council adopted four land use scenarios as the basis for preparing illustrative concept plans for community consultation and further technical assessment. Following the Council resolution staff sought probity advice to guide the next steps of the project; the recommendations are as follows: · that a report to full Council be prepared, and endorsed by Council outlining the process that will be followed for the evaluation of the development options, including the criteria to be used; and · that Council formally resolves their position in relation to the Fabcot/Woolworths unsolicited proposal received by Council in April 2014. |
|
|
comments: |
An unsolicited proposal was received in April 2014 from Woolworths/Fabcot in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub site however, as yet Council has not made a determination regarding this proposal. It is noted that Council resolved, at
the meeting held on As a result of this decision a number of probity matters have arisen which require Council’s attention. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council adopt the recommendations in this report in relation to probity matters raised by Council’s probity consultant. |
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to address a number of issues raised by Council’s probity consultant in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub master plan.
Background
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 9 September 2014 Council resolved a number of matters in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub. Of most relevance to this report is resolution A, which says that Council:
“…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 and 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.
· Option D (the same as option 5 p536) – full line supermarket (4,200sqm) with community facility, secondary/speciality retail, additional car spaces and no residential accommodation, new park on retail podium; and three storey height limit.”
Options A, B and C formed the Officer’s recommendation and option D was added by an amended motion following two members of the public who addressed Council on the matter.
Option D (as Option 5) is described and assessed in the Lindfield Community Hub - Preliminary Feasibility Assessment (Jones Lang LaSalle, 2013) and comprises a full line supermarket with community facility, secondary/speciality retail, additional car spaces and no residential accommodation. This option was analysed at the time (which was prior to the receipt of the unsolicited proposal) as Council was aware of Woolworths/Fabcot interest in the site and had a broad understanding of the proposal.
Following the Council resolution staff sought probity advice to guide the next steps of the project; the recommendations are as follows:
· that a report to full Council be prepared, and endorsed by Council outlining the process that will be followed for the evaluation of the development options, including the criteria to be used;
· that Council formally resolves their position in relation to the Fabcot/Woolworths unsolicited proposal received by Council in April 2014; and
· that Council clarifies copyright matters with Wooworths/Fabcot.
Probity relates to a wide range of Council activities including managing the conduct of the community and stakeholder engagement; the procurement processes; as well as managing the Council’s statutory and development roles to ensure that they are conducted in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements and general probity guides. Probity focuses on compliance and advice on a fair process to assist Councils to achieve their objectives without any undue delays due to process breaches.
Probity methodology and approach is underpinned by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s Key Probity Fundamentals; the principles outlined in the NSW Local Government Tendering Guidelines; sound corporate governance principles; Guidelines on the Procedures and Processes to be followed by local Government in Public-Private Partnerships; and Division of Local Government Guidelines for Capital Expenditure Projects.
Comments
An unsolicited proposal was received in April of this year from Woolworths/Fabcot in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub site however as yet Council has not made a determination regarding this proposal. The unsolicited proposal was made available to the public soon after Council received the proposal by placing it on Council’s website. The unsolicited proposal is in Attachment 1 of this report.
It is noted that Council resolved, at the meeting held on 9 September 2014, to include as part of potential planning outcomes for the Lindfield Community Hub an “Option D” and that this is considered to be closely aligned to the Woolworths unsolicited proposal.
As a result of this decision a number of probity matters have arisen; these are discussed below.
Status of Woolworths/Fabcot unsolicited proposal
To ensure Council meets its probity requirements a decision is required on whether Council wishes to:
a. formally consider the Woolworth proposal and directly negotiate with Woolworths; or
b. notify Woolworths that it is not in a position to enter into negotiations with a sole proponent for this site.
It is recommended that Council determines that it is not in a position to enter into negotiations with a sole proponent for this site on the basis that:
· there are likely to be other parties who may be interested in the site;
· there has been no formal market testing;
· Woolworths appear to have no unique proposition to be the sole party to negotiate with; and
· Council has not undertaken the option assessment process as yet to determine a preferred option.
It is further recommended that this view be communicated to Woolworths formally in writing prior to any further work commence on the development of the options.
Copyright
Council’s probity consultant has recommended that Council seek written confirmation from Woolworths/Fabcot indicating that it is comfortable with the inclusion “Option D”, with regard copyright laws, and there are no limitations on use of any of the material, except any financial offer. This advice is noted however given that none of the visual material or other information produced by Woolworths/Fabcot is proposed to be used by Council in the preparation of “Option D” it is not recommended that Council pursue this matter further.
Assessment of development options
Given the high level of public and commercial interest in this project it is recommended that Council develop a clear set of criteria on how the various options will be evaluated and assessed; and that these criteria are made public prior to the design process commencing.
The following assessment criteria are recommended:
· public response to options as determined by on-line and face-to-face survey responses, public comments during workshops and information sessions; and public submissions during exhibition;
· a cost review of each option by Council’s quantity surveyor consultant;
· a financial analysis of the options by Council’s land economist consultant;
· a review by Council’s traffic consultant;
· a review by Council’s community facilities consultant;
· an officer review of each option against the objectives of the project as set out in the project brief – Attachment 2;
· a review by specialist Council staff including engineers, traffic, landscape, urban design among others;
· project Working Group (PWG) approval of preferred preliminary option; and
· full Council approval of preferred illustrative master plan.
Selection of the preferred development option will be undertaken by Council on the basis of a report to full Council which will involve a rigorous assessment of each option based on the above criteria.
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 draft Governance and Probity Framework has been prepared for the Lindfield Community Hub project.
The role of the Probity Framework is to provide a decision-making structure that is logical, robust, transparent, accountable to Ku-ring-gai Council (Council) as a body, and the community, to whom the Council is responsible, to govern the Lindfield Community Hub. It describes the management structure, including the specific role, accountabilities and responsibilities, focusing primarily on authority level, information flow and related probity guidance.
The Probity Framework is required to ensure that each aspect of the process is, and is seen to be, open and transparent, that any conflict of interest is avoided, pecuniary interests declared and that all aspects of the project process complies with relevant legislation.
The Probity Framework includes documentation of the relationship between parties involved in the project, including the independence of any parties engaged by Council to undertake any relevant consulting, be it financial, market and economic analysis, or any other relevant assignment for the project.
The Probity Framework includes details on the probity fundamentals in accordance with the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s probity advising guidance material as well as key areas and controls to be implemented during the project to ensure that these principles are met.
Risk Management
This report makes recommendations to Council for managing probity risks identified by Council’s probity consultant. The risks have arisen following a Council resolution, at the meeting held on 9 September 2014, to include as part of potential planning outcomes for the Lindfield Community Hub an “Option D” which is considered to be closely aligned to the Woolworths unsolicited proposal.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial implications of this report.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations arising from this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations arising from this report.
Community Consultation
If Council decides to adopt the assessment criteria recommended in this report, the criteria will be made publicly available on council’s website.
Internal Consultation
Staff from the Operations and Strategy and Environment departments has been involved with discussions with Council’s probity consultant.
Summary
An unsolicited proposal was received in April 2014 from Woolworths/Fabcot in relation to the Lindfield Community Hub site. The unsolicited proposal was made available to the public soon after Council received the proposal by placing it on council’s website. The unsolicited proposal is in Attachment 1 of this report.
Council resolved, at the meeting held on 9 September 2014, to include as part of potential planning outcomes for the Lindfield Community Hub an “Option D” which is considered to be closely aligned to the Woolworths unsolicited proposal.
Following the Council resolution staff sought probity advice and a number of probity matters were identified. This report discusses these matters and recommends as follows:
· that a report to full Council be prepared, and endorsed by Council, outlining the process that will be followed for the evaluation of the development options including the criteria to be used; and
· that Council formally resolves their position in relation to the Fabcot/Woolworths unsolicited proposal received by Council in April 2014.
Recommendation:
A. That Council determines that it is not in a position to enter into negotiations with a sole proponent for this site on the basis that:
· there are likely to be other parties who may be interested in the site; · there has been no formal market testing; · Woolworths appear to have no unique proposition to be the sole party to negotiate with; and · Council has not undertaken the option assessment process as yet to determine a preferred option.
B. That Council’s decision not to negotiate with a sole proponent be communicated to Woolworths/Fabcot formally in writing prior to any further work commence on the development of the options.
C. That Council utilise the following criteria for the assessment of the adopted development options A, B, C and D:
· public response to options as determined by on-line and face-to-face survey responses, public comments during workshops and information sessions; and public submissions during exhibition; · a cost review of each option by Council’s quantity surveyor consultant; · a financial feasibility analysis of the options by Council’s land economist consultant; · a review by Council’s traffic consultant; · a review by Council’s community facilities consultant; · an officer review of each option against the objectives of the project as set out in the project brief; · a review by specialist Council staff including engineers, traffic, landscape, urban design among others; · project Working Group (PWG) approval of preferred preliminary option; and · full Council approval of preferred illustrative master plan
D. That these criteria are made public prior to the design process commencing.
|
Bill Royal Team Leader Urban Design |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Woolworths / Fabcot Unsolicited Proposal - Lindfield Community Hub |
|
2014/107024 |
|
|
A2View |
CONSULTANT BRIEF - Lindfield Community Hub - Illustrative Development Options and Site Master plan Tender |
|
2014/199362 |
APPENDIX No: 2 - CONSULTANT BRIEF - Lindfield Community Hub - Illustrative Development Options and Site Master plan Tender |
|
Item No: GB.7 |
Contents
Contents
1........ Introduction
2........ Purpose
3........ The Project
4........ The Site
5........ Project Objectives
6........ Strategic Framework
7........ Background Reports
8........ Project Scope
9........ Project Programme
Deliverables
10...... Consultant Team and Sub-consultants
11...... Project Team & Stakeholders
12...... Community and Stakeholder engagement
13...... Selection of Preferred Illustrative Masterplan
1. Introduction
Ku-ring-gai Council invites tenders from Registered Architects and Urban Designers to provide design consultancy services for Lindfield Community Hub (the project).
The Lindfield Community Hub will have a pivotal role in the revitalisation of Lindfield local centre. The centre will comprise a new branch library alongside a community centre with hireable spaces and a community service centre; as well as a local park and town square. Supporting these uses will be a mix of retail and residential uses, creating a focal point for the western side of Lindfield. Transport for NSW is also proposing to fund up to 240 commuter car spaces incorporated within the development.
The purpose of this tender is to engage a multidisciplinary consultant team to prepare four (4) illustrative development options based on land-use scenarios that have been developed by Council in association with Jones Lang LaSalle. The development options will then be used in community consultation to allow the development of a preferred option for Council.
Once adopted by elected Councillors the consultant team will proceed to develop a full site masterplan in line with the principles outlined in the preferred development option.
The illustrative development options will contain indicative building forms in section, elevations and plans as well as a 3D digital model and photomontages to effectively communicate likely built form outcomes to the general public in addition to interpreting key economic data in an easily understandable manner to inform the community of the trade-offs for each option (economic data to be provided by Council). The masterplan will be a fully developed site masterplan including preferred siting and built form arrangements, concept plans for the public open space and indicative floor plans.
2. Purpose
The purpose of this project is to first provide the community with the opportunity to comment on four different options for the Lindfield Community Hub. The intention is for the concepts to be illustrative in nature so that the community can be confident their input is at an early stage in the project and decisions are not pre-determined but convey enough detail to accurately inform of the trade-offs for each option.
Once completed, the final adopted masterplan is then to be utilised by Council in establishing minimum Community outcomes, standards and assessing appropriate delivery methods for the project as well as being the subject of further detailed analysis such as detailed costings and project planning.
A key consideration for this project is the development of an effective methodology and visual tools to communicate the options to councillors and community without creating confusion.
3. The Project
The project will include the following community infrastructure elements as a minimum:
• A new local park with a minimum size of 3800sqm (including sufficient soil depth to support canopy tree planting);
• Streetscape works to adjoining streets;
• Road improvement works to adjoining streets;
• A new public street (realigned Drovers Way);
• A multi-purpose community facility and library (floor space requirements outlined in the Lindfield Community Facilities Study 2014 – approximately 1,220sqm for the library and 1,875sqm for the community facility)
• Leisure retail and commercial uses such as cafes and restaurants; and
• Underground car parking for commuters (up to 240 spaces); shoppers/staff (as required by Council’s DCP); and replacement of Council’s existing public spaces (112 spaces)
In addition to these uses Council has examined the potential for a large format supermarket-based retail centre and/or residential uses to assist with funding of the community facilities and car parking.
There are four options that have been adopted by Council at OMC 9 September 2014 to be tested through the illustrative development options phase. They are extracted from the minutes as follows:
Option A - Community facilities with secondary/specialty retail and residential; a new park; and three storey height limit.
Option B - Community facilities with major retail/secondary/specialty retail as well as residential; a new park; and seven storey height limit.
Option C - Community facilities with residential only; a new park; and five storey height limit.
Option D– full line supermarket (4,200sqm) with community facility, secondary/speciality retail, additional car spaces and no residential accommodation, new park on retail podium; and three storey height limit.
Lindfield community hub – potential mix of uses
The site offers the ability to design beyond simple compliance with the proposed height, FSR and other LEP and DCP controls and make significant contributions to public amenity within the Lindfield Local Centre. The site is complex with features such as: multiple project partners; potential connection to the Pacific Highway; problematic vehicle access; sloping terrain; and the addition of new public spaces and community facilities creating a combination of uses with competing interests and priorities.
4. The Site
The site is located in Lindfield on the western side of the Pacific Highway bounded by Beaconsfield Parade to the south, Woodford Lane to the east, Bent Street to the north and residential land to the south west.
Lindfield community hub – location
The site comprises Council owned land and can be described as:
• No. 18 Beaconsfield Parade - Lot 1 DP 929131
• Drovers Way Lots 1-16 DP 1099330
• Woodford Lane and Drovers Way rights-of-way
• No. 2 Bent Street – Lot 9 DP 1090427
• No. 4 Bent Street – Lot 10 DP 1090427
• No. 6 Bent Street – Lot 3 DP 1090427
• No. 8 Bent Street – Lot 1 DP 742823
• No. 10 Bent Street – Lot 1 DP980108
• No. 12 Bent Street – Lot 5 DP 666521
• Lot A - Woodford Lane - Lot A DP 445535
Council is also in the process of closing Drovers Way to allow consolidation of the site.
5. Project Objectives
Ku-ring-gai Council is committed to creating a place for the wider community and local residents to meet, and connect.
