Ordinary Meeting of Council
TO BE HELD ON Tuesday, 8 December 2015 AT 7.00pm
Level 3 Council Chamber
Agenda
** ** ** ** ** **
NOTE: For Full Details, See Council’s Website –
www.kmc.nsw.gov.au under the link to business papers
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Confirmation of Reports to be Considered in Closed Meeting
NOTE:
A. That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following Confidential report:
Refer C.1 Council Investment - Deed of Covenant
Attachment A1 – Deed of Covenant
B. That in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1993, all officers’ reports be released to the press and public, with the exception of confidential attachments to the following General Business reports:
Refer GB.5 Turramurra Community Hub - update report
Attachment A1: Draft Turramurra Community Hub –
Concept Design Stage Estimate Report, Rider Levett Bucknall, May 2015
Attachment A2: Lindfield Community Hub - Peer Review Paper,
Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015
Attachment A5: Turramurra Community Hub - Development
Proposal Feasibility Analysis, Hill PDA, June 2015
Attachment A6: Turramurra Community Hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis, AEC Group and Location IQ, November 2015
Refer GB.8 Lindfield Community Hub: Project Delivery
Attachment A1: Lindfield Hub_Spark Helmore Legal Advice
on PPPs_23 November 2015
Refer GB.10 Creation of Right of Way on Council Land - St Ives
Attachment A3: A3 - Letter - Legal Advice - 15 Stratford Place St Ives
Attachment A4: A4 - Valuation - assessment of ompensation for easement for access - 15 Stratford Place
Refer GB.15 T15-2015 - NTRA - Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield
Attachment A1: Tender Assessment and Recommendation Report
Attachment A2: Pre Tender Estimate (Appendix 1 to above report)
Attachment A3: Tender Weighted Criteria (Appendix 2 to above report)
Attachment A4: Tender Evaluation Scorecard (Appendix 3 to above report)
Attachment A5: Independent financial assessment (Appendix 4 to above)
Address the Council
NOTE: Persons who address the Council should be aware that their address will be tape recorded.
Documents Circulated to Councillors
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs
Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of Council 9
File: S02131
Meeting held 24 November 2015
Minutes numbered 367 to 393
minutes from the Mayor
Petitions
Recommendations from Committee
RC.1 Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee 28
File: CY00022/7
Meeting held 19 November 2015
Minutes numbered KTC18 to KTC23.
GENERAL BUSINESS
i. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to have a site inspection.
ii. The Mayor to invite Councillors to nominate any item(s) on the Agenda that they wish to adopt in accordance with the officer’s recommendation allowing for minor changes without debate.
GB.1 Christmas/New Year Recess Delegations 2015/2016 35
File: CY00259/7
To grant appropriate Delegations during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016.
Recommendation:
The appropriate Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016.
GB.2 67-71 Archbold Road, Roseville - Section 82A review of DA0223/14 proposing alterations and additions to existing 3 dwellings and construction of 8 apartments (to create 11 dwellings) for seniors living including basement parking - heritage conservation area 39
File: REV0003/15
Ward: Roseville
Applicant: Gelder Architecture
Owner: Mrs Thalia Ellen Goldspink and Global Transactions Pty Ltd
To determine Section 82A Review of DA0223/14 proposing alterations and additions to existing 3 dwellings and construction of 8 apartments (to create 11 dwellings) for Seniors Living including basement parking – Heritage Conservation Area
Recommendation:
Approval
GB.3 1 Tobruk Avenue, St Ives Chase - Alterations and additions, including garage, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscaping 165
File: DA0082/15
Ward: St Ives
Applicant: Matthew & Emily Crocker
Owner: Mr MS Crocker & Mrs EKP Crocker
To determine Development Application No. DA0082/15 which seeks consent for alterations and additions, including a garage, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscaping.
Recommendation:
Approval
GB.4 1407 Pacific Highway, Warrawee - Demolish existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building containing 12 units, basement parking, landscaping and strata subdivision 260
File: DA0109/15
Ward: Comenarra
Applicant: Australian Consulting Architects P/L
Owner: Ms C A Chang
Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction pf a residential flat building containing 12 units, basement parking, landscaping and strata subdivision
Recommendation:
Approval (Deferred Commencement Consent)
GB.5 Turramurra Community Hub - update report 387
File: S10467
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of the Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan.
Recommendation:
That the current draft master plan be refined to be consistent with the findings of recent studies and that the draft master plan is placed on public exhibition within the first half of 2016.
That the existing Planning Proposal applying to 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street, Turramurra be amended to include the rezoning and reclassification of the Turramurra Village Park site at 1275 Pacific Highway, Turramurra.
GB.6 Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 459
File: S10748
For Council to consider a Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.
Recommendation:
That Council notifies the applicant that it will not support the Planning Proposal.
GB.7 Deferred Areas Planning Proposal 575
File: S10611
For Council to consider a Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to include 13 Deferred Areas.
Recommendation:
That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.
GB.8 Lindfield Community Hub: Project Delivery 1007
File: S10750
To advise Council on the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the Lindfield Community Hub Project (Project).
Recommendation:
That Council resolve to deliver the project by way of a Public Private Partnership (PPP), in accordance with Local Government Act and PPP Guidelines.
GB.9 The Mall Shops, Warrimoo Avenue, St Ives Chase - Neighbourhood Centre Upgrade 1019
File: S10520
To seek Council's endorsement of the final concept design for the upgrade to Warrimoo Avenue Neighbourhood Centre (The Mall Shops) located at St Ives Chase.
Recommendation:
That Council endorse the final concept design for the upgrade to Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre, as the basis on which staff undertake design development and prepare construction documentation for the calling of tenders.
GB.10 Creation
of Right of Way on
Council Land - St Ives 1033
File: CY00470/2
To obtain approval to create a Right of Way on Council land benefitting a private property at 15 Stratford Place St Ives.
Recommendation:
That Council resolve to grant the current property owners a Right of Way over Council land as set out in this report.
GB.11 Heritage Reference Committee Meeting Minutes 1042
File: CY00413/3
Council to consider the minutes of the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meetings held on 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015.
Recommendation:
That Council receive and note the Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes from 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015.
GB.12 Human Dimensions in Wildland Fire Management Conference 1053
File: S09362
For Council to note the outcomes of staff member attendance and contribution to the 13th International Wildland Fire Safety Summit & 4th Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference (IAWF Conference) held in Boise, Idaho, USA on 20 – 24 April 2015.
Recommendation:
That Council receives and notes the outcomes arising from attendance at the IAWF Conference.
GB.13 Planning Proposal to Heritage List 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville 1069
File: S10066
To have Council consider 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville as a potential heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and also request the Minister for Heritage to make an interim heritage order over 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville.
Recommendation:
That a planning proposal be prepared to list 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville as an item of local heritage significance under KLEP 2015 and a letter be sent to the Minister for heritage requesting a state interim heritage order be placed over the property.
GB.14 Proposal to re-establish alcohol free zones 1079
File: S03151
To consider the re-establishment of alcohol free zones in South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives.
Recommendation:
That Council proceed with the proposal to re-establish the alcohol free zones in South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives by notification and invitation for public comment in accordance with Section 644A of The Local Government Act 1993. Council endorsed community events are to be excluded from the Alcohol Free Zone requirements.
GB.15 T15-2015 - NTRA - Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield 1087
File: S09881
To consider the tenders received for the construction of North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield and appoint the preferred tenderer.
Recommendation:
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, and following the request for tender, it is recommended that Council accepts the tender submitted by tender ‘D’ as indicated in the confidential attachment by the Tender Evaluation Committee.
Extra Reports Circulated to Meeting
BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE – SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 241 OF GENERAL REGULATIONS
Questions Without Notice
Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS
Confidential Business to be dealt with in Closed Meeting
C.1 Council Investment - Deed of Covenant
File: S05595
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(g), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(g) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(g) because it contains advice concerning a legal matter that:
(a) is a substantial issue relating to a matter in which the Council is involved
(b) is clearly identified in the advice, and
(c) is fully discussed in that advice.
It is not in the public interest to release details of the legal advice as it would prejudice Council’s position in court proceedings.
Report by Director Corporate dated 30 November 2015
John McKee
General Manager
** ** ** ** ** **
MINUTES OF Ordinary Meeting of Council
HELD ON Tuesday, 24 November 2015
Present: |
The Mayor, Councillor C Szatow (Chairperson) (Gordon Ward) Councillors E Malicki & J Pettett (Comenarra Ward) Councillors C Berlioz & D Ossip (St Ives Ward) Councillors J Anderson & D Armstrong (Roseville Ward) Councillor D McDonald (Wahroonga Ward) |
|
|
Staff Present: |
General Manager (John McKee) Director Corporate (David Marshall) Director Development & Regulation (Michael Miocic) Director Operations (Greg Piconi) Director Strategy & Environment (Andrew Watson) Director Community (Janice Bevan) Corporate Lawyer (Jamie Taylor) Manager Corporate Communications (Virginia Leafe) Manager Records and Governance (Amber Moloney) Governance Officer (Christine Dunand) Minutes Secretary (Sigrid Banzer) |
The Meeting commenced at 7:00 pm
The Mayor offered the Prayer
367 |
File: S02194
Councillor David Citer tendered an apology for non-attendance (ill health) and requested leave of absence.
Councillor Fornari-Orsmond tendered an apology for non-attendance (family matters) and requested leave of absence.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors McDonald/Armstrong)
That the apology from Councillor Fornari-Orsmond be accepted and leave of absence granted.
(Moved: Councillors Malicki/Armstrong)
That the apology from Councillor Citer be accepted and leave of absence granted.
The Mayor, Councillor Szatow also advised that Councillor Ossip would be late.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
The Mayor adverted to the necessity for Councillors and staff to declare a Pecuniary Interest/Conflict of Interest in any item on the Business Paper.
Cr McDonald in relation to item GB.9 – Gordon Cultural and Civic Hub advised that his daughter owns a property nearby and therefore declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest, advising there is no conflict of interest and remained in the Chamber during the debate.
The following members of the public addressed Council on items not on the agenda:
R Cook Childcare Centre, 8 Yarrara Rd, West Pymble
J Sumegi Bush regeneration Council’s Depot
T Guan Childcare Centre, 8 Yarrara Rd, West Pymble
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:
Councillors Memorandums |
Refer GB.10 Draft Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 17 November 2015 advising that hard copies of the attachments are available in the folder in the Councillors’ room
Refer GB.9 Gordon Cultural and Civic Hub – Update Report Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 18 November 2015 advising attachment list shown in report is incorrect, the memorandum provides reference to the correct attachments.
