Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council

Minute Ku-ring-gai Council Page

MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Present:

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

Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward)

Councillors D Citer & C Szatow (Gordon Ward)

Councillors C Berlioz & D Ossip (St Ives Ward)

Councillor D Armstrong (Roseville Ward)

Councillors C Fornari-Orsmond (Wahroonga Ward)

Staff Present:

General Manager (John McKee)

Director Corporate (David Marshall)

Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic)

Director Operations (Greg Piconi)

Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson)

Director Community (Janice Bevan)

Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe)

Manager Records & Governance (Matt Ryan)

Minutes Secretary (Judy Murphy)

The Meeting commenced at 7.00pm

The Mayor offered the Prayer

Apologies

File: S02194

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

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Fornari-Orsmond/Pettett)

That the apologies from Councillor McDonald be accepted and leave of absence granted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

No such Interest was declared.

CONFIRMATION OF REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED MEETING

File: S02499/9

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Berlioz)

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

GB.1 Market Operator for St Ives Old School Site

Attachment 1: Evaluation Committee Report

GB.5 Renewal of Air Stratum Lease over Wade Lane Gordon

Attachment 1: Valuation Report by AEC Group

Attachment 2: Acceptance of lease terms by Charter Hall

Attachment 3: Heads of Agreements - Renewal of lease for Wade Lane Air-bridge

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Address the Council

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

J Harwood – Urban Biodiversity

DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED TO COUNCILLORS

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

Memorandums:

Refer GB.1 - Market Operator for St Ives Old School Site – Memorandum from Director Community dated 10 March 2015 requesting that the item be deferred until after the Plan of Management, which is on exhibition, has been adopted by Council.

Refer GB.6 - Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield - Potential Heritage Conservation Area Review – Memorandum from Manager Urban and Heritage Planning dated 10 March 2015 advising of a minor correction on page 8 of Attachment 2 – PMA – Middle Harbour Road Heritage Inventory Sheet (page 122 of Business Paper 03/15) under (b) Protection of contributory items and their settings and advised that the text at bullet point 7 Protect curtilage and element within Swain Gardens and Killara Park will be deleted from the document prior to the exhibition of the proposed HCA.

Councillors Information:

Meeting with Rural Fire Service Commissioner – Memorandum from Director Operations dated 6 March 2015 in answer to a Question Without Notice raised by Councillor Elaine Malicki at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 24 February 2015.

Northern ERUV – Current Development Work and Plastic Conduits – Memorandum with attachments from Director Operations dated 6 March 2015 in answer to a Question Without Notice raised by Councillor Duncan McDonald at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 24 February 2015.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council

File: S02131

Meeting held 24 February 2015

Minutes numbered 21 to 45

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Pettett)

That Minutes numbered 21 to 45 circulated to Councillors were taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the Meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Recommendations from Committee

Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee

File: CY00022/7

Vide: RC.1

Meeting held 19 February 2015

Minutes numbered KTC.1 to KTC.5.

General Matter Items under Delegated Authority

File: S02738

Vide Minute No KTC1

Advice on matters considered under Delegated Authority.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

That the information regarding traffic facilities approved during November 2014 to January 2015 be noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

General Matter - Lindfield Fun Run

File: S02158/7

Ward: Roseville

Electorate: Davidson

Vide Minute No KTC2

To consider a request from Rotary Club of Lindfield Inc. for a Fun Run on Sunday,
6 April 2015.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

A. That Council not object to the proposed Fun Run to be held on Sunday, 6 April 2015 following the routes shown on the Traffic Management Plan submitted by the Rotary Club of Lindfield Inc., subject to the event organisers observing the following conditions:

1. The Roads and Maritime Services approving the Traffic Management Plan submitted by Council on behalf of the Rotary Club of Lindfield Inc.

2. The event organisers closing McLeod Avenue and Marjorie Street prior to commencing the race at the intersection of Marjorie Street and McLeod Avenue.

3. The event organisers closing the other seven intersections, as highlighted in the Traffic Management Plan, for a short period of time during the Fun Run.

4. The event organisers adhering to Police Service conditions set out by the North Shore Local Area Command.

5. The organisers to be responsible for supply and erection of barriers, road cones and the deployment of RMS accredited traffic controllers at appropriate positions, as directed by the Police Service to make motorists aware of the potential danger of runners/walkers in the near vicinity.

6. Competitors to use the footpath where practicable and at other times to run/walk as near as practicable to the left hand side of the carriageway.

7. Any motor vehicles used in conjunction with this event must be driven at the general speed of other traffic. When used for relief or supervisory purposes while stationary, such vehicles must be clear of the trafficable portion of the roadway used by moving traffic.

8. The Event Organiser supplying a copy of the Rotary Club of Lindfield Inc.’s 50 million dollar public liability insurance cover, naming Ku-ring-gai Council as principal.

B. The proposed Fun Run and the closures of McLeod Avenue, Marjorie Street and the other seven intersections along the event’s route be advertised by Council in the North Shore Times.

C. That Mr Bruce Dowling, Fun Run Operations Team Leader of Rotary Club of Lindfield Inc, be notified of Council’s decision, and be requested to respond in writing to Council by 20 March 2015, regarding the acceptance of Council’s conditions for conducting the Lindfield Fun Run.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Traffic and Transport Policy Parking at Driveways

File: S02527

Vide Minute No KTC3

To consider changes to the Traffic & Transport Policy to prohibit parking adjacent to some driveways.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

A. That Council’s Traffic & Transport Policy be amended to permit the installation of ‘No Parking’ restrictions at individual driveways, extending for up to 6 metres in length, particularly on the approach side, subject to installations being restricted to:

1. Multi-residential developments of at least four apartments,

2. Developments with their driveways being on roads with daily traffic volumes of at least 5,000 vehicles per day, and

3. Individual requests being considered on their merit but requiring Body Corporate endorsement.

B. That Council’s fees and charges for the installation of signs and referral to KTC apply.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mona Vale Road Clearway Proposal

File: TM1/07

Ward: St Ives

Electorate: Ku-ring-gai

Vide Minute No KTC4

For the committee to consider the proposal from the Roads and Maritime Services for the introduction of clearways along Mona Vale Road through St Ives.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

That Council not object, in principle, to the RMS proposal for a clearway on Mona Vale Road, St Ives, on condition that RMS in consultation with the community and Council, further investigate the provision of parking in Council’s car park opposite Stanley Street, in the car park off Porters Lane and potentially behind private shops off Stanley Lane, as well as improving way finding signs, investigating visibility of parking signs and clarifying the proposed on-street short term parking restrictions in St Ives.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Cowan Road, St Ives

File: TM9/07

Ward: St Ives

Electorate: Davidson

Vide Minute No KTC5

To consider a proposal to introduce full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on a section on the western side of Cowan Road between Village Green Parade and Killeaton Street, St Ives.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Szatow)

A. That full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions be introduced at driveways to property numbers 52 to 60 Cowan Road, St Ives, as per Plan No. Cowan/KTC/02/15, subject to receiving concurrence from the affected residents.

B. That affected residents of Cowan Road, St Ives and Council’s Team Leader Regulations be informed of Council’s decision.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS

Market Operator for St Ives Old School Site

File: S10182

Vide: GB.1

For Council to consider the tenders received for the Market Operator for St Ives Old School Site Request for Tender (RFT) T09/2014 for provision of commercial market operators, and appoint a preferred tenderer to operate a market in St Ives.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

That the matter be deferred pending the adoption of the St Ives Showground Plan of Management.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2015 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions

File: S03788

Vide: GB.2

To consider an invitation from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to submit motions to the 2015 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

A. That Councillors consider whether they propose to submit any motions to the NGA of Local Government and provide them to the Manager Records and Governance by Thursday, 19 March 2015.

B. That a further report containing any submitted motions from Councillors be referred to a subsequent Ordinary Meeting of Council prior to the Friday, 17 April 2015 deadline.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2015 National General Assembly of Local Government - Delegates

File: S02133

Vide: GB.3

For Council to determine its elected delegates to the 2015 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

A. That Councillors are to advise the General Manager if they wish to attend the 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government.

B. That Council determines its voting delegate for the debating session is the Mayor, Councillor Jennifer Anderson.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

24 Melbourne Road East Lindfield - Alterations and Additions – Enclosure of an Existing Balcony and Construction of an Ensuite Bathroom

File: DA0396/14

Vide: GB.4

To determine Development Application DA0396/14 proposing alterations and additions – enclosure of an existing balcony and construction of an ensuite bathroom

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

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

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, is of the opinion that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards to clause 46 of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance is well founded. The Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case.

AND

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, being satisfied that the objection under SEPP No. 1 is well founded and also being of the opinion that the granting of consent to DA0396/14 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA0396/14 for alterations and additions on land at 24 Melbourne Road, East Lindfield, for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions that identify approved plans:

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

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

Drawing no.	Drawn by	Dated
2861 - site plan, plan, elevations, section	Architronics Building Design	Revision A - 24/02/2015

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

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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Structural adequacy (alterations and additions)

Prior to commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that that those components of the building to be retained and/or altered will be structurally sound and able to withstand the construction process.

Note: Evidence from a qualified practising structural engineer, demonstrating compliance with the above and detailing, where relevant, means of support for those parts of the retained building shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development can be undertaken in accordance with accepted construction practices as indicated on the endorsed development plans, without the need for modification of the consent.

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

5. 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.

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

6. 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.

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Drainage to existing system

Stormwater runoff from all new impervious areas and subsoil drainage systems shall be piped to the existing site drainage system. The installation of new drainage components must be completed by a licensed contractor in accordance with AS3500.3 (Plumbing Code) and the BCA. No stormwater runoff is to be placed into the Sydney Water sewer system. If an illegal sewer connection is found during construction, the drainage system must be rectified to the satisfaction of Council and Sydney Water.

Reason: To protect the environment.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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:

18. 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.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield - Potential Heritage Conservation Area Review

File: S10099

Vide: GB.6

To have Council to consider the findings of the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, Potential Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) Review, prepared by Perumal Murphy Alessi Heritage Consultants (PMA), for a non-statutory public exhibition.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

A. That the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, Potential Heritage Conservation Area Review, prepared by Perumal Murphy Alessi Heritage Consultants be placed on non-statutory public exhibition for 28 days after being amended in accordance with the Manager Urban and Heritage Planning’s memorandum dated 10 March 2015 regarding the deletion of bullet point 7 Protect curtilage and element within Swain Gardens and Killara Park from page 8 of Attachment 2 to the report namely PMA – Middle Harbour Road Heritage Inventory Sheet.

B. That a report be brought to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping

File: S02294

Vide: GB.7

To report on the exhibition period associated with the Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping to be carried out in public places for the purposes of law enforcement associated with illegal dumping.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

That Council adopt the Policy for Covert Electronic Surveillance for Illegal Dumping.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Motions of which due Notice has been given

Council Notification Policy for Graffiti and Dumping on NSW Public Authority Properties in Ku-ring-gai

File: S05122

Vide: NM.1

Notice of Motion from Councillor Szatow dated 2 March 2015

NSW Public Authorities with property and assets in Ku-ring-gai are continually defaced by graffiti and subject to illegal dumping.

Examples are the Gordon RailCorp substation on the corner of Henry Street and Werona Avenue Gordon; The Sydney Water Reservoir on Pacific Highway in Killara, railway land in Culworth Avenue Killara .

In spite of numerous phone calls and e-mails by staff over a number of years and the personal representation of Ward Councillors, the graffiti and dumping has not been satisfactorily addressed by the relevant authorities.

Clearly our present policy and system of notification needs addressing.

Therefore I move that:

“1. A report be brought to Council advising of the relevant Council Policies and Procedures currently in place to address graffiti and illegal dumping on land belonging to State Authorities.

2. That Council write to the Local Members following the State Election requesting action by the State Authorities to address graffiti and illegal dumping on State Authority property.”

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Ossip)

That the above Notice of Motion, as printed, be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

GENERAL BUSINESS (cont)

Council resolved that the meeting be closed during the discussion of the matter ‘Renewal of Air Stratum Lease over Wade Lane Gordon’ in accordance with section 10A(2)(d)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis that the item involves the receipt and discussion of commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

This resolution was moved by Councillors Berlioz and Fornari-Orsmond and

was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

On balance, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of information about ‘Renewal of Air Stratum Lease over Wade Lane Gordon’ outweighs the public interest in maintaining openness and transparency in council decision-making because the disclosure of this information may confer a commercial advantage to a competitor of Council.

Council resolved to return to Open Council

after a Motion moved by Councillors Berlioz and Szatow

was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Renewal of Air Stratum Lease over Wade Lane Gordon

File: S07252/6

Vide: GB.5

To seek Council approval to renew the lease for the Wade Lane Air-bridge with the current lessee for a term of ten (10) years with a ten (10) year option.

Resolved:

(Moved: Councillors Szatow/Berlioz)

A. That, subject to securing the approval of the appropriate delegate in the Department of Planning and Environment, Council approve of the grant of a lease to Perpetual Trustees Ltd (Charter Hall Retail Management Ltd as the Responsible Entity for the Lessee) of a stratum for Wade Lane Air-bridge in accordance with section 149 of the Roads Act 1993 on the terms contained in the report.

B. That Council approve of an approach being made to the Department of Planning and Environment to obtain formal delegation for Council to be able to grant future leases under section 149 of the Roads Act 1993 in line with similar delegations given to a number of other Councils.

C. That the Mayor and General Manager are delegated authority to execute all documentation associated with the lease.

D. That the General Manager or his delegate are authorised to conclude the lease on the terms and conditions contained in the report.

E. That Council approve the affixing of the Common Seal to any necessary documents.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

828 Pacific Highway Gordon – Update

File: S09285/3

Vide: QN.1

Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki

Can Council be updated on progress of 828 Pacific Highway, please?

Answer by the General Manager

We will be happy to send something out to Councillors.

Canoon Road Netball Courts – Night Lighting

File: S09042

Vide: QN.2

Question Without Notice from Councillor Elaine Malicki

Why did the recent North Shore Times article on netball in Canoon Road raise the point that night lighting is recommended for approval in an upcoming meeting? This is very unusual.

Answer by Director Strategy and Environment

I was asked the question several times during the week. I didn’t say it was by one person, it was by a number of people. In terms of the comment Councillor Malicki made, I wasn’t aware that there was dissatisfaction with the answer I provided. The material that was consulted on late last year, specifically and clearly, refers to night lighting in terms of consideration by Council at that particular point in time. I have certainly had no conversation with any person about that.

The Meeting closed at 7.20pm

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 10 March 2015 (Pages 1 - 17) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 31 March 2015.

__________________________ __________________________

General Manager Mayor / Chairperson

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 applies to 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.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
Council leads the community by advocating, influencing and participating in policy development to the benefit of the local area	Council actively engages with stakeholders to inform the development of Council’s strategies and plans as appropriate	Pursue opportunities to contribute to policy development affecting Ku-ring-gai at state and regional levels

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.4 / 49

Item GB.4	DA0005/14
	25 February 2015

development application

Summary Sheet

Report title:	65 Roland Avenue Wahroonga - Torrens Title Subdivision into Two Lots
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.4

Application No:	DA0005/14
Property Details:	65 Roland Avenue, Wahroonga Lot & DP No: Lot 3 DP 369490 Site area (m²): 6058m² Zoning: Residential 2(c)
Ward:	Comenarra
Proposal/Purpose:	To determine Development Application No. DA0005/14 for the subdivision of one lot into two lots including tree removal and associated civil works.
Type of Consent:	Integrated- S.100B Rural Fires Act
Applicant:	Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd
Owner:	Mr N Pocock and Mrs I Pocock
Date Lodged:	10 January 2014
Recommendation:	Approval

Purpose of Report

To determine Development Application No. DA0005/14 for the subdivision of one lot into two lots including tree removal and associated civil works. The matter is reported to Council as the proposal involves a Torrens title subdivision of bushfire prone land and contains remnant bushland vegetation.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces & Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P3.1 The built environment delivers attractive, interactive and sustainable living and working environments.

A high standard of design quality and building environmental performance is achieved in new development.

Assessment of applications is consistent with Council’s adopted LEPs and DCPs.

Executive Summary

Issues: SEPP 1 objection (access corridor width), vegetation and riparian impacts,

Submissions: 1 objection

Land and Environment Court: N/A

Recommendation: Approval

History

Pre-DA

No pre-DA consultation was undertaken by the applicant.

DA History

10 January 2014	Application lodged
22 January to 14 February 2014	Application notified to neighbouring properties. 1 submission was received.
13 March 2014	A letter was sent to the applicant advising of outstanding issues relating to: Biodiversity - Amendments to the 7 part test assessment of significance - Amendments to the vegetation management plan - Bushfire management impacts on areas identified as riparian and biodiversity significant Landscaping - tree impacts generated by indicative building footprints, stormwater pipes and driveway Engineering - additional plans - method for stormwater disposal - amendments to driveway - details regarding the provision of essential services
1 April 2014	RFS bushfire safety authority was issued pursuant to section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997
15 May 2014	Amended plans/documentation were submitted.
24 July 2014	A second letter was sent to the applicant advising of outstanding issues relating to: Biodiversity - Bushfire management impacts on areas identified as riparian and biodiversity significant
20 August 2014	Amended documentation received by Council.
14 October 2014	RFS Bushfire safety authority issued based on amended plans.

The Site

Site description

The site is a battle-axe shaped lot with a total area of 6058m²situated on the low, north-western side of Roland Avenue. The site contains a single brick dwelling, free-standing garage, cabana and a swimming pool accessed via an 83-88 metres long access handle.

The site is divided into three tiered levels, terminating at the Category 2 watercourse which forms the rear boundary. The site is vegetated at the lower and mid levels with Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest (SGGF) and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) located in the top tier along the southeast (side) boundary the site.

Surrounding development

The site is described in Council’s Visual Character Study area as an area established after 1968 and is characterised by natural features such as rock outcrops, creek lines and native vegetation. The area is also characterised by streetscapes with detached residences on single lots varying in size from 863m² to 4186m². Properties surrounding the site consist of battle-axe and regular shaped allotments, accessed from Roland Avenue.

The Proposal

The application proposes:

- Removal of 25 trees and partial site clearing

- subdivision of the site into 2 Torrens title allotments, comprising two battle-axe allotments as follows:

· Proposed Lot 1

Site area: 2595m²(excluding access corridor)

Frontage: 3.95 metres

· Proposed Lot 2

Site area: 2654m²(excluding access corridor)

Frontage: 3.95 metres

This application does not propose demolition of the existing structures on the site.

Consultation

Community

In accordance with Council's Notification DCP 56, owners of adjoining properties were given notice of the application. One submission was received in response, from:

1. Mr AM Baghaei-Nanehkaran & Mrs J Baghaei-Nanehkaran- 63 Roland Avenue, Wahroonga

The submission raised the following issues:

Access corridor is too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other safely

Council’s Development Engineer has not raised any concerns regarding the width of the proposed driveway. Two passing bays are provided which allow for two vehicles to pass each other safely (refer to Engineering comments below).

Increased vehicle traffic and noise generation

The subdivision itself does not generate any additional vehicle movements. Applications for the future construction of dwellings on the proposed allotments will need to provide the required car parking on site. Nonetheless, the size of the proposed allotments suggests that this can be easily achieved.

Increased heavy vehicle construction traffic and noise generation

Apart from tree removal, the establishment of an asset protection zone and minor civil works, it is unlikely that there will be a noticeable increase in construction traffic. A condition of consent is recommended (Condition 26) restricting construction within 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.

Applications for the future construction of dwellings on the proposed allotments will also need to consider how construction traffic and noise generation are to be managed.

Increased residential density and fire safety within bushfire prone lands

The site is zoned Residential 2(c) and E4 Environmental Living under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance and Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013, respectively and satisfies the minimum lot size requirements under both environmental planning instruments.

The NSW Rural Fire Service has issued the application with a bush fire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, subject to conditions (Condition 57).

Dwelling footprint for proposed Lot 1 is 1m for the side boundary

The notional building footprint for proposed Lot 1 is located 5.7 metres from the north-eastern side boundary and complies with Development Control Plan No. 38 Residential Design Manual (refer to Local Provisions assessment below).

Potential for overshadowing on open space affecting the pool and front gardens

The impact of privacy and overshadowing upon adjoining, established properties will be matters to be considered and addressed as part of any future application for dwelling houses.

Tree removal associated with the subdivision

Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Assessment Officers have not raised concerns regarding the proposed tree removal.

Within Council

Ecology

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:

Vegetation

The vegetation within the lower and mid-levels of the subject property was identified as Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest (SSGF) a non-threatened vegetation type. The vegetation within the upper managed area of the property is considered to comprise part of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) an endangered ecological community listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Threatened species

No threatened flora or endangered populations were identified on the subject property during the site inspection. The intact areas of native vegetation within the subject property would provide suitable habitat for threatened flora & fauna species.

The trees within the subdivision area would provide suitable foraging habitat for transient species e.g. the Grey-headed Flying Fox which may seasonaly forage upon flowering Eucalypts and Angophora species.

Biodiversity controls

The native vegetation (Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest & Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest) within the site (outlined in red) has been mapped as an area of biodiversity significance under the KPSO.

The proposed subdivision will result in the removal of vegetation from land mapped as biodiversity significance.

Riparian controls

The site outlined in red below is mapped as containing a Category 2 riparian corridor KPSO which occurs on the northern side of the existing dwelling. In accordance with Council riparian policy & riparian controls the Category 2 watercourse requires a 20 metres core riparian zone (CRZ). The proposed asset protection zones (APZ) is well within the Category 2 riparian corridor.

Review of Flora and Fauna Assessment

The level of survey effort to detect threatened flora and fauna species is accordance with the Introduction and Amphibians by DECCW (April 2009) and the Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Development and Activities - Working Draft by DEC (November 2004).

The flora and fauna assessment prepared by Abel Ecology has adequately assessed the proposal in accordance with section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal will not significantly affect habitat for threatened fauna species which are known to reside within the locality of the site e.g. Grey-headed Flying-fox.

Bushfire management within land identified as Biodiversity and riparian

A review of the land use advice provided by the Rural Fire Service indicates that a 31 metres APZ is required to protect the dwelling sites.

As stated above the asset protection zone (APZ) is well within land mapped as an area of biodiversity significance and riparian lands.

The proposal nominates the removal of eight small sub-canopy trees to accommodate the proposed APZ. The understorey and groundcover vegetation within the proposed APZ is already managed.

Note: It is important to note that the extent of the proposed tree removal on site does not greatly exceed that what is currently allowed to protect the existing dwelling house for fire protection purposes.

Ongoing management within lots

A vegetation management plan (VMP) has been prepared which addresses the required management of the area of land identified as biodiversity significance with regards to the fire protection. The VMP ensures that the ecological values of the biodiversity area as defined under KPSO are maintained and are not likely to be detrimentally affected by the proposal. Ecological values are maintained primarily through weeding works which will enhance the native understorey but more specifically mechanisms such as selected removal of native vegetation to achieve fire protection, in short not all vegetation will be removed as a result of the proposal.

The site contains extensive rock outcropping which helps achieve the desired management of the ground layer as an inner protection area (IPA) due to limited fuel loading.

The VMP is sufficient to ensure the enhancement, protection and ensure the long-term viability of the SSGF community/vegetation upon the site. The VMP demonstrates compliance with proposed Asset Protection Zones and demonstrates the retention of vegetation to ensure compliance with Council’s KPSO Biodiversity Land controls.

The VMP has selected appropriate species which are to be planted that are representative of SSGF community within the rear of lot 2, soft (Non-sclerophyllic) species have been selected to be planted over sclerophyllic species as they have a lower combustion.

The VMP describes each task necessary for the implementation of the plan, the duration and priority. Maps, diagrams and plant species lists are contained within the plan. The VMP describes the existing vegetation and natural features to be retained, proposed vegetation, sediment and erosion control and land stabilisation works.

Conclusion

The application is acceptable on ecological grounds, subject to conditions.

Landscaping

Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:

Tree impacts

A total of 113 trees were assessed by the arborist. A total of 25 trees are to be removed for the proposed subdivision, including 17 trees for fire protection within the asset protection zone and 8 trees for the proposed passing bay as follows:

*Tree / location*	*Comments*
T95.5, T95.6, T95.7, T95.8, T95.9 & T95.10 6 x Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Crippsii' (Golden Cripps Cypress) / Southern side of access handle (Passing bay)	8 to 10 metres high in fair health, suppressed canopies
T1, T2 & T3 – 3 x Ligustrum lucidum (Large-leaved Privet) / within the designated asset protection zone	Weed species
T19 – Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	18 metres high in fair health
T52 – Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) / within the designated asset protection zone	12 metres high in good health, suppressed canopy
T53 - Ligustrum lucidum (Large-leaved Privet) / within the designated asset protection zone	Weed species
T54 – Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / within the designated asset protection zone	5 metres high bin good health
T55 – Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) / within the designated asset protection zone	10 metres high in good health
T58 – Pinus radiata (Monterey Pine) / within the designated asset protection zone	15 metres high in poor health
T61 – Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) / within the designated asset protection zone	15 metres high in good health
T65 – Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	14 metres high in good health
T67 – Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / within the designated asset protection zone	6 metres high in fair health
T68 – Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / within the designated asset protection zone	6 metres high in good health
T69 – Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	16 metres high in good health
T70 – Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	14 metres high in good health
T73 – Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	9 metres high in fair health
T74 – Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	7 metres high in fair health
T93 – Cupressus species (Cypress) / Eastern boundary of Lot 1	12 metres high in poor health
T112 – Cupressus torulosa (Bhutan Cypress) / Eastern side of building footprint on Lot 2	13 metres high with good vigour, unstable branching structure

No objection is raised to the removal of the 17 trees for the establishment of an APZ given that this is a statutory requirement under the NSW Rural Fires Act 1997. The removal of a further 8 trees to allow for the driveway passing bay is acceptable given that the trees are of moderate landscape value and their removal will not be evident from Roland Avenue.

Stormwater plan

No landscape issues

Conclusion

The proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions.

Engineering

Council’s Development Engineer commented on the proposal as follows:

Stormwater disposal

Given the site is heavily vegetated and possible impacts to the core riparian zone and bushfire asset protection zone, a direct outlet to the watercourse may not be the optimum means of stormwater disposal. Each lot will be able to implement its own water management system at building stage without affecting the other lot, so it is not considered necessary for systems to be provided at subdivision stage. The revised stormwater plans have been amended to only consider capturing runoff from the new driveway and passing pay areas to be directed and conveyed to a 25,200L on-site detention tank located within the lower portion of the right of carriageway and the overflow directed to a grated trench drain located directly behind the existing sandstone retaining wall of Lot 2.

The Stormwater Management Plans whilst acceptable for DA purposes will need to be amended prior to the issue of the construction certificate. Condition 19 requires that the overflow from the detention tank is directed to a bioretention system to improve the quality of stormwater flowing to the watercourse and natural environment. Design details of the bioretention system including plan and section is to be in accordance with the Water Sensitive Urban Design ‘Technical Design Guidelines’. The project arborist and ecologist must comment on the stormwater management plans and refer to them specifically in their reports.

The scheme advanced in the Stormwater Management Plans 29160-H1/A & H2/A, dated 1/5/2014 and prepared by Jack Hodgson Consultants P/L, is considered satisfactory for this type of development and satisfies the requirements outlined in Council’s Water Management DCP No.47.

Vehicular access

The applicant proposes to utilise the existing 7.87m wide access handle by providing a right of carriage way of 3.765m wide for each property and reciprocal rights of way which is acceptable.

Given that the driveway is approximately 83.5m in length, two separate passing bays has been provided, one at the end of the driveway and the other approximately 35m down the right of carriageway with the driveway widened to at least 5.5m over the length of at least 10m. The location and dimensions of the passing bay satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of AS2890.1:2004. Council’s Landscape officer raises no objection to the location of the passing bays and the removal of trees for their construction.

Indicative building footprints are shown on the drawings accompanying the development application which would presumably accommodate two (2) off street car parking spaces for each allotment. The plans now show an indicative driveway layout leading to the garage for each allotment as well as a turning bay area for vehicles to safely manoeuvre on site and leave in a forward direction as per the manoeuvring requirements of a B85 vehicle The swept paths for the passing bay is also compliant as per the B99 design vehicle allowing two large vehicles passing each other whilst travelling in the opposite directions.

Plan of Subdivision

A preliminary plan of subdivision has been submitted which is acceptable for DA purposes. All physical works are located within the property boundaries with the stormwater pipeline and point of discharge contained within the proposed easement.

Submission of an 88B instrument and Plan of Subdivision is required by Condition 51. This is to create all required easements, right-of-carriage-way, positive covenants, restrictions-on-use or other burdens /benefits as may be required.

Conclusion

Council’s Development Engineer finds the proposal acceptable in relation to engineering issues, subject to conditions.

Outside Council

NSW Rural Fire Service

Under the provisions of section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is Integrated Development on the basis that a bush safety authority from the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service is required under the provisions of s.100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, due to the proposal involving subdivision of bush fire prone land for residential purposes.

The RFS by way of letter dated 14 August 2014, provided a bushfire safety authority, subject to the terms in Condition 57.

Statutory Provisions

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Rural Fires Act 1997

Water Management Act 2000

Under the provisions of section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal was not considered Integrated Development on the basis that no significant works will occur within 40 metres of the watercourse at the rear boundary. Accordingly, a Controlled Activity Approval is not required under the provisions of Part 3 of the Water Management Act 2000.

State Environmental Planning Policies

Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (SREP SHC)

SREP SHC covers the area of Sydney Harbour, including Parramatta River and its tributaries and the Lane Cove River. The plan aims to establish a balance between promoting a prosperous working harbour, maintaining a healthy and sustainable waterway environment and promoting recreational access to the foreshore and waterways. It establishes planning principles and controls for the catchment as a whole.

SREP SHC applies to the site as it is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment. Under Division 2 of SREP SHC, a consent authority must take into consideration all relevant matters under this Division.

A rear of the site is mapped as containing a Category 2 riparian corridor. Council’s Biodiversity Assessment Officer has assessed the development proposal in this regard and finds it acceptable in terms of potential impacts to water quality and riparian matters and is consistent with the relevant matters listed under Division 2 of SREP SHC (refer to Ecology comments above).

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO)

Permissibility

Subdivision within the Residential 2(c) zone is permissible under Clause 23 of the KPSO. Clause 58A of the KPSO provides that a person shall not subdivide land to which the Ordinance applies except with the development consent.

Clause 58B sets out the subdivision requirements for dwelling house lots and provides the following minimum requirements for Residential 2(c) subdivisions:

Part A: Development standards

Development standard	Proposed	Complies
Subdivision for dwelling houses
Site area: 1300m²(min)(exc. access corridor)	Lot 1:2595m² Lot 2: 2654m²	YES YES
Access corridor width: 4.6m	7.87m	YES

Access corridor width

A SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged in respect of the access corridor width (Clause 58B (3)(c)(iii)), however this is not required as the two sites will benefit from a right of carriageway that, when all three access handles are combined, will exceed the minimum 4.6 metres access corridor width standard.