Lindfield Community Hub will be a pivotal facility for not just Lindfield residents but also for the greater Ku-ring-gai community. A new branch library, hireable spaces, service delivery centre and local park will be collocated with a mix of retail and residential area to create a focal point for Lindfield services and activities.
The illustrative development options and full site master plan will reflect the following master plan principles
THE VILLAGE:
· History – The development will respect the history of the Lindfield Local Centre
· Building Bulk, Scale and Character – The building bulk and scale where possible will reflect and enhance the best elements of the local character
· Building Use – The building uses will enhance the local centre and work together to create a vibrant local hub
· Variety – The development will encourage a diversity of uses within the single cohesive hub to present the community with options
· Social & Community Impact – The proposal will consider the communities physiological needs, happiness, safety and health
THE ATTRACTION:
· Legibility – The master plan will provide logical and well thought out navigation, both to the site and within the site
· Identity – the development will create a clear and distinct character
· Vitality - the development will support a robust local economy
· Leisure – create a space for people to meet, rest etc. and not just pass through
· Entertainment – a place for community events
· Accessibility – the development will provide high levels of accessibility
· Recreation – the development will provide a new local park providing facilities for passive pursuits for local residents
THE CANOPY:
· Identity / Character – where possible the master plan should respect and enhance the natural tree canopy
· Open Space – The open space will provide sufficient soil depth to allow for canopy tree planting and where possible provide an area of parkland on natural ground
· The masterplan where possible should address areas including thermal comfort, habitat loss, sedimentation and erosion
· At least one option should consider retention of the existing trees/biodiversity on the site
THE FACILITIES:
The facilities need to provide the following:
· Social connectivity
· Transportation infrastructure – pedestrians, cycles and cars
· Sense of community
· Space for community services
· Space for change
· Commercial activity
THE ENVIRONMENT:
The masterplan should consider the principles of:
· Water sensitive urban design (WSUD)
· Renewable energy
· Lifecycle design
· Passive environmental design / site responsive design
· The building as an environmental education tool
CONNECTION:
The masterplan should consider and enhance (both within the site and within the broader local centre):
· Permeability
· Legibility
· Access to public transport and cycle routes
· Parking
ACCESS:
The site is required to address principles of Universal Design including:
· Inter-generational equity
· Ease of access
· Family friendly
· Walkability
SAFETY:
All users of the site should have an assurance of safety through incorporation of the following principles:
· Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
· Visibility
· “Eyes on the street”
· Lighting
· A Sense of inclusion
6. Strategic Framework
Council’s vision for the site is well documented in a number of site-specific policy documents to promote and guide the ongoing revitalisation of Lindfield local centre to become the focus of community life for residents and visitors. These documents are listed below.
Community Strategic Plan 2030
Our Community – Our Future 2030 is a long term strategic plan for the future of the Ku-ring-gai local government area. Undertaken by Council over the past four years with extensive community consultation, this plan reflects the aspirations, vision and long term goals of the Ku-ring-gai community for its people, places and spaces, environment and economy.
The vision is Ku-ring-gai as a creative, healthy and liveable place where people respect each other, conserve the magnificent environment and society for the children and grandchildren of the future.
Ku-ring-gai’s values are to:
· Care for the local environment and people
· Respect the needs of future generations
· Learn and share knowledge
· Behave ethically
· Take responsibility for our actions
· Lead in sustainability
Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2013-2014
Ku-ring-gai Council The Delivery Program 2013 – 2017 and Operational Plan for 2013-2014, sets out how Council is using the long term objectives of our Community Strategic Plan to create day-to-day improvements in the Ku-ring-gai area. It has been developed to provide direction to Ku-ring-gai Council, its staff and the community as to what and when various programs, services and capital works will be undertaken.
The Term Achievements outlined in the Delivery Program 2013-2017 are linked to the issues and objectives identified in the Community Strategic Plan, and in turn set the direction and actions contained in the Operational Plan 2013-2014.
During the initial consultation process for the Community Strategic Plan six themes were developed with thirty issues and long term objectives. We use these themes, issues and long term objectives as a platform for planning our activities to address the community’s stated needs and aspirations. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan identify the four year strategies and objectives determined by the Community Strategic Plan, along with one year actions that we will complete during the coming year under each of our six themes.
Themes, objectives and tasks specific to this project are as follows.
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. |
Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) LEP 2012 (KLEP 2012)
Under the KLEP 2012 the site has a variety of zonings and heights. Part of the purpose of the illustrative development options is to assist in the development of a planning proposal for an amendment to the zoning, height and FSR on the site. The consultant will be required to follow the height and FSR as outlined in the options adopted by Council (outlined in Background Reports). The Lindfield maps can be found HERE
Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP, 2013 (KDCP)
Volume B Part 1 – Lindfield Local Centre (HERE) sets out site specific objectives and controls for the site and surrounds including building setbacks, active frontage requirements, pedestrian access and vehicle access and the like.
The KDCP Volume A Part 8 (HERE) has specific controls for mixed-use development.
The remainder of the KDCP is available HERE
Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010 (PDP)
The PDP was developed to guide the design of streets and public spaces within and around town centres; the plan provides specific strategies for the site and surrounds in relation to:
· Street Character
· Public Spaces
· Tree Canopy
· Culture and Community
· Pedestrian Access and Circulation
· Integrated Transport
· Vehicle Access and Circulation
· Views and View Corridors
The Lindfield section of the PDP can be found here Part1, Part2, and Part3
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 (KCP)
The KCP provides funding for the elements that are to be provided by Council over the next 25 years. The works program categories include:
· road and traffic improvements
· transport improvements
· streetscape improvements
· new community buildings and
· parks and open space (land acquisition and design and construction)
Energy and climate plans and policies
Council has taken a comprehensive approach to managing climate change in Ku-ring-gai by mitigating and adapting to climate change. The objectives are:
· To reduce Council’s carbon footprint;
· To ensure Council and the community’s vulnerability to climate change is reduced;
· To identify and capitalise on potential opportunities arising from climate change;
· To control exposure to litigation arising from failure to act on climate change issues; and
· To continue to improve performance on climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Council’s goal is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from electricity (excluding street lighting) and fuel use by 20% by the year 2020 and by 90% by 2050. This is based on Council’s emission profile in 2000. Council’s Draft Energy Reduction Strategy 2010 can be viewed here.
Council has adopted a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, which outlines what Ku-ring-gai's vulnerabilities are, how we can mitigate the impact of climate change, Council's response to climate change, and what Ku-ring-gai residents can do. Council’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy can be viewed here
The Draft Energy Reduction Strategy outlines how Council will invest in photo-voltaic cells, solar hot water systems, LED lighting, and insulation of glass and roofs throughout key Council facilities to work towards our emission reduction targets.
View our Draft Energy Reduction Strategy 2010 here
In 2007, Council released a climate change report documenting its research into how local and global climate projections may affect Ku-ring-gai. The report showed Ku-ring-gai could potentially experience increased frequency and severity of storms, bushfire, heat waves and drought.
In 2008 a research partnership was undertaken between Council, Macquarie and Bond Universities, to develop a comprehensive economic analysis of climate change risk and adaptation for Ku-ring-gai. The project was led by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Professor Anne Henderson-sellers, and produced the Economic Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptations Report.
Council has adopted a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, which outlines what Ku-ring-gai's vulnerabilities are, how we can mitigate the impact of climate change, Council's response to climate change, and what Ku-ring-gai residents can do.
Integrated Water Management
Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) is management of all sources of water to ensure that optimal use is obtained within the catchment resource context. This includes consideration of traditionally compartmentalised sectors (potable water, sewerage, stormwater) in an integrated manner by recognising the inherent connections and the opportunities to optimise the resource.
Council’s Integrated Water Cycle Management Policy provides background to IWCM and outlines the future approach that Council is taking; the policy can be viewed here
The aim of the Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy is to guide the implementation of integrated urban water management within the Ku-ring-gai local government area (LGA); the Strategy can be viewed here
Council’s Interim Water Recycle and Reuse Policy states that Council will incorporate water recycling and stormwater reuse for irrigation of outdoor areas and other non-potable uses where possible and will do so in a responsible and sustainable manner; the Policy can be viewed here.
7. Background Reports
Council and Transport for NSW have engaged consultants to undertake a number of studies to inform the planning for the site.
· Geotechnical and Contamination - reports have been prepared to establish the existing conditions for the proposed Lindfield Community Hub. These reports are available on Councils website:
· Lindfield transport network study – development of a comprehensive Lindfield transport network model, development of a preferred traffic option and proposed traffic, pedestrian and cycle improvements.
· Lindfield community hub preliminary feasibility assessment – assessment of current market conditions and preliminary feasibility analysis.
· Lindfield community facility study – analysis of the requirements for the multi-purpose community facility and library within the Lindfield centre to determine the appropriate mix and siting of the facilities. The preparation of functional briefs for the facilities.
The Lindfield Community Facilities study has been completed and will be issued at the inception meeting. The Lindfield transport network study and Stage 1 of the Lindfield community hub preliminary feasibility analysis are complete and it is expected that the successful consultant will work with both consultants and council to develop and refine the four scenarios into a preferred option. Reports prepared by each consultant will be issued at the inception meeting
A full site survey has been prepared and will be made available at the inception meeting.
8. Project Scope
The consultant will utilise an appropriate site master planning methodology that will:
- Take into account that each massing model must represent a practical solution for the built form.
- Factor in the viability of each of the uses, connections between uses, access to and from the site and the relationship between the site and neighbouring developments.
Task 1 – Review of Background Information
Council will provide all relevant and available data and resources to the project. The consultant will have access to relevant studies and other supporting information that Council has that may be required or necessary to undertake the project including:
· Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres), 2012
· Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP, 2013
· Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010
· Ku-ring-gai Parking Management Plan, 2010
· Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Manual, 2010
· Ku-ring-gai Integrated Water Cycle Management Policy
· Ku-ring-gai Interim Water Recycle and Reuse Policy
· Ku-ring-gai Draft Energy Reduction Strategy 2010
· Ku-ring-gai Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
· Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Study, 2014 by Elton Consulting
· Lindfield Community Facilities Study, 2013 by Elton Consulting
· Stage 1 Lindfield Community Hub – Preliminary Feasibility Assessment, 2014 by Jones Lang LaSalle
· Draft Lindfield Transport Modelling Study, 2014 by Peopletrans
Task 2 – Site Analysis
A comprehensive site analysis is to be undertaken to form the basis of the preliminary options modelling. Council will provide a site survey. The site analysis will include but is not limited to aspects such as
· Site conditions such as – Orientation & climate context, topography & drainage, site access, pedestrian and cycle connections, traffic access & circulation, open space, existing vegetation and natural features, bushfire prone land and other risks
· Precinct context such as – Views to and from the site, existing development, key features of adjoining sites, services and facilities, zone interface and noise & safety.
Where the site analysis identifies significant risks the analysis should propose potential mitigating measures.
Task 3 – Principles
Based on the site analysis, the consultant is to develop a set of planning and design principles for the site. The principles will be approved by Council prior to proceeding to Task 4. The principles should include elements such as:
- Preferred locations for Council’s park, library and multipurpose community facility;
- Key relationships between land uses;
- Access to and from the site and primary land uses;
- Critical elements of the design of the park, public domain and streetscape;
- Relationship between the site context and the development.
Task 4 – Illustrative Development Options
The four options will be developed from land use areas, height and FSR controls and input from the feasibility assessment into built form massing. Each massing model must represent a practical solution for the built form factoring in the viability and connectivity of each land use, access to and from the site and the relationship between the site and neighbouring developments.
A short description of how each option responds to the principles from Task 3, explaining the trade-offs against the other options and describing the public benefits of each proposal.
Task 5 – Community Workshops
The resultant illustrative development options will be presented at community workshops to gather feedback of the community’s expectations and preferences for the site. The plans are to be presented to Councillors prior to community consultation sessions. The consultants will give a presentation on the relative merits of each proposal during the community consultation process (run by Council staff).
The development plans will be assessed by Council staff in conjunction with feasibility and traffic consultants, taking into account comments from GMD, Councillors and community consultation to form a preferred development plan which will be reported to Council for adoption and exhibition.
Task 6 – Draft Site Master pPlan
The adopted illustrative development plan is to be developed into a site masterplan for public exhibition. This will involve a formal presentation of the master plan to public information sessions during the exhibition.
The consultant is to work closely with Council at all times to ensure that the project requirements are given adequate consideration in the preparation of the site masterplan.
Task 7 – Final Site Master Plan
Following a review of public submissions the draft master plan will be reported to Council for final adoption. The consultant will be responsible for amendments to the draft plan arising from the council meeting and public submissions. A final design report will be submitted summarising the entire process.
9. Project Programme
A summary of the key tasks and milestones dates for the Lindfield Hub is provided below:
Task |
Task Name |
Duration |
Start |
|
Inception meeting |
3 hours |
Week of 16th Dec 2014 |
1-3 |
Background review, site analysis and principles |
5 weeks (including holidays) |
Dec. 2014 – Jan. 2015 |
|
Review meeting |
3 hour |
Week of 19th January 2015 |
4 |
development options |
7 weeks |
Jan. 2015- Feb. 2015 |
|
Review meeting |
3 hours |
Week of 16th February 2015 |
|
Presentation to GMD |
1 hour |
Week of 16th February 2015 |
|
Presentation to Councillors |
2 hours |
Week of 23rd February 2015 |
5 |
Community workshops |
3 X 2 hour |
Week of 2nd March 2015 |
|
Council review of options |
4 weeks |
March 2015 |
|
Prepare Council report |
2 weeks |
March – April 2015 |
|
OMC - Report to Council - preferred concept plan for exhibition |
1 day |
28th April 2015 |
6 |
Preparation of draft master plan |
6 weeks |
Week of 4th May 2015 |
|
Review meeting |
3 hours |
Week of 16th February 2015 |
|
Presentation to community information sessions (during exhibition period) |
3 X 2 hour |
June – July 2015 |
|
Council - assessment of public submissions |
4 weeks |
July – August 2015 |
|
OMC - Report to Council – final master plan |
1 day |
25th August 2015 |
7 |
Final amendments and design report |
4 weeks |
September 2015 |
|
Primarily consultant role |
|
Primarily Council role |
The anticipated period for completion of this project is about 9 months from the inception meeting. It is not anticipated that the consultant team will be working full-time on the project for this entire period. A number of tasks require Council review, preparation of council reports and meetings of full Council. The table below sets out the programmed period for each task and the anticipated Consultant involvement during that time.
Deliverables
The consultant is to set out in their proposal what is proposed to be delivered under the agreement. As a minimum the following is required:
Tasks 1-5 – Illustrative Development Options
The following work is to be of a sufficient detail to convey the potential for the site redevelopment reflecting the proposed FSR and height to a person with no training in interpretation of planning controls for each option.