Refer GB.12 Updated on Voluntary Planning Agreements Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 24 November 2015 with revised offer to enter into a planning agreement for dedication of land to widen Fitzsimons Lane
|
Memorandums |
Refer NM.2 OMC 27 October 2015 – Allocation and use of sports fields and courts in Ku-ring-gai Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 24 November 2015 in response to Notice of Motion from Cr Malicki
Refer GB.10 Canoon Road Recreation Area Draft Plan of Management Memorandum from Director Strategy & Environment dated 24 November 2015 regarding 2 submissions inadvertently omitted from Attachment 2
|
Late Items: |
Refer Minutes EMC 17 November 2015
Refer GB.15 Amendment to Council Meeting Cycle December 2015
|
Confidential Late Memorandum: |
Refer C.1 Ku-ring-gai Fitness & Aquatic Centre Status Update
|
375 |
2015 - 2016 Budget Review - 1st Quarter Ended September 2015
File: S09112/5 Vide: GB.2
|
|
To inform Council of the results of the 1st quarter budget review of 2015/1 and seek approval to adjust the annual budget based on the actual financial performance and trend for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 September 2015.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/McDonald)
That Council receive and note the September 2015 Quarterly Budget Review and adopt the recommended changes to the 2015/16 budget.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
376 |
Investment Report as at 31 October 2015
File: S05273 Vide: GB.3
|
|
To present Council’s investment portfolio performance for October 2015.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Pettett)
A. That the summary of investments and performance for October 2015 be received and noted.
B. That the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer be noted and the report adopted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
377 |
Analysis of Land and Environment Court Costs - 1st Quarter 2015 to 2016
File: S05273 Vide: GB.4
|
|
To report legal costs in relation to development control matters in the Land and Environment Court for the three months ended 30 September 2015.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Pettett)
That the analysis of Land and Environment Court costs for the year ended 30 September 2015 be received and noted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
378 |
File: S07151 Vide: GB.7
|
|
For Council to consider and adopt a revised Local Approvals Policy.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/McDonald)
That the draft revised Local Approval Policy, dated November 2015, be adopted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
379 |
Environmental Levy Small Grants Scheme - Round 17
File: S04553/11 Vide: GB.8
|
|
To seek Council’s endorsement to fund round seventeen (17) of the Environmental Levy’s Community Small Grants Scheme.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/McDonald)
That Council supports the recommendation of the small grants assessment panel to fund fourteen (14) projects under round seventeen (17) of the Environmental Levy Community Small Grants Scheme, totalling $41,779.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
380 |
Climate change policy - consideration of submissions
File: S10811 Vide: GB.11
|
|
For Council to adopt the exhibited Climate Change Policy 2015 and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action Plan 2015, with minor amendments.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Armstrong)
A. That Council adopts the Climate Change Policy 2015 and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action Plan 2015, with minor amendments to the Climate Change Policy as detailed in this report.
B. That a copy of the Climate Change Policy 2015 and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action Plan 2015 are placed on Council’s website.
C. That Council acknowledges the formal submissions made on the Climate Change Policy 2015 and responds to the authors with the outcomes.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
381 |
Update on Voluntary Planning Agreements
File: S06198 Vide: GB.12
|
|
The purpose of this report is to update Council on a number of current and prospective Planning Agreements.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Pettett)
A. That Council endorses staff undertaking an active role in the negotiation and resolution of options to deliver the Dumaresq Street to Moree Street Gordon road link for the public benefit and a further report be presented to Council on the outcome of these negotiations.
B. That Council endorses staff undertaking an active role to facilitate the dedication of land for road widening along Fitzsimons Lane as identified in Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan 2013 and the subsequent co-ordinated delivery of the public domain improvements in Fitzsimons Lane in view of the rapid delivery of a high proportion of the development in the area.
C. That Council notes that the future of McIntyre Lane has been the subject of a formal Pre-DA and will require on-going discussions with the applicants and third parties to resolve several alternative options for access prior to any receipt of a formal offer to enter into a planning agreement.
D. That Council endorses further discussions with the developers of 2-4 Everton Road and 2-8 Pymble Avenue Pymble, with a view to potential delivery of works valued within Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 and proximate to the subject site as a contribution in kind rather than as a monetary contribution and that any resulting draft planning agreement be reported to Council.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
382 |
10-16 Gilroy Road Turramurra - Extinguishment and Relocation of Council Stormwater Drainage Easement
File: CY00066/7 Vide: GB.13
|
|
To consider a request to relocate Council’s stormwater and extinguish an existing Council drainage easement (Dealing B753086) over the subject property.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Armstrong)
A. That the General Manager or his delegate be authorised to negotiate Council’s requirements including compensation for the extinguishment of the existing easement (Dealing B753086) at 12-16 Gilroy Road, Turramurra being Lots 64-66 DP 6494, and the relocation of replacement drainage infrastructure on another part of the property approved by Council.
B. That subject to the General Manager or his delegate completing negotiations on the basis set out in the report that Council grant approval for the extinguishment of the existing easement (Dealing B753086).
C. That Council approves of a section 88B Instrument or similar instrument being created in favour of Council over part of the freehold location depicted in Attachment A1, subject to survey.
D. That Council authorises the Mayor and General Manager to affix the Common Seal of the Council to the instrument for the release of the easement and the creation of a new easement and execute all associated documentation.
E. That all costs associated with the extinguishment of the existing easement and the creation of a new easement in favour of Council, including legal and survey costs and all costs associated with the new drainage works be borne by the Applicant.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
383 |
Amendment to Council Meeting Cycle December 2015
File: CY00438/3 Vide: GB.15
|
|
To consider amending the adopted Council meeting cycle to include an additional Ordinary Meeting of Council on 15 December 2015.
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Berlioz)
A. That an additional Ordinary Meeting of Council, scheduled for Tuesday 15 December 2015 be included in the meeting cycle.
B. That appropriate notice be given to members of the public.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Szatow, Councillors McDonald, Armstrong, Berlioz, Anderson
Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Malicki
|
384 |
Ku-ring-gai Fitness & Aquatic Centre - Status Update
File: S10420 Vide: C.1
|
|
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in section 10A(2)(g), of the Act, and should be dealt with in a part of the meeting closed to the public.
Section 10A(2)(g) of the Act permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
This matter is classified confidential under section 10A(2)(g) because it contains advice concerning a legal matter that:
(a) is a substantial issue relating to a matter in which the Council is involved (b) is clearly identified in the advice, and (c) is fully discussed in that advice.
It is not in the public interest to release details of the legal advice as it would prejudice Council’s position in court proceedings.
Report by Manager Strategic Projects dated 16 October 2015
|
|
(Moved: Councillors Berlioz/Armstrong)
That Council approves the actions outlined in the Proposed forward path outlined in this report.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY |
Councillor Ossip arrived
Councillor Ossip withdrew during discussion
385 |
Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management - Post Exhibition Report
File: S09042 Vide: GB.10
R Posener P Debus G Bloomfield M Booth J Booth Z Baravykas I Shparlinski J Baravykas J-A Perry W Bedford B Williams B Collings M Taha C Campbell D Funk N Lush C Jones
|
|
For Council to adopt the Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management and establish a Canoon Road Recreation Area Consultative Committee.
|
|
(Moved: Councillor Anderson/Councillor McDonald)
A. That Council adopts the Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management.
B. That the General Manager be authorised to make any required minor editorial and formatting corrections to the Canoon Road Recreation Area Plan of Management prior to it being published on Council’s website.
C. That Council establishes a Canoon Road Recreation Area Consultative Committee consisting of three local residents, three KNA representatives, and relevant Council officers as soon as practicable to develop an Operational Management Plan for Canoon Road Recreation Area.
D. That the Council officers seek nominations for three South Turramurra residents to join the Canoon Road Recreation Area Consultative Committee as soon as practicable via a notice in the North Shore Times, and that the three positions be selected by the two Comenarra Ward Councillors and the Mayor.
E. That the initial Operational Management Plan be reported to Council for approval prior to the commencement of the 2016 netball competition at Canoon Road Recreation Area.
F. That the Operational Management Plan be reviewed by the consultative committee within three months of the end of each winter netball season and reported to an Ordinary Meeting of Council for information purposes as soon as possible after the annual review, along with any amendments to the Plan that have been made by the committee.
G. That the Canoon Road Recreation Area Consultative Committee be convened by Council officers, upon the request of any member of the committee, at any time in between annual reviews of the Operational Management Plan within two weeks of such a meeting request being received.
H. That the Canoon Road Recreation Area Consultative Committee be authorised to make amendments to the adopted Operational Management Plan if all parties on the committee agree with the amendments, and that any amendments to the Plan that are not agreed by all parties be reported to an Ordinary Meeting of Council for a decision.
I. That the issue of location and number of courts to be lit, hours of operation and all rules/conditions governing usage should come back from the Consultative Committee to Council for determination.
J. That a charter for the Consultative Committee be prepared and reported back to Council.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Szatow, Councillors McDonald, Armstrong, Anderson
Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett, Malicki, Berlioz
The above Resolution was CARRIED as an Amendment to the Original Motion. The Original Motion was:
(Moved by Councillors Malicki/Pettett)
That the Officer’s Recommendation with the deletion of night lighting from the Plan of Management be adopted.
|
Councillor Ossip returned
Councillor Malicki departed during discussion
Councillor Armstrong withdrew during discussion
Councillor Armstrong returned
386 |
Renaming of Orana Reserve, Pymble to Reichard Reserve
File: S02972 Vide: GB.14
|
|
To obtain Council approval for making an application to the Geographical Names Board of NSW for naming Council’s reserve in Orana Avenue, Pymble to be officially gazetted as ‘Reichard Reserve’.
|
|
(Moved: Mayor, Councillor Szatow/Councillor McDonald)
A. That an application be made to the Geographical Names Board of NSW to consider naming Council’s reserve in Orana Avenue, Pymble as ‘Reichard Reserve’.
B. That the petitioners be advised accordingly.
For the Resolution: The Mayor, Councillor Szatow, Councillors McDonald, Armstrong, Berlioz, Ossip
Against the Resolution: Councillors Pettett and Anderson
The above Resolution was subject to an Amendment to the Original Motion. The LOST Amendment was:
(Moved: Councillors Anderson/Pettett)
That the matter be deferred until research into the Reichard family name has been undertaken.
For the Amendment: Councillors Anderson and Pettet
Against the Amendment: The Mayor, Councillors Szatow, Councillors McDonald, Armstrong, Berlioz, Ossip
|
387 |
Bobbin Head Road and Killeaton/Burns Road Intersection
File: TM10/07 Vide: QN.1
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald
This enquiry came out of the NTAG meeting. Moving along Bobbin Head Road and crossing over Killeaton and Burns Road, can a letter or an assessment be done through the Traffic Committee about dedicating a straight lane running from Bobbin Head Road directly across that intersection.
I actually had a look at it and I first thought there is a dedicated lane but it is actually not, it is right back, can that be assessed?
Answered by Director Operations
The Director Operations advised he will take the question on notice but it is an RMS design so it will have to go back to them being a signalised intersection for them to look at.
|
388 |
Date for 2016 Community Services Forum
File: S02119 Vide: QN.2
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Duncan McDonald
Has a tentative date been set into 2016 with regards to the Community Service (and related association) Forum?
Answered by Director Community
The Director Community advised she is not aware of a date, she will take the question on notice.
|
389 |
Advice on activities at former depot site - Bloomsbury Avenue Pymble
File: RT4/07 Vide: QN.3
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Christiane Berlioz
Could Councillors please be provided with information regarding the activities on the former depot site adjacent to Bloomsbury Avenue Pymble referred to by the speaker earlier?
Answered by Director Operations
The Director Operations advised he would take the question on notice but clarified that it is the current depot site and not the former depot site.
|
390 |
Meeting With Minister for Planning and Premier
File: S10664 Vide: QN.4
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Jennifer Anderson
At the NTAG meeting on Sunday, you indicated to the audience that you were seeking a meeting with the Minister for Planning and the Premier.
Would you please advise the purpose of the meeting?
Answered by Mayor, Councillor Szatow
The Mayor advised the purpose of the meeting would simply be to put our case, our case for standing alone.
|
391 |
Information for Member for Ku-ring-gai - Alister Henskens
File: S10664 Vide: QN.5
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Jennifer Anderson
At the NTAG meeting on Sunday, the Member for Ku-ring-gai, Alister Henskens, indicated that he had been promised calculations regarding Council’s Fit for the Future position, and they have not been provided to him, I was wondering if that has been done yet?
Answered by General Manager
The General Manager advised that the information has been sent yesterday afternoon (23 November 2015) and also advised he would circulate a copy of what had been sent to the Member for Ku-ring-gai to all Councillors.
|
392 |
Update on the Childcare Centre at West Pymble
File: DA0377/15 Vide: QN.6
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor David Armstrong
In relation to the speakers tonight in relation to the Child Care Centre West Pymble, if I can get a an update obviously when it comes to Council for determination.