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance – LEP 218 Biodiversity and Heritage (LEP 218)

Cl.61L Biodiversity protection

The subject site is mapped as an area of Biodiversity Significance and, as such, the biodiversity protection provisions of LEP 218 apply.

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the requirements of Cl 61L.

Cl.61M Riparian land and waterways

The subject site is mapped as an area of Natural Resources Riparian Land and, as such, the riparian land and waterways provisions of the LEP apply.

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposal is satisfactory with regard to the requirements of Cl 61M.

Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Draft KLEP)

The Draft KLEP was on exhibition from 25 March 2013 to 6 May 2013. The Draft KLEP was gazetted 5 March 2015. The Draft KLEP does not take effect until 2 April 2015 and includes savings provisions for applications made prior to the date it takes effect. Under the provisions of the Draft KLEP the site is zoned E4 Environmental Living (E4), subdivision is permissible within the E4 zone with development consent.

This assessment report has considered the following provisions of the exhibited Draft KLEP:

Land use table

It is considered that the proposal would not contradict the following draft objectives established under the E4 zoning:

· to provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values,

· to ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values,

· to ensure development does not result in further fragmentation of ecological communities, biodiversity corridors or other significant vegetation or habitat.

Part 4 Principal development standards

Principal development standards	Proposed	Complies
Section 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size
Site area: 1500m²(min)(exc. access handle) Site dimensions: 18 metres wide at 12 metres from the street frontage of the lot.	Lot 1:2595m² Lot 2: 2654m² Lot 1:32m Lot 2: 28m	YES YES YES YES
Section 4.1A Minimum lot depth for subdivision of bush fire prone land
Slope 5⁰to 10⁰:65 metres lot depth	Lot 1: 60m Lot 2: 54m	NO NO

Section 4.1A Minimum lot depth for subdivision of bushfire prone land

The site has been identified on Council’s Bushfire Prone Land Map as being within the vegetation buffer. The objective of this clause is to:

“(a) to ensure that lot depths allow for adequate setbacks to a bushfire hazard to minimise risk to life, property and the environment from bushfire events and bushfire management measures.”

The site is located on land with blue edging on the minimum lot size map and does apply to this proposal; however, this development standard has been removed from the gazetted DKLEP and therefore requires minimal consideration regarding this non-compliance. The proposal has been issued with a Bushfire Safety Authority from the RFS. The environmental impacts resulting from Bush Fire Safety Authority, particularly with regard to achieving the Asset Protection Zone within areas with riparian and biodiversity significance have been considered by Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer and are acceptable.

Part 6 Additional Local Provisions

Biodiversity Protection

The subject site is mapped as an area of Biodiversity Significance and, as such, the biodiversity protection provisions apply. The subject proposal is compatible with the existing low density character of the area. The vegetation within the site forms part of a urban vegetated corridor “biolink” which connects to Browns Field.

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has provided an assessment of the proposed development against the biodiversity lands controls in accordance with the Draft KLEP. The proposal is acceptable in this regard (refer to Ecology comments above).

Riparian Land and waterways

The subject site is mapped as an area of Natural Resources Riparian Land and, as such, the riparian land and waterways provisions of the Draft KLEP apply.

Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer has provided an assessment of the proposed development against the riparian lands controls in accordance with the Draft KLEP. The proposal is acceptable in this regard (refer to Ecology comments above).

Development Control Plan No. 38 - Ku-ring-gai Residential Design Manual (DCP 38)

With regard to building setback controls of DCP 38, the proposed subdivision does not prevent any future dwellings on proposed Lot 5 and Lot 2 from achieving compliant setbacks.

Development Control Plan No. 43 – Car Parking

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines for the design of parking and service areas and demonstrates safe and efficient vehicular access, consistent with the desirable characteristics and environmental standards expected in the Ku-ring-gai area.

Development Control Plan No. 47 – Water Management

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

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010

The Section 94 contributions applicable to the proposal have been calculated and a condition of consent is recommended requiring the payment of those contributions (Condition 22).

LIKELY IMPACTS

As demonstrated by this assessment, the proposed subdivision is assessed as having an acceptable impact upon the surrounding natural, social, economic and built environments.

SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

PUBLIC INTEREST

Approval of the application is assessed as being in the public interest as the lot sizes proposed are consistent with those of surrounding properties and the minimum lot size prescribed under the Draft KLEP.

Conclusion

The proposed subdivision is considered to be acceptable when assessed against the matters for consideration of s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and, as such, the accompanying SEPP 1 objection to the access corridor width standard is well founded and the application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation:

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to DA0005/14 for a Torrens title subdivision of 1 lot into 2 lots on land at 65 Roland Avenue, Wahroonga, for a period of two [2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions that identify approved plans:

1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)

Plan no.	Drawn by	Dated
4706-DET, Plan: Showing detail and levels with proposed subdivision at No. 65 Roland Avenue, Wahroonga being Lot 3 in DP 369490	USHER & COMPANY Surveying & Land Development Consultants	01/05/2014
29160-H1/A, Plan: Stormwater management plan proposed subdivision at No. 65 Roland Avenue, Wahroonga	Jack Hodgson Consultants PTY LTD	12/05/2014

Document(s)	Dated
Bush fire risk assessment and certification, Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited	4/12/2013

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

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

2. Asbestos works

Reason: To ensure public safety

3. WAE plans for stormwater management and disposal

Prior to issue of the Final Certificate of compliance, 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 Final 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.

4. Certification of drainage works

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

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

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

· that the bioretention system has been constructed in accordance in accordance with the Water Sensitive Urban Design ‘Technical Design Guidelines’ http://www.wsud.org/

· 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

Where an on-site detention system has been constructed, the on-site detention certification sheet contained in Appendix 4 of DCP 47 must 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 the Final Certificate.

Reason: To protect the environment.

5. Tree identification

Prior to works commencing the existing trees shall be numbered in accordance with the arborists report listed below 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.

Report	Prepared by	Dated
Arboricultural Impact Assessment	Footprint Green Pty Ltd	12 May 2014

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

6. Notice of commencement

Reason: Statutory requirement.

7. Sediment controls

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

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

Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.

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. 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.

Tree/location	Radius from trunk
T95.1 to 95.4, T95.11 to 95.21, T96.1 to 96.23 38 x Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Crippsii' (Golden Cripps Cypress) / Southern and northern sides of access handle	Fence to be erected along both sides of the existing driveway
T99 - Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Crippsii' (Golden Cripps Cypress) / Eastern side of building footprint on Lot 1	5 metres
T84 - Cedrus deodara (Himalayan Cedar) / South eastern corner of Lot 2	3 metres
T103 to 109 - 7 x Cedrus deodara (Himalayan Cedar) / Northern side boundary of Lot 1	4 metres

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

Tree/location

T85 - Cedrus deodara (Himalayan Cedar) / Eastern boundary of Lot 2

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

13. Tree protection measures inspection

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

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

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

14. Civil design drawings

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit, for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority, scale construction plans and specifications in relation to the following:

· stormwater management and disposal system for the development. The plan(s) must be based on the approved drawings. The above construction drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified and experienced civil/hydraulic engineer in accordance with Council’s Water Management Development Control Plan 47, Australian Standards 3500.2 and 3500.3 - Plumbing and Drainage Code and the Building Code of Australia.

· civil and structural details of the driveway access to the main body of each lot. The driveway design are to be prepared by a qualified civil/traffic engineer in accordance with AS2890.1:2004. Plans and cross and longitudinal sections are to be prepared at a recognised scale.

Reason: To protect the environment and provide suitable vehicular access.

15. Project ecologist

A Project Ecologist shall be commissioned prior to the release of the Construction Certificate to ensure all bushland/environmental protection measures are carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.

The Project Ecologist shall have a minimum qualification of TAFE Certificate III in Bush Regeneration or Conservation and Land Management - Natural Area Restoration. He/she shall have at least 4 years experience in the management of native bushland in the Sydney region. Details of the arborist including name, business name and contact details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with a copy to Council.

Reason: To ensure the protection of existing biodiversity values of the site.

16. Nest boxes

Prior to works commencing and/or tree removal works being undertaken six nest boxes comprising of 2 small mammal, 2 microbat & 2 medium mammal, shall be installed within the retained trees within the site. The nest boxes shall be constructed of durable wood material (marine ply) and installed at a minimum height of 6 metres from the ground and positioned under the direction of a qualified ecologist.

The qualified ecologist must hold an Animal Ethics Permit from the Office of Environment & Heritage and a wildlife licence under section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage.

Reason: To ensure protection of fauna species.

17. Fauna protection

Prior to works commencing and/or tree removal works a qualified ecologist shall investigate all trees for fauna occupation. In accordance with appropriate licensing requirements the ecologist shall supervise the relocation of any fauna found within the trees approved for removal.

The qualified ecologist must hold an Animal Ethics Permit from the Office of Environment & Heritage and a wildlife licence under section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage.

Evidence of engagement of the qualified ecologist and the required licensing must be provided to the Private Certifying Authority with a copy to Council prior to the trees being removed.

Reason: To ensure protection of fauna species.

18. Project arborist

A project Arborist shall be commissioned prior to works commencing 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

19. Amendments to approved engineering plans

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved Stormwater Management Plans 29160-H1/A & H2/A dated 1/5/2014 prepared by Jack Hodgson Consultants P/L have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:

The above engineering plan(s) shall be amended as follows:

That the overflow from the detention tank is to be directed to a bioretention system to improve the quality of stormwater flowing to the watercourse and natural environment. Design details of the bioretention system including plan and section is to be in accordance with the Water Sensitive Urban Design ‘Technical Design Guidelines’. Refer to http://www.wsud.org/

The above amendments are required to ensure compliance with Ku-ring-gai Council Water Management Development Control Plan 47.

Note: An amended engineering plan, prepared by a qualified engineer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

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

20. Excavation for services

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

Alternatively if underground services must be located within the canopy spread of any protected tree/s the plan shall be endorsed by the project arborist outlining any tree protection measures required. A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.

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

21. Infrastructure restorations fee

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

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

e) In this condition:

Reason: To maintain public infrastructure.

22. Section 94 development contributions - other than identified 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:

Key Community Infrastructure	Amount
Local parks and local sporting facilities	$20,183.90
Local recreation and cultural facilities; Local social facilities	$3,454.09
Total:	$23,637.99

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 as at the December 2014 quarter and 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. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.

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 1 = $20,000.

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:

23. Road opening permit

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

24. Prescribed conditions

· 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.

25. Hours of work

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.

26. Hours of work

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

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

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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. Site notice

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

The site notice must:

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

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

· be durable and weatherproof

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

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

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

30. Dust control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· cleaning of footpaths and roadways shall be carried out daily

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

31. 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.

32. Toilet facilities

Reason: Statutory requirement.

33. Road reserve safety

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

34. Services

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. 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.

37. Arborist monitoring and documentation

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 release of the Subdivision Certificate.

Tree/location	Time of inspection
Trees to be retained in accordance with the Arboricultural impact assessment by Footprint Green dated 12 May 2014	At the commencement of tree works followed by fortnightly inspections until the completion of works on site

· 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.

38. Treatment of tree roots

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

Reason: To protect existing trees.

39. 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:

Tree/location	Radius from trunk
T95.1 to 95.4, T95.11 to 95.21, T96.1 to 96.23 38 x Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Crippsii' (Golden Cripps Cypress) / Southern and northern sides of access handle	2.3 metres

Reason: To protect existing trees.

40. Approved tree works

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

Tree / location	Comments
T95.5, T95.6, T95.7, T95.8, T95.9 & T95.10 6 x Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Crippsii' (Golden Cripps Cypress) / Southern side of access handle	Remove
T1, T2 & T3 - 3 x Ligustrum lucidum (Large-leaved Privet) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T19 - Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T52 - Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T53 - Ligustrum lucidum (Large-leaved Privet) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T54 - Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T55 - Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T58 - Pinus radiata (Monterey Pine) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T61 - Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T65 - Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T67 - Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T68 - Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T69 - Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T70 - Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T73 - Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T74 - Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) / within the designated asset protection zone	Remove
T93 - Cupressus species (Cypress) / Eastern boundary of Lot 1	Remove
T112 - Cupressus torulosa (Bhutan Cypress) / Eastern side of building footprint on Lot 2	Remove

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

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

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. On site retention of waste dockets

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

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

Reason: To protect the environment.

Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Subdivision certificate:

44. Arborist report

Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be provided with a report by the project arborist, with a copy of the report issued to Council, detailing the monitoring of all tree protection measures listed in the conditions of consent.

The report shall include the times or phases of works carried out including date, brief description of the works inspected, and any mitigating measures prescribed.

Reason: To protect existing vegetation.

45. OSD positive covenant

Prior issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the applicant shall create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the on-site stormwater detention facilities on site. The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to appendices of Ku-ring-gai Water Management Development Control Plan No. 47). The location of the on-site detention facilities for all dwellings is to be noted on the final plan of subdivision.

Reason: To ensure maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. Issue of Subdivision Certificate

The Subdivision Certificate must not be issued until all conditions of development consent have been satisfied and a Final Certificate of compliance has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is completed prior to transfer of responsibility for the site and development to another person.

51. 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.

52. 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 Final Certificate of compliance

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.

53. 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.

54. Asset protection zone - Section 88b instrument

Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate, the Certifying Authority is to 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 for a distance of distance in metres, in width inside the location/boundary of the property/lot no for the purpose of an asset protection zone, the terms of which state that this area shall be maintained consistent with Rural Fire Service guidelines.

Reason: Bush fire safety.

55. Compliance with bush fire assessment, report and certificate

Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all recommendations listed in the bush fire risk assessment and report below have been complied with:

Document title	Prepared by	Dated
Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report	Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Ltd	4/12/2013

Reason: Statutory requirement.

Conditions to be satisfied at all times:

56. Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)

The Vegetation Management Plan, prepared by Footprint Green, dated 14^th of March 2014, is endorsed in its entirety.

Plan/document	Designer	Drawing No.	Date
Vegetation Management Plan	Footprint Green	vmpc2.01 (REV 3)	4^th of September 2014

· All weeding removal, weed techniques, environmental protection measures, planting works and ongoing maintenance works are to be carried out in accordance with the VMP.

· All noxious and environmental weeds are to be removed from the within the site.

· All vegetation works are to be conducted by a suitably qualified bush regenerator. The minimum qualifications minimum qualifications and experience (for bush regenerator) are a TAFE Certificate 2 in Bushland Regeneration and one year demonstrated experience (for other personnel). In addition the site supervisor is to be eligible for full professional membership of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators (AABR).

Reason: To ensure the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and riparian lands within the site.

57. Integrated referral conditions:

Rural Fire Service

Asset Protection Zone

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

1. At the issue of subdivision certificate and in perpetuity the asset protection zone shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones' as depicted on the plan prepared by Usher & Company numbered 4706-DET Issue 7 and dated 1-05-2014.

Water and Utilities

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

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

Access

The intent of measures for property access is to provide safe access to/from the public road system for fire fighters providing property protection during a bush fire and for occupants faced with evacuation. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

3. Property access roads shall comply with section 4.1.3 (2) of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Landscaping

4. Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Reason: Rural Fire Service requirements.

Scott McInnes

Major Project Planner

Corrie Swanepoel

Manager Development Assessment Services

Selwyn Segall

Team Leader - Development Assessment North

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

Attachments:	A1 View	Attachment A- Zoning map	2015/053571
	A2 View	Attachment B- Notification map	2015/053569
	A3 View	Attachment C- Plan of subdivision	2014/118809
	A4 View	Attachment D- Stormwater management plans	2014/118799

APPENDIX No: 1 - JRPP supplementary report

Item No: GB.5

JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

(Sydney West)

JRPP No	2013SYW094
DA Number	DA0327/13
Local Government Area	Ku-ring-gai
Proposed Development	Demolition of three dwellings at 742, 746 and 746A Pacific Highway. Construction of a 4 storey hospital with 64 beds. Boundary adjustment between 746 and 748 Pacific Highway. Consolidation of 742, 746 and 746A Pacific Highway into a single allotment.
Street Address	742, 746, 746A and 748 Pacific Highway, Gordon
Lot & DP	Lot A DP350224, Lots 1 and 2 DP 851223 and Lot C DP337904.
Applicant	The Lawson Clinic Pty Ltd
Owner	JSNL Pty Ltd, R I A F Pty Ltd
Number of Submissions	Original proposal: 12 submissions and 1 petition Amended proposal: 4 submissions Second amended proposal: 6 submissions
Regional Development Criteria (Schedule 4A of the Act)	The proposed hospital has a CIV of over $5 million and falls into the category of ‘private infrastructure and community facility’
List of All Relevant s79C(1)(a) Matters	SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land SEPP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 Ku-ring-gai LEP Local Centres DCP Development Contributions Plan 2010
List all documents submitted with this report for the panel’s consideration	Attachment A – Amended clause 4.6 variation request Attachment B – Heritage Consultant comments dated 18 December 2014 Attachment C – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 20 February 2015 Attachment D – Request for exemption from Section 94 Contributions Attachment E – Planning Consultant letter responding to JRPP deferral Attachment F – architectural plans Attachment G – landscape plans Attachment H – stormwater plans Attachment I – assessment report considered by JRPP at the meeting on 11 September 2014 Attachment J – JRPP Record of Deferral
Recommendation	Refusal
Report By	Jonathan Goodwill – Executive Assessment Officer

Assessment Report and Recommendation Cover Sheet

742-746 pacific highway, gordon – supplementary report

executive summary

purpose for report:	To address the issues raised by the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) at the 11 September 2014 meeting and for the JRPP to determine Development Application No. 0327/13 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a hospital at 742-748 Pacific Highway, Gordon.
background:	An assessment report was considered by the JRPP on 11 September 2014 where the JRPP resolved to defer the determination pending the submission of additional information by the applicant in response to the issues raised relating to: · isolation of 744 Pacific Highway · setbacks from northern and western boundaries · massing of the western elevation · non compliant building height · excessive retaining wall height · access to open space · car parking · inconsistent plans · stormwater · response to topography · site slope
Comments:	The adequacy of the additional information submitted by the applicant to address the issues raised has been assessed.
recommendation:	Refusal

Legislative requirements

Zoning R4 High Density Residential under Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2013

Permissible Under Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012

Relevant legislation Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

SEPP 55 – Remediation of land

SEPP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012

Local Centres DCP

Development Contributions Plan 2010

Integrated Development No

PURPOSE FOR REPORT

To address the issues raised by the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) at the 13 September 2014 meeting and for the JRPP to determine Development Application No. 0327/13 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a hospital at 742-748 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

BACKGROUND

An assessment report was considered by the JRPP at its meeting of 13 September 2014 where it was resolved to defer the determination pending the submission of additional information by the applicant. The JRPP asked the applicant to address the following:

1. As a threshold issue, whether or not development of 244 Pacific Hwy is practical, or the site is isolated. If the former applies, concept plans are to be provided showing potential development with and without a right of way. In the case of a right of way, legal advice is to be provided demonstrating that such a right of way will remain available over the long term. If the latter case applies and the property is found to be isolated, appropriate evidence of attempts to acquire the property is to be provided. Any valuation of the property must be based on the correct zoning and permissible development.

2. The need for increased setbacks at the northern and western sides of the main building are to be examined, taking into account the neighbouring heritage item to the north and the visual impact on R2 properties to the west.

3. Measures to mitigate the effects of the long western elevation of the main building.

4. Measures to address or otherwise comply with the excessive height at the northern and southern ends of the main building, taking into account its location at a zone interface.

5. Measures to mitigate the perceived excessive height of retaining walls for

driveways to the south of the main building.

6. Demonstration that access to the area of open space to the south is practical and safe.

7. Demonstration of compliance with the parking requirements of Council or RMS or proper justification for any variations thereto.

8. Provision of a completely consistent set of amended plans.

9. Address the non-complying stormwater drainage issues as per the council officer’s report.

10. A building design that better adjusts to the significant north/south gradient of the site, that does not result in unused underbuilding void and reduces the impact on interface properties to the west, potentially by stepping the building into differing levels.

Comments

In response to the deferral, the applicant submitted amended plans and additional information on 27 November 2014. The adequacy of this information to address the issues identified by the JRPP is discussed below.

1. As a threshold issue, whether or not development of 744 Pacific Highway is practical, or the site is isolated. If the former applies, concept plans are to be provided showing potential development with and without a right of way. In the case of a right of way, legal advice is to be provided demonstrating that such a right of way will remain available over the long term. If the latter case applies and the property is found to be isolated, appropriate evidence of attempts to acquire the property is to be provided. Any valuation of the property must be based on the correct zoning and permissible development.

The applicant maintains their view that 744 Pacific Highway is not an isolated site despite the fact that the site does not comply with the minimum site area and minimum frontage development standards specified in Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012. The applicant states that a right of way over part of the driveway which currently services 742 Pacific Highway can be created to facilitate future development of the site as a residential flat building and has provided legal advice to support their view that the right of way will remain available over the long term.

The applicant has also submitted a revised valuation report based on the correct zoning which values 744 Pacific Highway at $1,200,000. Details of attempts made to purchase the site have also been provided. The new valuation of $1,200,000 is less than the original valuation of $1,225,000 which was based on the incorrect zoning. A concern identified in the previous assessment report was that the sale price of 742, 746 and 746A Pacific Highway had not been used to form the valuation, the new valuation advises that these sales were not included as, ‘…these prices reflect a special value to the purchasing/adjoining owner and cannot be considered as market evidence’.

One of the properties used as market evidence is 12-14 Cecil Street, Gordon. This site contains two dwelling houses, is zoned R4 High Density Residential and was sold in May 2014 for $4,109,547 with approved plans for a 37 unit residential flat building development. This site is situated 370 metres to the south-east of the subject site. The sale price of $4,109,547 reflects a value of $110,000 per unit and $1,160 per square metre of site area. If these figures are applied to 744 Pacific Highway the value is between $1,180,880 and $1,320,000, accordingly the valuation of $1,200,000 for 744 Pacific Highway is considered reasonable.

Included in the applicant’s bundle of additional information was an offer to purchase 744 Pacific Highway for $1,750,000. The applicant states that this information is provided for information only as it is their position that the purchase of 744 Pacific Highway is not required because it is not an isolated site. The owner of 744 Pacific Highway initially rejected this offer, however changed his mind several days later and decided to accept the offer. The Lawson Clinic wrote to the owner’s solicitor on 15 December 2014 to discuss the terms of sale. The terms suggested by the Lawson Clinic included a 5% deposit and a 12 months settlement period. The owner rejected these terms and requested a 10% deposit and a 6 week settlement period. On 10 February 2015 the owner advised the Lawson Clinic by letter that he would accept a 10% deposit and a 3 month settlement period. On 3 March 2015 the Lawson Clinic advised Council that they had purchased 744 Pacific Highway but did not intend to incorporate the site into the development at the present time.

Other additional information submitted by the applicant included concept plans for a 3 storey residential flat building development containing 12 dual-aspect apartments with and without a right of way. The concept plans do not address the sloping topography of the site and the size of the basement is excessive, however they do demonstrate that the site can be developed for the purpose of a residential flat building thus achieving the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.

The submission of the new valuation report and concept plans addresses Council’s previous concerns regarding the isolation of 744 Pacific Highway.

The setback from the northern boundary has been increased by 500mm to a minimum of 4.027m. The third storey of the building has also been deleted.

The increased setback and deletion of the third storey addresses Council’ concerns regarding the impact of the building on the heritage significance of the heritage items at 748 Pacific Highway and 750-754 Pacific Highway.

Parts of the western elevation have an increased setback from the boundary and other parts have a reduced setback. The setback of the southern end of the building which has a height of 4 storeys has been reduced from between 6m and 6.58m to 6m. The reduced setback increases the visual impact of the proposal on 3 Bushlands Avenue which is zoned R2.

3. Measures to mitigate the effects of the long western elevation of the main building

The major amendment to the western elevation is the deletion of the third storey over the northern end of the building and adjacent to the eastern side boundary of the dwelling-house at 22 St Johns Avenue. Minor changes to the setback from the western boundary have also been made. The reduction in the height of the northern end of the building significantly reduces the impact of the proposal on the adjacent dwelling-house at 22 St Johns Avenue. The reduced western side setback at the southern end of the building increases the visual impact of the proposal on the adjacent R2 zoned property, 3 Bushlands Avenue.

Figure 1 - original proposal

Figure 2 - amended proposal

4. Measures to address or otherwise comply with the excessive height at the northern and southern ends of the main building, taking into account its location at a zone interface.

The third storey at the northern end of the building has been deleted thus reducing the impact of the development on the adjacent dwelling house 22 St Johns Avenue. The southern end of the building remains non-compliant with the maximum building height development standard of 11.5m. The height of the proposed building is a maximum of 1.3m higher than the height limit.

Figure 3 - height non-compliance, shaded area represents 11.5m height plane

The applicant has submitted an amended clause 4.6 variation request (Attachment A). The request contains detailed justification for the variation, however it fails to explain why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and does not quantify the physical impacts of the non-compliance (i.e. additional overshadowing) on the backyard of the adjacent dwelling house 3 Bushlands Avenue. The failure to adequately address the overshadowing issue is considered a significant concern as the 1.3m height variation will increase the length of the 9am shadow by approximately 3.8m (11%).

The variation request states that the non-compliance achieves a better environmental planning outcome as it minimises the amount of cut and fill. A nexus between cut and fill and the non-compliance with the building height limit cannot be reasonably established as the portion of the building that breaches the height limit is located on the top storey of the building. The Local Centres LEP does not state that a reduction in cut and fill is an objective of the building height development standard.

The site most vulnerable to impacts from the non-compliant building height is 3 Bushlands Avenue. This site is a deep allotment with a relatively narrow width of 15.24 metres. The site contains a split level dwelling and a detached granny flat. The site has not been developed to its potential, significant extensions to the house could be accommodated within the maximum floor space ratio that applies to the site. The backyard of the site is steeply sloping, the ground level of the rear patio is 7 metres lower than the ground level at the rear boundary. The existing two storey dwelling-house at 742 Pacific Highway is visible from the backyard of 3 Bushlands Avenue. The western elevation of the proposed development is approximately 3.9 metres higher than the ridge height of the existing two storey dwelling and 17.9 metres higher than the ground level of the rear patio. The non-compliant portion of the building has a four storey presentation and is located upslope of the backyard of 3 Bushlands Avenue. The non-compliant portion is not set back further from the side boundary than the portions of the building which comply with the height limit. The partial four storey presentation to 3 Bushlands Avenue will have an overbearing impact on the private open space of this dwelling and will unreasonably impact on the amenity of its private open space area. It is not considered unreasonable or unnecessary for the development to comply with the height limit in order to minimise its impact on the backyard of 3 Bushlands Avenue.

5. Measures to mitigate the perceived excessive height of retaining walls for driveways to the south of the main building.

The lower carpark at the southern end of the building is now connected to the upper level carpark by a ramp. The truck turning area which was previously a level platform has been modified by lowering the southern end by 755mm and providing a slope of 1m over a distance of 9.2m. The height of the retaining walls has been reduced and they are stepped in response to the slope. The planter bed between the eastern edge of the ramp/truck turning area and the rear boundary of the dwelling-house at 744 Pacific Highway has a width of between 750mm and 1300mm.

The Local Centres DCP requires a minimum setback of 6m and a landscaped setback of 4m for residential flat buildings. The amendment does not resolve Council’s concerns regarding the inadequate landscape setback between the rear of the dwelling-house at 744 Pacific Highway and the 3 storey eastern elevation of the hospital. The proposal will have a significant adverse visual impact on the backyard of the dwelling house at 744 Pacific Highway. The visual impact cannot be adequately alleviated through planting of 3-5m high Lilly Pilly shrubs in a landscaped bed with a width of 750-1300mm.

6. Demonstration that access to the area of open space to the south is practical and safe.

The pathway in the western side setback area of the site provides access to the open space at the south of the site. The applicant states that the main outdoor open space area for the patients is at the northern side of the site between the northern elevation and the northern boundary. The outdoor open space on the northern elevation is more easily accessible then the open space in the southern part of the site.

7. Demonstration of compliance with the parking requirements of Council or RMS or proper justification for any variations thereto.

The amendments to the proposal have increased the number of car spaces from 31 to 35. Council’s Team Leader Development Engineering has provided the following advice regarding the applicant’s amended proposal:

The documentation does not really add anything new and does not cover some of the matters raised during the JRPP meeting. Matters not addressed which were raised at the meeting include: the mother and baby unit (daily visitors expected), the trainees and medical students associated with the role of the Lawson Clinic as a teaching hospital and the two spaces currently leased from St John’s Church.

The report states that Council’s DCP car parking codes do not cater for mental health facilities, however the Local Centres LEP definition of “hospital” specifically includes psychiatric care.

The example given in support of the variation is the expansion of South Pacific Private Hospital at 24 Beach Street Curl Curl. This is an existing facility with 41 beds and 10 off-street parking spaces (from the Hospital website). The expansion proposal included 12 to 13 beds and 13 parking spaces, i.e. a nominal increase of one parking space per new bed and a total provision of 23 car spaces. A significant difference between the subject site and the South Pacific Private Hospital is that on street parking is available in Beach Street at and around the frontage of the hospital. On street parking is not available on Pacific Highway.

A letter at Attachment A regarding the low numbers of visitors expected is accepted, as is the statement that patients are not permitted to drive. However, patients need to be dropped off as well as picked up for their home visits later in their stay, which means that on-site parking is required for the carers rather than patients. Further, the Draft Operational Plan, which has not been amended, gives visiting hours for each day.

Summary:

On the site, post-development, will be:

· 360m² consulting rooms (medical centre) with 11 day staff

· 64 bed hospital with 14 day staff

Parking required under Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP is:

Consulting rooms – 1 space per 25m² of floor area = 14.4 spaces.

Hospital – 1 space per 3 rooms + 1 space per 2 staff = 28.3 spaces.

TOTAL = 43 spaces

If the ambulance bay and loading bay are included as car spaces, the shortfall is 6 spaces. The provision of 6 additional car spaces would require an additional 130 square metres of basement excavation. The additional car spaces could be accommodated to the north of car spaces 23 and 24. The applicant should amend the plans to provide these additional spaces.

8. Provision of a completely consistent set of amended plans.

The amended plans contain the following inconsistencies:

· The 10,000 litres above ground rainwater tank on the stormwater plan is located in the middle of the pathway in the western side setback

· The landscape plan indicates that a fence ‘to architects detail’ is to be constructed over the retaining wall on the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway. The architectural plans do not contain any details for the fence.

· The sections (DA-04.01 & DA-04.02) do not match the location indicated on the floor plans (DA-02.01 & DA-02.02)

· The outbuilding at the rear of 3 Bushlands Avenue is described as both a garage and a temporary dwelling. The building is a granny flat and has been located on the site since the late 1980s.