- A4 or A3 diagrams documenting the site analysis process and design principles
- Plans, elevations and sections sufficient to demonstrate the potential of the development option;
- 3-D CAD massing model views sufficient to demonstrate the option within its context;
- Illustrative plans for the open space;
- Illustrative breakdown of likely use by level (and RL);
- A maximum 500 word statement for each option outlining the opportunities and constraints; the trade-offs of each option; and the public benefits of the proposal.
- Power point presentation for Councillors and GMD
- Power point presentation for community workshop
- A cost estimate for each option prepared by a quantity surveyor
Each option is to be presented on two A1 sheets mounted on 5mm kappa board (total of 8 panels). The panels should be designed to give an average person not familiar with the site or development a clear understanding of each proposal.
Electronic files are to be provided as follows:
- PDF files of each board as submitted
- JPEG (high and low resolution) of each image on each board
Tasks 6 and 7 – Draft and Final Master Plan
The draft and final master plan will be a developed and detailed set of documents consisting of:
- Plans, elevations and sections sufficient to describe the proposal in detail;
- 3-D CAD massing model views sufficient to describe the proposal within its context;
- Concept plans for the proposed park and open space;
- Schedules describing allocation of floor space and use by level (and RL);
- Rendered photo montages and hand sketches of the built form streetscapes and open space
- A detailed cost estimate prepared by a quantity surveyor
- A final design report in A4 or A3 format summarising the design process and detailing the proposal
Electronic files are to be provided as follows:
- PDF files for drawings and report
- JPEG files of each image at high and low resolution
- 1 set A1 colour prints of each drawing
- 2 bound hard copies of report
10. Consultant Team and Sub-consultants
The consultant team will consist of a range of consultants to address specialist aspects of the project. The proposed consultants are required to be outlined in the submission. It is envisaged that at a minimum, the following consultancies will be required:
· Urban designer
· Architect
· Landscape architect
· Specialist in architectural visualisation
· Quantity surveyor
Supporting documentation will be required where the lead consultant is of the opinion that the specialties of a sub-consultancy are not required due to in-house expertise.
11. Project Team & Stakeholders
Strategy & Environment department, a unit within Ku-ring-gai Council is responsible for the oversight of this project. The Team Leader Urban Design will be the regular contact for the head consultant and will coordinate communication between the consultant team together with Council’s internal and external stakeholders
A Project Working Group has been established to oversee the project; the group includes representatives from Council and Transport for NSW.
12. Community and Stakeholder engagement
Council has a community engagement strategy in place and has commenced multi-modal program to ensure outreach and collaboration with community and stakeholders to “Activate Lindfield”. The web page can be viewed here ActivateLindfield
Council will manage all aspects of the community engagement process. The consultant will be required to consider all information and results arising from community and stakeholder input. Consultants will be required to attend and present at the community and stakeholder information sessions (as per the project task timeline).
13. Selection of Preferred Illustrative Masterplan
Selection of preferred development option will be undertaken by Council. This will involve a rigorous assessment of each option based on a range of criteria. Council is in the process of finalising these criteria and they will be made available to the consultant at the inception meeting.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.8 / 389 |
|
|
Item GB.8 |
S10293 |
|
19 September 2014 |
Consideration of Submissions on the
Planning Proposal to Heritage List the former 3M Building at
950 Pacific Highway Pymble
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
For Council to consider submissions on the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list the former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble as a local heritage item under the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP 2014). |
|
|
background: |
On 10 December 2013, Council resolved to proceed with a Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP 2014) to include 950 Pacific Highway as a local heritage item. This proposal was sent to the Department of Planning and Environment, and a Gateway Determination issued to Council on 21 July 2014. It was placed on public exhibition between 15 August 2014 and 12 September 2014. |
|
|
comments: |
The proposal has been publicly exhibited and 8 submissions were received during the consultation period. These are considered and responded to in this report, and recommendations regarding further action are put forward. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council proceed with the Planning Proposal without variation, and resolve to make the Plan under S59(2) of the EP&A Act and Regulations. |
Purpose of Report
For Council to consider submissions on the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to list the former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble as a local heritage item under the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP 2014)
Background
In considering the submissions arising from the exhibition of Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013, Council resolved on 27 August 2013 to commission an independent study of the site to determine its heritage significance. The Study was prepared by John Oultram Heritage and Design and was reported to Council on 10 December 2013. Following consideration of the report, Council resolved that a Planning Proposal be prepared to amend Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 by listing 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble (Lot 1 DP718718) Schedule 5 as a heritage item of local significance and that the Planning Proposal be submitted for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Planning Proposal is included as Attachment A1.
Also at the meeting of 10 December 2013, Council resolved to submit for a gateway determination a Planning Proposal from Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd 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).
A request for a Gateway Determination of the heritage listing Planning Proposal was sent to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment on 5 March 2014.
The NSW Department of Planning and Environment wrote to Council on 26 May 2014 requesting further clarification on the compatibility of the Planning Proposal for ‘hardware and building supplies’ with the Planning Proposal for heritage listing (See Attachment A2). Council responded to the Department’s letter regarding the compatibility of the Planning Proposal for ‘hardware and building supplies’ with the Planning Proposal for heritage listing on 13 June 2014 (See Attachment A3).
Council received the Gateway Determination for the heritage listing Planning Proposal from the Department of Planning and Environment on 23 July 2014 (See Attachment A4). The Planning Proposal for heritage listing was placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination between 15 August 2014 and 12 September 2014.
Council resolved on 28 August 2014 to defer consideration of the Planning Proposal for hardware and building supplies until 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.
Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd lodged a development application (DA0054/14) with Council for the demolition of the former 3M building and the removal of a number of trees on 20 February 2014. On 19 August 2014, a Class 1 appeal against Council’s deemed refusal of the application was filed with the Land and Environment Court of NSW. Council formally refused the application (under delegation) on 28 August 2014. The grounds for refusal related to the heritage significance of the site and the demolition of the 3M building was inconsistent with the aims of the draft LEP and was not in the public interest.
Comments
As a result of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, a total of 8 submissions were received. Issues raised in the submissions covered the following:
· the potential heritage listing wasn’t raised in previous planning proposals for Pymble Business Park;
· heritage listing would restrict development and the existing use cannot be adapted without significant alterations which would destroy the original fabric and spaces;
· the current height and FSR standards allow for larger development;
· the accuracy of the heritage listing; and
· support for the Planning Proposal.
A summary of the submissions and associated responses is included as Attachment A5. Complete copies of all submissions have been circulated separately to Councillors. Bunnings Properties Pty Ltd , the owner of the site, submitted 2 submissions questioning the merit of the proposed listing and the ability of the site to provide any viable ongoing use, should it be heritage listed. These two submissions were referred to John Oultram Heritage and Design for review and comment. A copy of this review is included as Attachment A6.
A discussion on the major issues raised in submissions is outlined below.
· The potential heritage listing wasn’t raised in previous planning proposals for Pymble Business Park
Issue
The Planning Proposal to rezone Pymble Business Park to B7 (Business Park) in 2011 did not indicate the site should be listed as a heritage item. In addition, during the exhibition process, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) was consulted and they did not require the site to be listed as a heritage item. Bunnings’ lodged a Planning Proposal to add ‘hardware and building supplies’ as a permissible use in the B7 zone in February 2014. In granting the gateway approval for the draft LEP, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure did not require the site to be listed as a heritage item as part of this draft LEP. In addition, the OEH raised no objection to the proposal. Council, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the OEH have had numerous opportunities over the course of the last three years to identify potential heritage items in the Pymble Business Park and on the site and have not done so. In addition, Council and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure have supported the view of developing the site for hardware and building supplies land use.
Response
The Planning Proposal to rezone Pymble Business Park to B7 in 2011 (LEP 219) was prepared in accordance with relevant NSW planning guidelines. Previous heritage reviews of the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres and the northern heritage conservation area review did not identify 950 Pacific Highway (3M building) as a potential item.
The former 3M Building was identified through the exhibition process of the Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 as having potential heritage value. Council received a number of submissions in relation to the subject property requesting and/or supporting its listing as a heritage item.
Following consideration of submissions arising from the exhibition of Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013, and subsequent submissions from The National Trust and the Twentieth Century Heritage Society of NSW Inc, Council resolved on 27 August 2013 to commission an independent study of the site to determine its heritage significance which was reported to Council in December 2013. The John Oultram Heritage & Design Study prepared for Council considers that the former 3M building meets the Heritage Branch criteria for listing as a local heritage item.
Council resolved that a Planning Proposal be prepared to amend Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 by listing 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble (Lot 1 DP718718) Schedule 5 as a heritage item of local significance and that the Planning Proposal be submitted for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Also at the meeting of 10 December 2013, Council resolved to submit for gateway determination a 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). The planning proposal to add ‘hardware and building supplies’ as a permissible use in the B7 zone seeks to justify the new land use on its merits without reference to an individual site. The inclusion of ‘hardware and building supplies’ in the B7 zone, applies generally to the entire B7 Business Park Zone not just the site at 950 Pacific Highway. It is noted that Council resolved on 28 August 2014 to defer consideration of the planning proposal for hardware and building supplies until 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.
· Heritage listing would restrict development and the existing use cannot be adapted without significant alterations which would destroy the original fabric and spaces
Issue
Two submissions raised issues over the adaptive re-use of the building. These included concerns that if the current use of the building was to be retained, significant upgrade to the original structure and fit out would need to be made; hence the original internal elements will be lost. The building as it is now situated is only suitable for office or business type use of the uses that are permitted in the zone. If the building cannot be used for this purpose it is redundant and it has reached the end of its usable life.
Response
The comments in the submission regarding the significant upgrade requirements to the building which render it unfeasible for continued office accommodation are not backed by a proper BCA assessment or investigations by experts in the fields of building, structural engineering, quantity surveying, economic feasibility etc.
The John Oultram Heritage and Design review of this submission notes that the building was “comprehensively refurbished in 1989 that involved some upgrade to bring the building to BCA standards and included the removal of asbestos (See HIS p. 8). This could occur again as much of the interior was refitted at this time and much of the original fitout removed. This later fabric could not be considered significant and could be removed or replaced. The BCA allows for designed solutions that are often used in heritage buildings where strict compliance with the written standards is not achievable. No assessment has been made in this regard…..
Conservation plans and reports for heritage buildings routinely provide guidelines for the sensitive upgrade to meet current statutory requirements and for the installation of services and this could certainly be done for the current building if it was retained.”
The submission provides no substantive evidence, prepared by relevant experts, to support the claims that there are limited to no prospects of adaptive reuse for the building.
The John Oultram Heritage and Design review of this submission notes that the “site could be developed for other buildings and this was anticipated in the original plans and later development proposals. If the site is listed, development can be guided by a Conservation Strategy that could identify locations for new structures and provide guidelines for such development.”
It is noted that the heritage listing of the site may restrict the particular development proposal for the site from Bunnings, however, it will not necessarily prevent the use of the site for the intended purposes under the zoning. In fact the heritage listing of the site may well facilitate a broader range of possible uses for the via the application of the heritage incentive clause (cl5.10(10) under the LEP.
· The current height and FSR standards allow for larger development
Issue
LEP No.219 provided a maximum building height of 32.5 metres for the site. This height limit exceeds the existing building which demonstrates Council’s strategic vision for building/s on the site that would replace the existing building.
Response
The development standards for the site including height and FSR are complimentary to LEP 219 (Pymble Business Park). They apply to the whole Pymble Business Park Precinct not just an individual site. It is not uncommon to have LEP height or FSR controls over heritage items and in conservation areas that would allow for larger scale development. This is not necessarily an indication that the heritage values of the site are not of importance or that heritage buildings should not be retained.
· The accuracy of the heritage listing
There were questions raised regarding the justifications given for listing and the relevant weight given to particular listing criteria.
Issue
The case supporting heritage listing rests on the building having ‘special associations for former employees’ however almost any building would qualify for heritage listing as many employees have fond memories of former workplaces.
Response
The John Oultram Heritage and Design Study assessment of the heritage significance of the 3M building recommends that the building meets the Heritage Branch criteria for listing as a local heritage item. This is consistent with the assessment contained in the listing sheet prepared by the National Trust of Australia (NSW) in 2013. The listing of the property in the LEP is also supported by the Twentieth Century Heritage Society of NSW Inc. and the building has also been included in the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA) Register of Significant Architecture.
The John Oultram Heritage and Design review of submissions notes that “the building is post war and there are limited listings for such buildings, particularly in suburban LGAs, due to a lack of research and assessments and a general attitude that heritage significance relates to longevity”.
In response to the specific claim that justifying the heritage listing on basis of the building having ‘special associations for former employees’ should not be supported as almost any building would qualify for heritage listing as many employees have fond memories of former workplaces, John Oultram Heritage and Design notes that “it is axiomatic that the building would have some significance for employees of 3M as it was their purpose designed headquarters in Sydney but the HIS does not exaggerate this significance or identify it as the primary reason for listing. It is a well-known building in the local area due to its scale and design.
· Support for the Planning Proposal
Issue
Five of the eight submissions offered support for the planning proposal. The submissions reinforced many of the grounds for listing contained in the John Oultram Heritage and Design assessment of the site and also acknowledged the National Trust and the Twentieth Century Heritage Society of NSW Inc, recognition of the heritage significance of the building.
Response
The reasons for support for the planning proposal are noted and generally reflect information and stated justifications contained in Council’s heritage assessment.
State Agency Consultation
The gateway determination required Council to consult the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) under section 56(2)(d) of the EP&A Act. A copy of the OEH submission is included as Attachment A7. The submission supports the listing of the former 3M building in the heritage schedule of the Draft Local Environmental Plan to protect and conserve the building and its setting.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces and Infrastructure - P5 Heritage that is protected and responsibly managed
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P5.1 Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed. |
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets. |
Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions. |
Governance Matters
The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the Local Government Act, 1993 (where relevant).
Council sought the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal in its letter to the Department seeking a Gateway Determination dated 5 March 2014. The Gateway Determination authorised Council to exercise the functions of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise the planning proposal.
Submissions made during the public exhibition of the planning proposal have been considered and responded to as part of this report. Council can now 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.
Risk Management
Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning, including the management of Ku-ring-gai’s local cultural heritage, in an effective and timely manner.
Financial Considerations
Financial considerations for the planning proposal relate to the preparation of the planning proposal and background reports by Council. This cost is covered by the Strategy and Environment Department – Urban Planning budget.