Answered by Director Development & Regulation
The Director Development & Regulation advised that DA is presently still under assessment, so at this stage he could not give an estimate of time, but the appropriate time he will provide an update.
|
393 |
Number of DAs for Childcare Centres in R2 Areas
File: CY00054/7 Vide: QN.7
|
|
Question Without Notice from Councillor Christiane Berlioz
Could Council officers please provide reasons it is accepting so many DAs (for child care centres) in residential R2 areas?
Answered by Director Development & Regulation
The Director Development & Regulation advised Council must, Council cannot decline to accept an application. It would be illegal.
|
Inspections Committee – SETTING OF TIME, DATE AND RENDEZVOUS
GB.5 9 – 17 Eastern Road Turramurra TBA
GB.6 610 Pacific Highway Killara TBA
GB.9 Gordon Cultural and Civic Hub – UTS Site 2pm 26 November 2015
GB.9 Gordon Cultural and Civic Hub 4pm 1 December 2015
The Meeting closed at 9:45 pm
The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 24 November 2015 (Pages 1 - 4) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings on 8 December 2015.
__________________________ __________________________
General Manager Mayor / Chairperson
MINUTES OF Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee
HELD ON Thursday, 19 November 2015
Present: |
Ku-ring-gai Council (Councillor Christiane Berlioz, Chairperson) Ku-ring-gai Council (Mayor, Cr Cheryl Szatow) (GB1, GB2, GB4 and General Discussion items only) Director Operations (Mr Greg Piconi) Roads & Maritime Services (Ms Kathryn Hawkins) Representing Police Local Area Command Kuring-gai (Snr Const Narelle Tomich) Representing Police Local Area Command North Shore (Const Adam Ryan) Representing Member for Davidson (Mr Michael Lane) Representing Member for Ku-ring-gai (Mr David Ross) |
|
|
Staff Present: |
A/Manager Traffic and Transport (Mr Deva Thevaraja) Strategic Transport Engineer (Mr Joseph Piccoli) |
|
|
Others Present: |
Representing Bike North (Ms Lyness Beavis) Resident – Ms Kate Cooper (Item GB4) Resident – Ms Beryl Stevens of St Ives (General Discussion item)
|
|
|
Apologies: |
Manager Traffic and Transport (Mr George Koolik)
|
The Meeting commenced at 9.05 am
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interest was declared.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTEs
|
Minutes of Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee File: CY00022/7 |
|
Meeting held 20 August 2015 Minutes numbered KTC11 to KTC17
|
|
The Committee Recommends:
That Minutes numbered KTC11 to KTC17 were received and confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of the meeting. |
GENERAL BUSINESS
KTC18 |
General Matter Items Under Delegated Authority
File: S02738
Vide: GB.1
|
|
Advice on matters considered under Delegated Authority.
|
|
That the information regarding traffic facilities approved during August to November 2015 be noted.
|
KTC19 |
File: CY00022/7
Vide: GB.2
|
|
To determine Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meeting dates for 2016.
|
|
That the the Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee meetings in 2015 be scheduled for the dates shown below: 18 February 17 March 21
April 19 May 20 October 17 November
|
KTC20 |
File: TM9/07
Vide: GB.3
|
|
To report back on Council’s Notice of Motion with regard to traffic issues in St Ives.
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Chairperson asked the Director Operations if there are any immediate improvements to be undertaken at several intersections mentioned in the report. Director Operations advised that the review of St Ives traffic management has now been updated in Council’s 10 year Traffic & Transport Plan which has resulted in those intersections moving to a higher priority.
|
|
That the updated traffic improvement schedule attached to this report be adopted and included in the Ten Year Traffic and Transport Plan.
|
KTC21 |
File: S02777/9
Vide: GB.4
|
|
To consider a concept plan for the implementation of the ‘Roseville 1’ cycle route.
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
Ms Kate Cooper, President of Roseville Public School P&C, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Principal of Roseville Public School. She described safety issues for pedestrians crossing Archbold Road at the signalised intersection with Addison Avenue. In particular, there was concern that southbound vehicles on Archbold Road would block the pedestrian crossing while they queue during the morning peak, placing parents and students at risk, and by introducing cyclists would place another user group at risk. She mentioned that there was previously a request made with RMS to install a red light camera at this location. She also noted there were preliminary discussions with RMS regarding provision of pedestrian crossing facilities across the northern leg of Archbold Road/Addison Avenue intersection. She also mentioned that pedestrian crossing markings across Archbold Road are faded and visibility to key road signs on Archbold Road is obstructed by foliage.
The Representative for RMS advised the Committee that a request for a red light camera has already been raised with Road Safety Division of RMS and that no further representation is therefore required from Council. However, she suggested that Council could undertake further investigation into the feasibility of introducing an additional pedestrian crossing facility across the northern leg of this intersection and refer the result to RMS for consideration.
The Chairperson asked the Representative for RMS whether there were any plans to increase capacity at the intersection of Archbold Road and Boundary Street. The Representative for RMS advised that she was not aware of any plans to upgrade the intersection. It was further suggested by the Chairperson that investigations should commence as to whether the right turn bay on Archbold Road (at Boundary Street) could be extended to increase its capacity. The Representative for RMS advised that increasing the length of right turn bay in Archbold Road at Boundary Street intersection will not assist in reducing the queuing situation at Archbold Road/Addison Avenue intersection, as there is a continuous southbound flow on Archbold Road during morning peak.
The Mayor asked the Representative for RMS if it is possible, as a preventative measure, to install a sign stating “Red Light Camera – Under Investigation” for southbound traffic on Archbold Road at Addison Avenue. The Representative for RMS advised that it is not standard practice to install such signs. She further advised that a request for a red light camera is currently being investigated by the Road Safety Division.
The Chairperson tabled a submission from Susie Devenport of Roseville. The submission raises concerns about the suitability of Allan Street for cyclists given the bus stops, kindergarten and shops at the southern end, and the existing visibility issues for residents reversing vehicles onto the street from their properties. The Strategic Traffic Engineer noted that he undertook an inspection in the peak afternoon period at the eastern end of Allan Street and found that while there was some picking up/setting down activity associated with nearby bus stops on Babbage Road, traffic volumes were observed to be modest. He also noted that cyclists riding in an easterly direction in Alan Street (i.e. same side as parked cars) would be riding uphill and therefore their speeds would be moderated. Alternative routes, such as Rowe Street, were discussed, but this would require bicycles to travel on the footpath past Roseville Chase Shops. It was also noted that Rowe Street is similar width to Allan Street, but does not have short term parking restrictions on one side like Allan Street, and that cyclists are currently using Allan Street and the proposal serves to better formalise it as a route.
The Representative for RMS suggested the design of the median and kerb ramp in Bancroft Avenue be improved to accommodate eastbound cyclists. She also suggested that bicycle lanterns (adjacent to the pedestrian crossing lanterns) may be required for bicycles crossing Archbold Road (at Addison Avenue, for westbound cyclists) and for bicycles crossing Babbage Road (at Addison Avenue, for eastbound and westbound cyclists).
|
|
A. That the Roseville 1 cycle route be approved.
B. That the residents consulted and Roseville Public School be notified of Council’s decision.
C. That Council review the visibility to existing signage on Archbold Road at Addison Avenue intersection and take appropriate measures to improve visibility of these signs.
D. That Council request RMS to remark the faded pedestrian crossing marking across Archbold Road at Addison Avenue intersection.
E. That Council investigate the feasibility of introducing an additional pedestrian crossing facility across the northern leg of Archbold Road and Addison Avenue intersection, and refer the results to RMS for considerations.
|
KTC22 |
File: TM4/07
Vide: GB.5
|
|
Proposed removal of three speed humps in Dumaresq Street.
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Director Operations informed the Committee that Dumaresq Street residents had been consulted on the proposed removal of three of the six speed humps and received their support.
The effect of the remaining speed humps may be reviewed at a later stage.
|
|
A. That the responses received to the proposed removal of three speed humps in Dumaresq Street be noted.
B. That removal of three speed humps in Dumaresq Street, as shown in Plan No Dumaresq/KTC/11/15, be approved and that the work be undertaken as part of the resheeting work in the street.
C. That residents of Dumaresq Street be advised of Council’s decision.
|
KTC23 |
File: TM9/07
Vide: GB.6
|
|
To consider the installation of daytime parking
restrictions in Kanoona Avenue,
|
|
The Committee’s Comments:
The Director Operations advised the Committee that Kanoona Avenue residents requested short term parking arrangements due to the street being parked out by St Ives Shopping Village employees during weekdays. Residents have overwhelmingly agreed to introduce 3P restrictions on the southern side of Kannona Avenue on weekdays and Saturday mornings.
|
|
A. That a 3P parking time limit be installed along the
southern side of Kanoona Avenue,
B. That the statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ areas on the intersections of Kanoona Avenue with Cowan Road and Collins Road be signposted ‘No Stopping’, as shown in Plan No. Kanoona/KTC/11/15.
C. That ‘No Parking’ signs be installed in the turning areas at the eastern end of Kanoona Avenue and the southern end of Collins Road, St Ives, at locations to be determined in consultation with affected residents, as shown on Plan No. Kanoona/KTC/11/15.
D. That painted islands projecting from the kerb be installed, as per Council’s standard plan, at three locations shown in Plan No. Kanoona/KTC/11/15.
E. That the parking and traffic situation in Kanoona Avenue be monitored, to determine whether further changes are required to provide safe traffic conditions at times of peak parking demand.
F. That Council’s Team Leader Regulation be informed of Council’s decision.
|
general discussion
Eastern Arterial Road, St Ives
Ms Beryl Stephens, of Eastern Arterial Road, St Ives, addressed the Committee expressing her concerns with the number of recently observed accidents/incidents in Eastern Arterial Road, particularly in the section between Burdekin Crescent/ Nicholson Avenue (north) to Nicholson Avenue(south). She advised that there have been a large number of accidents following rain events and referred to recent incidents on 3, 4 and 5 November where there were approximately nine crashes which occurred during wet weather. Some vehicles left the road and crashed into the front boundary of 79 Eastern Arterial Road, while the others were involved in head-on collisions or mounted the kerb onto the footpath area on the southbound (eastern) side of Eastern Arterial Road. She informed the Committee that there were fewer incidents following the upgrade of the road in 2013, but the rate of accidents has again started increasing from last year, reporting at least about 50 accidents/ incidents. She also claimed that the majority of drivers involved in accidents quickly leave the site by arranging tow trucks to clear their vehicles, thus the incidents are not being reported to Police. Ms Stephens suggested several temporary traffic measures whilst considering permanent measures such as a median barrier and speed camera to address this dangerous traffic condition along Eastern Arterial Road.
Ms Stephens advised that her comments are supported by 20 nearby residents. The Chairperson noted that her discussion with surrounding residents resulting in similar comments regarding safety concerns for pedestrians and traffic speeds during wet weather. Ms Stephens has also requested that her submission be tabled at the Traffic Committee meeting.
When asked by the Chairperson the reasons for recent accidents, Council’s Director Operations advised that vehicles could have lost control in wet weather after breaking friction between bad tyres and road surface. He suggested that the road surface could be again treated with higher grade asphalt or open graded asphalt to avoid slippery during wet weather, but considers first undertaking a Road Safety Audit and possibly a road pavement friction test to assess the condition of the road. He further advised that the proposed Road Safety Audit could include consultation with residents in the subject section of Eastern Arterial Road and the results of the Road Safety Audit could then be reported back to the Traffic Committee with recommendation to address the existing issue.
In response to the Chairperson’s enquiry about possible speed enforcement, the Representative of LAC Kuring-gai advised that speed radar checks are not carried out in wet weather but indicated a visible Police presence would assist slower speeds. She also advised that the policy on collision reporting has recently been changed, with two away incidents not being reported to Police.