· The photomontage shows a row of conifers on the southern side of the northern access handle. The landscape plan shows that planting in the 400mm wide planter bed adjacent to the driveway is a grass (Spreading Flax Lilly). The photomontage does not accurately represent the visual character of the proposed driveway.

· The landscape plan provides a top of wall RL for the fence on the boundary with 3 Bushlands Avenue of 123.35. If this RL is correct the top of the fence is 4.67m higher than the gutter of the dwelling at 3 Bushlands Avenue and approximately 7.6m higher than the floor of the patio at the rear of the house.

9. Address the non-complying stormwater drainage issues as per the council officer’s report.

In the amended plans, the proposed easement has been relocated from 1A Bushlands Avenue to 738 Pacific Highway. A right angle bend in the stormwater pipe is no longer required. The owner of 738 Pacific Highway has provided a letter stating that they are willing to grant a drainage easement over the property.

The previously identified concerns regarding the proposed rainwater storage tank have not been adequately addressed. The rainwater tank is still shown on the landscape plan as a slimline tank which is not available in the 10,000 litre size proposed. The footpath on the architectural plans is located in the same position as the above ground rainwater tank. A below-ground tank could be provided under the driveway and upstream of the detention tank. This could be conditioned.

The proposed detention tank protrudes beyond the southern edge of the lower carpark and conflicts with the proposed stepped batter. The detention tank could be redesigned so that it is located wholly under the carpark. This could be conditioned.

The void at the southern end of the building has been deleted by enclosing the space, excavating the ground under the building and using the space as a carpark. The floor level of the floor over the void space which was previously known as the basement level has been raised 150mm to RL 124.5 and is now known as the lower ground floor level. Other changes include deleting one car space in the lower carpark and reducing the setback of the lower carpark from the western side boundary from 15.6 metres to 6 metres. The height of the western elevation has not been reduced.

Figure 4 - original proposal

Figure 5 - amended proposal

CONSULTATION – COMMUNITY

The amended plans and information submitted by the applicant were notified to owners of neighbouring properties. Submissions from the following were received:

1. Jingchun Gao – 1 Bushlands Avenue, Gordon

2. Gerald Rousseau – 5 Bushlands Avenue, Gordon

3. In Shik Hong – 22 St Johns Avenue, Gordon

4. Chao-Hiang Wang – 3 Bushlands Avenue, Gordon

5. Michael Coates - 15 Bushlands Avenue, Gordon

6. Michael Kocsard – 744 Pacific Highway, Gordon

The following issues were raised in the submissions:

Security issues

The likelihood of hospital patients presenting a security risk to neighbours is considered to be low. The hospital is proposed to be staffed at all times and the proposed use is not a correctional facility.

Overshadowing

The previously identified concerns with the overshadowing diagrams have not been fully addressed. The outstanding concerns relate to the plans not being based on survey data and a failure to provide plans which accurately shown the different between existing and proposed shadows.

Inadequate outdoor recreation space for patients

The planning controls which apply to the development do not include an outdoor recreation space requirement for hospitals.

The fence between the development site and 3 Bushlands Avenue is inadequate

The proposal includes a new fence adjacent to the boundary with 3 Bushlands Avenue. The landscape plan provides a top of wall RL for the fence of 123.35. If this RL is correct the top of the fence is 4.67m higher than the gutter of the dwelling at 3 Bushlands Avenue and approximately 7.6m higher than the floor of the patio at the rear of the house. The height of the proposed fence is excessive.

The hospital is located on a high part of the hill, is close to neighbours and will result in traffic, noise, light and privacy issues

The topography of the site exacerbates the impacts arising from the non-compliance with the development standard for maximum building height. The height of the building does not comply with the height limit and the justification for the variation advanced by the applicant is not supported.

Increased potential for traffic or pedestrian accidents on the Pacific Highway

The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comment, who advised that the proposal was acceptable in this regard, subject to conditions.

How an ambulance or fire truck would negotiate entry and exit to the facility in the intersection of Pacific Highway and St John Avenue were to be gridlocked

This concern relates to the public road network and could apply to any building located near an intersection on a busy road. The public road network is not the responsibility of the applicant and this concern is not a reason to refuse the application.

Excessive bulk

For the reasons discussed elsewhere in the report, it is considered that the design of the western elevation does not successfully break down the building mass and has an unacceptable impact on adjacent properties which are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

The acquisition of 744 Pacific Highway would allow for the relocation of the building further away from residential neighbours

The acquisition of 744 Pacific Highway may allow for an alternative design which provides greater boundary setbacks and reduces impacts on neighbouring properties. The applicant has indicated that they have purchased 744 Pacific Highway but at the present time they have no intention of incorporating the site into the proposed development.

The proposal is incompatible with residential zoning

The applicant’s propsed development is permissible under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, however it is considered that the development fails to appropriately manage the change in character and bulk/scale at the zone interface with adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zoned land.

Inadequate car parking

The number of car spaces provided for the development does not comply with the requirements of the Local Centres DCP. The variation to the parking controls has not been adequately justified and is not supported.

CONSULTATION – WITHIN COUNCIL

Heritage

Council’s Heritage Consultant reviewed the amended plans and advised that the previous concerns regarding the impact of the development on the heritage significance of the adjacent church and Windsor House have been addressed. The full comments of Council’s Heritage Consultant are included as Attachment B.

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Design Consultant reviewed the amended plans and advised that the setback from the northern boundary should be increased to a minimum of 6m as this would reduce the impact of the proposal on the adjacent site 750-754 Pacific Highway which is zoned R4 High Density Residential and contains buildings that could be demolished to make way for a residential flat building development. Council staff are of the opinion that a 6m setback from the northern boundary is not required as the northern elevation of the building is two storeys in height and any future development at 750-754 Pacific Highway would need to be designed to address issues of privacy and overlooking. It is also considered that the southern elevation of a future residential flat building development at 750-754 Pacific Highway is unlikely to be the optimal location for balconies and living room windows. An increased setback of 6m would also move the building further to the south and result in greater impacts on 1 & 3 Bushlands Avenue.

Council’s Urban Design Consultant is also of the opinion that the variation to the 11.5 metres height limit may be supported on urban design grounds if a setback of 6 metres is provided from the northern boundary. The reasons for this opinion include the overall design improvements, the overall reduced impact to the adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zoned properties, and that the area of non-compliance being confined. From a town planning perspective, the variation to the building height development standard is not supported as the impacts on 3 Bushlands Avenue are unacceptable and the applicant has not demonstrated that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. It is also noted that a variation to a development standard must be considered in accordance with the provisions of clause 4.6 and issues such as unrelated design considerations and overall improvements to the design are not relevant considerations.

The full comments of Council’s Urban Design Consultant are included in Attachment C.

Landscape

Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer commented on the amended proposal as follows:

Deep soil landscape area (Part 7A.4 Volume A Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The site area for the hospital is 2908m²(excluding access handles). For a residential flat building 50% of the site area (1454m²) is required to be deep soil landscaping. For the proposed hospital 35% of the site area (1038m²) has been provided as deep soil landscaping.

The proposal provides less than the amount of deep soil landscape area required under the zoning. The majority of the deep soil will be located south of 742 Pacific Highway and in the front setback of 748 Pacific Highway.

On merit, the development should provide consolidated deep soil zones through careful planning and design, to provide landscaped areas that are appropriate to the scale and context of the development (Part 7A.4 Volume A Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres)DCP). It would appear that the inclusion of 742 Pacific Highway has not translated into significantly improved deep soil areas between the heritage item, however there is an acceptable deep soil landscape provision adjacent to the neighbouring dwelling at 22 St Johns Avenue.

The building setbacks to the northern boundary provide greater deep soil zones including canopy trees proposed of a similar scale to the proposed building.

The proposal provides a vertical garden between the proposed building and the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway. Details have not been provided, however it is assumed that the height of the green wall is approximately 3 metres as shown on the rendering (DA-05.09/DA2, Elevation).

Tree replenishment (Part 7A.4 Volume A Ku-ring-gai Local CentresDCP)

The proposal should support a minimum number of 16 trees. The proposed of Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ are not canopy trees. Without these trees the proposal would not comply with the minimum canopy tree requirement. Additional canopy trees within side setbacks could be conditioned.

Tree Impacts (Clause 5.9 KLEP(Local Centres))

An arborist report, prepared by Landscape Matrix, dated 10/07/13, has been submitted.

Trees to be removed

Tree 1/ Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum). This tree is located on the front boundary of 748 Pacific Highway, within the heritage item. There is no objection to the tree’s removal. Tree 1 identified on the landscape plan as located on the nature reserve is a mature Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad-leaved Paperbark) that should be retained and protected.

Tree 2/ Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum). This tree is located on the front boundary of 748 Pacific Highway, within the heritage item. The tree exhibits poor health and vigour with high levels of dieback. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 3/ Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak). This tree is located on the southern boundary of 748 Pacific Highway, within the heritage item. The tree exhibits poor health and vigour with high levels of dieback. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 4/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda). This tree is located on the southern boundary of the driveway to 746A Pacific Highway. The tree is in good health, however its form is poor due to past pruning. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 5/ Cupressus macrocarpa 'Brunniana' (Golden Cypress). This tree is located on the southern boundary at the driveway entrance to 746 Pacific Highway. The multi trunked tree is a good specimen and is visually prominent. It has been assessed in the arborist report as having high landscape significance. The tree would have to be removed for construction access. As there is no other means of entering the rear of the site, there is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 6/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda). This tree is located at the driveway entrance to 746 Pacific Highway. The tree is a poor specimen having been severely pruned in the past. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 7/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda.) This tree is located at the driveway entrance to 746 Pacific Highway. The tree is a poor specimen having been severely pruned in the past. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 8/ Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar). This tree is located within the rear yard of the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway, adjacent to the driveway of 746A Pacific Highway. The tree has poor form due to being suppressed by a tree that has recently been removed. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Trees 10-15/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda). These trees are located along the southern boundary of 746 Pacific Highway. The trees have all been poorly pruned in the past. There is no objection to the removal of these trees.

Tree 17/ Robinia pseudoacacia "Frisia" (Black Locust). This tree is located within the rear setback of 746A Pacific Highway. The tree exhibits poor health and is a poor specimen. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 19/ Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda). This tree is located along the eastern boundary of 746A Pacific Highway. The tree has poor form due to being suppressed by a tree that has recently been removed. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 22/ Quercus robur (English Oak). This tree is located along the northern boundary of 746A Pacific Highway. The tree is a poor specimen and approval to remove the tree is not required. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Trees 23-24/ Archontophoenix alexandrae (Alexandra Palm). This group of small palms are located at the northeast corner of 746A Pacific Highway. The trees are to be removed to accommodate the building footprint. There is no objection to the removal of these trees.

Tree 25/ Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm). This palm is not identified on the landscape plan or the arborist’s tree location plan. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Tree 26/Cupressus torulosa (Bhutan Cypress). This tree is located on the southern boundary of 742 Pacific Highway. The tree is of moderate health and poor vigour. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Trees to be retained

Tree 9/ Syagrus romanzoffiana(Cocos Palm). This tree is located on the southern side of the existing driveway, within the adjoining property. The proposed driveway widening and retaining wall will encroach within the tree protection zone. The proposed retaining wall construction will be likely to have an adverse impact on this tree. Works to mitigate the impact on this tree could be conditioned.

Tree 20/ Magnolia x soulangiana (Magnolia). This tree is located on the western boundary of the site. The proposed path is located 1.6m from the tree. The tree is low branching and it is unlikely that it would survive the construction impacts of the proposed works. The impact is considered acceptable.

Tree 21/ Tiboucina granulosa (Purple Glory Tree). This tree is located on the northwest corner of 746A Pacific Highway. The tree provides amenity to the adjoining heritage conservation area. The proposed paved area off the staff room is 3.5m from the tree. The impact is considered acceptable.

Landscape plan

Front setback (7A.1Volume A Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The proposal will remove several trees and landscaping at the driveway entrance to the proposed development in order to widen the driveway from 3 metres to 6 metres. Additional trees located within the heritage item are to be removed to enable construction access to the site.

Two canopy trees and additional shrub planting are proposed to be planted within the heritage item on the northern corner of the driveway entrance.

Side setback (7A.1Volume A Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The ramp behind the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway will compromise the landscape setting and neighbouring amenity and is not supported. The proposed planter is insufficient to provide effective planting that enable the development to achieve the landscape objectives required by the zoning.

Driveway (1.2 Volume C Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The proposed widening of the central driveway will require removal of the existing trees and hedge planting along the driveway. The proposal includes on the southern side of the driveway a 600mm wide planting bed of groundcover planting, Dianella revoluta ‘Little Rev’ (Spreading Flax Lily) that grows to about 300mm. To provide landscape amenity, additional hedge planting that can attain approximately 1.5 to 2 metres in height should be included. This could be conditioned.

Cut and fill (Part 1.2 Volume C Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The proposed driveway will require up to approximately 600mm excavation by the end of the access handle this is not shown on the Excavation Plan, dwg DA-01.13/DA4. The proposed excavation within 2 metres of the northern boundary is not supported. This could be conditioned. The lower carpark will require filling to 2 metres and the soil is proposed to be retained by a planted batter. The batter is considered of excessive grade and a terraced retaining structure is preferable to ensure viable planting beds adjacent to the western boundary. This could be conditioned.

Neighbour amenity (Part 1.2 Volume C Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The site falls away to the west providing views across the adjoining properties and distant views. Existing screen planting located along the western boundary should be retained where possible including along the northwest corner of the site. This could be conditioned.

Heritage impacts - Development in the vicinity of a heritage item (7.3 Volume B Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

Impacts on setting of the existing Lawson Clinic

The enhancement of views of the heritage item from the south-east has been considered in the landscape design.

The rear of the existing Lawson Clinic is an existing area of carpark. The proposed lot reconfiguration will reduce the area along the rear boundary of the heritage item by 95.7m². This area currently provides 1.5m landscape setback to the carpark. Despite a larger development, the proposal provides minimal area for common landscape between the rear carpark and the proposed building. A narrow planting bed is proposed in association with a pergola to which climbers are to be fixed. An area of planting proposed at the northern and southern end of the carpark, though not directly behind the heritage building, will provide a landscape buffer to the northeast and southeast corner of the proposed building.

St John’s church and cemetery and the Heritage Conservation Area

The existing church buildings, cemetery and columbarium are in close proximity to the proposed development. The hall and the weatherboard building have little outlook to the site however they will be viewed with a backdrop of the proposed building. The view of the building is more prominent from the south-east corner of the cemetery and the southern end of the columbarium.

The proposed assorted planting along the northern boundary of shrubs is consistent with the horticultural style of the adjoining item. Three additional medium sized deciduous trees should be provided along this boundary. This could be conditioned.

Stormwater plan

The proposed OSD tank has been relocated to within the carpark at the southern end of the building. It would be preferable is the tank could be located entirely within the carpark pavement as opposed to encroaching within areas of deep soil and planters. The proposed easement for Hydraulic works within 742 and 738 Pacific Highway is likely to impact existing trees. An arborist report recommending thrust boring through this area has been provided. This could be conditioned.

Engineering

Council’s Team Leader Engineering Assessment commented on the amended proposal as follows:

Water management

The owner of 738 Pacific Highway has provided a letter stating that they are willing to grant a drainage easement. If the application were to be approved, a deferred commencement consent would be recommended, with the registration of the easement as Schedule A.

The Siteworks and Drainage Plan Drawing DAC02 is the only drawing in the set which has been amended. A Section 1-1 is shown on plan, but there is no Section drawing. A Section drawing would address concerns about the works on the boundary with 744 Pacific Highway and the available width for the driveway. Sections were previously requested but have not been provided.

The rainwater tank is still shown on the landscape plan as a slimline tank – these are not available in 10,000 litre size. The footpath will need to be diverted around a tank with a diameter of between 2 to 3 metres. Alternatively, the rainwater tank could be located underneath the driveway and upstream of the detention tank. This could be conditioned.

There seems no reason why the detention tank has to protrude beyond the driveway. The landscape plan shows a stepped batter to the south of the carpark but the levels conflict with the tank configuration. It could be re-oriented to be completely under the driveway. This could be conditioned.

Traffic and parking

The example given in support of the proposed variation is the expansion of South Pacific Private Hospital. This is an existing facility with 41 beds and 10 off-street parking spaces (from the Hospital website). The expansion proposal included 12 to 13 beds and 13 parking spaces, i.e. a nominal increase of one parking space per new bed and a total provision of 23 car spaces. A significant difference between the subject site and the South Pacific Private Hospital is that on street parking is available in Beach Street at and around the frontage of the hospital. On street parking is not available on the Pacific Highway.

Summary:

On the site, post-development, will be:

· 360m² consulting rooms (medical centre) with 11 day staff

· 64 bed hospital with 14 day staff

Parking required under Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP is:

Consulting rooms – 1 space per 25m² of floor area = 14.4 spaces.

Hospital – 1 space per 3 rooms + 1 space per 2 staff = 28.3 spaces.

TOTAL = 43 spaces

If the ambulance bay and loading bay are included as car spaces the shortfall is 6 spaces. The provision of 6 additional car spaces would require an additional 130 square metres of basement excavation. The additional car spaces could be accommodated to the north of car spaces 23 and 24. The applicant should amend the plans to provide these additional spaces.

LIKELY IMPACTS

The likely impacts of the development have been considered within this report and it is concluded that further amendments are required to the design before consent can be granted. To ameliorate the unacceptable impacts of the development the following amendments should be considered:

· cut back the southern end of the first floor level to ensure compliance with the 11.5m building height development standard

· increase the size of the basement carpark to allow for six additional car spaces

· retain the existing driveway in the southern access handle as a one way entrance driveway

· provide a narrower exit driveway in the northern access handle with an appropriate landscape treatment

· change the two way ramp between the southern carpark and the northern carpark to a one way ramp to allow for an increased landscape setback from the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway and taller and denser screening vegetation

SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and the proposed is permissible under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The development site is constrained through it sharing a boundary with R2 Low Density Residential Zoned land and heritage items on the site (748 Pacific Highway) and adjacent sites (750-754 Pacific Highway). The height of the elevation which faces the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land does not comply with the building height development standard. The proposed development has unsatisfactory impacts on the R2 Low Density Residential Zoned land and is considered unacceptable.

ANY SUBMISSIONS

The submissions have been considered in the above assessment.

PUBLIC INTEREST

The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the requirements of the relevant planning controls, and by Council ensuring that any adverse effects on the surrounding area and the environment are minimised. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the relevant planning controls and is deemed to be unacceptable. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

Section 94 Contributions

The assessment report previously considered by the JRPP recommended that the applicant’s request for an exemption from the payment of section 94 contributions not be granted. The applicable S94 contribution for this development would be $451,987.86. The applicant has submitted further information regarding their request for a full exemption from the payment of any section 94 contributions (Attachment D pages 8-10). The information acknowledges that the hospital will operate on a for profit basis. It is now proposed to donate the use of the inpatient facility to the UNSW for teaching and research purposes.

Section 1.26 of the contributions plans provides exemptions in the following cases:

1. Developments which provide a distinct community benefit on a not-for-profit basis including but not necessarily limited to: fire stations, police stations or police shopfronts, ambulance stations, rescue services, State Emergency Service (SES) and Rural Fire Services (RFS) operational bases and the like;

2. Development by or for non-profit or cooperative organisations which provide a distinct community benefit including but not limited to: the provision of childcare services (especially for under-2s and/or special needs children) including kindergartens and pre-schools; outreach services, community services or the like, on a cooperative or not-for-profit basis;

3. Development which involves an application solely for the internal conversion of one existing single terrace style shop-top type dwelling (typically located in the town centres along the Pacific Highway) or a freestanding single dwelling which has recently been used for commercial purposes back to residential use. This potential exemption will not apply where that conversion occurs as part of a larger redevelopment which must be considered as a whole; and/or

4. Development where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that in any particular category of contribution that the development, by the particular nature of its use, in the unique circumstances of the case, does not generate a demand for, or derive benefit from, some or any of the types of facilities and amenities to be provided. Note: Given that the grant of any such exemption, full or partial, may be considered to create a precedent or confer a pecuniary advantage on one developer over others, such an exemption is not likely to be granted unless there are absolute meritorious circumstances that would distinguish the case of the subject development from any other. All such arguments will be put before Council for formal determination and the full text of any such submission will be publicly available on Council’s website for public scrutiny.

The proposed use does not satisfy any of the categories for exemption under section 1.26 of the contributions plans as it is intended to operate the facility on a for profit basis and the hospital will generate a demand for and benefit from the facilities and amenities provided by the contributions plan (i.e. new roads and road upgrades). Accordingly, it is not recommended that an exemption from the payment of section 94 contributions be granted.

CONCLUSION

This application has been assessed under the heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies. The proposal does not achieve compliance with the requirements of the relevant instruments and policies and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

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

THAT the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel, as the consent authority, refuse development consent to Development Application No. 0327/13 for the following reasons:

1. Unsatisfactory impacts on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential and failure to achieve compatibility with the surrounding land uses

Particulars

· The proportion of the hospital site that is deep soil landscaping is significantly less than adjacent properties. The landscape character of the development is inconsistent and incompatible with the existing and likely future landscape character of the locality.

· The western elevation of the development is of excessive height and has an unacceptable visual impact on the adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zoned land.

· The proposed driveway between the eastern elevation of the hospital and the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway has an inadequate side setback of 1.5m from the rear boundary of the dwelling-house at 744 Pacific Highway. The setback of 1.5m will not provide sufficient area for landscape screening of the hospital building.

· The proposed driveway in the northern access handle occupies the entire width of the northern access handle and there is inadequate space for landscaping which would soften the built form.

2. The clause 4.6 variation to the development standard for building height is not well founded.

Particulars

· The physical impacts of the non-compliant building height have not been quantified and justified, i.e. additional overshadowing to the private open space of 3 Bushlands Avenue.

· The non-compliant building height, inadequate setbacks, inadequate landscape space and 4 storey presentation of the western elevation will have an unacceptable visual impact on the private open space of 3 Bushlands Avenue.

· It has not been demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

· It has not been demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

· It has not been demonstrated that the non-compliance with the development standard achieves an better environmental planning outcome.

3. Inadequate car parking

Particulars

· The number of car spaces provided for the development does not comply with the requirements of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP and the RTA (now RMS) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

· The justification for the variation to the parking controls is not supported by the review of similar uses.

· A reduction in the number of car spaces is not consistent with the promotion of visitation described in the original application documentation and that the existing Lawson Clinic premises leases two car spaces in an adjacent site.

4. Inaccurate and inconsistent plans

Particulars

· The 10,000 litres above ground rainwater tank on the stormwater plan is located in the middle of the pathway in the western side setback. The 10,000 litre tank is specified as being of a ‘slimline’ design. Slimline tanks are not available in 10,000 litres size.

· The sections do not match the locations indicated on the floor plans

· The plans describe the outbuilding at the rear of 3 Bushlands Avenue as both a garage and a temporary dwelling. The building is a granny flat and has been located on the site since the late 1980s.

Jonathan Goodwill

Executive Assessment Officer– South

Corrie Swanepoel

Manager Development & Assessment Services

Shaun Garland

Team Leader Development Assessment – South

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment	Description	TRIM No.
A	Revised clause 4.6 variation request	2014/302481
B	Heritage Consultant comments dated 18 December 2014	2015/056748
C	Urban Design Consultant comments dated 20 February 2015	2015/044719
D	Planning Consultant letter responding to JRPP deferral	2014/302472
E	architectural plans	2014/302861
F	landscape plans	2014/302864
G	stormwater plans	2014/302872
H	assessment report considered by JRPP at the meeting on 11 September 2014	2014/201781
I	JRPP Record of Deferral	2014/239840

APPENDIX No: 3 - Assessment considered by JRPP at the meeting on 11 September 2014

Item No: GB.5

JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

(Sydney West)

JRPP No	2013SYW094
DA Number	DA0327/13
Local Government Area	Ku-ring-gai
Proposed Development	Demolition of three dwellings at 742, 746 and 746A Pacific Highway. Construction of a 4 storey hospital with 65 beds. Boundary adjustment between 746 and 748 Pacific Highway. Consolidation of 742, 746 and 746A into a single allotment.
Street Address	742, 746, 746A and 748 Pacific Highway, Gordon
Lot & DP	Lot A DP350224, Lots 1 and 2 DP 851223 and Lot C DP337904.
Applicant	The Lawson Clinic Pty Ltd
Owner	Mr A Kapel and Mrs R Kapel, JSNL Pty Ltd, R I A F Pty Ltd
Number of Submissions	original proposal: 12 submissions and 1 petition amended proposal: 4 submissions
Regional Development Criteria (Schedule 4A of the Act)	The proposed hospital has a CIV of over $5 million and falls into the category of ‘private infrastructure and community facility’
List of All Relevant s79C(1)(a) Matters	SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land SEPP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 Local Centres DCP Development Contributions Plan 2010
List all documents submitted with this report for the panel’s consideration	Attachment A – Pre DA Meeting Report Attachment B – Council’s letter to applicant dated 26 November 2013 Attachment C – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 12 December 2013 Attachment D – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 21 March 2014 Attachment E – Heritage Consultant comments dated 25 June 2014 Attachment F – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 23 May 2014 Attachment G – Clause 4.6 Variation Request Attachment H - architectural plans Attachment I - landscape plans Attachment J - stormwater plans Attachment K - valuation report dated 10 December 2013 Attachment L - Planning Consultant letter dated 22 April 2014
Recommendation	Refusal
Report By	Jonathan Goodwill – Executive Assessment Officer

Assessment Report and Recommendation Cover Sheet

Legislative requirements

Zoning R4 High Density Residential under Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2013

Permissible Under Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012

Relevant legislation Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

SEPP 55 – Remediation of land

SEPP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012

Local Centres DCP

Development Contributions Plan 2010

Integrated Development No

PURPOSE FOR REPORT

To determine Development Application No. 0327/13 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a hospital at 742-748 Pacific Highway, Gordon.

The Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) is the consent authority as a hospital is a type of ‘health related facility’ captured by the development category ‘private infrastructure and community facilities’ pursuant of Schedule 4A Clause 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and as the CIV for this development exceeds $5 million ($6.73 million).

HISTORY

Pre DA Meeting

On 17 May 2013, a Pre DA consultation to discuss a proposal for the construction of a hospital was held. The following concerns were identified by Council officers:

· isolation of 744 Pacific Highway Gordon

· non-compliant building height

· zone interface response (overshadowing, overlooking, visual bulk, articulation)

· inadequate setbacks

· landscaping issues (such as removal / protection of significant existing trees, 50% deep soil landscape provision, tree replenishment, side setback planting, landscaping between the development and heritage items, extent of cut and fill, communal open space)

· water management (no increase in surface water runoff into the Pacific Highway, water management plan addressing site detention, retention, re-use of roof water and water quality measures)

· traffic / parking and construction traffic management

· waste management

· heritage

The Pre DA report is Attachment A.

Current development application

3 September 2013	Development application lodged
13 September 2013	Notification commences
26 November 2013	Applicant is sent a letter advising that the application is unsatisfactory and that the following issues are required to be addressed: · overshadowing · site isolation and amalgamation · pedestrian access and equitable access · energy and water efficiency · use of 742 Pacific Highway · colours and finishes · heritage impacts · development engineering · landscaping Council’s letter to the applicant is Attachment B.
13 December 2013	The applicant is further advised that the issues identified by Council’s Urban Design Consultant are required to be addressed. The full comments of Council’s Urban Design Consultant are Attachment C.
13 December 2013	The applicant is advised that a response to the identified issues is required by 1 February 2014.
5 February 2014	The applicant advises Council that amended plans will be ready by 7 March 2014.
6 February 2014	JRPP briefing takes place
14 February 2014	The JRPP advises Council that the applicant should be afforded additional time to prepare the amended plans
4 March 2014	Meeting with applicant and Council officers.
5 March 2014	The applicant submits draft amended plans which include the demolition of the dwelling at 742 Pacific Highway, revised building footprint and a new car park at the southern end of the site.
18 March 2014	The comments of Council’s Urban Design Consultant are sent to the applicant.
18 March 2014	In response to concerns regarding the legibility of the plans high resolution plans are sent Council’s Urban Design Consultant for further review.
21 March 2014	Following a review of the high resolution plans revised comments from Council’s Urban Design Consultant (Attachment D) are sent to the applicant.
28 April 2014	The applicant submits amended plans and additional documentation to Council.
1 May 2014	Notification of the amended plans commences
3 June 2014	The applicant is advised that the valuation report for 744 Pacific Highway is inadequate and that a revised report is required.
3 July 2014	The applicant is advised that the amended plans have been reviewed and issues relating to building height, site isolation, heritage, car parking, stormwater, inaccurate and inconsistent information still need to be addressed.
9 July 2014	The applicant provides a response to the issues identified in Council’s correspondence and advises that the application will not be further amended. The issues identified in Council’s letter along with the applicant’s responses are provided below.

Issue 1: Zone Interface and building height

The western elevation of the development has a length of approximately 60m, a height of more than 11.5m and a part 3/4 storey presentation. If the provisions of the Local Centres DCP were applied the development would be required to have a minimum setback of 6m for the first 3 storeys and 9m for the fourth storey. In addition, the façade would be required to be broken down into distinctive bays and wings through deep articulation. The design of the development does not have adequate regard to the zone interface principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council.

The applicant’s clause 4.6 variation request states that the second level is only provided for the northern portion of the development and does not impose on the adjoining R2 interface. This position is not supported as the southern part of the western elevation which faces the R2 zoned land has a 4 storey presentation, does not comply with the 11.5m height limit and is of greater height than the northern portion. The 4 storey portion of the development is visible from the private open space of 22 St Johns Avenue and 3 Bushlands Avenue and will have an overbearing impact on these R2 zoned properties. At the zone interface between R2 and R4 zoned land is it considered inappropriate and unacceptable for the eastern outlook from the private open space of two single dwellings to be dominated by a building elevation with a length of 60m and height of more than 11.5m.

The intent of the articulation to the western elevation should be to provide a built form which respects and relates to the characteristics of the adjacent R2 zoned land. The proposed articulation is shallow in depth and limited in width. This type of articulation does not relate to the form and proportions of development in the adjacent R2 zoned land.

The articulation of the western elevation should be amended. The indentation at Rooms 60 and 28/29 should be extended to include Rooms 26/27 and 58/59. To avoid a four storey presentation and non-compliant building height adjacent to the R2 zoned land Rooms 48/49 and 50/51 should be deleted.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

The majority of the development is 3 storeys in height and is significantly under the 11.5m height limit. The building is also articulated by virtue of physical attributes and material changes. The proposal addresses the zone interface principles as set out in Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council with regard to building height (less than the control), meeting and exceeding the building setbacks and maintaining privacy of neighbouring properties through highlight and un-openable windows and privacy screening.