Social Considerations
Ku-ring-gai Council is responsible for the identification and management of Ku-ring-gai’s local cultural heritage. Consideration of this matter will assist in meeting its requirements to identify and protect items of local cultural heritage significance.
Environmental Considerations
The Planning Proposal will not affect the existing biodiversity and environmental protection provisions enforced in the Ku-ring-gai local government area.
Community Consultation
The Planning Proposal for heritage listing was placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination between 15 August 2014 and 12 September 2014. As a result of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, a total of 8 submissions were received.
Internal Consultation
The Planning Proposal has been referred to relevant internal sections of Council.
Summary
At the Council meeting on 10 December 2013 Council resolved that a Planning Proposal be prepared to amend Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 by listing 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble (Lot 1 DP718718) in Schedule 5 as a heritage item of local significance. Council also resolved that the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Heritage and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the EP&A Act 1979 and to request the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the Act for this planning proposal.
The Gateway Determination was received on 23 July 2014, and the Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited between 15 August 2014 and 12 September 2014. A total of 8 submissions were received as a result of the public exhibition. Submissions have been considered and responded to in this report. No variations to the proposal are recommended before the plan is made.
Council can now resolve to make the plan under Section 59(2) of the Act.
A. That the Planning Proposal Planning Proposal to list the former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble as a local heritage item under the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014 (KLEP 2014) 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.
|
Craige Wyse Team Leader Urban Planning |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Planning Proposal to list 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble (Former 3M Building) as a Heritage Item of local significance |
|
2014/199147 |
|
|
A2View |
Department of Planning and Environment request for further clarification |
|
2014/128822 |
|
A3View |
Council response to DP&E request for further clarification |
|
2014/136142 |
|
A4View |
Gateway Determination to Heritage List former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble |
|
2014/197565 |
|
A5View |
Summary of submissions |
|
2014/276552 |
|
A6View |
Review of Submissions by John Oultram Heritage and Design |
|
2014/275376 |
|
A7View |
Submission from the Office of Environment and Heritage |
|
2014/220227 |
APPENDIX No: 1 - Planning Proposal to list 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble (Former 3M Building) as a Heritage Item of local significance |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
APPENDIX No: 2 - Department of Planning and Environment request for further clarification |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
APPENDIX No: 4 - Gateway Determination to Heritage List former 3M Building at 950 Pacific Highway, Pymble |
|
Item No: GB.8 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.9 / 504 |
|
|
Item GB.9 |
S09780 |
|
19 September 2014 |
Reclassification of Council Land -
259-271 Pacific Highway Lindfield
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To have Council consider the reclassification of Council land at 259-271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield, also known as the ‘Lindfield library precinct’, from Community to Operational land. |
|
|
background: |
Over the last 12 months a number of important events have taken place in relation to the Lindfield library precinct at 259–271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield.
Firstly, Council resolved on 10 December 2013 to locate the proposed new Lindfield branch library and new community centre to the western side of Lindfield local centre on land owned by Council on Woodford Lane, Lindfield.
Secondly, the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Welfare Association Ltd (KOPWA) voluntarily vacated and handed back the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units to Council in late March 2014.
Thirdly, Council resolved on 9 September 2014 to progress the planning for the Lindfield Community Hub which will comprise a range of new community facilities including a new branch library with a floor area of 1,300m2 and a new community Centre with a floor area of 1,200m2 |
|
|
comments: |
Given recent events it is timely for Council to consider the future use of the Lindfield library precinct. If the Lindfield Community Hub project progresses it is possible that a new library and community centre will be under construction over the next 3-5 years. This will mean that the current users will be relocated and the Lindfield library precinct will be left largely vacant. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council prepare a Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from Community land to Operational land and that a further report is brought back to Council regarding future divestment following the reclassification process. |
Purpose of Report
To have Council consider the reclassification of Council land at 259-271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield, also known as the ‘Lindfield library precinct’, from Community to Operational land.
Background
Over the last 12 months a number of important events have taken place in relation to the Lindfield library precinct at 259–261 Pacific Highway, Lindfield, hence forth the “Lindfield library precinct”.
Firstly, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 December 2013 Council resolved to locate the proposed new Lindfield branch library and new community centre to the western side of Lindfield local centre on land owned by council on Woodford Lane, Lindfield.
Secondly, in early March 2014, the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Welfare Association Ltd (KOPWA) voluntarily gave Council notice of its intention to vacate the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units on the Lindfield library precinct; the units were subsequently vacated and handed back to Council in late March 2014.
Thirdly, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 9 September 2014 Council resolved to progress the planning for the Lindfield Community Hub which will comprise a range of new community infrastructure elements including:
· a new branch library with a floor area of 1,300m2; and
· a new community centre with a floor area of 1,200m2.
In accordance with this resolution a final master plan is required to be reported to full Council in August 2015. A Request for Tender is currently being advertised seeking multi-disciplinary teams led by an architect to prepare illustrated development options and a final master plan. A public exhibition of draft material is planned for March 2015.
Comments
Given recent events it is timely for Council to consider the future use of the Lindfield library precinct. If the Lindfield Community Hub project progresses it is possible that a new library and community centre will be under construction over the next 3-5 years. This will mean that the current users will be relocated and the Lindfield library precinct will be left largely vacant.
This report recommends in part that Council investigate the risks and advantages for Council if it was to prepare a development application for the library site. If Council wishes to proceed along these lines a considerable lead time will be required to achieve development approval (a minimum of two years). Commencing the reclassification process earlier rather than later is therefore prudent.
Site Description
The Lindfield library precinct is legally described as lot 8 in DP 660564 and lots 1, 2 and 3 in DP 212617 (refer Figure 1); it has a total land area of approximately 5,848.6m˛ and is the address for a number of Council services and facilities including:
· Lindfield Branch Library (lot 8 in DP 660564);
· former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units (now vacated) (lot 3 in DP 212617);
· former Lindfield Seniors’ Centre (lot 2 in DP 212617);
· former Lindfield Seniors’ Resource Centre (lot 8 in DP 660564);
· Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) (lot 8 in DP 660564);
· Lindfield Community Centre tennis courts and sun shelter (lot 8 in DP 660564); and
· car park and access road (lot 1 in DP 212617).
Other elements on the site are:
· toilet facilities;
· landscaped areas; and
· a former well.
Figure 1 – Lindfield library precinct - 259–271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield
Council acquired the site by resumption from the Coleman family in 1948. The site contains a well which was used by the previous owners.
The Lindfield Library was developed in 1954, the Seniors’ Centre constructed in 1962, followed by the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units in 1963. The Seniors’ Resource Centre was converted from the Lindfield Baby Health Centre in 1991. The Lindfield Baby Health Centre relocated to new premises at 12-18 Tryon Road, Lindfield.
From its opening in 1962 until 1997, the Seniors’ Centre was managed by KOPWA Ltd. In 1997 the Ku-ring-gai Seniors Centre’s Committee was established and was responsible for the management and operation of the Seniors’ Centre and the Seniors’ Resource Centre until the early 2000’s, when the committee ceased to exist. These buildings no longer have a senior’s specific function and bookings are managed by Council and available to residents for general use.
Figure 2 – Lindfield library precinct - layout of facilities
Existing Facilities and Services
Various audits and reviews have been undertaken on the existing facilities, these findings of these are summarised below.
Lindfield Branch Library
The Lindfield Community Facilities Study completed in 2013 includes an audit of the Lindfield library. The findings of the study in relation to the library are summarised below.
· The Lindfield Branch Library is a 300m2 facility, built in 1954, and situated close to the Lindfield town centre on the Pacific Highway.
· Library staff that 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.
Former Lindfield Seniors Citizen’s Centre/Resource Centre
The Lindfield Community Facilities Study completed in 2013 includes a review of the seniors’ facilities to understand existing provision and gaps. The findings of the study in relation to the library are summarised below.
Lindfield Seniors’ Centre:
· older facility in average condition, repair works required;
· an older facility in need of some repairs but well utilised;
· a site close to the Lindfield local centre and train station but difficult to access by car; and
· limited additional capacity.
Figure 3 – Extract Lindfield Community Facilities Study, Elton Consulting, 2014
Lindfield Seniors’ Resource Centre:
· on a site close to the Lindfield local centre and train station but difficult to access by car;
· facility located at rear of site with no street prominence;
· facility in poor condition;
· facility has a dysfunctional layout and very small spaces, limiting the types of uses it can accommodate; and
· has additional capacity.
These buildings no longer have a seniors’ specific function and bookings are managed by Council and available to residents for general use.
The Lindfield Community Facilities Study (Elton Consulting, 2013) recommends that the existing library and Seniors’ Centre facilities be replaced with new facilities co-located in a community hub located on the western side of Lindfield with a total area of over 2,455m2. This proposal was adopted by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 December 2013.
KYDS Youth Development Service
An audit of the KYDS facility was undertaken in 2009, the study found:
· it is an old facility in poor condition;
· not enough space if the organisation continues to grow;
· requires bigger meeting space and a room for parenting forums;
· noise insulation and climate control needs improvement; and
· dark at night – the lighting to and from the parking area could be improved.
It is proposed to relocate this service to new purpose built facilities within the proposed Lindfield Community Hub.
Former KOPWA residential units
The Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units comprises 14 units in a two storey brick building which was constructed by the Ku-ring-gai Old People’s Welfare Association Ltd (KOPWA) in 1963. In early March 2014 KOPWA voluntarily gave Council notice of its intention to vacate the site. The site was vacated and handed back to Council in late March 2014.
Since 1962, KOPWA Ltd has been in continuous occupation of Lot 3 paying a peppercorn rent to Council. Legal access to Lot 3 has been provided by a twenty foot wide Right of Carriageway (ROC) over the adjacent Lot 1.This ROC expired on the expiry of the lease over Lot 3. Council has constructed an asphalt driveway on Lot 1 and established eight two-hour time limited car parking spaces over the south-eastern section of the ROC.
The 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units have been maintained by KOPWA Ltd, however many were left in a poor condition upon handover to Council in March 2014.
Clause (h) of the KOPWA lease which expired on 30 April 2012 transferred the ownership of the building containing the 14 Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units to Council on the expiry of the lease. The building is currently 51 years old and is likely to be reaching the end of its economic life.
Council tennis courts
Figure 4 shows that there are six Council owned tennis courts within close proximity to the tennis courts located at the rear of the Lindfield library precinct.
Figure 4 – Location of Council owned tennis courts around Lindfield
The Table below shows the annual tennis court bookings data for the period 2 October 2013 to 2 October 2014 for these courts. The Table shows the average number of booked hours is very low at all but two of the seven sites. The higher levels of bookings at Lindfield Park and Roseville Park are likely to be because these sites have floodlights and can be used at night. Lindfield Park has lights on both courts and Roseville Park has lights on 3 of the 7 courts.
It is worth noting that while the average hours of booked use looks very low at some site, the hours of unbooked use may be quite high, particularly at Killara Park and Queen Elizabeth Reserve. This use has not been quantified at this stage.
Location |
No of Courts |
Annual Hours |
Average hours per week |
Average hours per week per court |
Lindfield Library (Pacific Hwy) |
2 |
823 |
15 |
7.5 |
Loyal Henry (Thomas Ave Roseville) |
2 |
489 |
9 |
4.5 |
Queen Elizabeth Reserve |
4 |
1095 |
21 |
5.25 |
Lindfield Park (Tryon Rd) |
2 |
2988 |
57 |
28.5 |
Roseville Park |
7 |
9588 |
184 |
26.3 |
Regimental Tennis Courts |
5 |
328 |
6 |
1.3 |
Killara Park Tennis Courts |
2 |
252 |
5 |
2.5 |
Figure 4 - Annual tennis court bookings data
The courts at Lindfield library are vacant 6 days out of 7; the more heavily used courts are vacant an average of 3 days a week. It can therefore be assumed that the loss of the Lindfield library courts within the network would make very little difference as all courts would have the capacity to take up additional usage.
Council booking staff have provided anecdotal evidence of anti-social activities around the library courts, this is likely the result of their location at the rear of the site away from the highway where there is no passive surveillance.
Planning Context
The Lindfield library precinct is currently zoned B2 - Local Centre under the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP 2012 (KLEP 2012) with a maximum building height of 17.5 metres (5 storeys) and a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.3:1. The Lindfield library precinct is classified as community land under the Local Government Act, 1993.
The KLEP 2012 shows an absence of heritage items, areas of biodiversity or riparian lands on the subject site.
With reference to the local centre suite of planning documents, including the Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010; Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 and Local Centres DCP, 2013 the subject site has not been identified as a strategically important site for the delivery of future public community infrastructure.
The lack of open space in the Lindfield local centre as identified in the Ku-ring-gai Open Space Acquisition Strategy, 2008 has been addressed through land acquisition in Woodford Lane and the Lindfield Village Green proposal for Tryon Road. Therefore the site is not needed for open space.
Assessment of Market Value
Landmark White P/L has been engaged to undertake a valuation of the Lindfield library precinct; the full report is attached in Confidential Attachment A1. Salient points from the report are as follows:
· the highest and best use of the site is considered to be a mixed use redevelopment in accordance with Council’s LEP;
· as a development site the existing improvements on the site add little or no value;
· demand for development sites of this nature is strong and has been increasing;
· demand for sites with development consent are increasingly sought after;
· the local market is expected to remain relatively buoyant in the short to medium term as a result of expanding supply of higher density units creating opportunities to enter a prestige market and foreign buyer demand; and
· the positive aspects of the property are the main road frontage, close proximity to rail and shops, dual street frontage and the rail reserve to the rear (minimising potential for future development to block views to the east).
Landmark White have further advised that if Council were to prepare a development application and sell the site with development approval then further value adding could be obtained. They estimate the potential realisation would increase by 10-15% compared to the findings of the valuation report. The author of the study notes on page 5 Attachment A1:
“On the assumption that approval has been granted for the hypothetical scheme outlined herein, the market value would be adjusted upward to reflect the reduced lead-in expenditure, market risk and the holding costs associated with the period allowed for gaining approval”.
There are also a number of non-financial advantages for Council of this approach:
· Council could control design quality and achieve a model for other mixed use developments within Lindfield and other local centres; and
· Council could reduce the risk of the scenario where, if Council were to sell the land with no DA, the purchaser may seek greater height and density through a planning proposal under Part 3 Division 4 of the EP&A Act.
Summary
The preceding discussion shows that:
1. the existing facilities on the site are either at the end of their useful life and/or inadequate for contemporary needs;
2. the tennis courts have very low usage levels and there is more than adequate supply of the facilities within close proximity;
3. the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units were vacated by KOPWA and handed back to Council in late March 2014;
4. the Seniors’ facilities no longer have senior specific functions and are no used as general purpose rooms that can be booked by residents through Council; and
5. the Lindfield library precinct has not been identified strategically important site for the delivery of future public community infrastructure.