The Representative of Member for Davidson advised the Committee that he felt this section of Eastern Arterial Road is more slippery now than it was before the 2013 upgrade, he has experienced it more recently in wet weather.
After receiving representations from residents in the area about several accidents/ incidents in wet weather, the Chairperson of the Committee moved to:
1. Conduct a Road Safety Audit for all road users, including pedestrians.
2. The Road Safety Audit is to include direct consultation with residents in the area.
3. The results of the Road Safety Audit and community consultation be reported back to the Traffic Committee and include recommendations to address identified safety issues.
The Meeting closed at 10.25am
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.1 / 34 |
|
|
Item GB.1 |
CY00259/7 |
|
16 November 2015 |
Christmas/New Year Recess Delegations 2015/2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To grant appropriate Delegations during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016. |
|
|
background: |
Council at its meeting of 10 November 2015 adopted a meeting cycle for 2016. Council’s last meeting of 2015 will be held on 15 December 2015 with the first meeting of 2016 being held on 9 February 2016. Thereby delegations are required to be granted during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016. |
|
|
comments: |
The Christmas/New Year recess period is from the last Council meeting on 15 December 2015 until meetings resume on 9 February 2016. During this period, it is customary to grant Delegated Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager. |
|
|
recommendation: |
The appropriate Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016. |
Purpose of Report
To grant appropriate Delegations during the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016.
Background
Council at its meeting of 10 November 2015 adopted a meeting
cycle for 2016. Council’s last meeting of 2015 will be held on 15 December 2015
with the first meeting of 2016 being held on
9 February 2016. Thereby delegations are required to be granted during the
Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016.
It is customary for Council to grant appropriate Delegations of Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and to the General Manager during this recess period.
integrated planning and reporting
Leadership and Governance
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
The organisation is recognised and distinguished by its ethical decision-making, efficient management, innovation and quality customer service. |
Council's Governance framework is developed to ensure probity, transparency and the principles of sustainability are integrated and applied into our policies, plans, guidelines and decision-making processes. |
Ensure effective and efficient conduct of Council and committee meetings for the benefit of councillors and the community. |
Comments
The Christmas/New Year recess period is from the last Council meeting on 15 December 2015 until meetings resume on 9 February 2016. During this period, it is customary to grant Delegated Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager.
These Delegations of Authority will assist in the smooth functioning of the Council during the Christmas/New Year recess for 2015/2016.
Governance Matters
It is Council’s usual practice to grant delegated authority
to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council, except
those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, during
the Christmas/New Year period. This year that period is from the 16 December
2015 to
8 February 2016.
Risk Management
There are no major risks associated with the recommendations in this report.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial considerations associated with this report.
Social Considerations
There are no social considerations associated with this report.
Environmental Considerations
There are no environmental considerations associated with this report.
Community Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Internal Consultation
None undertaken or required.
Summary
The Christmas/New Year recess period is from the last Council meeting on 15 December 2015 until meetings resume on 9 February 2016. During this period, it is customary to grant Delegated Authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager.
These Delegations of Authority will assist in the smooth functioning of the Council during the Christmas/New Year recess for 2015/2016.
A. That the following Delegations of Authority be granted to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager for the Christmas/New Year recess period for 2015/2016 as follows;
1. That the Mayor (Councillor Cheryl Szatow), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor David Ossip), and the General Manager (John McKee), be granted authority to exercise all powers, authorities, duties and functions of Council except those set out in Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 during the period 16 December 2015 to 8 February 2016, subject to the following conditions:
a. Such powers, authorities and functions may only be exercised by unanimous agreement between the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager.
b. Any such power, authority, duty or function shall only be exercised by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager jointly where they are of the opinion that the exercise of any such power, authority, duty or function could not be deferred until the meeting of Council on 9 February 2016.
B. That consultation, subject to their availability, be held with Ward Councillors on matters where they would normally be contacted, before delegation is exercised.
|
Christine Dunand Governance Officer |
Amber Moloney Manager Records and Governance |
David Marshall Director Corporate |
|
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.2 / 38 |
|
|
Item GB.2 |
REV0003/15 |
|
12 November 2015 |
development application
Summary Sheet
Report title: |
67-71 Archbold Road, Roseville - Section 82A review of DA0223/14 proposing alterations and additions to existing 3 dwellings and construction of 8 apartments (to create 11 dwellings) for seniors living including basement parking - heritage conservation area |
ITEM/AGENDA NO: |
GB.2 |
Application No: |
REV0003/15 |
Property Details: |
67-71 Archbold Road, Roseville Lot & DP No: Lot C in DP340032, Lot D in DP340032, Lot 20, Section A in DP11626 Site area (m2): 2,456.8m2 Zoning: Residential 2(a) (KPSO) |
Ward: |
|
Proposal/Purpose: |
To determine Section 82A Review of DA0223/14 proposing alterations and additions to existing 3 dwellings and construction of 8 apartments (to create 11 dwellings) for Seniors Living including basement parking – Heritage Conservation Area
|
Applicant: |
Gelder Architecture |
Owner: |
Mrs Thalia Ellen Goldspink and Global Transactions Pty Ltd |
Date Lodged: |
29/10/2015 |
Recommendation: |
Approval |
Purpose of report
The purpose of this report is to determine a request pursuant to Section 82A for a review of Council’s determination of DA0223/14 which proposed alterations and additions to three existing dwellings and construction of eight apartments (to create eleven dwellings) for Seniors Living, including basement parking within a Heritage Conservation Area. Council refused consent to DA0223/14 at its meeting of 11 August 2015 as the application failed to demonstrate that compliant access from the site to local public transport facilities would be available to the residents of the development. It is noted that the application was considered satisfactory in all other respects.
Section 82A (6-b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, requires that the application must be reviewed by full Council as full Council determined DA0223/14.
Additionally, under the provisions of Clause 40(4-c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, a building in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height (as the development is being proposed in a residential zone where residential flat buildings are not permitted). The new dwellings proposed under this application incorporates two storey elements across 13.04% of the defined rear area of the site which is more than a 10% breach of the prescribed development standard. A SEPP1 objection to this development standard has been provided.
As a variation of more than 10% to a development standard is sought, the application also needs to be determined by full Council in accordance with Planning and Infrastructure NSW Circular PS 08-014.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces and 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: |
Access to public transport and services |
Submissions: |
Submissions received from four objectors |
Land and Environment Court: |
N/A |
Recommendation: |
Approval |
History
DA history
29 September 2015 |
Section 82A review application lodged. |
|
|
9 October 2015 |
The application was notified for a period of 30 days. Submissions were received from four objectors. |
|
|
30 October 2015 |
Comments were received from the NSW Roads and Maritime Services. No objection to the proposal was raised. |
|
|
18 November 2015 |
The applicant submitted a revised basement level plan showing compliant car parking dimensions. |
The Site
Site description
The subject site consists of three separate allotments being:
- Lot C in DP340032 (71 Archbold Road)
- Lot D in DP340032 (69 Archbold Road)
- Lot 20, Section A in DP11626 (67 Archbold Road)
The subject site is an irregular shaped corner allotment with a primary frontage of approximately 59 metres to Archbold Road, a secondary frontage of approximately 38 metres to Carnarvon Road and a total area of 2,456.8m². The site slopes away from the Archbold Road frontage falling towards the rear boundary by 4.1 metres. The site supports several trees of varying heights that are concentrated towards the property boundaries. All three lots are occupied by single storey, detached dwellings. Vehicular access to 67 Archbold Road and 69 Archbold Road is from Archbold Road. There is no formal vehicular access to 71 Archbold Road.
The site is also located within the “Earl of Carnarvon” Heritage Conservation Area as identified by the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.
Surrounding development
The site adjoins three adjacent residential properties (1 Carnarvon Road and 28 Merlin Street to the east and 65 Archbold Road to the south). These properties contain detached residential dwellings. The general character of development surrounding the site is of low density dwellings. A child care centre is located opposite the subject site at 81 Clanville Road (west).
The Proposal
The physical works of the proposed development as they relate to No’s 67, 69 and 71 Archbold Road, Roseville remain unchanged. The only changes made to the proposal as part of the Section 82A review application relate to the upgrade works required within the adjacent road reservations. These works are needed to provide compliant access to local public transport services (bus stops) that will take the residents of the development to the shops and other facilities prescribed by Clause 26 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. The works to be undertaken on No’s 67, 69 and 71 Archbold Road, Roseville are as follows:
Basement level
- parking for 13 vehicles with storage areas, garbage truck access, lift and stair access
Alterations to existing dwellings
- modification of the internal floor plans of all three existing dwellings to provide 3, single storey, 3 bedroom Seniors Living dwellings
New building
- construction of a new, two storey building attached to the rear (eastern) elevation of the existing dwellings containing 8 Seniors Living dwellings
- ground floor: 3 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom unit
- first floor: 1 x 1 bedroom unit, 2 x 2 bedroom unit, 1 x 3 bedroom unit
Landscaping works
- letter box structures
- pathways
- formal and informal planting areas
- a communal open space area located towards the rear of the existing site of 67 Archbold Road
- a 0.6 metres high masonry and metal palisade fence aligning the Archbold Road and Carnarvon Road frontages of the site
Stormwater management works
- on-site retention and detention tanks within the Carnarvon Road setback of the site
- rainwater storage tanks to each of the existing dwellings
- stormwater drainage lines
In order to provide the necessary access to local amenities via public transport, as required under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 for the residents, works will be required in the road reservation aligning Archbold Road (and in several private properties adjacent to the parts of the road reservation to the altered). This would be subject to a separate application under the Roads Act 1993 if this Development Application were to be approved (explained in further detail below).
Consultation
Community
In accordance with Development Control Plan No. 56, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response, submissions from the following were received:
1. Kathryn Johnson and Robert Stevens, 1 Carnarvon Road, Roseville
2. AW Mitchell – 65 Archbold Road, Roseville
3. Mr I R Ney – 30 Merlin Street, Roseville
4. Graham and Nanae Faber – 28 Merlin Street, Roseville
The submissions raised the following issues:
The consent of neighbouring private property owners to be affected by the proposed upgrade works within the adjacent road reservations has not been submitted with the application
The proposed upgrade works necessary to provide a suitable access pathway from the site to the local public transport services (discussed in further detail below) will require some alterations to private properties located along the pathway (being No’s 75, 77 and 79 Archbold Road, Roseville). This will mainly relate to changes to existing driveway grades inside the properties.
The applicant has not provided the consent of these property owners for these works to take place. However, it is recommended that a deferred commencement development consent be issued requiring that the consent of the owners be obtained and the necessary upgrade works be completed (providing a suitable access pathway) prior to the development consent becoming operable.
Whether the future owners of neighbouring private properties will be obliged to provide their consent to the proposed upgrade works within the adjacent road reservations
There is no obligation for neighbouring private property owners to provide their consent for works to take place on their land in order to facilitate the necessary upgrade works. However, it is recommended that such consent must be obtained and the works completed before the development proposed on the subject site may be undertaken.
The paths of travel to the local public transport services are dangerous and potentially unusable for mobility challenged persons
Subject to the necessary upgrading works taking place (discussed in detail below), Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that a safe, suitable access pathway will be available to the residents of the proposal to access the local public transport services.
Restrictions should be placed on truck movements and vehicle parking in the vicinity of the site during peak hour traffic periods throughout the construction process
Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions to control the movement of construction vehicles while the development is being undertaken (Conditions 12 and13).
The location of the proposed driveway entrance to the basement parking area conflicts with an existing post box and electricity pole
The consent from the relevant authorities for the relocation of these facilities has not been provided
The relocation of any existing infrastructure, including power poles and post boxes, within the road reservation is a matter to be resolved between the proponent of the development and the responsible service provider.