The subject site as Council is aware, is zoned R4 High Density Residential and the alternative redevelopment of this site for the purpose of a permissible residential flat building would reasonably envisage the whole western elevation of such a building to feature balconies at 6m separation up to 3 storeys in height. Such a development would ultimately result in a four storey flat building pursuant to the 11.5 metre height limit. The proposal is far better in terms of amenity in comparison to such a development outcome. Should Council remain concerned with regard to the treatment of the western elevation, we recognise that Council may chose (sic) to impose a condition to delete what they consider to be the offending rooms or seek further articulation in specific terms as detailed in their correspondence dated 3 July 2014.

Any such condition can be eminently drafted to satisfy the Newbury Principles.

Issue 2: Overshadowing

The plan details for the dwelling at 22 St Johns Avenue are incorrect. The areas between the eastern wall of the dwelling and the shared boundary and the northern wall of the dwelling and the detached garage are paved. These paved areas are of a consistent level which is slightly lower than the floor level of the ground floor of the dwelling. The plans, sections and shading plans which show these areas as sloping and higher than the floor level are not correct.

The shading plans are not in consecutive order and the various angles of view makes comparisons between the drawings difficult. The windows of the dwelling at 22 St Johns Avenue are not shown. Accurate plans which show the existing and proposed shading are required.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

The shadow diagrams were prepared in lieu of survey plans of No. 22 St Johns Avenue and are based on observation only. At the eastern boundary of No. 22 St Johns Avenue, the proposal is notably under the permissible height limit and provides between 6m – 6.9m boundary setbacks. Therefore, the resulting shadow impacts are less than what would result for a compliant residential flat building. The demonstration of further shadow diagrams in this case would not be warranted nor of determining weight and the 3D shadow diagrams provide a representation of the shadow impacts which would result; being less than anticipated by the controls.

Issue 3: Site isolation and amalgamation

The issues regarding the concept plans for a residential flat building at 744 Pacific Highway remain unresolved as they do not demonstrate that the allotment can be redeveloped without reliance on a right of carriageway through 742 Pacific Highway. The assertion that the site can be developed as a residential flat building with vehicle access to the Pacific Highway should be supported by revised concept plans.

The issues identified in Council’s e-mail of 3 June 2014 regarding the adequacy of the valuation are also required to be addressed.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

We have demonstrated that No. 744 Pacific Highway is not isolated having regard to the relevant Planning Principles and the DA was accompanied by plans and a property valuation which supported the potential to redevelop No. 744 Pacific Highway for a residential flat building. This design proposal was accompanied by an offer of a right of way easement which permits access to No. 744 Pacific Highway via the subject site’s driveway. Should Council feel that it’s appropriate, this right of way can be conditioned accordingly.

Given we have demonstrated that the site is not isolated, there is no further requirement for revised concept designs or valuations of No. 744 Pacific Highway.

The items raised with regard to heritage were previously addressed in our DA and further response submitted in April 2014. We disagree with the points raised as per our previous correspondence.

Issue 4: Heritage concerns

The following issues identified by Council’s Heritage Consultant are required to be addressed:

· It is recommended that the development be amended to move the footprint of the new building further to the south in order to provide complying setbacks and stepping of built forms as required by the DCP.

· The setbacks from St Johns Church and Cemetery, although slightly greater under the amended proposal, could be extended still further. This would also allow more space for substantial trees and deep planting to help minimise the impact of the proposed development on views over and from the Cemetery in particular. It would also improve usability and amenity of open spaces for users of the hospital.

· Increasing the footprint (or potentially splitting the footprint into several smaller blocks to reduce the monolithic qualities of the scale and form) over a wider area would potentially allow the overall height of the development to be reduced to two levels above natural ground level. If this is not a practical outcome given the functional requirements of the facility, the bulk of the development could be located closer to the south-eastern part of the site adjacent to other (non heritage listed) properties that are also zoned for high-density residential development and which are therefore not as vulnerable to the environmental and heritage impacts caused by large differences in building scale and form.

· Further details should be provided to clarify the details of the proposed landscaping (including trees proposed to be removed) and splay corner to the street elevation of 748 Pacific Highway.

· The issue of potential psychological conflict caused by the proximity of the hospital to the cemetery needs to be considered very carefully as the proposal should not unduly restrict the existing cemetery use.

Other design details:

· Species selection both in front of 748 Pacific Highway and along the boundary with St Johns: the Alexandra Palms shown in the plans will provide no effective screening and will not be appropriate in immediate proximity to the two heritage items. They should be replaced by more suitable species in consultation with Council’s landscape officers.

· Tonally neutral colours and non-reflective finishes should be required to the eastern and northern elevations in particular to minimise the visual prominence of the development in views to, from and over adjacent heritage items.

· All driveways and parking areas surrounding 748 Pacific Highway should be finished in dark asphalt to minimise their aesthetic impact on the setting of the heritage item.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and contains a heritage item. This zoning and the relevant controls therefore confirm that Council has accepted that the redevelopment of this site is capable of accommodating a residential flat building in association with a heritage item with building separation which is also reflected in this DA. Given Council has directed such a form of development, the proposal for this development is in keeping with the allowable built form outcome which is proposed.

The Heritage Consultant has also raised issue with regard to the ‘potential psychological conflict’ of the cemetery. This item is beyond the technical skills of the Council to make any comment.

With regard to the further design details raised, if Council considered it appropriate, these items can readily be conditioned.

Issue 5: Development engineering concerns

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the amended application. The following additional information is required:

· The rainwater tank should be sized in accordance with the ESD report, and shown on all the plans to scale (not over a proposed pathway). The proposed re-use of the rainwater is to be indicated on the stormwater plans.

· Connection of the interallotment drainage pipe to the existing pit within 738 Pacific Highway via an adverse right angle bend may affect that property’s stormwater drainage system and may not function hydraulically. The applicant should investigate whether a separate kerb connection, in line with the interallotment drainage pipe, should instead be provided.

· For further consideration of the parking reports, a breakdown of staff into outpatient and hospital staff is required. This does not guarantee that the shortfall will be supported. It appears that there would be space under the northern wing of the new hospital building for additional parking.

· Cross-sections of the new driveway are required, showing existing and proposed levels, crossfall, walls and fences, the neighbour’s encroaching roof and the actual proposed width of the driveway (the photomontage seems to show vegetation being retained which will probably be removed). A minimum width of 5.5 metres is required for two way movement.

· The photomontage does not show the splay on the driveway at the front boundary, but it is shown on the landscape plan. It is unclear whether the splay will be provided and if it will affect trees at 748 Pacific Highway.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

Several items have been raised with regard to the size of the rainwater tank. The interallotment drainage pipe features a bend which does not have adverse affects on the main system and the proposed driveway is capable of appropriate width and design which is compatible with the adjoining structures, etc.

The proposed access and parking arrangement is supported by a report prepared by URaP-TTW which confirms that the parking provision is suitable for the proposed use and there is no shortfall in parking. Should Council feel that an additional space is preferable under the northern wing, this can be conditioned appropriately.

Issue 6: Landscaping concerns

Inadequate deep soil landscape area within the development including along the northern and western boundary and along eastern elevation

In consideration of the merit of the deep soil that has been provided, the following modifications are required:

· To achieve an effective landscape treatment that will contribute to the garden character of the Heritage Conservation Area, protect neighbour amenity and preserve heritage significance, the building setback at the north-west corner of the building should comply with the 6 metre setback. Paving and pergola should be reduced to optimise deep soil provision and canopy establishment at the northwest corner of the site.

· To retain and enhance the heritage setting of the existing Lawson Clinic, the reconfiguration of the lot boundaries should include a redesign of the rear carpark providing additional sufficient areas for tree and shrub planting along the eastern elevation of the proposed building.

Adverse tree impacts (Clause 5.9 Local Centres LEP)

Tree 9/ Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cocos Palm). This tree is located on the southern side of the existing driveway, within the adjoining property. The proposed driveway widening and retaining wall will encroach within the tree protection zone. The proposed retaining wall construction is likely to have an adverse impact on this tree.

Adverse impacts on neighbour amenity (Part 1.3 Volume C Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

To preserve neighbour amenity, increased setbacks to the proposed driveway should be provided to the adjoining property 744 Pacific Highway.

Inadequate landscape plan

The Landscape plan is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

· Existing screen planting located along the western boundary should be retained where possible including along the northwest corner of the site. Additional hedging that can attain 4 metres in height should be provided at the northwest corner of the site in association with the existing Tibouchina.

· An accessible principal area of communal area has not been proposed. It is unclear whether the proposed area is accessible as insufficient levels to paths and associated external areas have been provided on the landscape plan. The series of ramps on the western side of the existing dwellings is approximately 1 metre below the carparks. Similarly the levels for the ramp between the carpark and the dwelling at 742 Pacific Highway appear to be too steep and are likely to require steps.

· Details of screen wall fencing along western boundary are required.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

The amended landscaping proposal was prepared in close consultation with Council’s Landscape Officer. The western setback of minimum 6m provides sufficient width to accommodate extensive landscaping with natural soil beneath. The northern setback has a minimum setback width of 4.2m which increases up to 6m also with natural soil beneath. Furthermore, the existing op-shop structure located on the adjoining heritage property to the north has no openings to the shared boundary, with reasonable building separation to the proposal. These boundary setbacks therefore provide eminent space for landscaping.

The landscaping treatment along the eastern side of the development provides for the embellishment of this facade through the utilisation of pockets of landscaping as well as a mix of planting and a vertical garden to create a trellised green wall effect.

Overall, the landscaping treatment creates an interesting mix of shrubs and tree planting which supports the mix of architectural articulation and material changes of the development.

Adverse tree impacts

Should Council feel it necessary, the driveway treatment in the vicinity of the Cocos Palm (Tree 9) can be conditioned as appropriate to ensure the trees retention. Alternatively, Council could allow removal (and replacement) of the tree.

Driveway setback

The proposed new driveway along the northern boundary of No. 744 Pacific Highway is an existing circumstance. This driveway is anticipated to accommodate a minor traffic increase in comparison to the existing conditions. The proposed driveway treatment is considered to not unreasonably impact on the neighbouring property, which is sought to be supported.

Landscape plan

The items raised by Council are capable of being resolved by conditions of consent, should Council feel it appropriate.

Issue 7: Urban design concerns

The following issues identified by Council’s Urban Design Consultant are required to be addressed:

Built form

Demolition of 742 Pacific Highway should have presented opportunities to better arrange the massing such that deep articulation of the western elevation in particular would communicate a rhythm that interprets the existing urban context of smaller scaled residential building, separated by generous landscape of established gardens of trees and large plant species. Instead, the built form has been articulated superficially and still reads as a single massing and out of scale in an interface context – being over 60 metres long. The stepping has been expressed by changes in materials that assist in the architectural expression of the built form, however, of itself do not provide the overall physical relief of deeply articulated massing. The western side of the building should be more deeply articulated so that the scale of proposed massing provides a better interface with the adjoining R2 zone and the St Johns Heritage Conservation Area.

The articulation of the northern façade is arbitrary and not a cohesive design response to the site and neighbouring built form. Within a clearly articulated form, the architectural expression should demonstrate a grouping of architectural elements that is rational, consistent and communicates a cohesive architectural language across the proposed development.

The type of construction selected to deal with the poorly resolved floor levels to ground levels at the southern end of the proposed development needs to be reconsidered. The Car Park/Drop Off level sees a series of columns up to a height over 4.3 metres out of the ground to support the suspended slab. This structural order and structural language bears no relationship to the structural language and order of the northern component. Rather it serves to emphasise the poor resolution of the ground floor level with the existing and proposed ground levels.

Setbacks

Setbacks to the northern boundary remain insufficient at 4 metres. The need to provide for patient safety by limiting or preventing access to outside areas is not at question being an operational aspect of the development. At issue is the proposed setting of the proposed built form in achieving the KLEP and KDCP objectives, the provision of a pleasant landscape outlook to and from the subject site. A setback of 6 metres to the northern boundary is capable of being achieved by the development and should be provided.

Inconsistent or poorly coordinated ground levels

RLs at the Lower Car Park level require clarification. They appear to be approximately 0.56m higher than the internal floor level of the building and therefore not compliant with BCA access requirements.

Notations for existing and proposed ground levels are confusing. These are to be consistently represented and clearly identified. Natural ground level should be shown on all sections. Natural ground levels at the face of the building should be shown on all elevations.

Landscape

RLs on landscape plans are inconsistent with architectural plans in places, the numbers of risers of stairs do not seem to match some levels and the labelling of proposed and existing ground and path levels is unclear.

The following information is required to fully assess the relationship of the proposed landscape to the proposed building:

- All existing and proposed RLs are to be clearly annotated and differentiated.

- Contours are to be clearly indicated.

- All bottom and top of wall RLs are to be accurately located and checked*

- All external stair flights are to be numbered for identification

* For example, there is ambiguous information regarding top of wall levels at the truck turning area. It appears the TOW annotated as RL124.50 is the proposed ground level of the turning area. The TOW height needs to indicate a height and fence construction that will prevent trucks reversing over the platform and dropping some 2 metres to the lower car park level.

The landscape zone separating the truck turning area and No 744 needs to demonstrate that adequate width is provided to enable appropriate planting to screen the raised platform of the truck turning area - which appears to be over 1.5 metres out of the ground and, with a required solid barrier above, will impact upon the visual amenity of the current resident and future residents of that site should it be redeveloped as RFBs.

Pedestrian and vehicle ramps are to indicate the direction of ramp up and nominate all gradients.

There’s a missing gradient at the main entry pedestrian ramp.

The main pedestrian ramp appears to rise from RL 127.85 at northern car park landing near Windsor House to RL128.15 at the NE corner of the proposed hospital then fall to RL127.50 at main building entry. This appears to be unnecessary as the high point does not link to any other levels.

Fire stairs

Fire Stairs do not indicate direction of stair or breaks between levels.

Fire Stair 3 risers indicate the same number of risers between the Lower Ground and Ground Floor levels as between the Ground Floor and First Floor despite the floor having different ceiling heights. Stair design for the first floor and ground floor are the same despite the first floor not sitting below another floor.

The lift at the southern end appears to offer the only means of entering the building from the lower car park. Provision of stair access for staff from the lower car park should be considered.

Car parking

The functioning of the basement car park is confusing. Labelled as ‘Staff and Delivery Carpark’ there appears to be no visitor parking now provided apart from the existing Lawson Clinic. The building entry at this level is also annotated as ‘Staff and Emergency Entrance Only’. The southern end of the building at this level appears to be for staff access only as well limiting visitor entry to the ground level only. Therefore, the amount and location of visitor car parking and pedestrian access of visitors from the basement car park to the building entry is confusing and unclear.

The site rationale that proposes a semi-surface level car park accessed from the higher point on the site results in difficulties for the southern component of the building in its relationship to the ground levels, and flow-on inefficiencies of the functionalities. It may be possible for a basement car park to be accessed from the lower southern driveway connecting to a continuous ramped driveway that exits from the higher point. This would make better use of the wasted space currently below the Car park/Drop Off level, better separate the staff and visitor/patient access once that has been clarified and accommodate additional spaces if required.

The levels for the truck turning area are inconsistent between the floor plans and the elevations. The height and material for the barrier on the southern and eastern side of the turning area is not clearly identified on the plans.

Response from applicant’s Town Planning Consultant

As an outcome of the urban design comments, Council’s primary concern with regard to the western elevation is contained within Point 1, and is addressed above.

Ground levels

With regard to the finished levels of the proposed development, please refer to the Elevation Plans (DA-03.01 and DA-03.02). The Lower Ground Level has a proposed RL 124.5. The Ground Level has a proposed RL 127.2.

The proposed RLs and levels provide a cohesive development outcome which are coordinated and result in a suitable built form and landscaped outcome.

Landscape and fire stairs

The issues raised in relation to RLs, landscaping and risers of stairs are BCA related matters and can be appropriately conditioned to comply with the issue of the relevant Construction Certificate.

Car parking

As discussed with Council in our meeting held on 7 March 2014, the proposed car parking arrangement serves the needs of staff, vehicles and servicing of the development, and appropriate way finding signs can be implemented which direct persons to the appropriate locations.

Summary

The applicant has been advised of the issues with the proposal and the amendments and additional information required. The applicant has declined Council’s offer to submit an amended proposal and has asked that the application be determined in its current form.

THE SITE

Zoning	R4 High Density Residential
Height	11.5m
Floor space ratio	0.8:1
Site area	4715m²
Easements/rights of way:	Easement to drain water and reciprocal rights of carriageway over the access handle of 746 and 746A Pacific Highway.
Heritage Item:	Yes: 748 Pacific Highway
Heritage conservation area:	Yes: St Johns Avenue Conservation Area
In the vicinity of a heritage item:	Yes: 750-754 Pacific Highway, 24 St Johns Avenue, 738 Pacific Highway, 707 Pacific Highway
Bush fire prone land:	No
Endangered species:	No
Urban bushland:	No
Contaminated land:	No
Biodiversity land:	No
Riparian land:	No

THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION:

The site is located on the high side of the Pacific Highway and has an irregular shape. The site is comprised of the heritage listed building at 748 Pacific Highway which is currently used as the Lawson Clinic outpatient facility and three battleaxe allotments known as 746, 746A and 742 Pacific Highway. Each battleaxe allotment contains a dwelling-house. The adjoining allotments to the west are 22 St Johns Avenue and 3 Bushlands Avenue. These allotments contain single dwellings and are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

TOPOGRAPHY (SLOPE) OF THE SITE:

The site falls from north to south and from east to west.

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES ON THE SITE:

The site contains three dwelling-houses and a heritage listed building that is used as the Lawson Clinic outpatient facility.

CONTEXT OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT:

The site is located in a predominantly residential area. To the north and north-west of the site is 750-754 Pacific Highway, this site is heritage listed and contains a church, church hall and cemetery. The adjacent allotment to the west and south of the site contain single dwellings.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a hospital with 65 beds and 19 car spaces. The hospital is to operate in conjunction with the existing Lawson Clinic outpatient facility located at 748 Pacific Highway Gordon. Details of the proposed development include:

i. Demolition of three dwellings at 746, 746A and 742 Pacific Highway.

ii. Construction of a 3-4 storey hospital building with 65 beds, car parking for 19 cars. The hospital is to be used to provide treatment for people with mood and anxiety disorders.

iii. The hospital is an inpatient facility and will operate 24 hours a day, there will be a maximum of 25 staff during the day time shift and 10 staff at night.

iv. Retention of the existing Lawson Clinic premises at No. 748 Pacific Highway with vehicular access via the northern access handle, a reconfigured car park with 12 spaces and a new pedestrian access path for the hospital adjacent to the northern boundary.

v. Modification of northern access handle to provide a two way driveway to the site from the Pacific Highway.

vi. Removal of 17 trees from the site.

vii. Associated landscaping works.

viii. Creation of an easement through 738 Pacific Highway for disposal of stormwater into the street gutter of Bushlands Avenue.

ix. Identification signage for the driveway at No. 746 Pacific Highway;

x. The consolidation of Lot 1 DP 851223, Lot 2 DP 851223 and Lot C DP 337904) into a single lot and the realignment of the boundary of Lot A DP 350224 to result in two lots of 3,406m² and 1,309.6m², respectively.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

In accordance with the requirements of the Local Centres DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response, Council received one petition with 110 signatures and twelve submissions from the following:

1. In Shik Hong – 22 St Johns Avenue Gordon

2. Jingchun Gao – 1 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

3. Chao-Hsiang Wang – 3 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

4. Gerald Rousseau – 5 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

5. Michael Coates – 15 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

6. Jerome Lander – 7A Bushlands Avenue Gordon

7. Stephen Dwyer - 4 Oberon Crescent Gordon

8. Dan Guenther and Megan Luke-Guenther - 1 Oberon Crescent Gordon

9. Amy – 29 St Johns Avenue Gordon

10. Ms Vicki Steer (Principal Ravenswood) – Henry Street Gordon

11. Michael Kocsard – 744 Pacific Highway Gordon

12. Suzanne Pegg – 9 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

The submissions and petition raised the following issues:

The proposal does not address site isolation principles

For the reasons discussed elsewhere in this report, it is considered that the development does not adequately address the land amalgamation requirements in the Local Centres DCP and the site isolation planning principles established by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

Overlooking

Overlooking from the western elevation of the hospital has been minimised through high set windows and louvre screens. The overlooking impacts of the development are now considered to be acceptable.

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant are inaccurate, poorly labelled and not based on survey data of the impacted sites. The shadow diagrams do not clearly illustrate the impact of the development on the solar amenity of adjacent properties.

The justification for the non-compliant building height fails to consider alternative design options and additional overshadowing

For the reasons discussed elsewhere is this report, it is considered that the applicant’s request under clause 4.6 to vary the building height development standard is not well founded.

Excessive bulk

Tree removal

The merits of the proposed tree removal have been considered by Council’s Landscape Officer and found to be acceptable.

Inadequate setbacks and unacceptable impacts on heritage items

Concerns regarding the setbacks from boundaries, separation distance from heritage items, ability for the development to provide screening vegetation and materials selection have been identified in the assessment of the application by Council’s Heritage Consultant. The impact of the development is unacceptable in this regard and these issues are among the reasons for the refusal recommendation.

Noise

If approval of the application was recommended the likely noise impacts of the development could be addressed through conditions.

The proposal is incompatible with residential zoning

The development is permissible under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, however it is considered that the development fails to appropriately manage the change in character and bulk/scale at the zone interface with adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zoned land.

Inadequate outdoor recreation space for patients

The planning controls do not include an outdoor recreation space requirement for hospitals.

Inappropriate location due to noise and fumes from the Pacific Highway

The hospital is set back from the Pacific Highway and unlikely to be impacted by vehicle emissions. If approval of the application were recommended, the impacts of traffic noise could be addressed through conditions.

Inadequate car parking

The number of car spaces provided for the development is significantly less than the requirements of the Local Centres DCP. The variation to the parking controls has not been adequately justified and is not supported.

Unsafe driveway design

Council’s Development Engineer has identified concerns with the design of the proposed northern driveway, in particular, whether the required width for two-way vehicular traffic can be achieved having regard to existing encroachments and proposed retaining walls and fencing. A cross section of the driveway was requested from the applicant but has not been provided.

Increased potential for traffic accidents on the Pacific Highway

The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comment, who advised that the proposal was acceptable in this regard, subject to conditions.

The use of Henry Street and Cecil Street for construction vehicles is unsafe as these streets are regularly used by school children

If approval of the application were recommended, a condition of consent could be imposed which restricted the use of Henry Street and Cecil Street to outside school drop-off and pick-up times.

The use of the hospital to provide psychiatric services will present a security risk to adjacent dwellings

The use of the site as a hospital is permissible under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. It is considered unlikely that the type of services offered at the hospital will present a security risk to adjacent dwellings.

AMENDED PLANS

The amended plans submitted were notified for 14 days from 1 May 2014 to 15 May 2014. In response, Council received four submissions from the following:

1. In Shik Hong – 22 St Johns Avenue Gordon

2. Chao-Hsiang Wang – 3 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

3. Michael Coates – 15 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

4. Gerald Rousseau – 5 Bushlands Avenue Gordon

The submissions raised the following additional issues:

Landscaping adjacent to the western boundary should be retained

If the application were to be recommended for approval the retention of existing landscaping adjacent to the western boundary could be achieved through conditions of consent.

Smoking should not be permitted

The applicant has advised that the smoking will not be permitted at the hospital. Regardless of whether smoking will be permitted at the hospital, it is considered unlikely the smokers using the outdoor areas of the site which are set back from the boundaries would be able to generate sufficient levels of second-hand smoke to have an impact on the amenity of adjacent dwellings.

The boundary fence height should be increased by 2m

The landscape plan shows the replacement of existing boundary fences with new 1800mm high lapped and capped timber fences. The replacement of boundary fences is subject to the provisions of the Dividing Fences Act and approval for replacement cannot lawfully be provided under a development consent unless consent from the owners of the existing fence is provided. If approval of the application were recommended, a condition would be imposed stating that the development consent does not grant approval for the replacement of boundary fences.

Driveway access to the Pacific Highway is poor

Council’s Development Engineer has requested further details of the proposed development including the design of the driveways. The applicant has not provided the requested information. In the absence of sufficient information regarding the design of the driveway a conclusion regarding the adequacy of the driveway access and whether the required minimum width of 5.5m is achievable cannot be made.

The setbacks from the side boundary are insufficient

The proposal includes a car park and a driveway with side setbacks of 3m and 1.5m from boundaries to allotments which contain dwelling-houses. The setbacks do not provide sufficient space for landscape screening. The elevated driveway at the southern end of the building has a setback of 1.5m from the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway and is likely to have adverse acoustic impacts on this dwelling.

Increased potential for accidents in the Pacific Highway

The application was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services for comment. No concerns regarding increased potential for accidents in the Pacific Highway were identified.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

Roads and Maritime Services

The proposal was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comment. Roads and Maritime Services advised by letter, dated 30 September 2013, that subject to conditions, they had no objections.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

Heritage

Council's Heritage Consultant reviewed the application and provided the following summary of issues and suggested design changes. The complete Heritage Comments can be found at Attachment E to this report.

Summary of issues

· It is recommended that the development be amended to move the footprint of the proposed building further to the south in order to provide complying setbacks and stepping of built forms as required by the DCP.

· The setbacks from St Johns church and cemetery, although slightly greater under the amended proposal, could be extended further. This would also allow more space for substantial trees and deep planting to help minimise the impact of the proposed development on views over and from the cemetery in particular. It would also improve usability and amenity of open spaces for users of the hospital.

· Increasing the footprint (or potentially splitting the footprint into several smaller blocks to reduce the monolithic qualities of the scale and form) over a wider area would potentially allow the overall height of the development to be reduced to two levels above natural ground level. If this is not a practical outcome given the functional requirements of the facility, the bulk of the development could be located closer to the south-eastern part of the site adjacent to other (non heritage listed) properties that are also zoned for high density residential development and which are therefore not as vulnerable to the environmental and heritage impacts caused by large differences in building scale and form.

· Further details should be provided to clarify the details of the proposed landscaping (including trees proposed to be removed) and splay corner to the street elevation of 748 Pacific Highway.

· The issue of potential psychological conflict caused by the proximity of the hospital to the cemetery needs to be considered very carefully by applicant as the proposal should not unduly restrict the existing cemetery use.

Other design details:

· All driveways and parking areas surrounding 748 Pacific Highway should be finished in dark asphalt to minimise their aesthetic impact on the setting of the heritage item.

Urban design

Council's Urban Design Consultant reviewed the application and provided the following comments. The complete Urban Design comments can be found at Attachment F to this report.

Built form

The type of construction selected to deal with the poorly resolved floor levels to ground levels at the southern end of the proposed development needs to be reconsidered. The car park/drop off level sees a series of columns up to a height over 4.3 metres out of the ground to support the suspended slab. This structural order and structural language bears no relationship to the structural language and order of the northern component. Rather it serves to emphasise the poor resolution of the ground floor level with the existing and proposed ground levels.

Setbacks

Inconsistent or poorly coordinated ground levels

RLs at the lower car park level require clarification. They appear to be approximately 0.56m higher than the internal floor level of the building and therefore not compliant with BCA access requirements.

Landscape

RLs on landscape plans are inconsistent with the RLs on the architectural plans in places, the numbers of risers of stairs do not seem to match some levels and the labelling of proposed and existing ground and path levels is unclear.

The following information is required to fully assess the relationship of the proposed landscape to the proposed building:

- all existing and proposed RLs are to be clearly annotated and differentiated

- contours are to be clearly indicated

- all bottom and top of wall RLs are to be accurately located and checked*

- all external stair flights are to be numbered for identification

The landscape zone separating the truck turning area and No 744 Pacific Highway needs to demonstrate that adequate width is provided to enable appropriate planting to screen the raised platform of the truck turning area - which appears to be over 1.5 metres out of the ground and, with a required solid barrier above, will impact upon the visual amenity of the current resident.

Pedestrian and vehicle ramps are to indicate the direction of ramp up and nominate all gradients.

There’s a missing gradient at the main entry pedestrian ramp.

The main pedestrian ramp appears to rise from RL 127.85 at northern car park landing near No 748 Pacific Highway to RL128.15 at the NE corner of the proposed hospital then fall to RL127.50 at main building entry. This appears to be unnecessary as the high point does not link to any other levels.

Fire stairs

Fire stairs don’t indicate direction of stair or breaks between levels.

Fire Stair 3 risers indicate the same number of risers between the lower ground and ground floor levels as between the ground floor and first floor despite the floor having different ceiling heights. Stair design for the first floor and ground floor are the same despite the first floor not sitting below another floor.

The lift at the southern end appears to offer the only means of entering the building from the lower car park. Provision of stair access for staff from the lower car park should be considered.

Car parking

The site rationale that proposes a semi-surface level car park accessed from the higher point on the site results in difficulties for the southern component of the building in its relationship to the ground levels, and flow-on inefficiencies of the functionalities. It may be possible for a basement car park to be accessed from the lower southern driveway connecting to a continuous ramped driveway that exits from the higher point. This would make better use of the wasted space currently below the car park/drop off level, better separate the staff and visitor/patient access once that has been clarified and accommodate additional spaces if required.

The levels for the truck turning area are inconsistent between the floor plans and the elevations. The height and material for the barrier on the southern and eastern side of the turning area is not clearly identified on the plans.

Landscaping

Council's Landscape Assessment Officer commented on the amended proposal as follows:

Deep soil landscape area (Part 7A.4 Volume A Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP)

The site area for the hospital is 3406m². For a residential flat building 50% of the site (1703m²) is required to be deep soil landscaping. For the proposed hospital 25% of the site area (854m²) has been provided as deep soil landscaping.

The total site area is 4715m² and the site area for the purposes of the deep soil requirement is 4282m² as the access handles are not included. This generates a deep soil landscaping requirement of 2141m². For the entire site 26.9% of the site area (1155m²) has been provided as deep soil landscaping.

The proposal provides 849-986m² less deep soil landscaping than a residential flat building development designed in accordance with the requirements of the Local Centres DCP. The majority of the deep soil will be located south of 742 Pacific Highway and in the front setback of 748 Pacific Highway.

On merit, the development should provide consolidated deep soil zones through careful planning and design, to provide landscaped areas that are appropriate to the scale and context of the development (Part 7A.4 Volume A Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres)DCP). It would appear that the inclusion of 742 Pacific Highway has not translated into significantly improved deep soil areas between the heritage item and the neighbouring dwelling at 22 St Johns Avenue.

The building setbacks to the northern boundary provides greater compliance and greater deep soil zones, however there are no trees proposed of a similar scale to the proposed building but this could be conditioned.

The proposed architectural screen along the western boundary of the proposed carpark is considered a structure that would prevent tree planting and conflict with the intent of the deep soil area landscape along the western elevation of the building. This should be deleted.