The existing buildings are not suitable for long term adaptation and re-use due to their condition further this approach would contradict Council resolutions to date in relation to the Lindfield Hub which propose to relocate the seniors’ centre, seniors’ resource centre, library and KYDS service to a new community hub on the western side of Lindfield local centre.
An assessment of market value indicates that mixed use zone (B2 - Local Centre) is the highest and best use of the site; further Council could consider preparing a development application for the site to add further value and to provide more certainty for redevelopment.
integrated planning and reporting
Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
Theme 6 – Leadership and Governance
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. - Develop and finalise project scope. - Maintain engagement with the key stakeholders. |
Ku-ring-gai is well led, managed and supported by ethical organisations which deliver projects and services to the community by listening, advocating and responding to their needs. |
L2.1.1 Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance. |
- Review Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) each year based on 10 year forecasts - Undertake quarterly reporting to Council on the financial performance of the organisation. - Assets are identified for disposal to discharge the Services Relocation Loan by 2016 - 2017. - Review opportunities for sustainable and Assets equitable increases to Council’s income supported by the community. - Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council. - Ensure the commercial property portfolio provides market returns. Manager Integrated Planning, Property |
|
L2.1.4 Council has increased its commitment to infrastructure asset management priorities. |
- Identify available funding sources in the LTFP and allocate to priority projects. - Funding strategies are developed and implemented in line with Council’s Assets adopted Asset Management Strategy. - Regularly revise Council’s strategic asset management plans and integrate with financial planning processes. - Continually improve the integrity of asset data and asset registers. - Implement asset management plans and progress improvement plans for each asset class. - Implement an integrated corporate asset management system for all asset classes. |
Governance Matters
Section 45 of the Local Government Act, 1993 prevents Council from selling; exchanging, or otherwise disposing of Community classified land therefore it is proposed to reclassify the site from Community Land to Operational Land in accordance with Section 27 of the Act.
The first step is to prepare a planning proposal to submit to the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) to reclassify Council owned community land to operational land status. The objective of this proposed Local Environmental Plan is to reclassify the site from “community” land to “operational” land, including the discharge all interests in the land, in accordance with Clause 5.2 of the KLEP 2012.
The Planning Proposal is to be prepared, in accordance with Section 55, Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to change the classification status from Community Land to Operational Land as required under Chapter 6, Part 2 Division 1 of the Local Government Act, 1993.
Should a Gateway Determination for the planning proposal be granted, formal consultation with the State Agencies and the community commences. The reclassification of land also requires a public hearing. The public hearing shall be held after the public exhibition of the draft LEP for reclassification.
The reclassification of the land itself, does not commit Council to the sale of the site. Any future divestment of the land would be the subject of a separate process and report to Council following reclassification
After gazettal of the LEP amendment the property would be available for divestment (if required) and this would be conducted in line with the procedures outlined in Council’s Acquisition and Divestment of Land Policy, 2009. The future divestment of the land would be the subject of a separate report to Council following reclassification.
Risk Management
The main risk for Council of undertaking the reclassification process is community concern about the loss of community assets; this can impact on Council’s reputation.
The case of the library precinct is different to other sites Council has put forward for reclassification because:
· Council has clearly articulated its intention to create a new community hub on the western side of Lindfield local centre which will replace the existing facilities with new, larger purpose-built facilities. This proposal is supported by two recent studies: The Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy (Elton Consulting, 2013) and the Lindfield Community Facilities Study (Elton Consulting, 2013).
· Council has committed to a master planning process for the Woodford Lane precinct which is currently underway and will add further weight to Council’s vision.
· Council has been actively acquiring land in the Woodford Lane precinct; to date Council has acquired almost 5,000m2 of land on Bent Street, an area of land equivalent almost equivalent to that of the library precinct (which is about 5,800m2 in area).
A second risk is managing the quality of development within the library precinct; this could be mitigated by Council preparing a development application and selling the site with a development approval for a well-designed development with an appropriate level of density and scale which is economically feasible.
A third risk is, if Council were to sell the land, the purchaser may seek greater height and density through a planning proposal under Part 3 Division 4 of the EPA Act. This risk may also be mitigated by Council preparing a development application and selling the site with a development approval. This final risk may be also be mitigated by Council increasing the floor space ratio (FSR) on the site to a level more appropriate for a B2 zone in this location, while retaining the maximum building height of 5 storeys (17.5 metres)
From an urban design and planning point of view an FSR of 2.0:1 could be considered an appropriate transitional zone: the lands to the south have an FSR of 0.85:1 and are occupied by 3 level apartment buildings; the lands to the north have an FSR of 2.5:1 and 3.0:1 and are occupied by retail and commercial premises with capacity for 6-7 storey mixed use development.
Financial Considerations
There are no direct financial impacts to Council as a result of this report.
If reclassification was to proceed and Council resolved to reclassify the site from Community Land to Operational Land this would facilitate potential future sale of the Lindfield library precinct. The proceeds of the sale of the site could be used in two ways:
· to address the asset renewal gap (funding shortfall) by returning the funds to reserves for expenditure on new assets or major asset refurbishment in accordance with the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) guiding principles (LTFP, page 4); or
· to fund Council’s co-contribution for projects identified in the Development Contributions Plan 2010. The LTFP proposes that asset sales from rationalisation of property assets commence in 2015/16 and continue over a 10 year period as Contribution Plan projects proceed (LTFP, page 23).
If an FSR of 2.0:1 was adopted for the site this would result in a value in the order of 65% higher compared to the findings of the valuation report; such a decision would capture maximum value for the community.
Social Considerations
It is noted that this site is likely to have some social significance given that it has been the site of the library since 1954, however the Lindfield Community Hub will provide for the continued provision of contemporary designed community facilities within the local precinct.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The planning proposal for the reclassification will not result in any additional environmental effects to those considered during the preparing of the draft Local Centres LEP.
Due-diligence studies will be undertaken in relation to geo-technical site conditions and contamination if Council decides to proceed with the reclassification process.
Community Consultation
Statutory community consultation will be carried out through the planning proposal process. An independently chaired public hearing is also necessary in relation to reclassification from Community land to Operational land.
It would be desirable to link the reclassification of the subject site with the master planning for the Lindfield Community Hub in this way the community can be well informed as to Council’s long term intentions to replace the existing facilities and relocate existing services into new and larger facilities in a more accessible location.
Internal Consultation
This report was prepared by the Strategy & Environment Department in consultation with staff from other Departments where relevant.
Summary
The Lindfield library precinct is legally described as lot 8 DP 660564 and lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 212617 it has a total land area of approximately 5,856m2 and is the address for a number of Council services and facilities including:
· Lindfield Branch Library;
· former Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units (now vacated);
· former Lindfield Seniors’ Centre;
· former Lindfield Seniors’ Resource Centre;
· Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS);
· Lindfield Community Centre tennis courts and sun shelter; and
· car park and access road.
The report finds that reclassification of the site is warranted for the following reasons:
· the existing facilities on the site are either at the end of their useful life and/or inadequate for contemporary needs;
· the tennis courts have very low usage levels and there is more than adequate supply of the facilities within close proximity;
· the Arrunga Aged Care Self-Contained Units were vacated by KOPWA and handed back to Council in late March 2014 and are currently vacant;
· the former Seniors’ facilities no longer have senior specific functions and are now used as general purpose rooms that can be booked by residents through Council; and
· the Lindfield library precinct has not been identified strategically important site for the delivery of future public community infrastructure and is surplus to requirements.
Further, the existing buildings are not suitable for long term adaptation and re-use due to their condition. In addition this approach would contradict Council resolutions to date in relation to the Lindfield Hub which propose to relocate the former seniors centre, former seniors resource centre, library to a new community hub on the western side of Lindfield local centre.
To date no decision has been made in relation to the KYDS service located on the site and it is recommended that Council resolve to relocate the service to new purpose-built rooms within the proposed community hub.
An assessment of market value indicates that mixed use B2 Local Centre is the highest and best use of the site. Council could capture maximum value for the community by:
· increasing the FSR on the site from 1.3:1 to 2.0:1 which is estimated to result in a value in the order of 65% higher compared to the findings of the valuation report; and
· preparing a development application for the site which is estimated at between 10-15% compared to the findings of the valuation report.
A. That a Planning Proposal be prepared, in accordance with section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to reclassify lot 8 DP 660564 and lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 212617, known as 259-271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield from Community land to Operational land; and to increase the maximum FSR from 1.3:1 to 2.0:1 via an amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP, 2012.
B. That Council formally seek to discharge all interests for lot 8 DP 660564 and lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 212617, known as 259-271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield.
C. That the Planning Proposal by submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
D. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.
E. That Council undertake a public hearing under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 for the proposed reclassification of lot 8 DP 660564 and lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 212617, known as 259-271 Pacific Highway, Lindfield from Community land to Operational land.
F. That a report be brought back to Council at the end of the exhibition and public hearing processes.
G. That Council relocate the Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) service within the proposed Lindfield community hub (upon completion of the facility) and that the new facility provide purpose-built rooms to be designed in consultation with representatives of KYDS to meet their specific requirements.
H. That a concept design with an FSR of up to 2.0:1 and a building height of 5 storeys be prepared and reported to Council for their approval prior to placing it on public exhibition in conjunction with the consultation and public hearing processes for reclassification.
I. That a further report to Council is prepared considering the funds required, and the associated risks and advantages for Council if it was to prepare a development application for the site.
|
Bill Royal Team Leader Urban Design |
Craige Wyse Team Leader Urban Planning |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
Valuation report - 259-271 Pacific Highway - Lindfield - FINAL |
|
Confidential |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.10 / 518 |
|
|
Item GB.10 |
S10321 |
|
31 October 2014 |
10/50 Vegetation Clearing
Code of Practice Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To seek endorsement of the proposed contents of a Council submission to the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) as part of the planned review of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice. |
|
|
background: |
On 1 August 2014 the NSW Government announced the commencement of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing legislation and Code of Practice (the 10/50 Code), in accordance with section 100Q of the Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014. Due to public concerns raised regarding the application of the 10/50 Code a review of the 10/50 legislation, Code of Practice and Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Areas has been brought forward. The NSW RFS is currently inviting public submissions until Friday 14 November 2014. |
|
|
comments: |
This report outlines a number of concerns, implications and recommendations for inclusion in Council’s submission on the review of the 10/50 Code, for consideration and endorsement by Council. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council endorses the inclusion of the contents of this report as Council’s submission on the review of the 10/50 Code and that Council provides a submission to the NSW RFS by 14 November 2014. |
Purpose of Report
To seek endorsement of the proposed contents of a Council submission to the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) as part of the planned review of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice.
Background
On 1 August 2014 the State Government announced the commencement of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Laws and Code of Practice for New South Wales, in accordance with section 100Q of the Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014.
The 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code (the Code) for the new 10/50 vegetation clearing legislation (Attachment A1) sets out the proposed framework and provides guidance for owners of land in a designated 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area to:
· clear trees on their property within 10 metres of a home, without seeking approval; and
· clear underlying vegetation such as shrubs and ground cover (but not trees) on their property within 50 metres of a home, without seeking approval.
Due to ongoing public concerns raised regarding the application of the 10/50 vegetation clearing legislation and the lack of detail within the associated Code of Practice, the NSW RFS have brought forward its review. This will provide land managers and communities across NSW the opportunity to provide comment and feedback.
At the time of the Code’s introduction, the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area was established to be a 350m distance from all bush fire prone vegetation. As part of the review, the NSW RFS recently announced changes to the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area, which have been made following site inspections, an interim review of the Code of Practice and community feedback. The changes are:
· The 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area for Category 2 Bush Fire Prone Land is now 150 metres, reduced from 350 metres
· Councils will have the ability to reclassify smaller parcels of vegetation from Category 1 to Category 2, therefore reducing the Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area (Category 2 are areas where the vegetation poses a reduced fire risk).
The NSW RFS is currently inviting public submissions on the Code until Friday 14 November 2014. Specifically the NSW RFS has asked councils for comments relating to the Act, Code of Practice, Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area, and where possible workable solutions to the issues raised.
This report outlines a number of key concerns, implications and recommendations for inclusion in Council’s submission on the Code, for consideration and endorsement by Council.
Comments
The following comments summarise our key concerns and implications for the Ku-ring-gai area, in response to the call for submissions as part of the review of the 10/50 Code of Practice.
Act
As a metropolitan Council with a long history of managing extreme bushfire risks, we play an active role in bushfire risk management across our region, in collaboration with a range of land managers, district fire agencies and our community. While supportive of a vigilant approach to the protection of life and property from bushfire, it is Council’s view that the recent Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014, supported by the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice (the Code) is fundamentally flawed, and is causing irrevocable environmental damage to our Local Government Area (LGA) for little gain in a reduction in bushfire risk for the community.
The scientific rationale for the 10/50 legislation has not been made available by the NSW Government or the NSW RFS to substantiate that this new legislation will further reduce bushfire risk compared to the measures that were in place prior to its introduction. Hence, there is little confidence in the validity of this legislation as an effective bushfire risk management strategy.
Code of Practice
In its current form the Code’s impacts are extending well beyond the intended purpose of bushfire hazard management and has created overlap and confusion in relation to the obligations of local government authorities under other Acts and regulations. For example, the Code impairs Councils’ ability to fulfil their environmental management responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1993. Under section 8 of that Act (Council Charter) Councils are required to: “...properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible.” By voiding the tree protection controls under Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), the Code removes one of the most important tools for protecting the environmental character of our areas and for delivering this element of the Charter and of our community strategic plans established under the Local Government Act 1993.
Contrary to the intent of the Code, it is of deep concern that, to date, close to 400 trees have been reported as removed in the Ku-ring-gai LGA (not to mention those which have not been reported), many of which are signature or remnant trees that form part of an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC), almost exclusively to improve views, facilitate development and for other non-bushfire related purposes. Attachment A2 includes a number of photos which demonstrate the extent of tree removal in the LGA, in locations where the trees are clearly not posing a bushfire risk (for example, street verges).
Trees and other vegetation provide aesthetic value, shade, wildlife habitat, softening greenery, pollution filters and much cooler temperatures in summer. Ku-ring-gai, Pittwater, Lane Cove, Beecroft, Hornsby are all examples of leafy Sydney suburbs now at risk of losing their distinctive character, amenity and property value due to the misuse of this Code.