Insufficient setback to the proposed driveway and driveway apron from the boundary shared with No. 1 Carnarvon Road for screen planting purposes
Council’s Tree and Landscape Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposal provides sufficient area within this setback for planting that will positively contribute to the retention of neighbouring amenity and the protection of streetscape character. This is to include Dwarf Lillypily and Blueberry Ash trees that are of a foliage that will provide adequate vegetated screening of the development from this adjacent property.
The proposed tree removal will reduce the availability of shade to the subject site and neighbouring properties during the summer months
Council’s Tree and Landscape Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposed tree removal is acceptable and will not unduly detract from the tree canopy of the area. Additionally, Council’s controls do not prescribe requirements for the retention of shade to neighbouring properties.
Impacts upon native fauna (bandicoots) and their habitat
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer is satisfied that any impacts on endangered flora or fauna communities can be appropriately managed, subject to conditions (Conditions 5 and 6).
Visual privacy impacts
Concern has been raised by the owners of No. 1 Carnarvon Road and No. 28 Merlin Street with regard to potential overlooking from the development into the sensitive areas of these adjacent sites.
In order to protect the privacy of the open space at the rear of No. 1 Carnarvon Road, it is recommended that privacy screening be provided along the eastern edges of the courtyards of Units 3 and 5 (Condition 24). Subject to compliance with this requirement, the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the visual privacy of adjacent properties. This conclusion notes that adequate separation (a minimum 6.5 metres) between the high use areas of the units (such as balconies and living room windows) and the neighbouring properties will be retained. Additional boundary screen plantings are also to be introduced which will further contribute to the protection of visual privacy.
Heritage impacts / the development is inconsistent with the historical character of the surrounding environment
The proposal will not unduly impact upon any listed heritage items and has been designed to retain and emphasise the existing dwellings of the site, whilst ensuring the new dwellings have a harmonious relationship with the surrounding Heritage Conservation Area.
Inconsistency with the proposed low density zoning of the site under Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013
The provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 prevail over Council’s controls to facilitate the use and development of the site for this purpose.
Parking / traffic impacts upon the local road network
Traffic lights should be installed on the corner of Archbold Road and Carnarvon Road to cater for the additional vehicle movements
Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposal provides compliant and sufficient parking to meet the needs of the development. Council and NSW Roads and Maritimes Services are also satisfied that the development would not unduly impact upon local traffic flow and that there is no need to install additional traffic lights at the adjacent intersection.
Insufficient information in regard to the intended use of the rear of the site
The use of the communal open space area at the rear of the property should be regulated
It is not considered that placing a restriction on the use of the private open space at the rear of the development (at the south-eastern corner of the property) is necessary or reasonable. This area has been designed to accommodate passive recreation, consistent with the expected use of private open space in a low density residential zoning. It is not likely that this area would be utilised for any activities that will unreasonably impact neighbouring amenity.
Existing boundary fencing should be upgraded at expense of the developer to protect neighbouring amenity
The replacement of common boundary fencing is a civil matter between property owners that is governed by the provisions of the Dividing Fences Act, 1991. As such, it would not be appropriate for Council to impose a requirement for the upgrade of any boundary fencing at the cost of the proponent.
Damage to neighbouring properties caused by construction impacts
It is recommended that conditions be imposed requiring pre and post construction dilapidation reports to protect neighbouring private property and public infrastructure (Condition No’s 10, 11 and 43).
Potential asbestos contamination / asbestos to be handled appropriately as part of the construction works
It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the safe handling and disposal of any asbestos (Condition No. 4).
Within Council
Engineering
Council’s Development Engineer commented on the proposal as follows:
Water management
The BASIX water commitments do not include retention and re-use of roof water, however the water management plans show a 3,300 litres rainwater tank for each dwelling and a 10,000 litres tank for the unit building and a note “Rainwater tanks shall be plumbed to all garden irrigation, along with toilet and laundry systems”. This will achieve Council’s streamflow and water quality objectives.
Traffic and parking
The number of bedrooms is 26. As such, 13 parking spaces are required. The SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 requires the spaces to “…comply with parking for persons with a disability set out in AS2890”. The relevant version of AS2890 is AS2890.1-1993. This means that parking spaces should be 3.2 metres wide as shown in Figure 2.6. One space is to be 3.8 metres wide. The proposal provides 13 spaces.
Waste management
The architectural plans show that access and headroom are available for the small waste collection vehicle to carry out the internal collection of waste in the basement.
Council infrastructure
Exhaustive discussions have been held regarding compliance with Clause 26 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, culminating in a site meeting attended by Council’s Director of Operations, where the details of the works on Council’s land were agreed upon.
As requested by the applicant, a deferred commencement condition is recommended, requiring submission of the written consent of the owners of the three separate properties along Archbold Road to the necessary works inside their properties.
Detailed construction plans for the footpath works are to be submitted for approval by Council’s Director Operations prior to the operation of the consent as part of the terms of the recommended deferred commencement consent.
Conclusion
The application is acceptable, subject to conditions.
Heritage
Council’s Heritage Advisor was satisfied with of the proposal as submitted under DA0223/14, subject to a condition requiring he archival recording of the existing buildings (Condition No 9).
Council’s Heritage Advisor has advised that, as the actual development has not changed (only the upgrading works within the adjacent road reservations), no further comment is necessary.
Landscaping
Council’s Landscape and Tree Assessment Officer provided the following comments:
Tree impacts
Tree 1 Quercus robur (English Oak), located adjacent to the south-western site corner. The tree is in good health and condition with good vigour and is part of the streetscape character. The proposed masonry front fence can be redesigned deleting masonry works within the TPZ to accommodate and retain the tree with minimal impact (Condition 23).
Tree 3 Quercus robur (English Oak), located adjacent to the western site boundary / Archbold Road site frontage. The tree is in good health and condition and is prominent within the existing streetscape and landscape setting. The tree is proposed to be retained.
Tree 9 Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum), located adjacent to the north-eastern site corner. T9 is the most prominent tree located on site. The tree is in good health and condition, with pruning on its north-western side to accommodate overhead power lines. The tree is to be removed to accommodate the proposed basement access ramp. The tree removal is acceptable, subject to tree replenishment being undertaken to replace the lost tree canopy.
No objection is raised to the remainder of the nominated tree removal as the trees have low landscape significance, poor health and structure or are exempt species.
Landscape plan / tree replenishment
Minor amendments are required to ensure proposed tree species are located appropriately to ensure their ongoing health and viability and protection under Council’s Tree Preservation Order (Condition 22).
The landscape design encloses a private courtyard garden area within the site frontage for Unit 7. This is inconsistent with the BASIX certificate and ‘Common area’ compliance plan which propose this area as common landscape area. It is recommended that the planting be amended to ensure the layering of planting faces the common landscape area and not the unit (Condition 22).
The submitted landscape plan is otherwise acceptable.
Stormwater plan
The drainage plans are acceptable on landscape grounds.
BASIX
Numerous landscape area commitments have been made within the submitted BASIX certificates. Certificate No. A188895 for Unit 1 has no landscape area commitments. Units 4 and 7 do not have any areas of private garden and lawn (refer Plan L03A dated 16/10/2014). This is satisfactory.
The submitted BASIX Certificates are acceptable.
Deep soil
SEPP Seniors Living requires 15% of the site area to be deep soil area, with 10% preferably located at the rear. The application is in compliance with the deep soil standard.
Civil works
The proposed civil works will require the removal of three existing street trees within Archbold Road. The subject trees are mature Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) which, although in good health, have poor structural form due to repeated lopping and growth in challenging conditions. Due to the restrictive growing environment and poor structural form, there is no objection to their removal.
Conclusion
The application is acceptable on landscape grounds, subject to conditions.
Ecology
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer provided the following comments:
During the site inspection remnant native trees were identified within the rear of the property.
The remnant native vegetation within the rear of the subject property was determined to comprise part of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) listed as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The following trees T26,T27-Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt), T23 & T23a-Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) and T18, T24-Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) for part of the onsite STIF community.
The native vegetation (STIF) within the subject property has been mapped as “canopy remnant” category 5 under the Draft KPSO DCP 2013.
Ecological assessment
An impact assessment (7-part test) has been prepared to assess the ecological impacts of the development upon the endangered onsite STIF community in accordance with Section 5a of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979.
The impact assessment prepared for STIF community has been prepared in accordance with the threatened species assessment guidelines. The proposed development is unlikely to require the removal or adversely affect canopy trees which comprise part of the onsite STIF community, no further consideration under section 5A of the EP and A Act is deemed necessary. The following conclusion of the impact assessment is supported.
“No threatened species nor any endangered populations listed on the TSC Act nor any threatened species, ecological communities or migratory species listed as Matters of National Environmental Significance on the EPBC Act were recorded or considered likely to occur at the subject site. A degraded and isolated remnant of the TSC Act listed endangered ecological community Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest occurs on site but the impacts on this community on site are minor and would not have a significant effect on the community, or its habitat. Similarly the proposal would not remove or significantly affect any habitats of local, regional, state or national conservation concern. The undertaking of the proposal would not require the preparation of a Species Impact Statement or the referral of the matter to the Federal Minister for the Environment”.
Conclusion
The application is acceptable on ecological grounds, subject to conditions.
Planning comment:
The conditions referred to by the Ecological Assessment Officer relate to investigation of the site for the presence and appropriate relocation of any native fauna by a suitably qualified person prior to works taking place (Condition No. 5) and the installation of nest boxes within the trees to be retained on the site (Condition No. 6).
Building
Council’s Building Surveyor raised no issues with the proposed development, subject to standard conditions relating to fire safety and compliance with the Building Code of Australia (Conditions 35, 71 and 79).
Outside Council
NSW Roads and Maritime Services
The subject site fronts Archbold Road, which is administered by the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). As such, the application was referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for comment.
The RMS have no objection to the proposed development.
Statutory Provisions
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
Section 82A – Review of determination
The application has been lodged pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 which stipulates the following:
(1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a determination of the applicant’s application, other than:
(a) a determination to issue or refuse to issue a complying development certificate, or
(b) a determination in respect of designated development, or
(c) a determination in respect of integrated development, or
(d) a determination made by the council under Division 4 in respect of an application by the Crown.
The application does not relate to a complying development certificate, designated development or integrated development and is not an application made by the Crown.
(2) A council must, on a request made in accordance with this section, conduct a review.
(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:
(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97 expires, if no such appeal is made against the determination, or
(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is disposed of by the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination.
The application is currently within the time frame in which a review can be carried out in accordance with Section 97 of the Act (being six months from the date of determination which was 11 August 2015). The applicant has not lodged any appeal to the Court under Section 97.
(3) (Repealed)
(3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).
The applicant has not made any amendments to the proposal that will take place on the land to which the application relates. The only amendments made relate to the upgrading works required in the adjacent road reservations. Therefore, the proposal is assessed as being substantially the same development as that lodged under DA0223/14.
(4) The council may review the determination if:
(a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:
(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or
(ii) a development control plan, if the council has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and
(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be, and
(c) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.
The application has been notified accordingly and the issues raised in the submissions are addressed as part of this report. As noted above, the proposal is deemed to be substantially the same development as that lodged under DA0223/14.
(4A) As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the determination.
For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the reasons for the refusal of DA0223/14. It is therefore recommended that the Council now grant consent to DA0223/14.
(5) (Repealed)
(6) If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:
(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council—the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or
(b) if the determination was made by the council—the council.
As noted above, the subject application has been referred to full Council for consideration as DA0223/14 was determined by full Council.
(7)–(9) (Repealed)
(10) If on a review the council grants development consent, or varies the conditions of a development consent, the council is entitled, with the consent of the applicant and without prejudice to costs, to have an appeal made under section 97 in respect of its determination withdrawn at any time prior to the determination of that appeal.
No appeal has been lodged by the applicant.
(11) (Repealed)
(12) This section does not apply where a regional panel exercises a council’s functions as the consent authority.