Tree Impacts (Clause 5.9 KLEP(Local Centres))

An arborist report prepared by Landscape Matrix, dated 10/07/13, has been submitted. The landscape plan indicates two trees as Tree 1.

Trees to be removed

Tree 25/ Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm). This palm is not identified on the landscape plan or the arborist’s tree location plan. There is no objection to the tree’s removal.

Trees to be retained

Tree 9/ Syagrus romanzoffiana(Cocos Palm).This tree is located on the southern side of the existing driveway, within 744 Pacific Highway. The proposed driveway widening and retaining wall will encroach within the tree protection zone. The proposed retaining wall construction is likely to have an adverse impact on this tree.

Tree 20/ Magnolia x soulangiana (Magnolia). This tree is located on the western boundary of the site. The proposed path is located 1.6m from the tree. The impact is considered acceptable.

Tree 21/ Tiboucina granulosa (Purple Glory Tree). This tree is located in the north-west corner of 746A Pacific Highway. The tree provides amenity to the adjoining heritage conservation area. The proposed paved area adjacent to the staff room is 3.5m from the tree. The impact is considered acceptable.

Landscape plan

Front setback (7A.1Volume A Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) DCP)

Two canopy trees and additional shrub planting are proposed to be planted on the northern corner of the driveway entrance as replacement planting.

Driveway (1.3 Volume C Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) DCP)

The proposed driveway in the northern access handle will occupy the entire width of the access handle. Existing trees and hedge planting along the driveway will be removed for the driveway widening. This will result in inadequate landscape treatment to the driveway.

Cut and fill (Part 1.2 Volume C Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) DCP)

The proposed driveway will require excavation to a depth of 1.2m. The carpark and loading area will require excavation to a depth of 2.5m excavation along the line of the existing carpark to the existing Lawson Clinic and fill to approximately 2 metres along the western boundary.

Neighbour amenity (Part 1.2 Volume C Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) DCP)

The site falls to the west and has views across the adjoining properties and distant views towards the blue mountains. Existing screen planting located along the western boundary should be retained where possible including along the north-west corner of the site. This can be conditioned.

Heritage impacts - Development in the vicinity of a heritage item (7.3 Volume B Ku-ring-gai (Local Centres) DCP)

Impacts on setting of the existing Lawson Clinic

The enhancement of views of the heritage item from the south-east has been considered in the landscape design.

At the rear of the existing Lawson Clinic is an existing bitumen car park. The proposed boundary adjustment will reduce the site area along the rear boundary of the heritage item by 95.7m². This area currently provides 1.5m landscape setback to the car park. Despite the proposed hospital being a significantly larger development than the existing dwelling-houses, the proposal provides minimal area for landscaping between the car park and the proposed building. A narrow planter bed (800mm) with groundcovers is proposed in association with a pergola to which climbers are to be fixed. Planter beds at the northern and southern end of the carpark, not directly behind the heritage building, are also proposed. The planter beds are an inadequate landscape treatment which fails to achieve an appropriate buffer between the heritage item and the proposed 3 storey building.

St John’s church and cemetery and the Heritage Conservation Area

The proposed assorted planting along the northern boundary of shrubs are consistent with the horticultural style of the adjoining item. Three additional medium sized deciduous trees should be provided along this boundary. This could be conditioned.

Stormwater plan

The proposed OSD tank has been relocated to within the new car park at the southern end of the hospital. The proposed easement for stormwater works within 742 and 738 Pacific Highway is likely to impact existing trees. An arborist report recommending thrust boring through this area has been provided. This could be conditioned.

Drawing inaccuracies

The photomontage of the northern driveway on DA-05.11 indicates planting to either sides of the driveway which cannot be provided as the new driveway is shown as the same width as the access handle on DA-01.01. There is no planting proposed in association with the existing driveway nor will any existing vegetation be retained.

Engineering

Council's Team Leader Engineering Assessment commented on the amended proposal as follows:

Water management

It is now proposed to convey runoff from the development to Bushlands Avenue via a proposed easement through 1a Bushlands Avenue (Lot D DP337904). The written approval of the owner of that property to grant the easement has not been submitted, however the letter from CityPlan states that negotiations are underway, and it is noted that no submission has been received from that owner.

The arborist has advised that the installation of the interallotment drainage pipe can be by thrust boring. The plans show that it is proposed to connect the pipe to an existing pit within the neighbouring property, which requires an adverse right angle bend. This appears to be in order to avoid excavation into the steep nature strip in Bushlands Avenue. It would be necessary to confirm that the flow from the development would not cause the system within 738 Pacific Highway to surcharge. Otherwise a separate connection to the gutter should be provided, generally in line with the new pipe, with a bend at the kerb to direct flow in line with the gutter. It is expected that the owners of the neighbouring property will also require this as a condition of granting the easement. If the application were to be approved, a deferred commencement consent could be recommended, with the registration of the easement as the Schedule A condition.

The Stormwater Concept Plan shows an 8,000 litres rainwater tank on the western side of the building. The tank is located over a path and is not shown on the landscape plan. This size of tank generally has a diameter between 2 and 3 metres and there does not seem to be space between the path and the building for it. The ESD report states on page 6 that the rainwater tank size should be 10,000 litres, with re-use for irrigation. This should be stated on the stormwater plans as well. Since the ESD report has been prepared, the development should comply with it.

The size of the one site detention tank and the StormFilter water quality devices for pollution control are satisfactory. The MUSIC model output submitted demonstrates that Council’s water quality targets will be met with the proposed system.

Traffic and parking

The traffic response again ignores the existing outpatient facility. However, a closer examination of the report and Section 2.6 of the Statement of Environmental Effects reveals that the staff numbers quoted are for both facilities, so that calculating the parking requirement for the outpatient clinic based on the gross floor area would give an overestimate.

If a shortfall of parking is to be considered, it must first be quantified. Therefore a breakdown of staff numbers by outpatient clinic and hospital is required. This does not guarantee that the shortfall will be supported. It appears that there would be room under the northern wing of the new hospital building for additional parking spaces.

There appears to be a locked gate at the existing vehicular entry to the Lawson Clinic, which might explain why there are so many spaces free in the carpark during the day.

In comparison to the rates in Council’s DCP, the formula given in the RTA (now Roads and Maritime Services) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002, gives a parking requirement of 39 spaces just for the hospital (but using the total number of staff, so also an overestimate).

No sections have been provided of the main driveway as requested. Cross-sections are required to indicate the actual width proposed. The plans indicate a wall on either side, which is right up against the neighbour’s residence, but no details have been provided for this wall. The landscape plan indicates a top of wall of RL 126.90 adjacent to the neighbour’s house, with an 1800 mm high fence above the wall, however the neighbour’s gutter is over the boundary at this location, at RL127.45, so the fence would clash with the neighbour’s roof. The wall structure will restrict the available driveway width, so its dimensions need to be known. A minimum width of 5.5 metres is required for two way traffic in the driveway.

The driveway splay at the Pacific Highway is still shown on the landscape plan, but not elsewhere.

Geotechnical investigation

The report is based on boreholes, and contains recommendations for vibration monitoring and dilapidation survey, excavation methods and support. The deep excavation adjoining the neighbour’s house is no longer required. The recommendations of the report would be incorporated into conditions of consent if the application were to be approved. The concerns raised previously about groundwater are addressed.

The following information is required:

i. The rainwater tank should be sized in accordance with the ESD report, and shown on all the plans to scale (not over a proposed pathway). The proposed re-use of the rainwater is to be indicated on the stormwater plans.

ii. Connection of the interallotment drainage pipe to the existing pit within 738 Pacific Highway via an adverse right angle bend may affect that property’s stormwater drainage system and may not function hydraulically. The applicant should investigate whether a separate kerb connection, in line with the interallotment drainage pipe, should instead be provided.

iii. For further consideration of the parking reports, a breakdown of staff into outpatient and hospital staff is required. This does not guarantee that the shortfall will be supported. It appears that there would be space under the northern wing of the new hospital building for additional parking.

iv. Cross-sections of the new driveway are required, showing existing and proposed levels, crossfall, walls and fences, the neighbour’s encroaching roof and the actual proposed width of the driveway (the photomontage seems to show vegetation being retained which will probably be removed). A minimum of 5.5 metres is required for two way movement.

v. The photomontage does not show the splay on the driveway at the front boundary, but it is shown on the landscape plan. Is this splay to be provided, and will it affect trees on the heritage property?

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The proposed application is subject to the requirements of SEPP infrastructure. Clause 57 (1) states that development for the purpose of health services facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone. The R4 High Density Residential zone is specified as a prescribed zone in clause 56 ‘Definitions’. Clause 57 (4) states:

(4) Nothing in this clause:

(a) prevents a consent authority from:

(i) granting consent for development on a site by reference to site and design features that are more stringent than those identified in a site compatibility certificate for the same site, or

(ii) refusing to grant consent for development by reference to the consent authority’s own assessment of the compatibility of the development with the surrounding land uses, or

(b) otherwise limits the matters to which a consent authority may have regard in determining a development application for development of a kind referred to in subclause (2).

The SEPP makes the ordinarily prohibited use of ‘hospital’ a permissible use. Clause 57 (4) (a) (ii) enables a consent authority to carry out an assessment of the compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses. The clause allows for the refusal of a development application which relies on the SEPP if the assessment finds that an appropriate standard of compatibility has not been achieved. In consideration of this requirement, the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects contains the following comment:

In this case, a site compatibility certificate is not required, therefore the assessment of the application will be guided by the consent authority’s own assessment of the compatibility of the development with the surrounding residential and institutional land uses. Having regard to the development of the site for a hospital / inpatient unit in association with an established clinic on the same site, and the residential / low impact nature of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposal is compatible with the adjacent land uses.

Further to this, the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects contains an assessment of the proposal against the controls of the Local Centres DCP for residential flat buildings. Where the proposal does not comply with the design controls justification for the variation has been provided. The Statement of Environmental Effects was prepared for the original development application and identifies non compliances with the design controls for setbacks and deep soil landscaping and compliance with the design controls for site coverage and number of storeys.

The following table provides an assessment of the amended proposal against the controls of the Local Centres DCP for residential flat buildings.

7A.1 Building setbacks
A minimum side setback of 6m is required up to the fourth storey.	northern boundary: 4.2m eastern boundary with 748 Pacific Highway: 2m eastern boundary with 744 Pacific Highway: 7.2m southern boundary: 29m western boundary: 6m	NO NO YES YES YES
Side setback areas behind the building line are not to be used for driveways or vehicular access into the building.	3.2m setback to western side boundary shared with 22 St Johns Avenue 1.5m to eastern side boundary shared with 744 Pacific Highway	NO NO
7A.2 Building separation
The minimum separation between residential buildings on the development sites and the adjoining sites must be: Up to 4^th storey 12m between habitable rooms/balconies 9m between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms 6m between non-habitable rooms	>12m between western elevation and first floor windows of 22 St Johns Avenue	YES
7A.3 Site coverage
The site coverage may be up to a maximum of 35% of the site area providing that the deep soil landscaping requirements in Part 7A.4 can be met. Where a site incorporates an access handle the site coverage must not exceed 35% of the total site area less 35% of the access handle.	38.2%	NO
7A.4 Deep soil landscaping
Residential flat development must have a minimum deep soil landscaping area of 50% for a site area of 1800m² or more	26.9% (entire site) 25% (hospital site only)	NO NO
Lots with the following sizes are to support a minimum number of tall trees capable or attaining a mature height of 13m on shale transitional soil and 10m on sandstone derived soils 1200m²of less / 1 per 400m²of site area 1201-1800m² / 1 per 350m²of site area 1801m² or more / 1 per 300m² of site area	The site area is 4715m². A minimum of 16 trees capable with a mature height of at least 13m are required, 10 trees are proposed.	NO
At least 50% of all tree plantings are to be locally occurring trees and spread around the site.	At least 50% of the proposed tree plantings are locally occurring trees	YES
7C.3 – Solar access
All developments must allow the retention of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June to living areas and the principal portion of the private and communal open space of existing residential flat buildings and multi-dwelling housing on adjoining lots and any residential development in adjoining lower density zones	The shadow diagrams are not based on survey data and the perspective view format does allow for compliance with the design control to be determined.	NO
Developments must allow the retention of a minimum 4 hours direct sunlight to all existing neighbouring solar collectors and solar hot water services	No impact on neighbouring solar collectors and solar hot water services	YES
All developments must utilise shading and glare control	Shading devices have been provided.	YES
7C.10 Building facades
Street, side and rear building facades must be modulated and articulation with wall planes varying in depth by not less than 0.6m. No single wall plane is to exceed 81m² in area.	100m² western elevation 90m² eastern elevation	NO
The continuous length of a single building on any elevation must not exceed 36m. The length of a single building elevation facing the side or rear may exceed 36m providing that: 1. The façade is recessed to an adequate depth and width to appear as distinctive bays or wings 2. The recess is common area with landscaping which includes at least one medium tree with an 8m canopy diameter at maturity	The western elevation has a length of 60m.	NO
7C.11 – Building storeys
Sites with the following maximum building heights under the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) are to have a maximum number of storeys above the basement as follows: 11.5m = 3 storeys 14.5m = 4 storeys 17.5m = 5 storeys 23.5m = 7 storeys	The site is subject to a height limit of 11.5m and the building has a height of 4 storeys (ref. Section HT5 on DA-05.04)	NO
7C.13 – Top storey design and roof forms
The gross floor area of the top storey is not to exceed 60% of the gross floor area of the storey immediately below.	59%	YES
The top storey of a building is to be set back from the outer face of the floors below on all sides (roof projection is allowed beyond the outer face of the top storey).	The top storey is set back at the southern side only.	NO
Service elements are to be integrated into the overall design of the roof so as not to be visible from the public domain or any surrounding development. These elements include lift overruns, plant equipment, chimneys, vent stacks, water storage, communication devices and signage.	The lift overruns have been adequately integrated into the design of the building.	YES
Roof design must respond to solar access, for example, by using eaves and skillion roofs.	The eaves of the skillion roof will provide sun protection to windows.	YES
7C.15 – Visual privacy
Buildings must be designed to ensure privacy for residents of the development and of the neighbouring site. The use of offset balconies, recessed balconies, vertical fins, solid and semi-transparent balustrades, louvres/screen panels and planter boxes is encouraged.	Privacy screens and high set windows are proposed.	YES

The amended proposal does not comply with the following design controls:

· setbacks

· site coverage

· deep soil landscaping area

· number of canopy trees

· solar access (inadequate information)

· wall plane size

· building elevation length

· number of storeys

· top storey setbacks

In accordance with clause 57 (4) (a) (ii) of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 an assessment of the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses has been carried out. The assessment is based on the existing and likely future character of the area having regard to zoning, development standards and the design controls of the Local Centres DCP. The following issues have been identified:

i. The western elevation of the development has a length of approximately 60m, a height of more than 11.5m and a partial 4 storey presentation. For residential flat buildings and sites adjacent to a heritage item the Local Centres DCP does not permit elevations which exceed a length of 36m. Facades with a length of more than 36m are required to be broken down into distinctive bays and wings through deep articulation. The design of the western elevation should provide a built form which respects and relates to the characteristics of the adjacent R2 zoned land. The proposed articulation is shallow in depth and limited in width. This type of articulation does not relate to the form and proportions of development in the adjacent R2 zoned land.

ii. The staff and delivery carpark has a side setback of 3.2m and includes a 20m long, 3m-5m high concrete wall on its western end that has a setback of 2m from the boundary with 22 St Johns Avenue. The wall is adjacent to the private open space of this dwelling-house. The wall and carpark significantly compromises the ability to provide landscape screening to the western elevation. The height of the wall, at more than 5m above the ground level of 22 St Johns Avenue at its southern end is considered excessive and uncharacteristic of the area. The wall would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of 22 St Johns Avenue as its height, length and minimal setback results in a visually dominant structure that is inappropriate in a residential setting.

iii. The driveway between the southern end of the eastern elevation and the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway has a surface level that is up to 1m higher than the existing ground level and a 1.5m setback from the rear boundary of 744 Pacific Highway. The elevated position of the driveway is likely to adversely impact the acoustic amenity of 744 Pacific Highway. The 1.5m setback from the rear boundary will prevent the establishment of screening vegetation in scale with the building. The proposed driveway will compromise the landscape setting and have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of 744 Pacific Highway.

iv. The proportion of the site area that is deep soil landscaping is approximately half that required for a residential flat building. Dwelling-house development in the adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zone is required to have a minimum landscaped area of between 40-50% of the site area and it is considered that existing development on adjacent sites would exceed these requirements. Allotments with a high proportion of hard surfaces and minimal landscaping are not characteristic of the subject R4 High Density Residential zone, the adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zone and the St Johns Avenue Conservation Area to the north-west. The quantum of deep soil landscaping results in significantly fewer canopy trees than the number required for a residential flat building on an equivalently sized site. In consideration of the merits of the landscape proposal it is noted that inadequate building, driveway and car park setbacks do not allow for suitable landscape screening of the northern, eastern and western elevations. The landscaped character of the development is inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the area.

101 Development with frontage to classified road

(1) The objectives of this clause are:

(a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

(b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

(2) The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a) where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

(c) the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.

The site has a frontage to the Pacific Highway which is a classified road, however the proposed hospital building has a significant setback from the road corridor. The proposed development is considered to be largely consistent with the above requirements. The proposal does not create any new vehicular access points and will rely on existing access handles. It is noted that the RMS did not raise an objection to the proposal.

Clause 102 ‘Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development’ applies to development for the purposes of a hospital but only if the consent authority considers that the development is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration. As the proposed building has a significant setback from the road corridor, it is unlikely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

The provisions of SEPP 55 require consideration of the potential for a site to be contaminated. The proposed hospital is located on three allotments which currently contain dwelling-houses. The subject sites have a history of residential use and, as such, are unlikely to contain any contamination.

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.

Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012

Zoning and permissibility:

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential. The proposed development is defined as a hospital and a hospital is a prohibited use in the zoning table. The application is lodged pursuant to Clause 57 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

Residential zone objectives:

The objectives for the R4 High Density Residential Zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To provide for high density residential housing close to public transport, services and employment opportunities.

The proposal is inconsistent with the following objective:

To provide for high density residential housing close to public transport, services and employment opportunities.

The proposal is inconsistent with this objective as it results in the isolation of 744 Pacific Highway. Of importance to the success of the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 and the achievement of Ku-ring-gai’s housing targets is ensuring that development does not result in isolated sites which cannot be developed to their reasonable potential. Particular concerns with the subject application include the failure to provide an adequate valuation for 744 Pacific Highway and that the concept plans for the potential redevelopment of 744 Pacific Highway rely on a right of carriageway that does not exist and cannot be reasonably required as a condition of consent.

Development standards:

Development standard	Proposed	Complies
Building height: 11.5m	12.5m	NO
Floor space ratio: 0.8:1	0.64:1	YES

4.6 Exceptions to development standards:

The applicant has submitted a request for a variation to the maximum building height development standard.

The objectives of clause 4.6 are:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

Subclause (3) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Subclause (4) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

The objectives of the ‘height of buildings’ clause are:

(a) to ensure that the height of development is appropriate for the scale of the different centres within the hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai centres,

(b) to establish a transition in scale between the centres and the adjoining lower density residential and open space zones to protect local amenity,

(c) to enable development with a built form that is compatible with the size of the land to be developed.

In response to objective (a), ‘To ensure that the height of development is appropriate for the scale of the different centres within the hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai centres’, the applicant states:

This objective ensures that the height of developments within the designated centres of Gordon, Lindfield, Pymble, Roseville, St Ives and Turramurra is appropriate to the centre’s place in the hierarchy of centres. Within the Gordon Centre, whilst the height standard of the subject site is 11.5m, the height of the lands to the south of the site (Nos. 730 – 736 Pacific Highway) is 17.5m whilst lands to the north of the site have a height limit of 20.5m (Nos. 756 – 782 Pacific Highway) and 38.5m (Gordon Centre). The contravention of the height standard on the site by a maximum of 1m to allow for a maximum height over a section of the building of 12.5m will have no impact on the scale of development in Gordon relative to its hierarchy.

The lands to the north and south of the site have a maximum building height standard of 11.5m, the same as the subject site. The lands to the northwest (St John’s Cemetery), though at a lower level, have no building height standard pertaining to them. As outlined in the Heritage Impact Statement, the proposed development will not negatively impact the cemetery as the portion of the development adjoining the cemetery complies with the control.

In response to objective (b), ‘To establish a transition in scale between the centres and the adjoining lower density residential and open space zones to protect local amenity’, the applicant states:

The lands to the west of the site are zoned R2 (low density residential development) and have a maximum building height of 9.5m. Every effort has been made in the design of the development to minimise the impact of the proposed building on this adjoining residential property; the setbacks at ground level have been increased to allow for the provision of a landscape strip and the Second Level is provided for only the northern portion of the development and therefore does not impose on adjoining R2 interface. Having regard to the marginal excess of the building height limit (up to 1m), the portion of the development which exceeds the building height which is minimal and the negligible impact of this variation, it is considered that the proposed variation is not inconsistent with this objective.

In response to objective (c), ‘To enable development with a built form that is compatible with the size of the land to be developed’, the applicant states:

The scale of the proposed hospital, with a Gross Floor Area of 3,048.6m² on a site of 4,715m², resulting in a total FSR on the site of 0.64:1 and the majority of the building height complying with the 11.5m maximum building height, is considered appropriate to the size of the land to the development. The building storey controls set out in the Ku-ring-gai DCP (Part 7C.11 Building storeys) state that sites with a maximum building height of 11.5m must have a maximum of 3 storeys above basement. The proposed development complies with this translation from height in metres to height in storeys.

In order to assess the compatibility of the proposal relative to its surroundings, reliance is placed on the Land Environment Court Planning Principle of ‘compatibility with context’ in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. To test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, the following two questions can be asked:

Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

The site is zoned for R4, high density residential development and as such, with a Maximum Building Height of 11.5m, a three storey Residential Flat Building would normally be permissible on the site. It is argued, that the physical impacts of the proposed inpatient mental care facility are no greater and likely significantly less than those which would arise from a Residential Flat Building. This is particularly the case as the proposed design does not have any openings on the western elevation and only emergency egress from the building to this elevation. This western boundary features fencing and dense landscape screening which ensures that the neighbouring properties are not physically impact upon.

Due to the consolidation of a number of lots, the question as to the impact on the development potential of No. 744 Pacific Highway is raised and addressed in the SEE. It is demonstrated therein, supported by the architectural plans prepared by Elevation Architecture for this site, that the proposed development on the subject site will not isolate No. 744 Pacific Highway or otherwise constrain the development potential of this site.

It is further argued, that the physical impacts on surrounding development which will result from this specific variation from the development standards (to allow for a 1m excess of the 11.5m building height over a limited area of the building) will be negligible. As can be seen from the shadow diagrams accompanying this DA, the overshadowing resulting from the portion of the building which exceeds 11.5m will have no impact on the residential amenity of the adjoining properties.

Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

The site of the proposed development contains a Heritage Item of Local Significance: Windsor House, whilst part of the site and the lands to the north which contain St John’s Church and associated buildings, is designated a Heritage Conservation Area. As outlined in the Heritage advice HIS which accompanies this DA, the proposal will be relatively discreet when viewed from the public domain and will not affect significant views to or from the heritage items.

In response to the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone the applicant states:

Whilst the land use table for R4 provides that health service facilities, hospitals and medical centres are not permissible within the R4 Residential zone, the proposed use of the land for a hospital / inpatient unit is not incompatible with the objectives of the zone generally. Specifically it would provide facilities and services for local residents not otherwise available.

On 3 July 2014, the applicant was advised by Council that the building height variation was not supported. The following issues were identified:

The western elevation of the development has a length of approximately 60m, a height of more than 11.5m and a partial 4 storey presentation. If the provisions of the Local Centres DCP were applied, the development would be required to have a minimum setback of 6m for the first 3 storeys and 9m for the fourth storey. In addition the façade would be required to be broken down into distinctive bays and wings through deep articulation. The design of the development does not have adequate regard to the zone interface principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council.

The clause 4.6 variation states that the second level is only provided for the northern portion of the development and does not impose on the adjoining R2 interface. This position is not supported as the southern part of the western elevation which faces the R2 zoned land has a 4 storey presentation, does not comply with the 11.5m height limit and is of greater height than the northern portion. The 4 storey portion of the development will be visible from the private open space of 22 St Johns Avenue and 3 Bushlands Avenue and will have an overbearing impact on these R2 zoned properties. At a zone interface between R2 and R4 zoned land it is considered inappropriate and unacceptable for the eastern outlook from the private open space of two single dwellings to be dominated by a building elevation with a length of 60m and maximum height of more than 11.5m.

The applicant provided the following response:

The subject site as Council is aware, is zoned R4 High Density Residential and the alternative redevelopment of this site for the purpose of a permissible residential flat building would reasonably envisage the whole western elevation of such a building to feature balconies at 6m separation up to 3 storeys in height. Such a development would ultimately result in a four storey flat building pursuant to the 11.5 metre height limit. The proposal is far better in terms of amenity in comparison to such a development outcome. Should Council remain concerned with regard to the treatment of the western elevation, we recognise that Council may chose to impose a condition to delete what they consider to be the offending rooms or seek further articulation in specific terms as detailed in their correspondence dated 3 July 2014.

Any such condition can be eminently drafted to satisfy the Newbury Principles.

Assessing officers response:

The applicant’s statement that a height limit of 11.5m allows for 4 storey development is incorrect. The Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP is a Standard Instrument style LEP. This type of LEP requires building height to be measured from the existing ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building. The typical floor to floor height for a residential flat building is 3m, a height limit of 11.5m allows for sloping topography, three residential levels and the roof structure. Part 7C.11 ‘Building Storeys’ of the Local Centres DCP states that a building height limit of 14.5m is required for 4 storey development.

It is also noted that the applicant’s response of 9 July 2014 appears to contradict the clause 4.6 variation which states that the R4 zoning and 11.5m height limit would make a 3 storey residential flat building permissible on the site.

The site is zoned for R4, high density residential development and as such, with a Maximum Building Height of 11.5m, a three storey Residential Flat Building would normally be permissible on the site. (extract from clause 4.6 variation)

The clause 4.6 variation does not adequately address the impacts of the non-compliance on the adjacent land which is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The applicant’s claim that only the northern portion of the hospital does not comply with the building height control is incorrect. The southern portion of the western elevation, which is adjacent to the private open space of 22 St Johns Avenue and 3 Bushlands Avenue, has a 4 storey presentation and a non-compliant height of 12.2m.

In support of the variation the applicant seeks to compare the proposal to a residential flat building which would feature balconies set back 6m from the side boundary. It is agreed that a residential flat building on the site is likely to have west facing balconies. Balconies provide a façade with depth and shadow lines that have the effect of breaking down the building mass and minimising visual bulk. The proposed development does not incorporate design features which would achieve a similar outcome. The length of the western elevation (60m) is also considerably greater than the maximum length permitted for a residential flat building (36m).

The DCP controls for residential flat buildings also require additional setbacks at the zone interface. For the 4^th storey and above (i.e. building height >11.5m) a minimum setback of 9m is required. Those parts of the building which exceed a height of 11.5m do not have a setback of 9m.

The impacts of the additional height have not been ameliorated through additional setbacks and the shadow diagrams are not sufficiently detailed to allow for an assessment of the impacts of the additional shadowing caused by the non-compliant building height.

Having regard to the issues identified above, it is considered that the applicant’s variation request to the development standard does not satisfy the requirements of clause 4.6 as compliance with the development standard is not unreasonable or unnecessary and the environmental planning grounds relied upon by the applicant to justify contravening the development standard are not well founded.

The applicant has suggested that the design changes suggested by Council could be achieved through conditions of consent. It is not agreed that conditions requiring significant design changes could be worded with such precision that ambiguity in the interpretation of the condition could be avoided. Ultimately, the required design changes would also require some type of planning assessment, which is not the role of a condition of development consent.

5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation:

Clause 5.9 requires that a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree without the authority conferred by a development consent or permit. Council’s Landscape Officer has advised that the proposed tree removal is acceptable.

5.10 Heritage conservation:

The proposal is subject to this clause as the existing Lawson Clinic outpatient facility at 748 Pacific Highway is a heritage item. The proposed works to the heritage item include replacement of the existing driveway with a footpath/landscaping, modifications to the carpark and a boundary adjustment which will reduce the site area by 66.1m². Clause 5.10 (4) requires the consent authority to consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned before granting consent.

POLICY PROVISIONS

COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development control	Proposed	Complies
Volume A
Part 3 Land amalgamation and subdivision
Lot amalgamation is to avoid creating:
A primary street frontage less than that required by KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	The development will isolate 744 Pacific Highway. This site has a frontage of 22.86m which does not comply with the minimum frontage requirement of 24m	NO
A lot size less than that required by KLEP (Local Centres) 2012	The development will isolate 744 Pacific Highway which has a site area of 1037m². The minimum site area for a residential flat development is 1200m².	NO
A highly constrained site	The isolated site is not constrained by heritage, riparian or biodiversity values.	YES
Volume B – Heritage and Conservation Areas
7.3 Development in the vicinity of a heritage item
The minimum separation from a heritage item is 12m.	6.2m to the Op Shop and 5m to the Church Hall at 750-754 Pacific Highway Gordon 13.6m to the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway.	NO YES
The façade height must not exceed 8m from existing ground level.	eastern and northern elevations have a height of 9.8m	NO
Any building mass above 8m from existing ground level must be stepped back an additional 6m from the heritage item.	7.2m to the Op Shop and 5m to the Church Hall at 750-754 Pacific Highway Gordon. 13.6m to the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway	NO NO
Any new development must have a maximum 36m wall length to any boundary.	the western elevation has a length of 60m	NO
Screen planting on side and rear boundaries adjoining a heritage item site is to achieve a minimum mature height of 4m	groundcovers in the 800mm wide planter bed between the eastern elevation and the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway will not achieve a height of 4m	NO
No metal panel fencing is to be constructed on any heritage item boundary.	no metal fencing proposed	YES
Volume C - Car parking
Car parking rates
Hospitals: 1 space per 3 beds plus 1 space per 2 day-shift staff or practitioners plus 1 ambulance space, 1 space per 1 full time night-shift employee = 37 Health consulting rooms: 1 per 40m2 of GFA = 10 Total = 47	31	NO
Volume C – Building Design and Sustainability
All new non-residential development must include Ecologically Sustainable Design measures	Ecologically Sustainable Design measures have been incorporated into the proposed development	YES

3A.1 Land amalgamation

The development includes the amalgamation of three lots and a boundary adjustment. Design control 4 states that lot amalgamation is to avoid creating a site with a primary street frontage or lot size less than required by Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012. The proposed land amalgamation will result in the isolation of 744 Pacific Highway Gordon which currently contains a single storey dwelling-house. The site is isolated as it will be surrounded by the development on all non-road frontage boundaries thus preventing it from being amalgamated with another allotment. The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and is subject to a building height control of 11.5m and a floor space ratio control of 0.8:1. The lot size and street frontage of the site does not comply with the development standards of Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 which apply to residential flat building development.