Effectiveness of Asset Protection Zones (APZ)
Bushfires are the best test of the effectiveness of hazard reduction treatments. Past experience demonstrates that the effectiveness of hazard reduction (in any form) rapidly declines the more extreme the conditions (McCarthy and Tolhurst, 2001 cited in Fernandes and Botelho, 2003). Passive measures in the form of fire breaks (or Asset Protection Zones) are designed to provide protection up to a Fire Danger Index of 50 (covering Low / Moderate, High and Very High fire danger ratings) but have been shown to fail in Severe, Extreme or Catastrophic fire weather, due to the increasing influence that burning embers have on fire rate of spread in worsening fire weather conditions. Burning embers create spot fires ahead of the main fire front. Under extreme conditions these embers can impact on properties up to 30km ahead of the fire (Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, 2010). Once embers and spot fires threaten a property, it is already involved in the footprint of the fire regardless of the existence of an APZ, resulting in the failure of most APZs.
Research undertaken following the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983, Sydney bushfires of 1994 and Canberra bushfires of 2003 consistently demonstrate that the majority of houses are lost through ember attack and not through radiant heat or direct flame contact (Blanchi et.al. 2006; Blanchi and Leonard, 2005; Chen and McAneney, 2004; Leonard and Bowditch, 2003). The fires in Sydney (1994) and Canberra (2003) show that the majority of homes destroyed had separation distances beyond 40 metres (Chen and McAneney, 2004) - once a house was alight the burning structure itself became a significant ember source, causing house-to-house ignition and rendering the defendable space effectively nil.
The notion that the protection afforded by creating a 10/50 type clearing buffer is an acceptable bush fire risk management strategy is therefore misleading as under severe, extreme or catastrophic fire weather conditions the effectiveness of vegetation clearing is marginal at best, at a time when the most destructive fires occur. The 10/50 legislation has been largely cited as a response to representations made by members of the public regarding clearing of vegetation following the October 2013 Blue Mountains fires. However, the 10/50 clearing rules will do little in effectively responding to bush fires of that intensity, particularly due to the incidence and influence of ember attack at higher fire danger ratings.
There are a number of other issues that limit the effectiveness of vegetation clearing and APZs. These include:
· Topography - fires burn faster upslope as radiation preheats vegetation above. Once slopes exceed 18° and the fire danger weather increases, the fire rate of spread starts to negate standard asset protection zone widths noted in Planning for Bushfire Protection (RFS 2006).
· Convection and fuel – the energy of a fire is driven by the vertical convection column. When large fires hit a sudden break in fuel the vertical convection is broken and this can cause the flames to lie flat along the ground and reach forward (CSIRO, 2011). If the flame height is long this can result in a fire break failing (dependent on the width of the break). A better clearing method would be to encourage a progressive reduction in fuel and manage vegetation in clumps.
· Vegetation management – unless managed and maintained consistently and appropriately, clearing and burning vegetation can result in thicker vegetation growth and encourages the establishment of more fire tolerant species.
There is no acknowledgement in the Code of the role that trees and some vegetation can play in providing protection from strong winds, intense heat and filtering flying embers. The Code does not recognise that a tree by itself is not necessarily a bush fire hazard, as the elevated fuel (shrubs) and fine fuel (leaf litter) are the biggest contributors to flame height and rate of spread. Trees become a bigger fire risk when they show vertical connectivity from the groundcover through to the canopy (fire ladder effect). Therefore, therefore it is recommended that single trees within 10m of homes with no or limited understorey should be protected.
In the Ku-ring-gai area, with the existing topography and vegetation types, clearing to the extent needed to assist in protecting a home in extreme or catastrophic conditions would result in the loss of nearly a thousand hectares of bushland on public land alone (Ku-ring-gai Council, May 2011).
The Code is too narrow in its intent and application to represent a strategic approach to bush fire risk management. “An APZ alone may not provide complete protection and should be accompanied by appropriate building construction and maintenance” (Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code 2006, NSW RFS). Hence, the Code and any subsequent documentation should clearly communicate the purpose and limitation of APZs and should not promote these measures in the absence of other bush fire risk reduction measures, such as improving building resilience, property maintenance and evacuation risk measures.
In addition, the Code presents a significant divergence from the suggested approach to APZ management, as outlined in the RFS Draft Discussion Paper - APZs for existing development (RFS 2014). The discussion paper refers to APZ distances based on a robust methodology and performance based approach, using bush fire attack modelling (for example, exposure to radiant heat levels and a specified fire danger index to apply consistent bush fire protection measures state-wide).
For many years NSW has led the way in planning and implementing bush fire management based on local Bush Fire Risk Management Plans (BFRMP) that consider life, property and the environment. The Code is a divergence from this landscape based risk assessment approach and contrary to its intent, its focus on vegetation clearance is a poor outcome for those communities in our highest bush fire risk areas.
The Code needs to provide clearer controls to land owners to reduce potential unintended breaches and to improve environmental outcomes. This could be done by including relevant existing controls outlined in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, the Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code 2006 and the RFS Standards for Asset Protection Zones.
Social implications
It is acknowledged that removing the need for landowners to make a formal hazard reduction application and attain approval will streamline the process. However, a reliance on vegetation clearing creates a false sense of security amongst homeowners that the removal of unwanted trees and shrubs is all that is required to provide adequate protection from bush fire and in the absence of other bush fire risk mitigation strategies, leads to inadequate and ineffective bush fire planning and preparation by households living in proximity to bushland, thus presenting an unacceptable risk to the community.
Regulation / compliance
At present, questions still remain as to whose responsibility it is to regulate the 10/50 rule to ensure compliance with the Code of Practice. It appears that this regulatory and compliance function is not being undertaken by the NSW RFS and Council does not have the resources to fulfil this function, and this issue is complicated as there is currently no requirement to report vegetation clearing to any authority.
At present, the Code is a license to remove vegetation regardless of the reason, or the significance of the loss. The NSW RFS must establish a clear system of regulation, compliance and monitoring for the Code to ensure that vegetation clearing is for legitimate bush fire risk reduction. This needs to be supported by legislation.
If the responsibility falls to councils then the following needs to be considered:
· legislative powers describing key compliance requirements;
· appropriate up-skilling of staff;
· accessible constraint maps for staff;
· resourcing, time and staffing costs; and
· the penalties for breaches.
The NSW RFS needs to immediately establish a system of regulation, compliance and monitoring which is supported by legislation.
Hazard reduction complaints on public land
Since the Code’s introduction, there has been a stark increase in the number of hazard reduction complaints received by Council in relation to trees within 10m of a dwelling and/ or vegetation within 50m of a dwelling beyond the boundary of a property and into Council and other public authority managed land.
Council supports an ongoing risk based approach into the assessment of hazard complaints on public land (via a formal fuel assessment) so that the process is consistent with the BFRMP. The NSW RFS should investigate the integration of Councils’ Bush Fire Risk Management Plans into the 10/50 Code to resolve issues around hazard reduction complaints made about Council controlled or owned land and give precedence to strategic hazard reduction works in these Plans over requests for clearing of public bushland made by landowners under the 10/50 rule.
Unintended implications of tree and vegetation clearing on private property
The creation of additional green waste from increased vegetation clearing on private land has led to a recent (since 1 August 2014) increase in the dumping of green waste on public land, as well as the demand on Council (staff and financial) resources to remove this green waste.
A guestimate of the disposal costs for the increased dumping of mulch since 1 August has been calculated as approximately $4,000, not including the staff time involved. Should this current rate continue Council could expect annual costs of $16,000 or higher to address waste removal alone.
In addition, increased edge effects are likely as a result of the 10/50 rule, as clearing will remove a vegetative buffer, encouraging weed encroachment into public reserves. This will decrease the value of remaining habitat and increase the pressure on Council’s weed management resources.
It is therefore recommended that the State Government identifies additional funding sources, to support land managers where additional mitigation works are required under the 10/50 rule that are outside the scope of the BFRMP and where increased waste removal and weed management is required.
Threatened Species and Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC)
With no regulatory framework, the Code effectively undermines and causes confusion with regards to other Federal and State legislation, for example, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the NSW Environment and Planning Assessment Act 1979 and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Laws that protect threatened species and endangered ecological communities, and legal instruments that recognise vegetation for its ecological or cultural significance should not be overridden by the Code, when there is no evidence it will improve bush fire protection, which is how the code is operating in its current format.
There is inadequate information in the Code in relation to obligations under Commonwealth law, which has precedence, in particular, the additional approval requirements that may be necessary under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for the removal of threatened species and vegetation which forms part of a threatened ecological community. Information advising landowners of their potential obligations under Commonwealth legislation should be clearly outlined in the Code, and the extent of EPBC Act affected land should be incorporated into the online assessment tool, triggering a condition similar to how the Aboriginal heritage data triggers a query for landholders to contact OEH for further advice.
The blanket application of the Code, in diverging from an effective landscape based risk assessment approach, fails to provide adequate provision for the protection of threatened species and Endangered Ecological Communities (such as Blue Gum High Forest, Sydney Turpentine Ironbark and Duffy’s Forest). The result is that many signature or remnant trees which form part of an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) are being cut down in locations where the tree is clearly not posing a bush fire risk (for example, street verges). This is an unacceptable environmental outcome when there are clearly no gains in terms of bush fire protection.
It is imperative that a more rigorous assessment process is integrated into the Code for the removal of threatened species and vegetation which forms part of a threatened ecological community to ensure the vegetation being removed is for genuine bush fire hazard reduction.
More rigorous assessment processes should also be conducted in vegetation clearing entitlement areas with vegetation types covered by the following SEPPs:
· SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands;
· SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest;
· SEPP 44 Koala Habitat; and
· SEPP 19 Urban Bushland.
Exclusions relating to the type of vegetation that can or cannot be cleared on private and public land are inconsistent. The Code states that mangroves and salt marsh on public land cannot be cleared. This should apply to all land.
In addition, no consideration is given to regionally significant habitat or biodiversity corridors in the Code, which allows for the migration of species and the maintenance of genetic diversity.
Slope and soil erosion
In addition to any conditions identified in a Geotechnical Engineer Assessment Report (required for the removal and pruning of trees on slopes over 18 degrees), the Code should require the adherence to existing standards limiting mechanical works on slopes over 18 degrees as noted in the Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code 2006 (NSW Rural Fire Service) – “Standards to prevent soil erosion and instability”.
Riparian zones
The use of the prescribed streams definition included in the Code, as identified by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), is not useful for Ku-ring-gai. Prescribed streams are used by OEH to identify required riparian buffers in the preparation of vegetation management plans made under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (the 2013 regulation has also introduced self-assessable codes) (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/vegetation/MajorRivers.htm).
The Code currently does not provide any advice on how to treat riparian buffer zones on those watercourses that are not identified on the prescribed stream list held by OEH but would still be subject to consideration under the Water Management Act 2000 during development applications. This could potentially lead to widespread watercourse instability (particularly erosion and then downstream sedimentation) where the 10/50 rule is applied without consideration of riparian and watercourse processes. Appropriate ‘no clearing’ buffer zones need to be established within the Code for a riparian zone not defined as prescribed stream.
Many council areas, including Ku-ring-gai, have detailed riparian mapping available, that could be referred to by the community and/or used as a guide in the application of the 10/50 rule.
The Code, which allows clearing to within 10m of the top of a bank is likely to impact on Council’s management of riparian areas, as a result of the flow-on effect of increased sedimentation in our creeks from the clearing on steep slopes, which will again place increasing demands on Council’s financial and staff resources.
Heritage
The blanket application of the Code, in diverging from an effective landscape based risk assessment approach, fails to provide adequate protection for identified heritage items, other than Aboriginal Heritage Sites and heritage conservation areas at the local level or the historical, cultural, social and aesthetic significance of any cultural plantings and/or established gardens.
The Code does not recognise or protect the architectural and historical significance of Sydney School architecture – many key examples of which are located in Ku-ring-gai. The Sydney School is a recognised architectural movement from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s which saw many significant houses constructed on difficult bush sites with the deliberate design intention of integrating houses with their bushland settings. Many of these houses were designed by leading Australian architects and their influence continues today. The architectural integrity and value of these buildings and their settings are at risk under the Code.
It is imperative that a more rigorous assessment process is integrated into the Code for the removal of trees and vegetation with local heritage significance to ensure the vegetation being removed is for genuine bush fire hazard reduction.
Planning / development
The Code makes void and therefore undermines the provisions under Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Development Control Plans (DCPs), which act as one of Council’s most effective tools for protecting the environmental character of an area.
As it currently exists the Code creates conflicts with development conditions approved under Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the Building in Bush fire Prone Areas Standard (AS3959 – 2009), where APZ maintenance requirements should be part of the conditions of consent. The 10/50 rule therefore is more applicable to development that occurred prior to the introduction of these bush fire protection measures and standard. It is therefore recommended that the 10/50 Code is exempt from properties that have been certified to meet the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and AS3959 - 2009, which would mean that the Code would only be available for landowners of properties built before 2009.
The current lack of environmental assessment requirements in the Code also undermines bush fire risk assessment and environmental assessment processes for all forms of work, for example:
· landowners undertaking new development are required to attain a bush fire risk assessment and ecological report prior to submitting a Development Application; and
· agencies are required to have licences/or certificates to undertake bush regeneration works and hazard reduction works; and Environmental assessments are required to undertake much less destructive activities, for example through SEPP Infrastructure provisions.
The wording in the 10/50 Code should also be reinstated to recognise development controls (which have been determined following an assessment of bush fire risk) as legally binding so that comprehensive assessment and conditioning of development applications can continue. That is, amend to include words to this effect:
“Vegetation may not be cleared if the owner of the land on which vegetation clearing works may be carried out is under a legal obligation to preserve that vegetation by agreement or otherwise.”
Climate change
There is the potential that the extent of clearing made possible by the 10/50 rule will increase the urban heat island effect and micro-climates on a local scale. This will influence maximum local day time temperatures and increase minimum night time temperatures.
Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Areas
The extent of the Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Areas represents an excessively wide application of the Code. In the absence of the new methodology to categorise bush fire prone land, the blanket (one-size-fits-all) 350 metre Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area for Category 1 Bushfire Prone Land, and the now reduced 150 metre Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area for Category 2 Bushfire Prone Land fails to reflect the diversity of landscapes in NSW and distinguish between urban and rural settings (as was attempted in the 10/50 Code’s Victorian predecessor, the 10/30 Code). As outlined earlier, the Code diverts from what has been an effective landscape based risk assessment approach, whereby the regulatory process of issuing a bush fire hazard reduction certificate for fuel reduction works (including tree / vegetation clearing) involved contact between homeowners and NSW RFS fire experts, and has resulted in the wide-spread clearing of vegetation almost exclusively to improve views, facilitate development and for other non-bush fire related purposes.