Not applicable – Council is the consent authority for this application.
State Environmental Planning Policies
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards
The intent of SEPP 1 is to allow flexibility in the application of a development standard, particularly where strict application of the standard would unreasonably or unnecessarily constrain appropriate development.
Clause 40(4-c) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 stipulates that a building located in the rear 25% area of a site within a zone where residential flat buildings are not permitted must not exceed 1 storey in height. Clause 40(4-c) constitutes a development standard which may only be varied by way of an objection made pursuant to SEPP No.1.
The proposed development contains 2 storey building elements within the areas of the site identified to constitute the rear 25% of the property. An assessment of the SEPP1 objection submitted by the applicant in support of the variation to this development standard is provided below.
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land
The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of residential use and as such, it is unlikely to contain any contamination. Further investigation is not warranted in this case.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
Valid BASIX Certification was submitted with DA0223/14 and remains relevant to the subject application. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004
Clause 2 (Aims of Policy) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the aims of the Policy. Specifically, the Policy aims to:
· increase the supply of housing that meets the needs of seniors and people with a disability;
· make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services; and
· be of a good design.
The manner in which the Aims of the Policy are to be achieved is defined by the assessment criteria specified within the provisions of the SEPP. The applicant has successfully demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the stated aims of the Policy and the specified assessment criteria therein.
Clause 4 – (Land to which the Policy applies) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 identifies the land on which development permissible under the Policy may be carried out.
The Residential 2(a) zoning of the subject site permits dwelling houses. By virtue of this, development may be carried out on the site pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Clause 13 (Self contained dwellings) specifies the various types of self contained dwellings permissible as senior’s living accommodation within the provisions of the SEPP. The proposed development consists of more than two (2) dwellings and does not provide any services. Therefore, the proposed development constitutes “in-fill self-care housing” in accordance with the definition provided by this Clause.
Clauses 15 and16 (Development consent required)
The SEPP states that development may be carried out only with development consent unless another planning instrument allows the development without consent. The proposed development requires the consent of Council pursuant to the provisions of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance.
Clause 18 (Restrictions on occupation of seniors housing allowed under this Chapter)
The SEPP states that Council must not grant consent to a development application for senior’s living accommodation made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless conditions relating to the type of people who may occupy the development are imposed. Should the application be approved, conditions should be imposed to ensure the requirements of this Clause are adhered to.
Clause 26 (Location and access to facilities)
The SEPP specifies that Council must not grant consent to a development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless it is satisfied by written evidence that certain site related requirements have been met. Compliance with the requirements of Clause 26(1) and (2) is indicated in the table below.
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||
Clause |
Requirement |
Compliance |
Clause 26(1) |
Access to shops, bank service providers, other retail and commercial services, community services and the practice of a general medical practitioner. |
YES – subject to upgrade works |
Clause 26 (2-b) |
In the case of a proposed development on land in a local government area within the Sydney Statistical Division (that includes the Ku-ring-gai LGA), there is a public transport service available to the residents who will occupy the proposed development:
· That is located a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development and the distance is accessible by means of a suitable access pathway · That will take those residents to a place that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1) · That is available both to and from the proposed development at least once between 8am and 12pm per day and at least once between 12pm and 6pm each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) |
YES – subject to upgrade works
YES
YES |
26(3) |
For the purposes of subclause (2) (b), the overall average gradient along a pathway from the site of the proposed development to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) is to be no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable: · a gradient of no more than 1:12 slopes for a maximum of 15 metres at a time
· a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5 metres at a time
· a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5 metres at a time |
YES – subject to upgrade works
YES – subject to upgrade works
YES – subject to upgrade works |
The subject site is located within the Sydney Statistical Division.
In accordance with Clause 26(2-b), there are two bus stops within a distance of 400 metres from the subject site, one on the western side of Archbold Road and one on the eastern side of Archbold Road. These stops are serviced by the 206, 207, 208 and 209 bus routes that travel to a variety of locations where the facilities prescribed by Clause 26(1) of the SEPP are available. The bus stops are serviced at least once in the morning and once in the afternoon, Monday to Friday.
Currently, a suitable access pathway (as defined by the SEPP) from the site to the abovementioned bus stops is not available. However, the applicant has proposed to undertake the necessary upgrade works to ensure a suitable access pathway will be available to the residents before the development commences. As mentioned by Council’s Development Engineer, the upgrading works required have been reviewed by Council’s Director of Operations and are agreed to. These works will take place on public land and are subject to a separate approval process (pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993). Accordingly, it is recommended that a deferred commencement development consent be issued to ensure the suitable access pathway will be available to the residents, satisfying the requirements of Clause 26 of the SEPP.
Clause 28 (Water and sewer), states that consent must not be granted to a development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless satisfied by written evidence that the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewerage. The site is connected to the sewer system and reticulated water is provided.
Clause 29 (Consent authority to consider certain site compatibility criteria for development applications to which clause 24 does not apply)
Consent must not be granted to a development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless the following has been considered:
- the natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development
- the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision
- without limiting any other criteria, the impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development
For the reasons outlined throughout this report, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with these matters for consideration. The proposed development:
· will not unduly impact on the natural environment, including the surrounding bushland
· is compatible with the existing residential use of the site
· is consistent with the predominantly residential use of land surrounding the subject site and the likely continuing use of this land for residential purposes in the future
· has access to sufficient services and infrastructure, including water and utilities as well as access to transport services
· is of an acceptable bulk, scale and built form character in the context of the surrounding development
Clause 30 (Site analysis), requires a site analysis be carried out and submitted to the consent authority as part of the Development Application. A site analysis, prepared by an architect, has been submitted to Council. This analysis, together with the accompanying documentation, provides all the necessary information for assessment purposes under this clause.
Clause 31 (Design of in-fill self-care housing), states that, in the assessment of a development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 for in-fill self-care housing, the consent authority must take into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development, published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004.
The guidelines contained within this document are designed to assist applicants and consent authorities in the implementation and interpretation of the design principles specified by Division 2 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Primarily, these guidelines seek to ensure that new development provides a high level of amenity for both new and existing residents. The document requires due consideration be given to:
· streetscape
· local context
· site planning and design
· impacts upon neighbours
· internal amenity
These considerations have been taken into account during the assessment of the application. The proposed development has sufficiently demonstrated consistency with the guidelines of this document and therefore, as outlined below, satisfies the design principles specified by Division 2 of the SEPP.
Clause 32 (Design of Residential Development), requires that consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that adequate regard has been given to the following principles:
Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape
The proposed development has been designed to appropriately respond to the character of the streetscape and the amenity of neighbouring properties.
In terms of streetscape character, the development has been designed to ensure the retention of the existing dwellings that are recognised as contributory to the significance of the surrounding Heritage Conservation Area. This has been achieved through the placing of the new dwellings at the rear of the existing buildings, whilst maintaining adequate separation so as not to dominate their character. Additionally, the bulk and scale of the new dwellings is comparable to that of surrounding development with any impacts mitigated through the use of landscape plantings and appropriate building setbacks. The existing significant trees of the site will also be retained.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, for the reasons outlined below, the proposed development will retain sufficient solar access and privacy to adjoining residential dwellings. Generous separation between the proposed buildings (exceeding 7 metres in all instances) and neighbouring residencies has been provided to ensure the development does not unduly impact on visual amenity. Additionally, the proposed development will not unduly impact upon any existing views.
Visual and acoustic privacy
The proposal has been well designed with regard to visual privacy and amenity (subject to the above referenced requirement for the installation of privacy screening to the courtyards of Units 3 and 5). Incorporating this measure, it is considered that the proposed development will retain adequate visual privacy between the units of the proposed development and to the existing surrounding residencies. This conclusion notes the configuration and location of windows and balconies in a manner that will not afford undue outlook or cross-looking. This is to be supplemented through the use of privacy screening and screen plantings where necessary. Generous separation will exist between the proposed buildings and surrounding residencies.
Moreover, adequate separation has been achieved between bedrooms and living areas of adjoining dwellings to maximise acoustic privacy. Separation between bedrooms and driveways / pathways has also been provided where feasible and practical.
Solar access and design for climate
The proposed development provides compliant solar access to the units of the development and the associated private open space. The proposal also retains adequate solar access to neighbouring properties.
Stormwater
Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and is satisfied with the stormwater management measures to be implemented.
Crime prevention
All dwellings of the development have been designed in a manner that allows for casual surveillance across the site, the approaches to the new dwellings and to the public areas beyond. The shared entrances to the buildings will be lockable.
Accessibility
The proposed development provides adequate on-site accessibility for disabled and movement impaired persons. The occupants of the development will also have access to the necessary services as is required under the SEPP.
Waste management
The proposal provides adequate waste management facilities, including an accessible waste storage room within the building’s basement level.
Clause 40 states that a consent authority must not grant consent to a development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in this clause. The compliance demonstrated by the proposal with these standards is indicated in the table below.
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||
Development standard |
Proposed |
Compliance |
Clause 40 (2) (Site area): 1000m2 (min) |
2,456.8 m2 |
YES |
Clause 40 (3) (Site frontage): 20m (min) |
>20m |
YES |
Clause 40 (4-a) (Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted): 8m (max) |
Maximum ceiling height of 7.5 metres |
YES |
Clause 40 (4-b) (Height): 2 storey (max) adjacent to a boundary of the site |
Maximum 2 storeys across the development |
YES |
Clause 40 (4-c) (Height): A building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height |
The proposed building to contain the 8 new units at the rear of the existing dwelling protrudes into the rear 25% area of the site |
NO – SEPP1 |
Clause 40(4-c) - Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted
The Residential 2(a) zoning of the subject site does not permit the erection of residential flat buildings. As such, Clause 40(4-c) of the SEPP states that a building located within the rear 25% of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height.
From a practical perspective, as the development is orientated towards the Archbold Road frontage, the rear area of the site is logically interpreted as the area adjacent to the eastern boundary (aligning 1 Carnarvon Road). The proposed development contains two storey building elements within the rear 25% area of the site and does not comply with this development standard of the SEPP.
Figure 1: Plan showing the rear 25% area of the site from Archbold Road (shown hatched).
The applicant has lodged a SEPP1 objection that addresses both scenarios which is assessed against the following considerations:
Whether the planning control to be varied is a development standard
Clause 40(4-a) is a development standard as defined by Section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
The underlying objective or purpose of the standard
There are no objectives specified for Clause 40 (4-c) of the SEPP. However, the clause in which the development standard is contained relates to senior’s living developments to be constructed in residential zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted. In this regard, it is considered that the intention behind the control is to ensure an appropriate transition between the likely building heights of surrounding low density development is provided. Due consideration should also be given to the acceptability of the development’s bulk, scale, privacy and solar access impacts as these matters are directly associated with building height.
Whether compliance with the standard is consistent with the aims of the policy and whether compliance hinders the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
The aim of SEPP 1 is to:
Provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
In this regard, the objects of Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act are:
(a) To encourage:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment
(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land
It is concluded that the non-compliance with the development standard is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance (as discussed below). In this particular circumstance, compliance with the development standard would hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case
The following is a summary of the arguments provided by the applicant within the submitted SEPP 1 objection in support of the variation to the development standard:
(i) The rear eastern projection of the 2 storey building form proposed does not project past the rear alignment established by the adjoining 2 storey building form at No. 65 Archbold Road. The living and private open space areas of Apartment 11 have been designed and orientated to the east towards the only boundary not intersecting a street frontage and accordingly, appropriately defined as the rear boundary of the site. Such orientation is consistent with that of No. 65 Archbold Road. I further note that a 2.3 metres portion of apartments 8, 9 and 10 are located within the rear 25% area of the site as measured from the Archbold Road frontage. The 2 storey building form in this location maintains a 7.3 metres setback to the eastern boundary.