In response to the land amalgamation requirements of the DCP, the applicant has:

· prepared a concept plan for a 3 storey residential flat building at 744 Pacific Highway with vehicular access through the access handle of 742 Pacific Highway

· suggested that a condition be imposed on any development consent requiring registration of a right of carriageway over 742 Pacific Highway for the benefit of 744 Pacific Highway

· commissioned Mark O’Neil valuations Pty Ltd to prepare a valuation of 744 Pacific Highway

· made a written offer to the owner of 744 Pacific Highway to purchase the property

On 3 June 2014, the applicant was advised that the assessing officer had the following concerns with the valuation prepared for 744 Pacific Highway

I have checked the zoning of the properties listed in the valuation.

1 Bushlands Avenue is zoned R4 with same FSR and height as the subject site

7 Bushlands Avenue is zoned R2, 9.5m height, 0.3:1 FSR

47 St Johns Avenue is zoned R2, 9.5m height, 0.3:1 FSR

59 St Johns Avenue is zoned R2, 9.5m height, 0.3:1 FSR

9 Oberon Crescent is zoned R2, 9.5m height, 0.3:1 FSR

724 Pacific Highway, zoned R2, 9.5m height, 0.3:1 FSR, heritage item

Only 1 Bushlands Avenue has the same zoning as 744 Pacific Highway.

Nos 746 and 746A Pacific Highway were not included in the comparison despite these sites being sold within the same date range as the other properties.

The report also contains the following advice:

I have been verbally advised by Council that the subject property is within an area zoned residential under Ku-Ring-Gai LEP which permits single dwelling houses.

The site is zoned R4 and the valuation should be based on the highest and best use, a residential flat development.

On 9 July 2014 the applicant provided the following response:

Given we have demonstrated that the site is not isolated, there is no further requirement for revised concept designs or valuations of No. 744 Pacific Highway.

Council’s concerns regarding the valuation report have not been addressed and the applicant’s position that 744 Pacific Highway is not an isolated site cannot be sustained. The development will result in the undersized allotment known as No. 744 Pacific Highway being ‘sandwiched’ between the access handles of the development site. The planning principles to which the applicant refers do not support the applicant’s position. In Melissa Grech v Auburn Council Brown C of the NSW Land and Environment Court said:

Firstly, where a property will be isolated by a proposed development and that property cannot satisfy the minimum lot requirements then negotiations between the owners of the properties should commence at an early stage and prior to the lodgement of the development application.

Secondly, and where no satisfactory result is achieved from the negotiations, the development application should include details of the negotiations between the owners of the properties. These details should include offers to the owner of the isolated property. A reasonable offer, for the purposes of determining the development application and addressing the planning implications of an isolated lot, is to be based on at least one recent independent valuation and may include other reasonable expenses likely to be incurred by the owner of the isolated property in the sale of the property.

Thirdly, the level of negotiation and any offers made for the isolated site are matters that can be given weight in the consideration of the development application. The amount of weight will depend on the level of negotiation, whether any offers are deemed reasonable or unreasonable, any relevant planning requirements and the provisions of s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

None of the above principles support the position that 744 Pacific Highway will not be isolated as a result of the proposed development. However, the principles do support the position that the reasonableness of any offer to purchase an isolated site is a relevant planning consideration.

The valuation for 744 Pacific Highway appears to have been based on incorrect zoning information and an assumption that only dwelling houses are permissible on the site. Significant concerns remain regarding the reasonableness of the offer to purchase the property.

The land amalgamation requirements of the Local Centres DCP have not been adequately addressed. The proposal is not consistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, specifically object (a) (ii), ‘the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land’.

Heritage

The proposal does not comply with the following controls which apply to development in the vicinity of a heritage item:

· separation distance

· façade height

· setbacks

· building elevation length

· screen planting

Council’s Heritage Consultant has assessed the proposal and found that the impact of the development on adjacent heritage items is unacceptable for reasons of inadequate setbacks, separation distance and landscaping. The full comments of Council’s Heritage Consultant are Attachment E.

Car parking

The applicant’s traffic consultant states that the parking demand for the development is 25 spaces and the amended DA provides 31 spaces. The consultant justifies the variation from the DCP requirement on the basis that a hospital providing mental health services is very different from typical medical facilities and hospitals and that the current occupancy rates for the existing Lawson Clinic car park indicate a vacancy of 5-8 spaces during the day. The consultant states that surveys of similar facilities cannot be provided as no related private mental hospital has been established in Metropolitan Sydney for over two decades.

The existing Lawson Clinic is an outpatient unit and is used for both face to face consultations and telepsychiatry. In terms of likely parking demand it is acknowledged that the telepsychiatry services are unlikely to generate demand for patient car parking, however this element of the existing service is an operational issue that cannot be subject to a development consent requirement as enforcement of any condition requiring a certain portion of the service to be telepsychiatry would be impossible.

The consultant has attempted to distinguish the proposed hospital for mental health services from a conventional hospital offering surgical services. It is unclear as to the basis of this difference. For example, on the subject of visitation, the Statement of Environmental Effects advises:

The number of visitors to the facility will be significantly less than a standard ‘general’ hospital. Unfortunately, there is still a stigma attached to mental health issues, and most patients will only inform their immediate family or partner that they are admitted. Visiting times are Monday to Saturday 11:30am to 2pm and 4:30 – 8:30pm, and Sunday 10am – 8pm. Weekend visitations are encouraged as there are no compulsory group programs run on weekends and as such there will be less interference with the patients’ routines and treatment. On average, it can be anticipated that patients may have 2 visitors per weekend. The number of professional visitors (visiting consultants, students, etc) to the facility is likely to be in the order of 4 to 5 per week.

The number of staff during the day is between 21 and 25. If every staff member drove to work the provision of 31 car spaces leaves 6-10 car spaces available for visitors. As visitors are encouraged and the hospital has a capacity for 65 patients, it appears unlikely that 6-10 visitor car spaces would be sufficient.

The car parking rates in the Local Centres DCP are not unreasonable, in fact the car parking rates for hospitals in the RTA (now RMS) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments are more onerous. The RTA (now RMS) Guide requires 39 spaces compared to the DCP requirement of 37 spaces.

Significant concerns are held regarding the adequacy of the car parking arrangements. The shortfall in the car parking requirements is in the order of 16 spaces. The applicant’s correspondence of 9 July 2014 advised that if additional car parking is required by Council, it can be provided by a condition requiring additional parking under the northern wing of the building. A condition requiring the modification of the plans to include a basement car park should not be imposed as the outcome of such a condition is unknown.

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010

The applicant has requested an exemption from the payment of development contributions on the basis that

· patients will not be permitted access to private or public transport during their stay

· the hospital will provide a community benefit

· the hospital will have a teaching and medical research function in furtherance of the public interest

Section 1.26 of the contributions plans provides exemptions in the following cases:

The proposed hospital is not a ‘not for profit’ venture, accordingly an exemption can only be sought on the basis that the development will not generating a demand for or derive a benefit from any of the facilities and amenities provided by the Contributions Plan.

The contributions plans provides for the following:

· local parks and sporting facilities

· local recreational, cultural and social facilities

· new roads and road modifications

· townscape, transport and pedestrian facilities

The statement of the applicant that patients will not have access to transport during their stay cannot be relied upon as this is an operational aspect of the development which may change in the future. In addition, the rules which apply to patients during their stay are not aspects of the development that Council has the ability to monitor or enforce.

Staff, visitors and potentially patients from the hospital would have access to facilities within the Ku-ring-gai LGA that are provided by the Contributions Plan, if approval of the application were recommended payment of section 94 contributions would be required.

LIKELY IMPACTS

The likely impacts of the development have been considered within this report and it is considered that further amendments are required to the design before consent can be granted.

SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and the proposed is permissible under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The development site is constrained through it sharing a boundary with R2 Low Density Residential Zoned land and heritage items on the site (748 Pacific Highway) and adjacent sites (750-754 Pacific Highway). The development does not display an appropriate design response to the zone interface and the adjacent heritage items.

The proposed development has unsatisfactory impacts on the R2 Low Density Residential Zoned land and the heritage items at 748 and 750-754 Pacific Highway. The documentation submitted with the application also exhibit inconsistencies which lead to concerns regarding the certainty and finality of any consent which relied on these documents.

ANY SUBMISSIONS

The submissions have been considered in the above assessment.

PUBLIC INTEREST

OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

There are no other matters for consideration.

CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATION

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

THAT the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel, as the consent authority, refuse development consent to Development Application No. 0327/13 for the following reasons:

1. Isolation of 744 Pacific Highway Gordon

Particulars

· The development will result in the isolation of 744 Pacific Highway Gordon which has a frontage width and site area which does not comply with the development standards of Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012.

· The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and its highest and best use is a residential flat building.

· The valuation for 744 Pacific Highway is significant flawed as only one of the six comparable properties is zoned R4 High Density Residential.

· The valuation for 744 Pacific Highway is significantly flawed as it is based on an incorrect assumption regarding zoning and permissible development.

· The proposal is not consistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, specifically object (a) (ii), ‘the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land’.

· The proposal does not comply with Part 3A.1 ‘Amalgamation’ of the Local Centres DCP.

· The isolation of 744 Pacific Highway is inconsistent with the zone objectives for the R4 High Density Residential zone.

2. Unsatisfactory impacts on heritage items

Particulars

· The development fails to achieve the setback and separation distances requirements specified in Part 7.3 ‘Development in the vicinity of a heritage item’ of the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP.

· The application documentation contains inadequate and inconsistent details regarding the proposed landscaping and splay corner works within the site of the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway.

· The plant species selection both in front of 748 Pacific Highway and along the northern boundary will provide no effective screening and will not be appropriate in immediate proximity to the two heritage items.

· The colours and materials selection for the eastern and northern elevations are not appropriate in the context of the adjacent heritage items and heritage conservation area. Tonally neutral colours and non-reflective finishes should be provided to minimise the visual prominence of the development in views to, from and over adjacent heritage items.

· The setback between the northern end of the eastern elevation and the car park of the outpatient facility is inadequate to accommodate effective landscape screening between the heritage item at 748 Pacific Highway and the hospital and to provide a landscape backdrop at the rear of the heritage item.

· The setback of the building from the northern boundary shared with 750-754 Pacific Highway increases the scale of the development as viewed from St Johns church and cemetery and changes the view from the sky and trees to a building wall with minimal landscaping.

3. Unsatisfactory impacts on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential and failure to achieve compatibility with the surrounding land uses

Particulars

· The proportion of the site that is deep soil landscaping (26.9%) is significantly less than adjacent properties. The landscape character of the development is inconsistent and incompatible with the existing and likely future landscape character of the locality.

· The western elevation of the development is of excessive length, non-compliant height and has not been suitably modulated to break down the built form in a manner that respects and reflects the characteristics of the adjacent R2 Low Density zoned land.

· The 3.2m side boundary setback of the ‘staff & delivery carpark’ does not provide adequate space for landscape screening in scale with the building. The proposed 3m-5m high wall on the western end of the car park has a setback of 2m from the western side boundary and will have an unacceptable visual impact on the private open space of 22 St Johns Avenue.

· The proposed elevated driveway at the southern end of the hospital is likely to have unacceptable acoustic impacts on the dwelling-house at 744 Pacific Highway.

· The proposed elevation at the southern end of the hospital has an inadequate setback of 1.5m from the rear boundary of the dwelling-house at 744 Pacific Highway. The setback of 1.5m is will not provide sufficient area for landscape screening of the driveway and the hospital building.

· The proposed driveway in the northern access handle occupies the entire width of the northern access handle and provides no space for landscaping which would soften the built form.

4. The clause 4.6 variation to the development standard for building height is not well founded.

Particulars

· The variation is based on an incorrect statement that only the northern part of the building does not comply with the building height control. The southern part of the building also fails to comply with the building height control.

· The physical impacts of the non-compliant building height have not been quantified and justified, i.e. additional overshadowing to the private open space of 22 St Johns Avenue and 3 Bushlands Avenue.

· It has not been demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

· It has not been demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

5. Inadequate car parking

Particulars

· The number of car spaces provided for the development does not comply with the requirements of Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP and the RTA (now RMS) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

· The justification for the variation to the parking controls is not based on surveys of similar uses.

· The justification for the variation to the parking controls does not adequately explain why a hospital providing mental health services requires significantly less car parking than a hospital providing other health services.

6. Inaccurate and inconsistent plans

Particulars

· RLs on landscape plans are inconsistent with architectural plans in places, the numbers of risers of stairs do not seem to match some levels and the labelling of proposed and existing ground and path levels is unclear.

· There is ambiguous information regarding top of wall levels at the truck turning area. The top of wall height is annotated as RL124.50, however this appears to be the finished driveway surface level. If the top of wall height and finished driveway surface level height is the same there is nothing to prevent trucks reversing over the platform and dropping some 2 metres to the lower car park level.

· Pedestrian and vehicle ramps do not indicate the direction of the ramps and nominate all gradients.

· There’s a missing gradient at the main entry pedestrian ramp.

· The main pedestrian ramp appears to rise from RL 127.85 at northern car park landing near Windsor House to RL128.15 at the NE corner of the proposed hospital then fall to RL127.50 at main building entry. This appears to be unnecessary as the high point does not link to any other levels.

· Fire Stairs don’t indicate direction of stair or breaks between levels.

· Fire Stair 3 risers indicate the same number of risers between the lower ground and ground floor levels as between the ground floor and first floor despite the floor having different ceiling heights. Stair design for the first floor and ground floor are the same despite the first floor not sitting below another floor.

· The lift at the southern end appears to offer the only means of entering the building from the lower car park. Provision of stair access for staff from the lower car park should be considered.

· Floor levels on HT2 Section do not match the floor plans.

· The driveway design is not achievable as the survey plan shows that the roof of the garage at 744 Pacific Highway is over the boundary.

· The landscape plans (L001 & L003) shows a splay on the driveway at the front boundary which is not shown on the photomontage (DA-05.11) and the site plan (DA-01.01). It is unclear whether the splay will be provided and if it will affect trees at 748 Pacific Highway.

· The capacity of the rainwater tank shown on the stormwater plan is different to the capacity of the rainwater tank recommended in the ESD report.

· The above ground rainwater tank is not shown on the landscape plans (L001 & L004). If the location of the rainwater tank on the stormwater plan (DAC02) is correct, the tank is located on top of a footpath.

7. The design of the stormwater system does not comply with the requirements of Volume C, Part 4, Water Management Controls of the Local Centres DCP.

Particulars

Jonathan Goodwill

Executive Assessment Officer– South

Corrie Swanepoel

Manager Development & Assessment Services

Shaun Garland

Team Leader Development Assessment – South

Michael Miocic

Director Development & Regulation

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Pre DA Meeting Report

Attachment B – Council’s letter to applicant dated 26 November 2013

Attachment C – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 12 December 2013

Attachment D – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 21 March 2014

Attachment E – Heritage Consultant comments dated 25 June 2014

Attachment F – Urban Design Consultant comments dated 23 May 2014

Attachment G – Clause 4.6 Variation Request

Attachment H - architectural plans

Attachment I - landscape plans

Attachment J - stormwater plans

Attachment K - valuation report dated 10 December 2013

Attachment L - Planning Consultant letter dated 22 April 2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.6 / 201

Item GB.6	S10381
	12 January 2015

Planning Proposal to Amend the draft
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 - Consideration of Submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	For Council to consider the submissions made to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

background:	On 26 November 2013 Council resolved to proceed with the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to rectify anomalies, refine local clauses and incorporate amendments arising from submissions made to the exhibition. The Planning Proposal received a Gateway Determination on 2 October 2014. The Planning Proposal was exhibited in accordance with the Gateway Determination for 28 days from 7 November 2014 to 5 December 2014.

comments:	Submissions (18) were received in response to the exhibition. These have been considered in this Report.

recommendation:	That the Planning Proposal to amend the KLEP 2015 to rectify anomalies, refine local clauses and incorporate amendments arising from submissions made to the exhibition be endorsed to proceed.

Purpose of Report

For Council to consider the submissions made to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Background

On 26 November 2013 Council resolved to adopt the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP) with a number of minor amendments. Other more significant amendments also formed part of the resolutions. To ensure transparency and give due process and consideration to the affected landholders and surrounding properties, Council resolved to prepare a number of Planning Proposals on these amendments, and forward them to the Department of Planning and Environment (formerly Department of Planning and Infrastructure) for a Gateway Determination.

This report deals with the Planning Proposal (Attachment A1) which included various proposed general amendments to the draft KLEP 2013. Separate Planning Proposals are being, or will be, prepared for matters not covered by this Planning Proposal.

The relevant resolutions relating to amendments within this Planning Proposal to amend the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Attachment A1) are listed below:

C. That Council resolve to prepare a planning proposal in accordance with section 55 of the EP&A Act to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 as follows, and that the planning proposal then be forwarded to the DoPI for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations:

1. To amend the Zoning Map for Edith Street, between 74 and 76 Bannockburn Road, Pymble (unformed road reserve) to zone R2 Low Density Residential, the FSR Map: A3(0.3:1) and the Lot Size Map: T (930sqm)

2. To amend the Zoning Map for No. 1 Bundarra Avenue Wahroonga, 1685 & 1687 Pacific Highway Wahroonga to zone R4 – High Density residential, the FSR Map: ‘N’ (1:1), Height Map ‘N’ (14.5m), Lot Size Map ‘U1’ (1200sqm).

3. To amend the Zoning Map for 2, 4, 6 Caithness Street, Killara to zone R2 Low density Residential with associated development standards.

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

Against the Motion: Councillors Pettett and Malicki

The above Resolution was an Amendment to an Original Motion. The Original Motion was:

3. To amend the Zoning Map for 2, 4, 6 Caithness Street, Killara to zone R3 Medium density Residential

4. To amend the Zoning Map for 18 Marian St, Killara to zone R4 High Density Residential, the FSR Map ‘K’ (0.85:1), the Height Map ‘L’ (11.5m), Lot Size Map ‘U1’ (1200sqm).

5. To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map for 20-28 Culworth Ave, Killara (Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP119937; Lot 6 DP3694; lot 2 DP932235) to ‘Q’ (1.3:1) and the Height of buildings Map ‘P’ (17.5m).

6. To amend the Zoning Map for Avondale Golf Club, 40 Avon Road Pymble to Zone RE2 Private Recreation to the northern corner of the site.

7. To amend the Riparian Lands Map as it applies to the following sites:

· Corner of Woniora Avenue and Woonona Avenue North, Wahroonga

· Ortona Road to Westbourne Road, Lindfield

· 90 and 92 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase

9. To amend the Land Use Table for Zone E4 Environmental Conservation to include the following additional objectives:

· To minimise direct and indirect risks to life, property and the environment from bushfire events and bushfire management.

· To ensure that development in this zone on land that adjoins land zoned E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves or E2 Environment Conservation is compatible with the objectives for those zones.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents

10. To amend Schedule 3 Part 1 (Complying Development) to include complying development provisions for dwelling houses in the E4 zone in accordance with the provisions included as Attachment A15.

D. That Council resolve to prepare a planning proposal in accordance with section 55 of the EP&A Act to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 for the following Heritage related matters and that the planning proposal be forwarded to the DoPI for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations:

i. To amend the Heritage Map and Schedule 5 to alter the boundaries of the following HCAs:

a. C24 Marian St Conservation Area to exclude Lot 6, DP 3694, Lots 1, 2, 3, DP 119937, Lot 2, DP 932235, Lot 1, DP 945545, Parts 30 and 31, DP 3263, Lot 1, DP 102600.

b. C1 Wahroonga Conservation Area to exclude 38 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga.

A complete copy of Council’s resolution may be viewed in Appendix B of the Planning Proposal.

The above resolutions relate to the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 however the Planning Proposal, subject of this report, relates to the draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2014. The reason for the difference in dates is that during negotiations between Council and the Department to finalise the KLEP, one of the amendments made by the Department was the change to the date as it was then likely that the KLEP would be gazetted in 2014. In fact the gazettal occurred on 5 March 2015 and therefore the document will henceforth be known as KLEP 2015.

The amendments sought in this Planning Proposal are mostly site specific and are listed below. Maps, explanations and details of each amendment may be seen in Part 1 of the Planning Proposal at Attachment A1.

a. Edith Street, between 74 and 76 Bannockburn Road, Pymble (unformed road reserve)

Current: Residential 2(c) under KPSO and RE1- Public Recreation under the draft KLEP.

Proposed: Rezone to R2 Low Density Residential.

b. 1 Bundarra Avenue, 1685 & 1687 Pacific Highway Wahroonga

Current: R4 High Density Residential with maximum height of buildings (HOB) of 11.5m and floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 allowing 3 storey development.

Proposed: R4 High Density Residential with maximum height of buildings (HOB) of 14.5m and floor space ratio (FSR) of 1:1 allowing 4 storey development.

c. 2, 4, 6 Caithness Street, Killara

Current: Zoned R4 Residential high density with a HOB of 17.5m and FSR of 1.3:1 Under KPSO and draft KLEP 2014.

Proposed: Rezone to R2 Low Density Residential simultaneously reduce the HOB to 9.5m, FSR to 0.3:1, and minimum lot size to 840sqm, with the associated development standards of that zone

d. 18 Marian St, Killara

Current: Zoned R2 Low Density Residential, however, it is already developed as a 3 and 4 storey residential flat building.

Proposed: Rezone the site to R4 High Density Residential with development standards of 0.85:1 FSR, 11.5m building height and 1200sqm minimum lot size, to reflect the existing development.

e. Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP119937; Lot 6 DP3694; lot 2 DP932235 Culworth Ave, Killara

Current: Zoned R4 High Density Residential under the draft KLEP 2014 with FSR 1:1 and HOB 14.5m and is currently utilised as a paid public carpark.

Proposed: Zone R4 High Density Residential and increase the FSR to 1.3:1 and HOB to 17.5m.

f. Avondale Golf Club, 40 Avon Road, Pymble

Current: Zoned E2 Environmental Conservation.

Proposed: Rezone northern corner of the Avondale Golf Club and a strip of Council owned land at the western boundary of the site to RE2 Private Recreation.

g. Woniora Avenue and Woonona Avenue North, Wahroonga

It is intended to correct errors in the riparian mapping to accurately reflect the existing extent of riparian lands at this location. The amendment is to extend the Category 3 riparian land.

h. Ortona Road to Westbourne Road, Lindfield

It is intended to correct errors in the riparian mapping to accurately reflect the existing extent of riparian lands at this location. The amendment is to extend the Category 3A and introduce a tract of Category 3 riparian land.

i. 90 and 92 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase

It is intended to correct errors in the riparian mapping to accurately reflect the existing extent of riparian lands at this location. The amendment is to introduce a tract of Category 3A and Category 3 riparian land.

j. Adjustment to the boundary of HCA C24 Marian St Conservation Area to exclude Lot 6, DP 3694, Lots 1, 2, 3, DP 119937, Lot 2, DP 932235, Lot 1, DP 945545, Parts 30 and 31, DP 3263, Lot 1, DP 102600

It is intended to adjust the boundary of the Marian St HCA to exclude a number of lots including land currently operating as Culworth Avenue car park, adjoining sites at 18 Culworth Avenue, 1 and 3 Marian Street. In their current state these lots are not considered to contribute to the HCA, and this will continue to be the case with any R4 High Density Residential development carried out under the Draft KLEP 2014.

k. Adjustment to the boundary of HCA C1 Wahroonga Conservation Area to exclude 38 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga

It is intended to adjust the boundary of the Wahroonga HCA by removing 38 Billyard Avenue. This property comprises a recently constructed house on the boundary of the HCA and does not contribute to the character of the HCA.

l. Amendment to the Written Instrument – Land Use table/ Schedule 3 for all E3 and E4 properties.

Ø Land Use Table

It is intended to remove from the E3 Environmental Management zone and include in the E4 Environmental Living zone objectives relating to risk in the event of bushfire, development adjoining E1 and E2 zones, enabling other land uses.

Ø Schedule 3 Complying Development

It is intended to include appropriate complying development provisions for dwelling houses in the E4 Environmental Living zone.

Council received a Gateway Determination (Attachment A2) from the Department of Planning and Environment on 2 October 2014 to permit the exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal was exhibited in accordance with the Gateway Determination for 28 days from 7 November to 5 December 2014.

Comments

Following receipt of the Gateway Determination, the exhibition of the Planning Proposal was advertised in the North Shore Times (7 November 2014), with all exhibition documents being made available to the public at Council’s Chambers and on Council’s website for the required 28 days.

Three submissions were received in response to the State Agency consultation required through the Gateway Determination. These may be seen at Attachment A3.

A total of 17 submissions from residents and their representatives were received by Council. Copies of all the submissions have been provided to Councillors. A summary of all the submissions may be seen at Attachment A4.

The submissions are presented and discussed below, with the according recommendation on each issue.

STATE AGENCY CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Gateway Determination, State Agency consultations were undertaken with Office of Environment and Heritage, and with the Rural Fire Service. The Environmental Protection Authority also submitted a response (Attachment A3).

1. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

Key issues

OEH does not support the change in zoning at Avondale Golf Course from E2 Environment Conservation to RE2 Private Recreation on the northern part of the golf course, and to RE1 Public Recreation of the Council owned strip of land adjacent to the E2 golf course land for the following reasons:

· The area contains Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) vegetation and is linked by riparian corridors to Rofe Park/Sheldon Forest.

· The area is of higher conservation significance than the E2 area on the west of the golf course which is being retained as E2.

· Council has other smaller and isolated sites which remain as E2, such as the corner of Duff St and Cornwall Ave.

Discussion

It is agreed that the parcel of land contains STIF and has a riparian corridor. The corridor that OEH refers to is only connected to Rofe Park/Sheldon Forest via a piped drainage line and is not of the same quality or extent of riparian as on this site. The status of that connection is unlikely to change given the piping occurs within privately owned residential land and across a roadway.

Avondale Golf Course is a privately owned parcel of land and the landowner has requested that this northern part of their site be rezoned to RE2. Council has not been requested by the owner to rezone the larger patch of E2 land to the west of the golf course; therefore, that E2 zoning is not under consideration here.

The land at corner Duff St and Cornwall Ave, that OEH makes a comparison with, is Council owned land and not in private ownership; therefore, the issue of its restricted use for private purposes as a result of E2 zoning does not arise.

Since the KLEP 2015 maps biodiversity and riparian areas on the land, any development proposal on this parcel of land will be subject to a development application at which time the impact on the riparian, biodiversity and STIF will be assessed. This approach is consistent with the treatment of other private properties with STIF or Blue Gum High Forest vegetation within the LGA. Further to this, since this site contains STIF, it is protected by 2 other layers: Federal Legislation - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC); and State Legislation - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Therefore any development on the land would be assessed at 3 levels for impact on the land ecology.

Although OEH objects to the RE2 zoning to this land parcel, it has not made any offer to acquire the site. Where rezoning of private land restricts the range of uses applicable to the land, the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 may be invoked and there is an obligation to acquire the land to compensate the owner for their loss through restricting the use of their land. The E2 zoning to the Avondale Golf Club may potentially restrict the use of the landowner as there are very limited uses permitted within the E2 zoning. Council is not in a position to make this acquisition and OEH has not expressed an interest in the purchase of the land. Where there is no agreed nominated acquisition authority, then Council is obliged to assist in retaining the land in private ownership. Therefore the rezoning to RE2 on this part of the privately owned Avondale Golf Club is supported on the basis that the environmental attributes of the site are recognised under Federal, State and Local (KLEP 2015) legislation.

The proposed E2 zoning to the narrow strip of Council land adjacent to the golf course land is proposed to remain as E2 given it is in Council’s ownership.

Recommendation:

It is recommended:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for Avondale Golf Club, 40 Avon Road Pymble to Zone RE2 Private Recreation to the northern corner of the site.

2. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

Key issues:

· Road traffic noise impacts to the residents of 1 Bundarra Avenue, 1685 & 1687 Pacific Highway Wahroonga, and the management of those amenity issues.

Discussion:

The issues facing residents that live on busy main roads is acknowledged. For this reason the adopted Ku-ring-gai DCP has included a section on ‘Development Near Road or Rail Noise’, and references the Department of Planning and Environment’s “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines December 2008”. Building orientation and design to address amenity and manage noise impact would typically be addressed at the development application stage. They are not matters that would be addressed by the proposed changes to the LEP development standards on the site.

Recommendation:

No change recommended.

3. NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

RFS had no comment on the Planning Proposal

SUBMISSIONS TO EXHIBITION

Seventeen submissions were received in response to the exhibition. Two submissions supported the amendments, one of these was from AUSGRID regarding their sites at 17 Larnock Avenue (Kulgoa Road), Pymble; and 2d Carlyle Road (Tryon Road), East Lindfield. The other was a general letter of support.

The remaining submissions fell into 2 categories:

I. Submissions not relevant to this Planning Proposal and the amendments it seeks to make

A number of these submissions raise issues previously assessed within the exhibition of the draft KLEP 2013. These issues are briefly discussed at Attachment A4 but are not discussed in this Report as they are not matters for consideration under this Planning Proposal. The sites the submissions refer to are listed below:

· 101 Eton Rd, Lindfield - Screen Australia;

· 48 Warragal Rd, Turramurra;

· 6-10 Edward Street, Gordon - ARV Retirement Village;

· 121 Mona Vale Road, St Ives.

Two submissions claimed errors in Council’s mapping. These issues are detailed at Attachment A4. Since they are not matters for consideration under this Planning Proposal they are not discussed in this report. A comprehensive review of the biodiversity and mapping will occur in conjunction with the periodic review of the KLEP and any amendments to the biodiversity mapping and any consequential zoning changes will be made as part of that overall review process. The sites the submissions refer to are listed below:

· 4 Raleigh Crescent, St Ives Chase

· 51 Wentworth Avenue, Killara

II. Submissions that are relevant to this Planning Proposal and the amendments it seeks to make

The key issues put forward in the submissions that relate to this Planning Proposal amendments are stated below under each proposed amendment with a brief discussion and recommendation. Refer to Attachment A4 for a summary of submissions and discussion.

a. Edith Street, between 74 and 76 Bannockburn Road, Pymble (unformed road reserve)

Key issues:

· Sydney Water made a submission objecting to the rezoning as they are concerned about future access to the drainage line that crosses the site.

· Owners of 74 and 76 Bannockburn Rd (properties adjacent to the Edith St land) object to the rezoning of the land from RE1 to R2 as they wish to retain access across the land to their side boundaries. In addition, the submission from 76 Bannockburn Rd claims that the land parcel provides a corridor for fauna and fauna across to the Bannockburn Oval Bush land and is a home to a variety of birdlife and a number of large mature gum trees.