It is critical that a process of engagement between the NSW RFS and homeowners who wish to undertake vegetation clearing for bush fire protection is urgently reinstated, to ensure that homeowners are taking the most appropriate actions to protect life and property and to prevent homeowners from removing trees, where the tree location is not considered to be posing a bush fire risk, and for non-bush fire related purposes. The demonstrated completion of a bush fire survival plan by residents who wish to remove vegetation under the 10/50 rule should be mandatory.
There is also no evidence of the Code’s capacity to influence the probability of wildfire impact on assets within the 10/50 entitlement areas (effectively the 350m / 150m zones), nor the magnitude of the consequences. The Code is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with the technical evidence cited in the industry literature.
It has been acknowledged that the 350m extent is based upon research that 99% of houses that are lost in a bush fire are lost in the first 350m from bushland. What is the justification behind using this distance as opposed to the 100m buffer that applies to the Building in Bushfire Prone Areas Standard? This demonstrates an inconsistency in the risk management approach. A more consistent approach would be to revise the Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Areas to reflect the 100m distance that applies for development controls to Category 1 Bush Fire Prone Land and 30m for Category 2.
It is therefore recommended that the Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area reflects the current buffers applied for the Building in Bush fire Prone Areas Standard (AS3959 – 2009).
Supporting Tools and documents / fact sheets
To assist homeowners in understanding where environmental conditions may restrict works, the online assessment tool should provide information on:
· locally mapped soil erosion risk and mass movement data which is already accessible for many local government areas on the NSW RFS Bush Fire Risk Information Management System (BRIMS). Council would also be able to provide data for slopes over 18 degrees that could be displayed on the online map
· known local heritage data (provided by local and state governments), triggering a condition to contact a relevant agency for further advice
· land affected by the EPBC Act, triggering a condition similar to how the Aboriginal heritage data triggers a query for landholders to contact OEH for further advice
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
A shared long term vision for Ku-ring-gai underpins strategic collaboration, policy development and community engagement. |
Council leads the community by advocating, influencing and participating in policy development to the benefit of the local area. |
Pursue opportunities to contribute to policy development affecting Ku-ring-gai at state and regional levels.
|
Governance Matters
It is important that Council comment on the 10/50 legislation and Code of Practice to ensure that ongoing administrative issues are addressed and best practice measures are implemented.
Risk Management
The 10/50 Code does not demonstrate a comprehensive risk management strategy and may have implications surrounding the resourcing of strategic hazard reduction works as identified in Council’s Bush Fire Risk Management Plan.
Financial Considerations
The current 10/50 Code of Practice is having significant implications for Council budgets and resourcing in relation to regulation, compliance and monitoring, as well as in relation to some of its unintended outcomes, such as increased green waste dumping.
Social Considerations
It is important that Council comment on the 10/50 Code of Practice as part of this review process to ensure that realistic and effective measures are introduced and/or promoted which reduce the risks from bush fire to life and property.
Environmental Considerations
The 10/50 Code of Practice is resulting in the loss of canopy, Endangered Ecological Communities, threatened species, riparian systems and local heritage, as well as potentially exacerbating the rate of soil erosion. It is important for Council to consider best practice measures that will reduce risk and conserve our environment, biodiversity and local area values/amenity.
Community Consultation
This submission responds to the community vision of ‘Working together as a community to protect and enhance our natural environment and resources’ and the long term objectives of ‘a community addressing and responding to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events’ and ‘an aware community able to prepare and respond to the risk to life and property from emergency events’, in Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030, which is based on the results of extensive community consultation and engagement over the past four years.
On behalf of our community the Council has made urgent representations to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Minister for the Environment, the NSW Premier and the NSW RFS Commissioner, and is working closely with Local Government NSW, the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) and other Sydney metropolitan councils to object to the irrevocable environmental damage the Code is causing in our Local Government Area (LGA) for little gain in a reduction in bush fire risk for the community. Council has also created a template letter for residents to express their concerns and to use as a basis for objecting to the current Code of Practice in a submission to the NSW RFS or NSW Government.
Internal Consultation
Staff within Council’s Operations, Development and Regulation and Strategy and Environment directorates have participated in consultation on the 10/50 Code since its inception and have contributed to the content of this report.
Summary
On 1 August 2014 the State Government announced the commencement of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Laws and Code of Practice for New South Wales, in accordance with section 100Q of the Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014.
Due to ongoing public concerns raised regarding the application of the 10/50 vegetation clearing legislation and the lack of detail within the associated Code of Practice, the NSW RFS have brought forward its review. This will provide land managers and communities across NSW the opportunity to provide comment and feedback.
The NSW RFS is currently inviting public submissions on the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice until Friday 14 November 2014. Specifically the NSW RFS has asked councils for comments relating to the Act, Code of Practice, Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area, and where possible workable solutions to the issues raised.
This report outlines a number of key concerns, implications and recommendations for inclusion in Council’s submission on the 10/50 Code, for consideration and endorsement by Council.
A summary of the key points and recommendations proposed for Council’s submission are as follows:
a) the recent Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014, supported by the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice (the Code) is fundamentally flawed, and is causing irrevocable environmental damage to our Local Government Area (LGA) for little gain in a reduction in bush fire risk for the community.
b) The scientific rationale for the 10/50 legislation has not been made available by the NSW Government or NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) to substantiate that this new legislation will further reduce bush fire risk compared to the measures that were in place prior to its introduction.
c) In its current form the Code’s impacts are extending well beyond the intended purpose of bush fire hazard management and has created overlap and confusion in relation to the obligations of local government authorities under other Acts and regulations.
d) Contrary to the intent of the Code, it is of deep concern that, to date, close to 400 trees have been reported as removed in the Ku-ring-gai LGA (not to mention those which have not been reported), many of which are signature or remnant trees that form part of an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC), almost exclusively to improve views, facilitate development and for other non-bush fire related purposes.
e) The notion that the protection afforded by creating a 10/50 type clearing buffer is an acceptable bush fire risk management strategy is therefore misleading as under severe, extreme or catastrophic fire weather conditions the effectiveness of vegetation clearing is marginal at best, at a time when the most destructive fires occur.
f) The 10/50 legislation has been largely cited as a response to representations made by members of the public regarding clearing of vegetation following the October 2013 Blue Mountains fires. However, the 10/50 clearing rules will do little in effectively responding to bush fires of that intensity, particularly due to the incidence and influence of ember attack at higher fire danger ratings.
g) For many years NSW has led the way in planning and implementing bush fire management based on local Bush Fire Risk Management Plans (BFRMP) that consider life, property and the environment. The Code is a divergence from this landscape based risk assessment approach and contrary to its intent its focus on vegetation clearance is a poor outcome for those communities in our highest bush fire risk areas.
h) The Code needs to provide clearer controls to land owners to reduce potential unintended breaches and to improve environmental outcomes. This could be done by including relevant existing controls outlined in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, the Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code 2006 and the RFS Standards for Asset Protection Zones.
i) A reliance on vegetation clearing creates a false sense of security amongst homeowners that the removal of unwanted trees and shrubs is all that is required to provide adequate protection from bush fire and, in the absence of other bush fire risk mitigation strategies, leads to inadequate and ineffective bush fire planning and preparation by households living in proximity to bushland, thus presenting an unacceptable risk to the community.
j) The NSW RFS needs to immediately establish a system of regulation, compliance and monitoring which is supported by legislation
k) Council supports an ongoing risk based approach into the assessment of hazard complaints on public land (via a formal fuel assessment) so that the process is consistent with the BFRMP. The NSW RFS should investigate the integration of Councils’ Bush Fire Risk Management Plans into the 10/50 Code to resolve issues around hazard reduction complaints made about Council controlled or owned land and give precedence to strategic hazard reduction works in these Plans over requests for clearing of public bushland made by landowners under the 10/50 rule.
l) The creation of additional green waste from increased vegetation clearing on private land has led to a recent (since 1 August 2014) increase in the dumping of green waste on public land, as well as the demand on Council (staff and financial) resources to remove this green waste. In addition, increased edge effects are likely as a result of the 10/50 rule, as clearing will remove a vegetative buffer, encouraging weed encroachment into public reserves. This will decrease the value of remaining habitat and increase the pressure on Council’s weed management resources.
m) Laws that protect threatened species and endangered ecological communities, and legal instruments that recognise vegetation for its ecological, heritage or cultural significance should not be overridden by the Code, when there is no evidence it will improve bush fire protection, which is how the code is operating in its current format. It is imperative that a more rigorous assessment process is integrated into the Code for the removal of ecologically and culturally significant vegetation to ensure the vegetation being removed is for genuine bush fire hazard reduction.
n) There is inadequate information in the Code in relation to obligations under Commonwealth law, which has precedence, in particular, the additional approval requirements that may be necessary under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for the removal of threatened species and vegetation which forms part of a threatened ecological community. Information advising landowners of their potential obligations under Commonwealth legislation should be clearly outlined in the Code, and the extent of EPBC Act affected land should be incorporated into the online assessment tool, triggering a condition similar to how the Aboriginal heritage data triggers a query for landholders to contact OEH for further advice.
o) Appropriate ‘no clearing’ buffer zones need to be established within the Code for a riparian zone not defined as prescribed stream.
p) As it currently exists the Code creates conflicts with development conditions approved under Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the Building in Bush Fire Prone Areas Standard (AS3959 – 2009), where APZ maintenance requirements should be part of the conditions of consent. It is therefore recommended that the 10/50 Code is exempt from properties which have been certified to meet the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and AS3959 - 2009, which would mean that the Code would only be available for landowners of properties built before 2009.
q) The extent of the Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Areas represents an excessively wide application of the Code. In the absence of the new methodology to categorise bush fire prone land, the blanket (one-size-fits-all) 350 metre Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area for Category 1 Bushfire Prone Land, and the now reduced 150 metre Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area for Category 2 Bushfire Prone Land fails to reflect the diversity of landscapes in NSW and distinguish between urban and rural settings.
r) It is critical that a process of engagement between the NSW RFS and homeowners who wish to undertake vegetation clearing for bush fire protection is urgently reinstated, to ensure that homeowners are taking the most appropriate actions to protect life and property and to prevent homeowners from removing trees, where the tree location is not considered to be posing a bush fire risk, and for non-bush fire related purposes. The demonstrated completion of a bush fire survival plan by residents who wish to remove vegetation under the 10/50 rule should be mandatory.
s) There is no evidence of the Code’s capacity to influence the probability of wildfire impact on assets within the 10/50 entitlement areas (effectively the 350m / 150m zones), nor the magnitude of the consequences. The Code is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with the technical evidence cited in the industry literature. It is therefore recommended that the Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area reflects the current buffers applied for the Building in Bush fire Prone Areas Standard (AS3959 – 2009).
Endorsement is sought for the inclusion of the contents of this report, including the key points and recommendations above, as Council’s submission to the NSW RFS on the 10/50 Code.
References
Blanchi, R., Leonard, J., & Leicester, R.H. (2006). Bushfire risk at the rural/urban interface. Conference proceeding – Australasian Bushfire Conference June 6-9 2006.
Blanchi, R., Leonard, J. & Leicester, R.H. (2006) Lessons learnt from post bushfire surveys at the urban interface in Australia. Conference proceeding. International conference on forest fire research, 27-30 November 2006, Figueira da Foz. Edited by DX Viegas Elsevier.
Blanchi, R., Leonard, J. (2005). Investigation of Bushfire attack mechanisms Resulting in house loss in the ACT bushfire 2003. Bush Fire Cooperative Research Centre.
Chen, K., McAneney, J. (2004). Quantifying bushfire penetration into urban areas in Australia. Geophysical Research Letters, 31: L12212.
CSIRO (2011). Fire-generated wind. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/FireGeneratedWind.aspx Accessed: 10/07/2014
Fernandes, P.M., Botelho, H.S. (2003). A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction, International Journal of Wildland Fire. 12, pp. 117-128.
Ku-ring-gai Council (2011). Managing Bushfire risk, Now and into the Future. Ku-ring-gai Council.
Leonard, J. and Bowditch, P. (2003). Findings of studies of houses damaged by bushfire in Australia. Wildland Fire Conference, Sydney.
Montoya, D. (2014). Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014. NSW Parliamentary Research Service e-brief 09/2014, June 2014.
NSW RFS (2014). Draft Discussion Paper - APZs for existing development. NSW Rural Fire Service.
NSW RFS (2006). Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code. NSW Rural Fire Service.
NSW RFS (2006). Planning for Bushfire Protection. NSW Rural Fire Service.
NSW RFS Standards for Asset Protection Zones. NSW Rural Fire Service.
VBRC (2010). Final Report: Summary. Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
A. That Council endorses the inclusion of the contents of this report as Council’s submission on the 10/50 Code review, including the key points and recommendations in the summary section of this report.
B. That Council provides a submission to the NSW RFS by 14 November 2014.
|
Jennie Cramp Technical Officer - Bushfire |
Marnie Kikken Manager Environment & Sustainability |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice for New South Wales |
|
2014/275094 |
|
|
A2View |
Examples of trees removed in response to 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice for New South Wales |
|
2014/275005 |
APPENDIX No: 2 - Examples of trees removed in response to 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice for New South Wales |
|
Item No: GB.10 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.11 / 550 |
|
|
Item GB.11 |
S10273 |
|
3 November 2014 |
Tender 20/2014 - Disposal and Processing Green Waste and Dry Recyclables
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To consider Tenders submitted for receipt of Council’s domestic green waste and dry recyclables and appoint the preferred tenderer for each service. |
|
|
background: |
As part of Council’s domestic waste management services disposal and processing of green waste and recyclables, it is required to ensure these waste materials are recovered from landfill and the material is processed into re-useable products. A three (3) year term Contract with a two (2) year option has been advertised to allow for any transition from the local delivery waste services should the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils’ (NSROC) regional disposal procurement process progress to other services. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 9 September 2014 with a closing date of 7 October 2014. |
|
|
comments: |
Tender documents were produced with eight (8) submissions received. The submissions were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value to Council. |
|
|
recommendation: |
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, it is recommended Council accept the tender submitted by Tenderer ‘AR’ for the paper and mixed recyclables and Tenderer ‘AG’ for the domestic green waste as identified in the Confidential Summary. |
Purpose of Report
To consider Tenders submitted for receipt of Council’s domestic green waste and dry recyclables and appoint the preferred tenderer for each service.
Background
As part of Council’s domestic waste management services for recovery of waste from landfill, a three (3) year Contract with a two (2) year option to extend has been advertised via an open tender process for the receipt and processing of Council`s green waste and dry recyclables (paper / cardboard and mixed food / kitchen / bathroom containers).