(ii) The side and rear setbacks proposed to the 2 storey building elements are complimentary and compatible with the setbacks established by dwelling houses on the 2 immediately adjoining properties while the design outcome afforded maintains a large landscape open space area at the rear of No. 67 Archbold Road where it immediately adjoins the rear yards and private open space areas of No. 65 Archbold Road and No. 1 Carnarvon Road. The height, bulk and scale of the development will not be perceived as inappropriate or jarring as viewed from the rear of the adjoining properties as a result of building setback, design and intervening landscape treatments.
(iii) Appropriate privacy and residential amenity is maintained to No. 65 Archbold Road and No. 1 Carnarvon Road through a combination of building design, spatial separation and intervening landscape elements.
(iv) The areas of non-compliance will not give rise to non-compliant shadowing impact.
Further to the points raised by the applicant, it is noted that the predominant retention of the existing dwellings of the site (in order to preserve the character of the Heritage Conservation Area) has resulted in a limited area of the site to provide additional development. In order to maintain streetscape character, neighbouring amenity and protect the significance of the HCA, the most logical place to introduce the additional dwellings is to the rear of the existing buildings. As a consequence, a minor non-compliance with the development standard of the SEPP has been created. However, the intended purpose of the development standard is considered to be achieved as the development provides good separation between the two storey elements contained within the identified rear 25% area of the site and the lower density dwellings of neighbouring properties. These areas will contain a combination of pathways, terraces and planting areas that are characteristic of the locality. Additionally, for the reasons outlined within this report, the development will not result in any undue privacy solar access or general amenity impacts. Therefore, it is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance to comply with the development standard.
Whether the objection is well founded
The SEPP 1 objection is considered to be well founded and the development will achieve what are considered to be the underlying objectives of the standard. It is also concluded that strict compliance with the prescribed development standard would unnecessarily hinder the attainment of the objectives specified by Section 5(a) (i) & (ii) of the EP&A Act, 1979.
Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning
The non-compliance with the development standard will not raise any matters of significance for state and regional planning.
Whether there is a public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument
It is not considered that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed through the issuing of consents that incorporate a variation to the development standard that restricts the placement of two storey buildings within the rear 25% area of the site.
As demonstrated above, the breach of the control is largely attributable to the placement of the new development in a location that protects the significance of the Heritage Conservation Area while also maintaining neighbouring amenity. Therefore, there is no discernible public benefit is gained from requiring compliance with the development standard in this instance.
Part 7 – Development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent
Part 7 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 stipulates standards which cannot be used to refuse development for residential care facilities. The compliance demonstrated by the development application with these standards is indicated in the following table:
Self-contained dwellings
Compliance Table |
||
Development standard |
Proposed |
Compliance |
Clause 50(a) (building height) Height to be less than 8.0 metres |
Maximum height of 7.5 metres |
YES |
Clause 50(b) (density and scale) 0.5:1 (1,228.4m²) |
0.47:1 (1,162.62m²) – confirmed by submitted compliance diagrams |
YES |
Clause 50(c) (landscaped area) Minimum 30% (737.04m²) of the site to be landscape area |
Well in excess >30% of the site is to be landscaped |
YES |
Clause 50(d) (deep soil zones) 15% site area (368.52m2) with two thirds (245.43m2) preferably being located at the rear of the site with a minimum dimension of 3m. |
Calculated to be 26.3% (647.06m²) of the site is to be deep soil zone
Deep soil zones have a minimum dimension of 3m.
Greater than two thirds of the required area (400m²) is located at the rear of the site |
YES
YES
YES |
Clause 50(e) (solar access) Minimum of 70% of dwellings receive minimum 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am-3pm in mid-winter. |
81% (9 units) receive a minimum 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am-3pm midwinter |
YES |
Clause 50(f) (private open space) • Single level or ground floor dwellings = 15m2 (incl. Area 3m x 3m accessible from living area)
• All other dwellings = balcony min. 10m2 (not less than 2m in length and accessible from a living area) |
Compliant private open space provided to all dwellings
Compliant private open space provided to all dwellings |
YES
YES |
Clause 50(h) (parking) (i) 0.5 car spaces for each bedroom where the application is made by a person other than a social housing provider - 13 spaces required |
13 spaces available for resident parking |
YES |
Schedule 3 (standards concerning accessibility and useability for hostels and self-contained dwellings)
This schedule sets out the on-site accessibility standards that apply to any SEPP Senior’s Living accommodation consisting of self-contained dwellings. Clause 41 (Standards for hostels and self-contained dwellings), provides that a consent authority must not consent to development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in Schedule 3 for such development. Compliance with the requirements of Clause 26(1) and (2) is indicated in the table below.
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||
Development standard |
Comment |
Compliance |
Clause (wheelchair access) · The percentage of dwellings that must have wheelchair access must equal the proportion of the site that has a gradient of less than 1:10, or 50%, whichever is the greater · The wheelchair access provided must be by a continuous accessible path of travel (within the meaning of AS 1428.1) to an adjoining public road or an internal road or a driveway that is accessible to all residents · Access must be provided in accordance with AS 1428.1 so that a person using a wheelchair can use common areas and common facilities associated with the development. |
The access report confirms that 100% of dwellings are proposed to have wheelchair access by a continuous path of travel complying with AS1428.1 to the entrances of the site and links within the site to common areas and facilities.
|
YES |
Clause 3 (security): Pathway lighting must be designed and located to avoid glare. |
Lighting will be designed and located so as to avoid glare and provide at least 20 lux at ground level. |
YES |
Clause 4 (letterboxes): Must be lockable and situated on a hard standing area and be wheelchair accessible. |
The letterboxes are to be provided in a wheelchair accessible location. The letterboxes will be lockable.
The letterboxes are adjacent to the Archbold Road street entry and the internal pathways that circulate the site. |
YES |
Clause 5 (private car accommodation): Car parking spaces must: · comply with the requirements for parking for persons with a disability set out in AS 2890.
· 5% of the total number of car parking spaces (or one [1] space if fewer than 20 are provided) must be designed to enable the width to be increased to 3.8m · any garage must have a power-operated roller door, or a power point to allow the above at a later date |
The access report confirms all car spaces meet the functional requirements for width and length required by AS2890.1.
>5% capable of being increased to 3.8m
Development designed to allow for implementation of a power operated roller door |
YES
YES
YES |
Clause 6 (accessible entry): Every entry must comply with clauses 4.3.1 & 4.3.2 of AS 4299
|
The access report confirms that the entries to all units are to include complying accessible paths of travel with clear door openings to comply with AS1428.1 |
YES |
Clause 7 (interior general): Widths of internal corridors and circulation at internal doorways must comply with AS 1428.1
|
The access report confirms that the proposed dwellings will comply with the width requirements of the Australian Standard. |
YES |
Clause 8 (bedroom) At least one bedroom within the dwelling must have: · an area sufficient to accommodate a wardrobe and a queen sized bed, with an area at least 1200mm wide at the foot of the bed, 1,000 millimetres wide beside the bed between it and the wall, wardrobe or any other obstruction and 2 double general power outlets adjacent to the head of the bed · 1 general power outlet on the wall opposite the bed · a telephone outlet and power outlet next to the bed on the side closest to the door · wiring to allow a potential illumination of 300 lux |
The access report confirms that each unit has a bedroom that complies with these requirements. |
YES |
Clause 9 (bathroom): At least one bathroom within a dwelling must be on the ground (or main) floor and have the following facilities arranged within an area that provides for circulation space for sanitary facilities in accordance with AS 1428.1: • an area that complies with AS 1428 • a slip resistant floor • a shower that complies with AS 1428.1 except that the following must be provided: - a grab rail - portable shower head - folding seat - can accommodate a folding seat • an illuminated wall cabinet • a double power outlet beside the mirror |
The access report confirms that each unit is to have a bathroom that complies with these requirements. |
YES |
Clause 10 (toilet): A dwelling must have at least one toilet on the ground (or main) floor and be a visitable toilet that complies with the requirements for sanitary facilities of AS 4299. |
The access report confirms that each unit has a toilet that is visitable in accordance with the area and special requirements of AS 4299. |
YES |
Clause 11 (surface finishes) • balconies and external paved areas must have slip-resistant surfaces |
The proposed balconies are to incorporate a slip-resistant surface. |
YES |
Clause 12 (door hardware) Door hardware for all doors must be provided in accordance with AS 4299. |
The proposed door handles are to be provided in accordance with AS 4299. |
YES |
Clause 13 (ancillary items): Switches and power points must be provided in accordance with AS 4299. |
The proposed switches and power points are to be provided in accordance with AS 4299. |
YES |
Part 2 Additional Standards for self-contained dwellings |
||
Clause 15 (living room and dining room): A living room must have (a) a circulation space in accordance with clause 4.7.1 of AS 4299 and (b) a telephone adjacent to a general power outlet
The living and dining rooms must have wiring to allow a potential illumination level of 300 lux. |
|
YES |
Clause 16 (kitchen): A kitchen in a self contained dwelling must have: (a) a circulation space in accordance with clause 4.5.2 of AS4299 (b) a width at door approaches complying with clause 7 of this schedule (c) the following fittings in accordance with the relevant sub-clauses of clause 4.5 of AS 4299: (i) benches that include at least one work surface of at least 800mm in length (ii) a tap set (iii) cooktops with an isolating switch (iv) an oven (d) D” pull cupboard handles (e) general power outlets at least one is a double outlet within 300mm of the front of a work surface and one which is for a refrigerator which can be readily accessed once installed |
The access report confirms that the proposed development complies with these requirements. |
YES |
Clause 18 (lifts in multi-storey buildings): Lift access provided to all dwellings above the ground level of the building by way of a lift complying with clause E3.6 of the BCA. |
Lift access is to be provided to all dwellings and car spaces by way of a lift complying with clause E3.6 of the BCA. |
YES |
Clause 19 (laundry): A self contained dwelling must have a laundry which has:
• provision for the installation of a washing machine and clothes dryer • a clear space in front of appliances of 1300mm • a slip resistant floor surface • an accessible path of travel to any external clothes line |
The access report confirms that the proposed development complies with these requirements. |
YES |
Clause 20 (storage for linen): A self-contained dwelling must be provided with a linen cupboard in accordance with clause 4.11.5 of AS 4299. |
The access report confirms that the proposed development complies with this requirement. |
YES |
Clause 21 (garbage): An outside garbage storage area must be provided in an accessible location. |
The access report confirms an accessible path of travel to the garbage disposal area in the basement is indicated via the lift and a doorway meting the functional requirements of AS1428.1. |
YES |
Local Content
Clause 33 (a) – Aesthetic appearance
Clause 33(a) of the KPSO requires consideration of the aesthetic appearance of the land the subject of the proposed works as viewed from public spaces, including County roads (Archbold Road).
Through the assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, particularly the design principles outlined by Clause 32 of the SEPP, it is concluded that the development will be of an acceptable visual presentation to the roadway.
Clause 38B – Services
Clause 38B states that consent must not be issued to the carrying out of development on land unless access to a water supply, drainage and a sewerage system will be available.
The site is connected to the sewer system and reticulated water is provided.
Clause 61D – Heritage conservation
As outlined above, Council’s Heritage Advisor is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the character and significance of the heritage conservation area within which the site is contained. The Heritage Advisor is also satisfied that the development will not unduly impact upon the character or significance of any neighbouring listed items.
Schedule 9 – Aims and objectives for residential zones
The ‘Aims and Objectives for residential zones’ outlined in Schedule 9 of the KPSO essentially seek ensure a proposed development will retain the streetscape character and amenity to neighbouring residential properties. The matters for consideration outlined within these aims and objectives are covered under the provisions SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. As the proposed development satisfies these provisions of the SEPP, it is considered acceptable in this regard.