Discussion

The proposed rezoning will not affect access to the sewer pipes by Sydney Water as there is no resolution to sell the land at present. In the event of sale, the status of the land parcel will be the same as all other R2 zoned and developed land with sewer lines running through them. Typically there is an easement over such pipework and access is sought from and granted by the landowner.

The issue of access across the Edith St parcel of land to neighbouring properties at 76 and 74 Bannockburn Rd will not be altered by a rezoning to the land. Right of access will only be an issue when the land is being sold for private purposes and Edith St is formally closed. Whilst Council resolved to reclassify and rezone the land, there has been no Council resolution to sell the land. If Council resolves to sell the land in the future, due process and consultation will occur and owners of the adjoining properties will be invited to make their submissions.

Site visits (4 in total) by Council officers note that the land at 74A Bannockburn Rd/Edith St is being used by the owners of 74 and 76 Bannockburn Rd for car parking and other private purposes (bin storage, gardening, vegetable patches, swing, basketball net, compost heaps, planting of hedging and random saplings). The current uses on Edith St do not reflect any public recreation use of the land in line with the current RE1 infill zoning; however, the uses on the land are more akin to the R2 infill zoning being proposed.

With regards to the comment on Edith St providing a corridor for flora and fauna across to Bannockburn Oval, investigation by Council’s Natural Areas officer confirms that the site contains 3 mature Sydney Blue Gum and recent plantings (not by Council) of 3 immature native Hop Bush and an immature eucalypt sapling (not by Council) of unknown species. The site has been extensively disturbed and transformed into a mown grass block, impairing its overall ecological functionality. The overall site vegetation lacks characteristic components of midstorey and understory structural layers, which have been replaced entirely by mown Kikuyu grass. Further, the site lacks fauna habitat features and there are no threatened fauna and flora species identified in searches, both internally and through the Office of Environment and Heritage Atlas Database.

Whilst the site has limited linkage to other native vegetation remnants in the landscape, being Bannockburn Oval, the small size of the site and level of disturbance places it in a poor ecological supportive position in the landscape. Effort to restore the site back to viable ecological function for the provision of a continuous fauna corridor would be costly and partially ineffective due to the road boundary and adjoining built up residential area. Since the 3 blue gums have been captured on Council’s GIS mapping as the Endangered Ecological Community Sydney Blue Gum High Forest and Council’s Greenweb Map as Category 2 vegetation, rezoning of the site would result in no change to the mapping of biodiversity significance.

Recommendation:

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for Edith Street, between 74 and 76 Bannockburn Road, Pymble (unformed road reserve) to zone R2 Low Density Residential, the FSR Map: A3 (0.3:1) and the Lot Size Map: T (930sqm).

b. 1 Bundarra Avenue, 1685 & 1687 Pacific Highway Wahroonga

Discussion

There were no submissions made on this amendment.

The site is currently zoned R4 High Density Residential with maximum height of buildings (HOB) of 11.5m and floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 allowing 3 storey development. It is proposed to increase the maximum height of buildings (HOB) to 14.5m and floor space ratio (FSR) to 1:1 allowing 4 storey development. This will enable the amalgamation of the 3 sites and development similar to the bulk and scale of adjoining buildings whilst ensuring amenity to on site residents and to adjacent developments.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for No. 1 Bundarra Avenue Wahroonga, 1685 & 1687 Pacific Highway Wahroonga to zone R4 High Density Residential, the FSR Map: ‘N’ (1:1), Height Map ‘N’ (14.5m), Lot Size Map ‘U1’ (1200sqm).

c. 2, 4, 6 Caithness Street, Killara

Key issues

The landowners of 2, 4, 6 Caithness St, their legal representative, and their town planning representative, have made a number of submissions objecting to the downzoning of their lands from R4 High Density Residential to R2 Low density Residential. The key issues are:

· The 3 sites were not considered as part of the Interface Study which investigated all R2 sites adjacent to R4 sites, and enabled R3 Medium Density Residential zoning to those sites as a means to ameliorate impacts from the adjacent 5 storey development.

· Council resolved against the officer’s recommendation at the Council meeting on 26 November 2013 to zone the 3 sites as R3 and instead resolved for R2 with no substantiated evidence or due consideration of the impacts on the 3 sites.

· DA 0350/09 (apartments at corner of Marian St and Caithness St) dismissed impacts on 2 Caithness St due to its R4 zoning, stating the potential impacts of the 5 storey development upon 2 Caithness St were acceptable given the zoning of 2 Caithness St permitted 5 storey future development. The lack of visual and acoustic privacy, and solar access amenity to 2 Caithness St is a result of a concession of impacts based upon the likely future R4 development of 2 Caithness St.

· The inconsistency between the heritage impact assessment of DA 0350/09 (which considered the impact on the heritage aspects as acceptable) and the current rezoning assessment that considers there is high impact on the heritage aspects.

· That the separation of the road to the R2 development affords 1 Caithness St more protection than the current R2 proposal affords the 3 sites.

· Argues that the new DCP controls and its requirements for heritage consideration will ensure the sensitive development of R4 apartments in the vicinity of the Heritage Item setting.

· That the matter should be deferred until a decision is made on the heritage status of 6 Caithness St.

Discussion

It is acknowledged that the 3 sites were not considered as part of the Interface Studies conducted by Council prior to the exhibition of the draft KLEP 2013. This was due to the sites being zoned 2(d3)/R4 High Density Residential, and the criteria for interface investigation was to assess properties adjacent or opposite 2(d3)/R4 sites. For this reason only the properties adjacent or opposite these 3 sites were assessed for interface impact. Therefore 2, 4 and 6 Caithness St were exhibited with R4 High Density Residential zoning during the exhibition of the draft KLEP 2013.

The criteria for assessing if an interface site is impacted are stated in the Submission Summary Table at Attachment A4. In general, Council’s approach to impacted interface sites has been to provide a planning solution by zoning those sites to R3 Medium Density Residential. This approach enables those sites to amalgamate and create a design solution that could ameliorate impacts of overlooking/overshadowing/loss of amenity by the adjacent 5 storey R4 High Density Residential developments. The R3 three storey townhouse type development would also provide a good transition in bulk and scale between the 5 storey R4 and 2 storey R2 developments.

Following the exhibition of the draft KLEP 2013, one submission was received from the owner of 1 Caithness St, opposite 2, 4 and 6 Caithness Street. That submission argued the absence of any interface between the R4 sites at 2, 4, 6 Caithness St and their R2 property at 1 Caithness Street. It argued the impact that the R4 development would have on the setting of their Heritage Listed house, as well as the traffic implications for Caithness Street. This submission triggered investigation into the sites; and as discussed in Council Report of 26 November 2013, the reason for the absence of R3 interface sites in Caithness St was due to the interface site at 1 Caithness St being a Heritage Item which prevented the site from being zoned for R3.

Further to this, Caithness St was found to be a narrow cul-de-sac with a small landscaped island at its centre and the other properties 1, 3, 5, 8 Caithness St were all R2 dwellings. None of those sites were proposed for interface related zoning to R3 due to their questionable ability to be developed given their shape or their Heritage Item status (1 Caithness St). In addition, the R4 developments adjacent to them were 3 storey buildings, or there was adequate separation of a road. Therefore, they were retained as R2 to help preserve the unique quality of this cul-de-sac narrow street as a setting for the Heritage Item.

As discussed in the 26 November 2013 report, given the narrowness of the street and the minimal frontage of the Heritage Item at 1 Caithness Street to the road, it was considered (following the exhibition of the draft KLEP 2013) that the 5 storey R4 zoning on the 3 sites would impact the setting of that Heritage Item and the general character of the street, with traffic along the narrow street being of concern. However, the assessment also concluded that downzoning the 3 sites to R2 as requested in the submission would not be a good outcome for the 3 sites as they would take on the status of an interface site and, undoubtedly, be heavily impacted by the development to their rear and side which significantly reduces their privacy and amenity as is currently apparent. In addition, the downzoning to R2 would be contrary and inconsistent with the approach taken by Council on all other interface sites across the LGA.

For these reasons a townhouse style R3 development was recommended at the 26 November 2013 Council meeting. This would enable the 3 sites to be redeveloped to mitigate the impact on them as interface sites whilst developing in a manner fitting with the Heritage Item setting and the street character.

It is accepted that the decision to downzone the sites to R2 at Council’s meeting on 26 November 2013 did not take into consideration the impacts on the 3 sites as interface sites and that due consideration and conditioning of DA 0350/09 did not occur due to the site being zoned R4 and having the future ability to ameliorate the impacts. However, the arguments regarding the impacts of 2, 4, 6 Caithness St sites as R4 development are not agreed as those impacts do still apply: R4 is not considered supportive of the Caithness Street character and setting and traffic implications. This is consistent with the officer’s report of 26 November 2013, as are the arguments to rezone the sites as R3 Medium Density Residential.

It is acknowledged that there appears to be inconsistency between the assessment of impacts made in the development assessment of DA0350/09 and the assessment made in considering the interface site status of Caithness Street. The key difference between the method of assessment is that the recent interface assessment has resulted from studying the actual impact of the built structure (corner of Marian St and Caithness St) and assess the impacts of such a scale being extended into Caithness Street. It is clear from looking at the actual development that the scale would present a considerable impact on the street and the heritage setting given its narrow width. Since 2, 4 and 6 Caithness Street are not very deep sites, it is not possible to expect greater setbacks to the street frontage from any future R4 development to reduce its bulk and scale impacts. Therefore R4 development is not considered suitable at this location.

It is acknowledged that there is uncertainty due to the ongoing investigation to heritage list 6 Caithness St and there would be greater clarity on the treatment of the sites if the status of 6 Caithness St were resolved; however, given the KLEP 2015 will be in place in place on 2 April 2015 and that the 3 sites are listed as R4 in that Plan, it is necessary to have a direction on these sites. This would ensure that any DA that is submitted will have to consider the R3 recommendation awaiting approval from the Department of Planning and Environment. Therefore deferment of this matter is not supported.

The issue of assigning R3 zoning to a heritage site is feasible as there are examples within Ku-ring-gai where a through-zoning has enabled a Heritage Item to be retained and included in the medium/high density development site. Through-zoning ensures the Heritage Item site can be incorporated into the land area of the dwelling development site to provide an increased FSR to the development, and enable the adaptive reuse of the heritage building and its integration into the overall development whilst preserving its heritage value. Given this, it is recommended that the 3 sites be zoned R3.

Recommendation

It is recommended to vary the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for 2, 4, 6 Caithness Street, Killara to zone R3 Medium Density Residential, the FSR Map ‘J’ (0.8:1), the Height Map ‘L’ (11.5m), Lot Size Map ‘U1’ (1200sqm).

d. 18 Marian St, Killara

Discussion

There were no submissions made on this amendment.

The site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential, however, it is already developed as a 3 and 4 storey residential flat building. It is intended to correct this anomaly and rezone the site to R4 High Density Residential with development standards of 0.85:1 FSR, 11.5m building height and 1200sqm minimum lot size, to reflect the existing development on the site.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for 18 Marian St, Killara to zone R4 High Density Residential, the FSR Map ‘K’ (0.85:1), the Height Map ‘L’ (11.5m), Lot Size Map ‘U1’ (1200sqm).

e. Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP119937; Lot 6 DP3694; lot 2 DP932235 Culworth Ave, Killara

Key issues

Two submissions were made on this site.

One submission was a general objection to the R4 zoning to the Culworth Car Park Area as it enables high density housing which impacts the local character, and the loss of benefit to surrounding residents who have convenient access to a North Shore station.

The second submission was in regards to the adjacent site at 18 Culworth Avenue, Killara where the landowner;

· requested an increase in FSR from 1:1 to 1.3:1 and HOB from 14.5m to 17.5m in line with the adjacent Culworth Car Park in order to mitigate impact from the adjacent development; and

· expressed concern over the impact on the loss of sunlight, privacy, amenity and increased noise from development on Culworth Avenue Car Park with 5 storey development adjacent to their 2 storey building.

Discussion

The issues raised in the first submission have been previously addressed when the draft KLEP 2013 was exhibited. The Submission Summary Table at Attachment A4 provides some repeated discussion of the topic. The increase to the development standards on this site do not change the justifications put forward on the land zoning and standards that were presented in the Council Report on 26 November 2013. Since then Council has also resolved on 27 May 2014 to allow the compulsory acquisition of a portion of its land at Culworth Car Park by Transport for NSW. This will ensure the continued provision of commuter parking at this location.

The issues raised in the second submission are discussed below.

The site at 18 Culworth Ave, Killara is a 607sqm parcel of land zoned R4 with FSR of 1:1 and Height of 14.5m, under KLEP 2015. On its own, this parcel of land is unable to develop into R3 (Medium Density) or R4 (High Density) as the site area is less than 1200sqm; therefore, it would have to remain as the current 2 storey company titled building.

Due to the restricted size of 18 Culworth Ave, the zoning and development standards within the exhibited draft KLEP 2013 were made consistent with the surrounding lots so that there was the opportunity to amalgamate and develop the property as part of a larger development site. However, following the exhibition, Council resolved on 26 November 2013 to raise the FSR and Height of the adjoining Culworth Carpark to 1.3:1 and 17.5m (the subject of this Planning Proposal) and the issue of amalgamation with 18 Culworth Ave to prevent an isolated site was overlooked.

The only option for amalgamation of this site is with 20-26 Culworth Ave (Culworth Carpark).The property to the rear of 18 Culworth Ave, 3 Marian St, is a strata titled 3 storey building highly unlikely to be demolished and redeveloped. The adjacent 16 Culworth Ave, a 3 to 4 storey apartment building, is a Heritage Item and also highly unlikely to be demolished and redeveloped.

Whilst amalgamation with the adjacent Culworth Carpark is still possible, the lower FSR and Height standards do have the potential to prevent 18 Culworth Ave being considered for amalgamation as the inconsistency may not present the site as an attractive partner given its small land size. Therefore, there is merit in increasing the FSR and Height standards to match those of the adjacent site to facilitate its ease of amalgamation and to retain the intended consistency of approach taken in the consideration of the draft KLEP 2013.

It is also acknowledged that, as is, 18 Culworth Ave would be impacted by the adjacent 5 storey Culworth carpark development that would be located the minimum 6m from the common boundary to its north. Overlooking and overshadowing would be the main issues. These issues are typical of those experienced by Interface Sites (a site with a 1 to 2 storey residential building that has a 5 storey building adjacent or opposite it), and in particular where the existing 1-2 storey building is close to the common boundary, as is the case with 18 Culworth Ave.

A site visit by Council’s officers was conducted to consider whether the additional FSR and Height on 18 Culworth would transfer impact to the adjacent sites at 3 Marian St and 16 Culworth Ave. It was assessed that any development application on the amalgamated site (including 18 Culworth Ave) would ensure, through the DCP controls, that the development would preserve amenity of the adjacent sites.

Amenity would be preserved to the adjacent Heritage Item at 16 Culworth Ave as there are specific controls in the DCP to ensure a minimum 12m building separation to a Heritage Item. With regards to 3 Marian St, it has a wide, approximately 6m, driveway adjacent to the rear boundary of 18 Culworth Ave. This, alongside the additional minimum 6m setback requirement of any new development would enable a good 12m separation between the buildings. In addition, negotiated development application outcomes to preserve the privacy and amenity of the apartments at 3 Marian St (such as tree screening, stepping of building, orientation) will ensure amenity to that site is preserved. Therefore increasing the standards to match the adjacent Culworth Carpark is supported.

Since this increase in FSR and Height to 18 Culworth Ave has not been previously reported to Council, process requires that it be applied for through the planning proposal process which will ensure due consultation and transparency on the amendment.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Floor Space Ratio Map for 20-28 Culworth Ave, Killara (Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP119937; Lot 6 DP3694; lot 2 DP932235) to ‘Q’ (1.3:1) and the Height of buildings Map to ‘P’ (17.5m).

It is recommended:

Ø to include 18 Culworth Avenue, Killara in a future Planning Proposal to amend errors, omissions and inconsistencies in the draft KLEP 2015 and amend its Floor Space Ratio Map to ‘Q’ (1.3:1), and Height of Building Map to ‘P’ (17.5m).

f. Avondale Golf Club, 40 Avon Road, Pymble

Key issues

One submission was made by STEP against the change in zoning from E2 Environmental Conservation to RE1 and RE2 (Private and Public Recreation) as the site contains high quality STIF and associated vegetation. The key issues were:

· The land zoned E2 is not an isolated pocket and it has high biodiversity value with riparian and biodiversity corridors that are functional, or could readily be made so.

· The proposed RE2 zoning would not give adequate recognition to the environmental value of this land, and STEP concurs with OEH and considers zoning from E2 to RE2 may not be sufficient to prevent impacts on biodiversity and riparian values from the increased range of uses permissible within an RE2 Private Recreation zone.

· The State Government’s preference (White Paper) is for environmental values to be fully recognized upfront.

Discussion

The specific issues raised by STEP are discussed at Attachment A4. Detailed investigations of the site in response to the STEP submission, by Council’s Natural Areas officer, concur with their assessment that the site contains high quality biodiversity and riparian value.

There are two issues in considering the rezoning of the northern end of the Avondale Golf Course site (subject of this planning proposal). These are;

1. The quality and preservation of the STIF, biodiversity, riparian aspects of the land.

2. The private ownership and use of the land.

STIF Vegetation

Site visits by Council’s Natural Areas officer confirms that this northern parcel of Avondale Golf Course zoned as E2 has an area (approximately 2.8ha) of good quality 'Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion' (STIF).

The current conservation status, and avenues of consultation for any development within areas of STIF under Federal and State Government legislation are as follows:

i. Federal Legislation: - Listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC). This site falls within the criteria for consideration under this Act, therefore any works on the land are required to seek advice from Department of the Environment.

ii. New South Wales State Legislation: - Listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. This site falls within the criteria for consideration under this Act, therefore any works on the land are required to seek advice from OEH.

The STIF on this site is therefore already protected by both Federal and State legislation with all development requiring consultation with Department of the Environment and OEH. In addition to the EPBC requirements for consultation for any development proposal within that land, the KLEP 2015 maps biodiversity and riparian areas on this parcel of land and any development on the land will be subject to a development application at which time the impact on the biodiversity, riparian and STIF will be assessed and managed.

Private Land Ownership

It is acknowledged that there is ecological (riparian, biodiversity, STIF) value to the site at the northern end of the Avondale Golf Course; however, this is a privately owned parcel of land and the landowner has requested that this part of their site be rezoned to RE2 to enable its use. This parcel of land is surrounded by other privately owned land zoned E4, R2 and RE2.

Council has not been requested by the owner to rezone their E2 land to the west of the golf course. This is a larger E2 area on their private land and has direct boundaries and links with the vegetation of the adjacent E2 zoned Sheldon Forest and the continuing corridor along Rofe Park. Since that area is not included in this Planning Proposal, it is not discussed in this Report.

Whilst the White Paper promoted recognition of land with environmental value in a general sense, the State Government’s LEP Practice Note by which Council is directed, requires specifically that any application of land use (zoning) should not in any way restrict the use of land in private ownership and trigger its acquisition and compensation under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. The E2 zoning to the Avondale Golf Club may potentially restrict the use of the landowner as there are very limited uses permitted within the E2 zoning. Council is not in a position to make this acquisition and OEH has not expressed an interest in the purchase of the land. Where there is no agreed nominated acquisition authority, then Council is obliged to assist in retaining the land in private ownership.

Therefore the rezoning to RE2 on this part of the privately owned Avondale Golf Club is supported on the basis that the environmental attributes of the site are recognised under Federal, State and Local (KLEP 2015) legislation.

The proposed E2 zoning to the narrow strip of Council land adjacent to the golf course land is proposed to remain as E2 given it is in Council’s ownership.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for Avondale Golf Club, 40 Avon Road Pymble to Zone RE2 Private Recreation to the northern corner of the site.

It is recommended to vary the Planning Proposal:

Ø to not proceed with the rezoning of Council’s land adjacent to the northern corner of Avondale Golf Club.

g. Woniora Avenue and Woonona Avenue North, Wahroonga

Key issues

One submission, from Sydney Water, was received regarding this amendment. The submission objected to the extension of the riparian corridor at Woniora Ave, Wahroonga and its encroachment on their land. The key concern is the requirement for the ecological management of a riparian corridor on a Sydney Water land asset.

Discussion

Whilst the management of a riparian corridor is not grounds for contesting the corridor, this site was investigated as a result of the submission.

Investigation by Council’s Water and Catchments Officer identified that whilst the proposed extension is classified Category 3, the proposed area is currently a piped drainage system predominantly under the road and partially across Sydney Water’s site and the adjacent private property, with possibly an overlying area set aside for overflows.

Sydney Water’s property is fully developed and fenced and shows no signs of natural riparian surface features or an overland flow path within or connected to adjacent properties. It appears that Woonona Ave probably provides the pathway for overland flows. The Riparian Policy would only come into effect if the land owner wished to undertake or alter development on the property whereby they may need to consider the overland flow path which, given the above, is unlikely to constrain any development.

Given the current zoning and that the proposed riparian corridor extension comprises a piped drain with the roadway providing for overland flows there would be no benefit to gain from its extension along Woonona Ave. The possibility of re-establishing any semblance of a natural or semi-natural Riparian Zone is remote. Therefore it is recommended not to proceed with the extension.

Recommendation

It is recommended to vary the Planning Proposal:

Ø to not proceed with the extension of the riparian area at Woniora Avenue and Woonona Avenue North, Wahroonga.

h. Ortona Road to Westbourne Road, Lindfield

Discussion

There were no submissions made on this amendment.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Riparian Lands Map as it applies to Ortona Road to Westbourne Road, Lindfield.

i. 90 and 92 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase

Discussion

There were no submissions made on this amendment.

Following the reclassification and rezoning of 90 Babbage Rd, an area of riparian mapping (subject of this Planning proposal) was proposed. It was also, at that time, proposed to align and improve the drainage issues stemming from lands uphill of 90 and 92 Babbage Rd. These works have triggered a more accurate investigation of the sites which was not previously possible as there were no survey marks to identify site boundaries, and the vegetation on the land did not support access and accurate investigation. Recent detailed investigation of the sites by Council’s Natural Areas officer and Water Catchment officer, and a drainage consultant are detailed below.

The riparian corridor mapped at 90 Babbage Road is an ephemeral drainage-line connecting the discontinuous stormwater pipe system between Babbage Road and Middle Harbour.

As per the Ecological and Riparian Assessment Report prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solution (26 February 2013), the corridor is characterised as a sandstone gully receiving stormwater from a 300mm concrete pipe and headwall located in the north-eastern corner of the 92 Babbage Road property. The pipe collects urban runoff from approximately 2.5 ha of low density residential catchment via drainage pits in an upstream section of Babbage Road. The pipe drains stormwater across the 92 Babbage Road property before branching into several shallow drainage paths that join at the front boundary of 90 and 92 Babbage Road. The gully is very steep and falls 10m across over a channel length of 42 m to the Babbage Road stormwater pipe network that drains to the estuarine waters of Middle Harbour. Due to steep terrain, flow events are transitory, intense and short in duration, rendering parts of the land unstable and a creating a safety hazard.

Coupled with fast flowing stormwater events, poor vegetation cover provides little attenuation of pollutants before they reach Middle Harbour. Whilst the Report provides evidence of some sediment trapping occurring in the upper reaches of the gully, there is an overall net loss of sediment due to active erosion in the middle and lower sections. Independent modelling provided to Council suggests that a reinstated vegetated swale of a similar grade and length to the gully will perform appreciable pollutant removal (approximately 43% of total suspended solids, 29%of total phosphorous and 11% of total nitrogen), but the establishment of such vegetation is unlikely due to high velocity flows. Given the proximity of the gully to Middle Harbour, the gully also plays no significant role in attenuating flood waters and protecting downstream development from flood impacts.

In terms of biodiversity, although the site provides some permanent and semi-permanent habitat for common urban fauna, there is no permanent waterbody for aquatic and amphibious fauna species. The riparian conservation value of the site is therefore not considered to be significant in the context of the local area.

The SLR report revealed that the drainage gully at 90 Babbage Road has been highly modified as a consequence of the formal stormwater network and is unlikely to provide the benefits that Council’s Riparian Policy (2004) attributes to riparian corridors. The report proposes that more significant stormwater pollutant load reductions could be provided by constructing a small rain garden near the headwall at the top of the gully and discharging treated water via a new stormwater pipe to manage frequent erosive flows around the gully into Babbage Road.

SLR identified the gully as Category 3 riparian land in their final analysis. Given SLR’s conclusion of the site’s limited riparian attributes and recommendation for upstream treatment and piping, Council sought further clarification from SLR on the 12th March 2015 to determine the subtle but clear differences between Category 3 and 3a in light of the new DCP which defines Category 3A as a ‘discontinuous or piped watercourse’.

In response, SLR confirmed that their original conclusion was constrained by the lack of a 3a Category definition in the Riparian Policy. They affirmed that in accordance with the new DCP and in line with their original investigations that the section of riparian area at 90-92 Babbage Road be categorised as a discontinuous watercourse and appropriately classified as Category 3a Riparian Land.

At the time of the original assessment SLR acknowledged that their survey was constrained by dense tree canopy cover, affecting both site and centreline mapping accuracy. Since then Council has carefully removed weeds from the site to expose the pipe headwall and exact drainage paths. An independent surveyor (Steve Davey and Associates Pty Ltd Land and Engineering Surveyors) was engaged to accurately survey and map 90 and 92 Babbage Road sewer and water infrastructure and stormwater drainage lines. The surveyors map has now been used to accurately position the centreline of the 3a Riparian Land and include an area 10m on each side of the discontinuous watercourse as prescribed by the DCP. The survey and clearing works have subsequently further revealed a riparian corridor occurring on 92 Babbage Road which has also been updated in the mapping provided at Attachment A5.

Recommendation

It is recommended to vary the Planning Proposal;

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Riparian Lands Map as it applies to 90 and 92 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase as per the amended mapping at Attachment A5.

j. Adjustment to the boundary of HCA C24 Marian St Conservation Area to exclude Lot 6, DP 3694, Lots 1, 2, 3, DP 119937, Lot 2, DP 932235, Lot 1, DP 945545, Parts 30 and 31, DP 3263, Lot 1, DP 102600

Discussion

It is intended to adjust the boundary of the Marian St Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) to exclude a number of lots including land currently operating as Culworth Avenue car park, adjoining sites at 18 Culworth Avenue, 1 and 3 Marian Street. In their current state these lots are not considered to contribute to the HCA, and this will continue to be the case with any R4 High Density Residential development carried out under the KLEP 2015.

There was one submission supporting the exclusion of Culworth Car Park and 18 Culworth Avenue from the Marian Street HCA.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the KLEP 2015 Heritage Map and Schedule 5 to alter the boundary of C24 Marian St Conservation Area to exclude Lot 6, DP 3694, Lots 1, 2, 3, DP 119937, Lot 2, DP 932235, Lot 1, DP 945545, Parts 30 and 31, DP 3263, Lot 1, DP 102600.

k. Adjustment to the boundary of HCA C1 Wahroonga Conservation Area to exclude 38 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga

Discussion

There were no submissions made on this amendment.

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend the Heritage Map and Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 to alter the boundary of C1 Wahroonga Conservation Area to exclude 38 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga.

l. Amendment to the Written Instrument – Land Use table/ Schedule 3 for all E3 and E4 properties.

Key issues

One submissions was received objecting to the E4 zone being included in Schedule 3 to allow complying development as it would present ecological and bushfire issues; and, another submission requested that sites zoned E3/E4 that have biodiversity and riparian mapping be given some consideration in the ability to utilize the proposed Complying Development Clause if the biodiversity and riparian mapping is limited to a small percentage of the site and located away from where development would be proposed.

Discussion

At present the General Housing Code under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) does not apply to land in the E 4 zones.

It is recognized that E4 lands have more constraints and restrictions associated with their zoning to preserve their ecological value. The proposal to enable Complying Development on E4 lands was a key issue raised by previous submissions to the draft KLEP 2013. The fact that there are many cases where R2 sites have biodiversity and riparian mapping on them, yet are able to benefit from Exempt and Complying development and the reduced costs of development that is allowed, creates an inconsistent approach to land development within riparian and biodiversity lands

The proposed inclusion of the complying development in the KLEP is to allow homeowners in these zones to undertake alterations and additions or construct new dwellings as complying development provided the land is not identified as riparian land or land of biodiversity significance under the KLEP. The wording contained in the proposed provisions under the Planning Proposal would exclude all sites containing any riparian or biodiversity land regardless of the extent of its presence on the site. Given that most sites in the E4 zone are likely to contain some extent of riparian of biodiversity land the provisions as currently worded would have limited application.

It is proposed to amend the wording of clause 2 of the proposed provisions to permit complying development on sites that may contain riparian or biodiversity land provided such development does not encroach upon the mapped riparian or biodiversity land under the KLEP. This approach will allow for the intended more efficient approval process for certain development on these site while still providing for the protection of the important riparian or biodiversity land.

Therefore an amendment to the proposed wording to the clause is recommended as stated below.

Schedule 3 Complying Development

Part 1 Types of Development

Ø Dwelling Houses in E4 Environmental Living zones:

2. The development is not to be located within those parts of a site identified by clauses 6.6 or 6.7 of this LEP, or on Class 1-4 lands identified in Clause 6.8;

Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with the amendment as stated in the Planning Proposal:

Ø to remove from the E3 Environmental Management zone and include in the E4 Environmental Living zone objectives relating to risk in the event of bushfire, development adjoining E1 and E2 zones, enabling other land uses.

It is recommended to vary the Planning Proposal:

Ø to amend Schedule 3 Part 1 (Complying Development) to include complying development provisions for dwelling houses in the E4 zone in accordance with the provisions exhibited in the Planning Proposal with an amendment to clause (2) as stated at Attachment A6.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces & Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of

Ku-ring-gai.

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

Community confidence has continued in our assessment, regulatory and environmental processes

Continue to review existing strategies and plans.

Monitor and review the new landscape and dwelling-house provisions in the

Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan

Governance Matters

Draft KLEP 2013 was considered by Council on 26 November 2013. The draft Plan was submitted to the Department of Planning and it was gazetted on 5 March 2015 with an effective date of 2 April 2015. The first amendment to KLEP2015 that is subject of this report has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with Council’s resolution of 26 November 2013 and the requirement of the gateway determination issued by the Department of Planning & Environment. This report addresses the submission raised during the exhibition and is now for Council’s determination prior to being submitted back to the Department of Planning & Environment and the Minister to make the final plan.