Comments
Five (5) tenders have been received for accepting recycling materials and four (4) tenders were received for accepting green waste. These have been recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.
Tenders were received from the following companies for the green waste component:
· Dial a Dump Industries
· Kimbriki Environmental Enterprises Pty Ltd
· Bettergrow Pty Ltd
· Sita Australia Pty Ltd
Tenders were received from the following companies for the recycling materials component:
· Visy Industries Australia Pty Ltd
· Polytrade Recycling Pty Ltd
· SKM Industries, Inc.
· URM Environmental Services Pty Ltd
· Kimbriki Environmental Enterprises Pty Ltd
It should be noted the order above does not correspond to the order of the list of tenderers named in the confidential attachment.
A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to assess the tenders received.
The key points of review took into account:
· price,
· company and staff experience,
· location of facilities
· ability to provide the full range of services required,
· marketing of materials processed,
· previous performance in relation to similar type of work,
· company’s risk management procedures, and
· company’s financial capacity
Confidential attachments to this report include:
· List of tenders received and additional financial information for the recyclable material component – Attachment (A1).
· List of tenders received and additional financial information for the green waste component – Attachment (A2).
· Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation for recyclable material - Attachment (A3).
· Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation for green waste - Attachment (A4).
· Independent Performance and Financial Assessments which were carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd - Attachments ( A5 & A6)
From the tenders received and the available information taken into account during the evaluation and scoring of each element of the assessment, Tenderer ‘AR’ was identified as providing the best value to Council for the recyclable material component and Tenderer ‘AG’ was identified as providing the best value to Council for the green waste component.
In order to ensure Council is not exposed to financial risk and Tenderer ‘AR’ and Tenderer ‘AG’ is trading in a sound and profitable manner, an independent Performance and Financial Assessment was carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd for each tenderer.
Tenderer ‘AR’ was identified as providing the ‘best value’ to Council for the recyclable material component.
Tenderer ‘AG’ was identified as providing the ‘best value’ to Council for the green waste component.
integrated planning and reporting
Urban Environment
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
Council reducing consumption of resources through recycling and reuse
|
The community is responsible and engaged in improved recycling and reduction in resource use.
|
N5.1.1
|
Governance Matters
Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 9 September 2014 with a closing date of 7 October 2014. At the close of tender, eight (8) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.
A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to evaluate the tenders all received prior to the closing date and time.
The initial evaluation took into account:
· price,
· location of facilities,
· company and staff experience,
· ability to provide the full range of services required,
· marketing of materials processed
· work program, and availability,
· previous performance in relation to similar type work,
· company’s risk management procedures, and
· company’s financial capacity
Confidential attachments to this report include the list of tenders received, the Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation and the independent Performance and Financial Assessments carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd.
The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of The Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain commercial in confidence information.
Risk Management
Following evaluation, including an independent Performance and Financial Assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd, the tenderers assessed as providing the best value and quality to Council was Tenderer ‘AR’ and Tenderer ‘AG’.
The financial aspect of the assessment shows both preferred tenderers are able to satisfy all requirements and are unlikely to expose Council to any financial risk if awarded the tender as detailed within Council’s tender documents.
Financial Considerations
The short listed tenderers have been reviewed by Corporate Score Card for their financial health and risk profile in performing the Contract. All short listed tenderers are assessed as financially strong. Budgeting for costs and income associated with this Contract are provided in the Domestic Waste Centre.
Social Considerations
The provision of waste recovery services provides social as well as environmental benefits through the reuse of resources and avoidance of materials to landfill disposal.
Environmental Considerations
The provision of waste recovery services provides environmental benefits with the avoidance of these components being disposed to landfill and allows for these materials to be further reused, thereby, more fully utilising these resources.
Community Consultation
No formal consultation was required for these services as it forms part of the existing domestic waste services under a current collection contract.
Internal Consultation
Internal consultation was not required for this contract. However, input has been received by way of probity oversight from Council’s Manager Procurement & Contracts from Corporate Services.
Summary
As part of Council`s domestic waste management services, disposal and processing of green waste and dry recyclables is required to ensure these materials are better utilised into reusable products and are not wasted in landfill disposal.
A three (3) year contract with a two (2) year option has been advertised to allow for any transition from the local delivery of these services to regional should the delivery of these services progress to a regional contract through the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils’ (NSROC).
Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 9 September 2014 with a closing date of 7 October 2014. At the close of tender, five (5) tenders were received for accepting recyclables and four (4) tenders were received for accepting green waste. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy.
A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to evaluate the eight (8) tenders received prior to the closing date and time.
Following the evaluation and independent performance and financial check, it is recommended Tenderer ‘AR’ be appointed for the paper and mixed recyclables and Tenderer ‘AG’ be appointed for the domestic green waste on the basis of providing the best value to Council.
A. That Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘AR’ for the paper and mixed recyclables for a three (3) year contract with an additional two ( 2) year option.
B. That Council accept the tender submission from Tenderer ‘AG’ for the domestic green waste material for a three (3) year contract with an additional two ( 2) year option.
C. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.
E. That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.
|
Colin Wright Manager Waste |
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
List of Tenders received - recyclables |
|
Confidential |
||
|
List of Tenders received - green waste |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Tender Evaluation Panel's assessment - recyclables |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Tender Evaluation Panel's assessment - green waste |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Corporate Scorecard - Financial assessment - Tenderer AR |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Corporate Scorecard - Financial assessment - Tenderer AG |
|
Confidential |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
GB.12 / 556 |
|
|
Item GB.12 |
S09254 |
|
30 October 2014 |
Tender 21/2014 - North Turramurra Recreation Area - Stage 3 - Irrigation Works
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To consider the tenders received for the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) – Stage 3 Irrigation works and appoint the preferred tenderer. |
|
|
background: |
Council, as part of the NTRA Project, approved funding for the refurbishment and upgrade the golf course irrigation system. Tender documents were released through Tenderlink on 2 September 2014 with a closing date for receipt of tenders of 24 September 2014. |
|
|
comments: |
Tenders were called with three (3) tenders received. The tenders were assessed using agreed criteria which identified the best value to Council. |
|
|
recommendation: |
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, and following the request for tender, it is recommended Council accepts the tender submitted by Tenderer ‘A’ as identified in the Confidential Summary attached to the report. |
Purpose of Report
To consider the tenders received for the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) – Stage 3 Irrigation works and appoint the preferred tenderer.
Background
Council, as part of the NTRA Project, approved funding for the refurbishment and upgrade the golf course irrigation system.
Following this approval staff undertook consultation and preparation of tender documents which were released through Tenderlink on 2 September 2014 with a closing date for receipt of tenders of 24 September 2014.
As the estimated cost of the irrigation works is over $150,000, tenders were called using Tenderlink in accordance with the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations.
Comments
Three (3) tenders were received and recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. Tenders were received from the following companies:
· Australian Turf Projects Pty Ltd
· Jaddfe Pty Ltd
· Never Stop Irrigation Pty Ltd
It should be noted, the order above does not correspond to the order of the list of tenderers named from ‘A’ to ‘C’ in the confidential attachment for the purpose of identifying and recommending the preferred tenderer.
A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to assess the three (3) tenders received.
The evaluation took into account:
· the lump sum fee
· company experience
· staff experience and qualifications
· construction methodology
· work program, and availability
· risk management
· the company’s financial capacity
The confidential attachments to this report include:
· the list of tenders received and additional financial information (Attachment 1),
· the Tender Evaluation Panel’s assessment and recommendation (Attachment 2), and
· an independent Performance and Financial Assessment which was carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd (Attachment 3).
From the three (3) tenders received and the available information taken into account during the evaluation and scoring of each element of the assessment, Tenderer ‘A’ was identified as providing the best value to Council.
In order to ensure Council is not exposed to financial risk and Tenderer ‘A’ is trading in a sound and profitable manner, an independent Performance and Financial Assessment was carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd.
Tenderer ‘A’ was identified as providing the ‘best value’ to Council.
integrated planning and reporting
Enhance recreation, sporting and leisure facilities.
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P6.1 Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.
|
A program is being implemented to improve existing recreational, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities. |
Deliver park asset refurbishment program at priority locations.
|
Governance Matters
Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 2 September 2014 with a closing date of 24 September 2014. At the close of tender, three (3) tenders were received, all submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy and procedure.
A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department was formed to assess the three (3) tenders received. The evaluation took into account:
· the lump sum fee
· company experience
· staff experience and qualifications
· construction methodology
· work program, and availability
· risk management
· the company’s financial capacity
The confidential attachments to this report include the list of tenders received, the Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation and the independent Performance and Financial Assessment carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd.
The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of The Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain commercial in confidence information.
Risk Management
Three (3) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed work:
· That work needed to be carried out by a suitably qualified company.
· Availability – the company was available to commence work within a few weeks of the work being awarded and has the resources to complete the work within 26 weeks or less, subject to weather delays.
· That Council should not be exposed to financial risk. As part of the evaluation process, tenderers were assessed on providing all information and costs requested within the tender document and an independent Performance and Financial Assessment was carried out on the preferred tender to ensure that they were trading responsibly and had the financial capacity to undertake the work as detailed within the tender documents.
Following evaluation, including an independent Performance and Financial Assessment of Tenderer ‘A’ by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd, the tenderer assessed as providing the best value and quality to Council was Tenderer ‘A’.
As part of the independent Financial and Performance Assessment the following areas were examined:
· that Tenderer ‘A’ has the financial capacity to undertake the proposed value of work;
· that Tender ‘A’ has been trading in a profitable and responsible manner during the last three (3) years; and
· that Tender ‘A’ has sufficient assets/reserves to cover all possible debts during the period of work.
The financial aspect of the assessment shows Tender ‘A’ is able to satisfy all requirements and is unlikely to expose Council to any financial risk if awarded the tender as detailed within Council’s tender documents.
Financial Considerations
This project forms part of the NTRA Golf Course Refurbishment works and is listed in Council’s 2014/2015 Operational and Delivery Plan - PJ105211 NTRA Golf Course Refurbishment.
During the planning and design stages of this project, it was always planned Stage 3 Irrigation works would form part of the upgrade works – the remaining budget being utilised on the next phase of the Golf Course Refurbishment works.
Social Considerations
The present NTRA Golf Course works include not only the development of new greens, tees and fairways but works to upgrade existing greens, tees and fairways. The completed works will provide a substantially improved golf course and asset for the community.
The proposed works to the NTRA golf course will improve and upgrade the facility in line with Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030 and the Plan’s long term directions including the objective to have a community embrace healthier lifestyle choices and practices; and to provide quality open space, community and recreational facilities to meet the needs of our changing community.
Environmental Considerations
Prior to tender, the project was subject to a Potential Environmental Impact Assessment which determined the impact on the environment by the works is minor.
Community Consultation
As this work forms part of the redevelopment of the whole site, no separate community consultation took place. Prior to the commencement of on-site works, local residents and businesses will be advised of the commencement of works and be provided with a time estimate for the completion of the works.
During the construction works, short periods of disruption to golf play may occur. Where this does occur users will be given prior notice.
Internal Consultation
Consultation was undertaken by officers from Operations Department, for the proposed upgrade of the Golf Course irrigation system.
Summary
Council, as part of the NTRA Recreational Development, approved funding for the refurbishment and upgrade the golf course irrigation system.
Following this approval, staff undertook consultation and preparation of tender documents which were released through Tenderlink on 2 September 2014 with a closing date for receipt of tenders of 24 September 2014.
A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed consisting of representatives from Operations Department.
At the close of tender, three (3) tenders were received. All tenders were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy and procedure.
As a consequence of the evaluation and independent performance and financial check, it is recommended Tenderer ‘A’ be appointed on the basis of providing the best value to Council.
A. That Council accepts the tender submission from Tenderer ‘A’ to carry out the North Turramurra Recreation Area – Stage 3 - Irrigation Works.
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.
|
Matthew Allen Senior Projects Coordinator |
David Morris Manager Projects |
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
|
List of Tenders received |
|
Confidential |
||
|
Tender Evaluation Panel's assessment |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Corporate Scorecard - financial assessment |
|
Confidential |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
NM.1 / 562 |
|
|
Item NM.1 |
CY00456/2 |
|
3 November 2014 |
Notice of Rescission
NSROC Councils and Fit for the Future
Notice of Rescission from the Mayor,
Councillor J Anderson and Councillors
Fornari-Orsmond and Citer dated 3 November 2014
We move rescission of Minute Number 346 -Notice of Motion - NM.1 “NSROC Councils and Fit for the Future”, of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 October 2014, namely:
“A. That Councillors receive a formal briefing on Fit for the Future as soon as possible.
B. That Council pursues a strategy in preparing a Fit for the Future application based on continuing as an independent, vibrant and viable Council.
C. That Council continues to discuss all options for reform with surrounding Councils.
D. That the Mayor and / or Council’s second elected NSROC representative Councillor Malicki plus the General Manager attend every meeting called by the NSROC Councils, including those called by individual members, to discuss a response to Fit for the Future or to discuss resource and services sharing. This will include attending the meeting on 30 October called by the Mayor of Ryde City Council.
E. That all Mayoral correspondence on Fit for the Future and all correspondence to or from NSROC or its member Councils be distributed to Councillors within 24 hours of receipt or reply or as soon as reasonably practicable.”
That the above Notice of Rescission as printed be adopted.
|
Jennifer Anderson Mayor |
Councillor Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond Councillor for Wahroonga Ward |
Councillor David Citer Councillor for Gordon Ward |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 11 November 2014 |
NM.2 / 564 |
|
|
Item NM.2 |
S03779/2 |
|
3 November 2014 |
Notice of Motion
Training for Mayor and Deputy Mayor
Notice of Motion from Councillors Malicki, Pettett, Armstrong, Ossip and Szatow dated 3 November 2014
We all agree that training is most important for elected representatives, and we note that there is to be Leadership Training for all Councillors in December, linked strongly to teamwork with our senior staff.
Given that the roles of Mayor and Deputy Mayor require special skills, we move:
“1. That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor should attend additional training for their specific roles prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting Cycle in 2015.
2. That future Mayors and Deputy Mayors also undertake training for the Mayoral role at the start of their terms.”
That the above Notice of Motion as printed be adopted.
|
Councillor Elaine Malicki Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
Councillor Jeff Pettett Councillor for Comenarra Ward |
Councillor David Armstrong Councillor for Roseville Ward |
Councillor David Ossip Councillor for St Ives Ward |
Councillor Cheryl Szatow Councillor for Gordon Ward |
|