Risk Management

KLEP 2015 was gazetted on 5 March 2015 and is effective from 2 April 2105. This report is the subject of the proposed first round of amendments to the plan in response to public submission and Council’s resolution to the draft KLEP 2013. There is a reputational risk to Council if it does not respond in a timely manner to the planning matters addressed in this report.

Financial Considerations

The cost of the preparation of the PLEP is covered by the Strategy and Environment Department operational budget.

Social Considerations

The proposed amendments are further supporting the recently gazetted KLEP 2015 and provides more ordered planning instrument which better addresses contemporary planning matters.

Environmental Considerations

The proposed amendments further refine and strengthen the planning provisions under KLEP 2015 to protect the natural environment.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was placed on exhibition in accordance with requirement of the Gateway determination issued on 8 October 2014.

The Planning Proposal was placed on exhibition from 7 November 2014 to 5 December 2014 (28 days) and:

· a hard copy of exhibition material was provided at Council’s customer service centre;

· the planning proposal and supporting documents were placed on Council’s website;

· the relevant land owners and the surrounding precinct were notified in writing of the exhibition; and

· notification of the exhibition was provided in the North Shore Times.

All persons who made a submission, were notified of this matter coming back to Council and invited to attend the Council meeting.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation across the relevant Departments of Council has occurred in the preparation of this report. A Councillor briefing has also to held to explain the process and proposed amendments contained within this report.

Summary

On 2 October 2014, the NSW Department of Planning and Environment issued a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the EP&A Act, in respect to an amendment to the draft KLEP 2013, to rectify anomalies, refine local clauses and incorporate amendments arising from submissions made to the exhibition.

The Planning Proposal was placed on exhibition for 28 days from 7 November 2014 to 5 December 2014. A total of 18 submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions have been addressed in this Report and the according recommendations have been made. The recommendations in this Report retain those postulated in the Planning Proposal with five adjustments.

Recommendation:

A. That the Planning Proposal to amend the KLEP 2015 to rectify anomalies, refine local clauses and incorporate amendments arising from submissions made to the exhibition be endorsed to proceed with the following variations:

1. To amend the KLEP 2015 Zoning Map for 2, 4, 6 Caithness Street, Killara to zone R3 Medium Density Residential, the FSR Map ‘J’ (0.8:1), the Height Map ‘L’ (11.5m), Lot Size Map ‘U1’ (1200sqm).

2. To not proceed with the rezoning of Council’s land adjacent to the Avondale Golf Course.

3. To not proceed with the extension of the riparian area at Woniora Avenue and Woonona Avenue North, Wahroonga.

4. To amend the KLEP 2015 Riparian Lands Map as it applies to 90 and 92 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase as per the amended mapping at Attachment A5.

5. To amend the proposed Schedule 3 (Complying Development ) Part 1 - Dwelling Houses in E4 Environmental Living zones clause 2 as follows:

2. The development is not to be located within those parts of a site identified by clauses 6.6 or 6.7 of this LEP, or on Class 1-4 lands identified in Clause 6.8;

B. That, in accordance with Section 58 of the EP&A, the revised Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment with the request that the amendments be made to Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

C. That 18 Culworth Avenue, Killara be included in a future Planning Proposal to amend errors, omissions and inconsistencies in the KLEP 2015 to amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to ‘Q’ (1.3:1), and Height of Building Map to ‘P’ (17.5m).

D. That those who made submissions be notified of Council’s decision.

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1 View	Planning Proposal	2014/275274
	A2 View	Gateway Determination	2014/269280
	A3 View	State Agency Submissions	2014/281502
	A4 View	Summary of Submissions	2015/068096
	A5 View	Mapping to 90, 92 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase	2015/068107

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.7 / 326

Item GB.7	S06785/3
	16 March 2015

Update Report on the
Development Contributions System

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of key activities and highlights in the development contributions system since the last report to Council in October 2014 and anticipated actions and highlights for the coming 12 months.

background:	Development contributions are a whole-of-Council activity, encompassing policy development, development assessment, customer services, financial management, project management, and delivery of community assets.

comments:	This report focuses on key aspects of the development contributions policy, systems management and communications and highlights in asset instigation.

recommendation:	That the information in the report be received and noted.

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of key activities and highlights in the development contributions system since the last report to Council in October 2014 and anticipated actions and highlights for the coming 12 months.

Background

Development contributions are a whole-of-Council activity, encompassing policy development, development assessment, customer service, financial management (including works programme cash-flow), project management, and delivery of community assets.

A report is provided to Council on a six-monthly basis (after end of half reserve balances are reconciled), outlining progress on the delivery of key items of infrastructure through the development contributions system. This report focuses on key aspects of development contributions policy, systems management and communications and highlights in asset instigation.

The previous report to the OMC of 7 October 2014 featured the progress of the rolling schedule of delivery of new open space and the consequential improvement in access to nearby parkland for the redevelopment areas along the highway in particular. The key focus of this update report is the public domain with details of the now-advanced planning of Lindfield’s major civic projects and a new focus on the commencement of Turramurra’s community and civic projects.

When Turramurra’s pre-planning and community consultation phases reach the present status of the Lindfield works, it is anticipated that the next focus will be the Gordon Community and Civic hub. This major project will, like Lindfield and Turramurra, be subject to on-going community consultation throughout the process which will influence the major focus of the new central multi-purpose community facility and the design of the urban square.

The report also highlights the progress towards the provision of other key infrastructure which is wholly or partially funded by development contributions and the priorities going forward.

Comments

Civic Projects are the focus for 2015/16 and beyond

The previous Contributions Update report focused on the progress of a rolling works programme of open space delivery which has improved access – and continues to improve access – to local open space in the areas currently redeveloping for higher density housing. This report focuses on civic open space which includes the provision of urban open space within the hearts of two of our most significant Local Centres – Lindfield and Turramurra – together with new and improved community facilities. This urban renewal will support the upgrade of our centres to meet the demands of the Ku-ring-gai community into the future and are critical due to the concentration of new, higher-density development within and around these centres. The inclusion of significant asset renewal projects, such as new community facilities, ensures that the people of Ku-ring-gai will continue to have access to such facilities into the future to an appropriate standard for the 21^st Century.

It is important to note that, for these major projects, only a proportion – but a critical proportion notwithstanding – of the funding derives from development contributions due to the legal requirement for apportionment between existing and additional demand. The investment of apportioned contributions, however, does make them a key highlight in infrastructure delivery for this report.

At the time of finalising this report, the Lindfield Local Centre Activate Lindfield public exhibition period was due to commence on 21 March 2015 and run until 8 May 2015. This exhibition will present the project details on both the Lindfield Community Hub and Lindfield Village Green to the Ku-ring-gai community.

Lindfield Community Hub - west side of Lindfield

This project aims to deliver new community infrastructure including a local park and town square, a community centre and new branch library. Consultants are currently preparing four (4) illustrative development options which will be taken to the community in an extensive consultation programme from late March through to early May. This is being done to establish the fundamental controls for the precinct which will be used as the base for a more detailed master plan for the precinct which will be reported to Council toward the end of 2015.

Lindfield Village Green- east side of Lindfield

Three (3) alternative Draft Concept Designs are available for comment during Council’s Activate Lindfield public exhibition period. All three designs propose;

· Public open space in the form of a park or civic plaza;

· Public car parking with long and short-stay options;

· A pavilion for leasing as a café or restaurant with public seating, toilets and a lift;

· New paving, seating, landscaping, lighting and underground power lines;

· Climate cooling features such as cross-ventilation and natural reflective surfaces;

· Water sensitive urban design features such as stormwater harvesting.

RPS and Walsh & Major proposal

Lindfield Village Green

JMD Design + Tonkin Zulaikha Greer proposal

Amber Road + Outlines LA proposal

Selection of preferred Concept Design, subject to:

· Public response to concepts;

· Cost review of concept options;

· Life cycle cost review of options;

· Accessibility and CPTED (Crime prevention through environmental design) assessments;

· A review of traffic and parking proposals;

· A review of against the project brief / objectives;

· A peer review by specialist council staff; and

· PCG approval of preferred concept.

A report will be considered by Council in June 2015 recommending a preferred Concept Design to enable progress into the next stage of design development.

Turramurra Civic Precinct

The Turramurra Civic Precinct project commenced with a Family Fun Day held in the Ray Street car park in August 2014 which was well attended by members of the community. The principles for the project master plan were adopted by Council for exhibition at the end of 2014 and include a new branch library, multi-purpose community facilities, a large town square, a linear park, new retail and residential uses, activation of Forbes Lane, and the potential relocation of Turramurra Village Park within the site.

Council will seek community feedback on the developed master plan in the first half of 2015. Any amendments will be made after exhibition based on feedback received and internal assessment of the plan and reported back to Council for adoption in late 2015.

Dumaresq Street to McIntyre Street, Gordon road link

This project involves construction of a new local road (approximately 144m long) in the Gordon local centre, situated on a 15m wide road reservation currently known as 41 Dumaresq Street and 36 McIntyre Street. The purpose of this road is to provide additional pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle permeability in western part of the Gordon local centre by breaking up the long blocks between Pacific Highway and Vale Street. The road will also act as a separation/buffer between the adjoining R3 Medium density Residential and R4 High density Residential zones.

The existing dwellings on the site have been demolished and a design for the road has been completed. Tenders for construction of the road closed on 3 March 2015. Following an evaluation period, the tender is expected to be reported to Council in late April 2015, with construction to potentially commence around mid-2015 (subject to contractor availability), and expected to take 6-9 months to complete.

Dumaresq Street to Moree Street, Gordon - road link

The developers with whom Council originally negotiated the VPA relating to the delivery of the road linkage adjoining the development at 28-30 Dumaresq Street Gordon have on-sold the development. The VPA was registered on the title of the land and travels with the land; it has now been formally novated to the new developers. The purchase of the residual land not required for the road reservation was formally finalised as part of this process.

In respect of the continuity of road through to Moree Street, the SP2 property to be acquired is the subject of a continuing acquisition process.

Fitzsimons Lane, Gordon

Two consolidated developments fronting the Pacific Highway at Gordon and backing on to Fitzsimons Lane are the subject of proposals for Voluntary Planning Agreements. These are for the purpose of facilitating the delivery of pedestrian and townscape improvements works required by both the Development Control Plan and the Development Contributions Plan to be delivered concurrently with these developments. Both developments are required to carry out works in Fitzsimons Lane to facilitate vehicular access from the secondary street rather than the Pacific Highway and it is logistically essential that the improvements works under the DCP and CP are concurrently carried out to Council’s satisfaction.

Each proposal will be reported to an Ordinary Meeting of Council prior to the commencement of the public consultation process.

An indirect plan Contribution Plan (Section 94A) for Ku-ring-gai LGA

Work is progressing on an indirect (s94A) plan for Ku-ring-gai to relate to development that is exempt from direct development contributions (s94) under Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 such as knock down rebuilds, major alterations and additions and commercial development outside the local centres. Small scale improvements under $100,000 remain exempt under the legislation and development with a capital cost between $100,000 and $200,000 is subject to a limited 0.5% levy. A 1% levy can only be applied to development in excess of $200,000. Those scales and percentages are fixed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation.

The detailed investigation and drafting process is also seeking to resolve the interrelation between the two types of contributions plans and the practical processes for determining the capital cost for the purposes of quantifying a contribution based on that cost.

It is anticipated that a further report, accompanied by a draft document, will be formally reported to Council mid-year.

It is emphasised that the indirect CP is intended to be complementary to the current adopted Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 and relate to different development. The current CP will remain in effect whether or not Council proceeds with a s94A Contributions Plan for development that is exempted from the 2010 Contributions Plan.

Voluntary Planning Agreements

Council’s Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy that guides the negotiation and preparation of Voluntary Planning Agreements has been in place since 2008. Following the execution of the second VPA prepared under that policy it is now due for a review. Drafting is underway and is anticipated to be reported concurrent with the draft S94A Contributions Plan in the middle of the year.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme One: Community, People and Culture

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

C1.1 An equitable and inclusion community that cares and provides for its members

Our community facilities are accessible and function as cultural hubs to attract a range of users

C6.1.1.1.1-C6.1.1.1.3 New community facilities under design and planned delivery for Lindfield Town Centre

C4.1 A community that embraces healthier lifestyle choices and practices

New and enhanced open space and recreation facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment

C4.1.2.1.1; C4.1.2.1.2; and

C4.1.2.1.3

Greengate Park ready to open. Eton Road Oval and community centre opened 17 December

2013. Balcombe Park Wahroonga opened last year. Cameron Park Turramurra ready to commence construction.

Theme Three: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique and

visual character and identity is maintained

Place making programmes

are being implemented for selected council owned areas

P1.1.1.1.2

Lindfield town centre – both east and west of the railway line/Pacific Hwy – undergoing urban renewal

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

P8.1.1.1.1.1-2

Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan

2010 ensures new development contributes towards the cost of delivering supporting infrastructure.

P4.1 Our centres offer a broad

range of shops and services and contain lively urban village spaces where people can live, work, shop, meet and spend leisure time

Plans to revitalise local

centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community

P1.1.1.1.2

Lindfield is the first centre to undergo comprehensive Masterplanning for revitalisation.

P6.1 Recreation, sporting and

leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs

A programme is being

implemented to improve existing recreation, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities.

C4.1.2.1.2-3;

New facilities are being established including: Eton Road Oval, Greengate Park and Cameron Park.

P7 Multipurpose community

buildings and facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs

Standards are developed to

improve the condition and functionality of existing and new assets

C6.1.2.1.2

New community facilities including a new library and multi-purpose community facilities are in the Masterplanning stages for Lindfield.

P8.1 An improved standard of infrastructure that meets the community’s service level standards and Council’s obligations as the custodian of our community’s assets

Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations, defined levels of service and address inter-generational equity

C6.1.2.1.2; C4.1.2.1.3

New public infrastructure is planned to support new development and ensure that everyone who lives and works in Ku-ring-gai continues to

enjoy access to public facilities.

Theme Four: Access, Traffic and Transport

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

T1.1 A range of integrated

transport choices are available to enable effective movement to, from and around Ku-ring-gai

A network of safe and

convenient links to local centres, major land uses and recreational opportunities is in place

C6.1.2.1.1; T1.1.3.1.1

Lindfield Commuter car park, park, community facilities and realigned Drovers Way.

T3.1 An accessible public

transport and regional road network that meets the diverse and changing needs of the community

A strategic access, traffic

and transport plan is being implemented for the Northern Sydney Region

C6.1.2.1.1; T 1.1.3.1.1

Commuter car parking and new link roads

Theme Six: Leadership and Governance

Community Strategic Plan

Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

L1.1 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

2030 “Our Community – Our

Future”

L1.1.2.1.1 and L1.1.2.1.2

Ku-ring-gai made a comprehensive submission to the White Paper and Planning Bill and continues to have input into on-going planning for the future Planning System in respect of the future contributions system with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure

L2.1 Council rigorously

manages its financial resources and assets to maximise delivery of services

Council expenditure satisfies

the needs of the community and Council has increased its commitment to infrastructure asset management priorities

C6.1.1.1.2

Council is leveraging the value of its assets to combine with contributions to deliver major community assets in Lindfield

Governance Matters

Regular reporting

The need to give members of Council and the community more information on the progress and activity in the development contributions systems was identified as part of the Delivery Program and the Operational Plans. This update report has been provided regularly (six-monthly) since 2011. It is also intended to provide additional information and links on Council’s website throughout the year.

Internal audit

Council’s Contributions System was recently the focus of an internal review in 2013/14. While generally the system is well managed, there are a couple of areas that could be further improved including documenting and updating of current procedures for incorporation in the procedures manuals of each relevant section of Council which is involved in a component of the contributions process, and a formal audit that contributions arising from privately certified applications have been paid (and appropriate legal proceedings instigated if required). That remains a work-in-progress.

Risk Management

A rolling works program

The works programme arising out of Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 through to at least 2031 is a multi-million dollar undertaking. Infrastructure delivery will be possible only through the receipt of contributions which will be affected by several economic cycles over the life of the contributions plan. The risks in taking such a strategic horizon are managed through regular reviews of the contributions plan, at a minimum after the release of data from each five-yearly census or, more frequently, if the pace or scale of development is definitely changed by any statutory process or economic cycle. The rate and scale of development is monitored by Council staff. Sydney Water figures for delivered dwelling yield are also referenced.

Acquisition of a number of targeted sites by negotiation has not been possible. Council may need to consider compulsory acquisition of some of these sites to assist with finalisation of a range of park and local road land projects in a timely manner. If this approach becomes necessary, this would present a risk.

Proposed reforms to the Planning Legislation that governs development contributions

It seems as if the Planning Reforms that were intended to replace the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act with a new piece of legislation have not significantly progressed since they failed to gain Senate support at the end of 2013. There are alternative mechanisms available to the NSW Government for the introduction of some of the reforms affecting development contributions, for example via Ministerial Direction under s94E or via amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. This matter may be revisited after the election in March.

Fit for the Future

A more pressing issue is the uncertainty over the form of Local Government in the region beyond 2016. Development contributions and the funding and delivery of infrastructure supporting development are some aspects among many of the Fit for the Future issues. Input into documentation is being prepared for Ku-ring-gai Council’s submissions.

Financial Considerations

Council maintains a dynamic Long Term Financial Plan. The works program of Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 was integrated into the Long Term Financial Plan from the start of 2011 and adopted by Council on 3 May 2011. Since that date, it has been updated annually and duly reported to Council to ensure its currency. Staff from both the Finance Unit and the Urban Planning & Heritage Unit monitor both income and development growth respectively and liaise to maintain a deliverable works programme. The scheduling of works through to the long term should be considered somewhat fluid depending on strategic opportunities that might arise from time-to-time and the management of cash flows during the economic cycle.

In this context, the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 comprises a large range of works from small-scale parkland embellishments to major community infrastructure which facilitates considerable flexibility in managing a financially deliverable work programme over time.

Ku-ring-gai Council Finance staff continue to refine the cash-flow management of development contributions to support and facilitate the delivery programme over the life of the Contributions Plan. As part of this process, staff from both the Finance Unit and the Strategy Planning Unit have met to consider managing the issue of pooling contributions across the Contributions Plan to facilitate an efficient programme of infrastructure delivery over time. A much-anticipated improvement is a dedicated cash-flow management system feeding into the Long Term Financial Plan for the analysis and improved financial cash-flow management of development contributions.

This remains a high priority in view of the multiple sources of funding for major projects.

Social Considerations

Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area has been going through a period of change commencing in 2004. This is bringing about population growth and demographic change following years of declining and stable population since the 1980s. Infrastructure is essential to support and encourage the integration of the new residents in Ku-ring-gai, both among residents of the new dwellings being built and those moving into larger existing housing vacated by the members of Ku- ring-gai’s older population who have ‘downsized’ into smaller local accommodation.

The provision of additional community infrastructure providing both outdoor and indoor community spaces will continue to support this process and help Ku-ring-gai continue to be a vibrant and popular place to live for all ages.

Ku-ring-gai Council continues to prioritise the delivery of community infrastructure in areas of high development activity and in accessible locations for the majority of residents as well as local businesses and their employees.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations are part of the detailed design of every item of infrastructure provided for in the Contributions Plan. The provision of this infrastructure is required to support cohesive and sustainable communities in areas of increasing urbanisation.

Community Consultation

One of the areas where Council could do better is in the publication of information relating to the delivery of infrastructure arising from development contributions on an on-going basis. The review, redesign and upgrade of Ku-ring-gai Council’s website can facilitate this process. This remains a key objective but has been delayed by other priorities.

As well as providing a current information resource for the community and local developers, this visual demonstration of Council’s on-going delivery of infrastructure will also assist in addressing inquiries from the media and from external development agencies related to the expenditure of development contributions and the delivery of infrastructure.

Internal Consultation

The management of the development contributions system is a truly whole-of-Council system from policy development, to contributions calculation, through inflation and receipting to infrastructure development. All aspects of the contributions system are co-ordinated across Council with input from all areas with a direct interest in that aspect on an on-going basis.

Summary

This report summarises where Ku-ring-gai is heading in the delivery of infrastructure funded, or partly funded, by development contributions across the LGA with particular reference to the local centres where the majority of redevelopment is concentrated. It includes an update on the community and civic projects currently in the advanced planning stages for Lindfield and early planning stages for Turramurra. This report is the seventh in a series of six-monthly updates since 2011.

It should be noted that this is a summary outline report. More technical financial detail is reported quarterly in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan, in Council’s annual budget and, in respect of major items of infrastructure for example Lindfield Community Hub, Lindfield Village Green and the Turramurra Civic Project are also subject to separate, more detailed, reporting.

Recommendation:

That the latest update report on the development contributions system in Ku-ring-gai be received and noted.

Kate Paterson

Infrastructure Co-ordinator

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.1 / 23

Item GB.1	S05273
	10 March 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.2 / 31

Item GB.2	S03788
	19 March 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.3 / 35

Item GB.3	S03939
	23 March 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.5 / 85

Item GB.5	DA0327/13
	23 March 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.8 / 338

Item GB.8	S06342/3
	6 February 2015

purpose of report:	To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for February 2015.

background:	Council’s investments are reported monthly to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

comments:	The net return on investments for the financial year to February 2015 was $2,675,000 against a revised budget of $2,584,000 giving a YTD favourable variance of $91,000.

recommendation:	That the summary of investments performance for February 2015 be received and noted; and that the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and report adopted.

purpose of report:	To consider motions for submission for the 2015 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government.

background:	The NGA of Local Government is an annual event and is to be held in 2015 at the National Convention Centre in Canberra between Sunday, 14 June and Wednesday, 17 June 2015. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) Board is calling for motions for the 2015 NGA of Local Government under this year’s theme ‘Closest to the Community: Local Government in the Federation’. The theme reflects current issues being debated nationally and priority issues facing local government.

comments:	Council resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held Tuesday, 10 March 2015 that Councillors were to provide any motions they proposed to submit by Thursday, 19 March 2015. There were no submissions received by the Manager Records and Governance prior to the deadline.

recommendation:	That Council does not submit any motions to the 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government.

purpose of report:	To advise Councillors of the Floodplain Management Association National Conference to be held in Brisbane between 19– 22 May 2015.

background:	The FMA promotes wise land use planning which guides appropriate floodplain development, and supports programs which manage flood risks and reduce private and public flood losses. It represents members' interests at State and Commonwealth government levels, promote public awareness of flood issues, support flood education programs and improve the knowledge and skills of floodplain management practitioners. The FMA is dedicated to working with all states and territories to raise flood awareness and the priority of flooding on the national agenda. The FMA has members in NSW, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, and in 2013 established the National Flood Risk Managers Working Group to develop a framework for national cooperation and advocacy for flood risk management.

comments:	The theme for the conference is ‘building a flood resilient Australia’ focusing on resilient communities and flood resilient buildings and infrastructure. Conference attendees will include Commonwealth, State and Local Government elected representatives and staff, researchers and education providers.

recommendation:	That any Councillors interested in attending the 2015 Floodplain Management Association National Conference advise the General Manager by Friday, 10 April 2015.

purpose of report:	For Council to determine whether it will make a submission to the JRPP on the Section 94 contribution for DA0327/13 which proposes construction of a new hospital at 742, 746 and 746A Pacific Highway, Gordon.

background:	Councillor David Citer requested that the officers’ recommendation to the JRPP concerning the Section 94 contribution for DA0327/13 be referred to full Council for consideration.

comments:	The officers’ DA assessment report has been finalised and forwarded to the JRPP for consideration at its meeting on 8 April 2015. An elected Council may make a submission on a DA within their local government area where the JRPP is the consent authority. Any submission made by Council must be received by the JRPP seven days before the JRPP meeting.

recommendation:	That Council determine whether it will make a submission to the JRPP on the Section 94 contribution for DA0327/13.

Attachments:	A1 View	JRPP supplementary report	2015/031349
	A2 View	Planning Consultant letter responding to JRPP deferral	2014/302472
	A3 View	Assessment considered by JRPP at the meeting on 11 September 2014	2014/201781
	A4 View	Architectural Plans	2014/302861
	A5 View	Landscape Plans	2014/302864

purpose of report:	For Council to note amendments to the Bush Fire Prone Land Map 2008 and to seek Council's approval to exhibit the draft Bush Fire Prone Land Map 2015 for the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA).

background:	The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Rural Fires Act 1997 require councils to prepare a Bush Fire Prone Land Map (BFPLM) every five years. This map is certified by the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service. The BFPLM formally identifies land affected by a bush fire hazard and acts as a legislative trigger for the consideration of appropriate planning and development controls. The last significant review of the BFPLM was undertaken in 2008. The NSW Rural Fire Service released a revised methodology for assessing bush fire prone lands in September 2014. This report includes the draft BFMLP 2015 for the Ku-ring-gai LGA to be exhibited for public comment.

comments:	The NSW Rural Fire Service ‘Guide for Bush Fire Prone Land Mapping’ (2014) was used as the basis for the review. The amended mapping identifies 3,128 hectares of Bush Fire Prone Land in the Ku-ring-gai LGA, resulting in 11,957 bush fire prone properties. These changes have not reduced evacuation risk. As a result, the exclusion areas for SEPP – Seniors Living and SEPP 53, as identified on the 2008 Bushfire Evacuation Risk Map, are recommended to be retained.

recommendation:	That Council approve the draft Bush Fire Prone Land Map 2015 for public exhibition and seek the approval from the Department of Planning to apply the Bush Fire Evacuation Risk Map overlay as previously identified in the 2008 certification process.

Category	Vegetation Type	Size (ha)	Remnant and short fire run
Vegetation Category 1	Forest, woodland, heaths (tall and short), forested wetlands and timber plantations.	>= 1 ha or < 1 ha when within 100m of other Category 1 vegetation or within 30m of other Category 2 vegetation.	Remnant and short fire run vegetation within 30 metres of each other where the combined area is greater than 2.5 hectares or when within 100 metres of other Category 1 vegetation or within 30 metres of other Category 2 vegetation.
Vegetation Category 2	Grasslands, freshwater wetlands, semi-arid woodlands, arid shrub lands and rainforests.	>= 1 ha or < 1 ha when within 100m of other Category 1 vegetation or within 30m of other Category 2 vegetation.	Remnant and short fire run vegetation greater than 100 metres lateral separation from Category 1 vegetation and 30 metres from other Category 2 vegetation.

	Category 1 vegetation (ha)	Category 2 vegetation (ha)	Buffer area (ha)	Total number of bush fire prone properties
2008 map	3199.1249	5.5654	1788.2833	14638
Draft BFPLM 2015	3050.6310	78.1298	1469.9571	11957
Overall change -/+	-148.4940	+72.5645	-318.3262	-2681

Bush fire prone vegetation changes	Area (ha)
Category retained (no category change)	3,036
Bush fire prone vegetation retained – adjusted from Category 1 to Category 2	74
Bush fire prone vegetation added	7
Bush fire prone vegetation removed	93

Attachments:	A1 View	Guide for Bush Fire Prone Land Mapping (NSW RFS 2014)	2015/061241
	A2 View	Eco Logical Australia - Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Prone Lands Update	2015/061244
	A3 View	Draft Bush Fire Prone Land Map - Ku-ring-gai LGA - 2015	2015/056341

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.9 / 385

Item GB.9	S10047
	11 March 2015

purpose of report:	The purpose of this report is to present to Council Probity Management Frameworks for both the Gordon Cultural Hub and the Turramurra Community Hub.

background:	The Ku-ring-gai Council Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2014-2015 has committed Council to preparing a master plan for a community hub within the Gordon Town Centre to accommodate cultural and arts activities and promote social interaction. Over the last two years Council has made a significant commitment to the Turramurra Community Hub; in November 2013 Council has resolved to reclassify its land holdings in the Ray Street Precinct and commence preparation of a master plan; and in December 2014 Council resolved to adopt a master plan for public exhibition. This work is currently underway and exhibition is planned for May 2015.

comments:	The purpose of a Probity Management 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 major development projects such as the Gordon Cultural Hub and the Turramurra Community Hub. Probity management is especially important for development projects of this size and complexity where Council is the landowner of the project site as well as having a significant interest in the planning controls, land zoning and reclassifications undertaken as part of this project.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the Turramurra Community Hub Probity Management Framework and the Gordon Cultural Hub Probity Management Framework.

Theme 03 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure – P4 Revitalisation of our Centres
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.
	A Master Plan is in place for a community hub within the Gordon Town Centre to accommodate cultural and arts activities and promote social interaction is developed.	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 01 – Community People and Culture – C4 Healthy Lifestyles
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.

Attachments:	A1 View	Turramurra Community Hub - Probity Management Framework - for council report		2015/066760
	A2 View	Gordon Civic Hub - Probity Management Framework - for Council report		2015/066801

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.10 / 457

Item GB.10	S10376
	16 March 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.11 / 461

Item GB.11	S05624
	17 March 2015

purpose of report:	To seek Council’s endorsement of the concept design plan for the extension of Carcoola Park and to name the park “Lapwing Reserve”.

background:	At the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 12 June 2012, Council resolved to acquire properties in St Ives for local open space. These properties were 14 and 16 Carcoola Road St Ives, being vacant land adjacent to an existing Council reserve at 18 Carcoola Road, St Ives. These properties were subsequently purchased.

comments:	Staff have undertaken a design process including site analysis, community survey, development of a draft concept plan, an online and mailed-out exhibition of the draft, concept plan revision after feedback and negotiations with local residents and have produced a final concept plan supported by local residents for Council endorsement.

recommendation:	That Council endorses the final design concept plan for Carcoola Road Reserve, St Ives as the basis on which staff prepares construction documentation including plans, cost estimates and specifications, and tender documentation for calling tenders and that an application for the name “Lapwing Reserve” be made to the Geographical Names Board for consideration.

Carcoola Road Park - Budget
Total Area	2,803sqm
New land area available for embellishment under section 94	1868.5sqm
Development Contributions potential budget
Total embellishment costs 1868.5sqm x $475sqm permitted under CP2010	$887,537.50
Indicative Upper Project Limit based on Concept Plan (Attachment A1)	$675 000.00

Attachments:	A1 View	Carcoola final concept plan for council report		2015/068180
	A2 View	Carcoola Reserve "Have Your Say" - survey results		2015/042656

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	GB.12 / 477

Item GB.12	S10388
	18 March 2015

purpose of report:	To provide Council with the independent Project Review – 828 Pacific Highway Gordon Report.

background:	On 7 October 2014, Council resolved to engage independent consultants including an auditor to review the processes associated with the acquisition of 828 Pacific Highway, Gordon, and all information relating to the capital expenditure review, design, documentation, and approval of the project since acquisition including any changes of project.

comments:	The Auditors were provided unfettered access to Council’s records and interviewed a number of staff and Councillors. The Auditors report provides an independent assessment of information considered, noting any potential gaps or deficiencies.

recommendation:	That Council receive and note the Project Review – 828 Pacific Highway Gordon Report.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 March 2015	NM.1 / 513

Item NM.1	S03125
	31 March 2015