Local Environmental Plan 2013
KLEP 2015 replaced the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance as the principal planning instrument for the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area. The draft instrument KLEP 2013 was exhibited and as of 5 March 2015, was gazetted as Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015. The new LEP came into effect on 2 April 2015. However, it is noted that the gazetted instrument contains a Savings Provision essentially stating that any DA lodged before the commencement of the LEP and still under assessment at the date of this commencement must be determined as if the plan had not commenced.
The LEP rezoned the subject site to R2 – Low Density Residential and while the zoning continues to prohibit seniors living development, the provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, will continue to facilitate the use and development of the site for this purpose. Similarly, the SEPP contains building height and floor space ratio provisions that will continue to override the development standards of the LEP.
The LEP also identifies the site as being located within a Heritage Conservation Area and as potentially containing bio-diversity significant vegetation. As outlined within this report, the proposal is acceptable with regard to these site affectations. Additionally, the proposal is acceptable with regard to the provisions of the LEP relating to earthworks, stormwater and water sensitive urban design and the preservation of trees and vegetation.
Policy Provisions
Development Control Plan No. 31 Access
The aim of DCP 31 is to ensure access for all to public buildings, community facilities and new developments, excluding dwelling houses and dual occupancies but including all buildings and facilities owned or leased by Council and to ensure that people with a disability have equal access to employment opportunities by way of affording access to facilities, services and opportunities to meet their specific needs.
The provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 override Council’s controls with regard to accessibility. The proposed development complies with the requirements of the SEPP.
Development Control Plan No. 40 - Construction and Demolition Waste Management
The key objectives of this DCP are to encourage building design and construction techniques which will minimise waste generation, implement the principles of the waste hierarchy of avoiding, reusing and recycling building and construction materials, and commercial waste, minimise the environmental impacts of waste, promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development, meet Council's responsibilities in relation to the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Plan and assist in achieving the Federal and State Government's waste minimisation targets.
A waste management plan demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the DCP has been submitted and is deemed to be acceptable.
Development Control Plan No. 43 - Car Parking
In relation to the number of car parking spaces, the provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 override any other parking requirements where in conflict. As detailed earlier in this report, the proposed development complies with the relevant provisions of the SEPP with regard to the number of car parking spaces required and the dimensions of these spaces.
Council’s Development Engineer has noted that the proposed development provides adequate vehicle manoeuvrability area.
Development Control Plan No.47 - Water Management
The proposed development has been assessed against DCP47 and complies with all relevant provisions.
Section 94 Plan
The development is subject to Section 94 contributions, levied in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010. A condition is recommended requiring the payment of Section 94 contributions (Condition No. 33).
Likely Impacts
The likely impacts of the development have been considered within this report and are deemed to be acceptable, subject to conditions.
Suitability of the Site
The site is suitable for the proposed development.
Public Interest
The proposal is considered to be in the public interest.
Conclusion
Having regard to the provisions of section 79C and section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory.
A. That Council, as the consent authority, having undertaken a review of the application in accordance with Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, is satisfied that the reasons for the refusal of DA0223/14 have been addressed by the applicant.
B. That Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to the maximum building height development standard of Clause 40 (4-c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 is well founded. Council is also of the opinion that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case.
C. That Council, as the consent authority and pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, change its determination of DA0223/14 and grant deferred commencement development consent to DA0223/14 for alterations and additions to existing 3 dwellings and construction of 8 apartments (to create 11 dwellings) for Seniors Living including basement parking on land at 67, 69 and 71 Archbold Road, Roseville for a period of two years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
SCHEDULE A - Deferred commencement conditions
Evidence required to satisfy the following conditions must be submitted to Council within twelve (12) months of the date of the Notice of Determination
is consent.
This consent does not operate until the following deferred commencement consent terms have been satisfied:
1. Design and construction of works in public roadway
Prior to the operation of the consent, engineering plans and specifications, prepared by a qualified consulting engineer, detailing a ‘suitable access pathway’ (as defined by Clause 26 - Location and access to facilities of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Development Engineer, as generally as shown on E2 Civil and Structural Design External Civil Works plans Sheets C1J (dated 02.09.15), C2J (02.09.15), C3I (dated 02.09.15), C4E (dated 03.06.15) and C5C (dated 02.09.15) . The engineering plans must be to a detail suitable for construction issue purposes.
The applicant must obtain a separate approval under Section 138 and Section 139 of the Roads Act 1993 for the works in the road reserve required as part of the development. The consent does not operate until Council has issued a formal written approval under the Roads Act 1993 and the works required to provide a ‘suitable access pathway’, road and/or drainage works have been completed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Act approval and accompanying drawings, conditions and specifications. The works must be supervised by the applicant’s designing engineer and completed and approved to the satisfaction of Ku-ring-gai Council.
The supervising consulting engineer is to provide certification upon completion that the works were constructed in accordance with the Council approved stamped drawings. The works must be subject to inspections by Council at the hold points noted on the Roads Act approval. All conditions attached to the approved drawings for these works must be met prior to the operation of the consent.
The required plans and specifications are to be designed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The drawings must detail existing utility services and trees affected by the works, erosion control requirements and traffic management requirements during the course of works. Survey must be undertaken as required. Traffic management is to be certified on the drawings as being in accordance with the documents SAA HB81.1 - 1996 - Field Guide for Traffic Control at Works on Roads - Part 1 and RTA Traffic Control at Work Sites (1998). Construction of the works must proceed only in accordance with any conditions attached to the Roads Act approval issued by Council.
A minimum of three (3) weeks will be required for Council to assess the Roads Act application. Early submission of the Roads Act application is recommended to avoid delays. An engineering assessment and inspection fee (set out in Council’s adopted fees and charges) is payable and Council will withhold any consent and approved plans until full payment of the correct fees. Plans and specifications must be marked to the attention of Council’s Development Engineers. In addition, a copy of this condition must be provided, together with a covering letter stating the full address of the property and the accompanying DA number.
Reason: To provide access to facilities in order to achieve compliance with Clause 26 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
2. Owners' consent for driveway works
Prior to the operation of the consent, the applicant shall submit to Council the written agreement of the owners of 75, 77 and 79 Archbold Road, Roseville to the works inside these properties (such as driveway regrading) required to provide consistency with the ‘suitable access pathway’ works to take place in the road reserve. The applicant is to note that development consent for these works may be required and any such consent is to be obtained accordingly.
Reason: To provide access to facilities in order to achieve compliance with Clause 26 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Upon receipt of written notification from Council that the abovementioned conditions have been satisfied, the following conditions will apply:
SCHEDULE B - The standard conditions of consent are set out as follows:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)
The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
2. Inconsistency between documents
In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
3. Approved landscape plans
Landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the following landscape plan(s), listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
4. Asbestos works
All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie. Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
5. Project ecologist
A project ecologist shall be commissioned prior to the release of the construction Certificate, the project ecologist is to investigate the presence/absence of fauna species within the impact area prior to the demolition of structures/landscape works being undertaken.
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. In the event that wildlife are encountered within the impact area the project ecologist is to undertake the necessary relocation of fauna species in accordance with licensing requirements.
Reason: To ensure the protection of existing biodiversity values of the site.
6. Installation of nest boxes
Prior to works commencing three nest boxes comprising of 1 small mammal, 1 microbat & 1 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.
7. Notice of commencement
At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
8. Notification of builder’s details
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
9. Archival recording of buildings
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that an archival report has been submitted to Council’s Heritage Advisor.
The report must consist of an archival standard photographic record of the building (internally and externally), its garden and views of it from the street illustrating its relationship to neighbouring properties and the streetscape. Recording shall be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines for “Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006)” prepared by the New South Wales Heritage Office.
Information shall be bound in an A4 report format. It shall include copies of photographs, referenced to plans of the site. Two (2) copies (one (1) copy to include negatives or CD of images shall be submitted to Council's Heritage Advisor. The recording document will be held in the local studies collection of Ku-ring-gai Library, the local historical society and Council’s files.
Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.
Reason: To ensure the proper management of historical artefacts and to ensure their preservation.
10. Dilapidation photos (public infrastructure)
Prior to the commencement of any works on site the applicant must submit to Ku-ring-gai Council and the Principal Certifying Authority a photographic record on the visible condition of the existing public infrastructure over the full site frontage (in colour - preferably saved to cd-rom in ‘jpg’ format). The photos must include detail of: · The existing footpath · The existing kerb and gutter · The existing full road surface between kerbs · The existing verge area · The existing driveway and layback where to be retained · Any existing drainage infrastructure including pits, lintels, grates.
Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording any pre-developed damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development (which is not to be repaired by the Applicant as part of the development). The developer may be held liable to all damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded and demonstrated under the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of any works.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
11. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)
Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:
The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.
In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.
Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.
12. Construction and traffic management plan
The applicant must submit to Council a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), which is to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.
The plan is to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.
The report is to contain commitments which must be followed by the demolition and excavation contractor, builder, owner and subcontractors. The CTMP applies to all persons associated with demolition, excavation and construction of the development.
The report is to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.
The report is to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for an 11 metre long heavy rigid vehicle.
The Traffic Control Plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One must be provided for each of the following stages of the works:
o demolition o excavation o concrete pour o construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath o traffic control for vehicles reversing into or out of the site
Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users.
When a satisfactory CTMP is received, a letter of approval will be issued with conditions attached. Traffic management at the site must comply with the approved CTMP as well as any conditions in the letter issued by Council. Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines may be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction process in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.
13. Work zone
A Works Zone is to be provided in Carnarvon Road subject to the approval of the Ku-ring-gai Local Traffic Committee.
No loading or unloading must be undertaken from the public road or nature strip unless within a Works Zone which has been approved and paid for.
In the event the work zone is required for a period beyond that initially approved by the Traffic Committee, the applicant shall make a payment to Council for the extended period in accordance with Council’s schedule of fees and charges for work zones prior to the extended period commencing.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been made for the operation of the site during the construction phase.
14. Erosion and drainage management
Earthworks and/or demolition of any existing buildings shall not commence until an erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan shall comply with the guidelines set out in the NSW Department of Housing manual "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction" certificate. Erosion and sediment control works shall be implemented in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan.
Reason: To preserve and enhance the natural environment.
15. Tree protection fencing
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy is fenced off at the specified radius from the trunk/s to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
16. Tree protective fencing type galvanised mesh
The tree protection fencing shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metres 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.
17. 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.
(i) This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing environment both above and below ground and access is restricted. (ii) Any encroachment not previously approved within the tree protection zone shall be the subject of an arborist's report. (iii) The arborist's report shall provide proof that no other alternative is available. (iv) The Arborist's report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for further consultation with Council. (v) The name, address, and telephone number of the developer.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
18. Tree protection mulching
Prior to works commencing and throughout construction, the area of the tree protection zone is to be mulched to a depth of 100mm with composted organic material being 75% Eucalyptus leaf litter and 25% wood.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
19. Tree fencing inspection
Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Project Arborist and 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.
20. Construction waste management plan
Prior to the commencement of any works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a waste management plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person, has been prepared in accordance with Council’s Waste Management controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.
The plan shall address all issues identified in DCP 40, including but not limited to: the estimated volume of waste and method for disposal for the construction and operation phases of the development.
Note: The plan shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure appropriate management of construction waste.
21. Noise and vibration management plan
Prior to the commencement of any works, a noise and vibration management plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified expert addressing the likely noise and vibration from demolition, excavation and construction of the proposed development and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The management plan is to identify amelioration measures to achieve the best practice objectives of AS 2436-2010 and NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Interim Construction Noise Guidelines. The report shall be prepared in consultation with any geotechnical report that itemises equipment to be used for excavation works.
The management plan shall address, but not be limited to, the following matters: · identification of the specific activities that will be carried out and associated noise sources · identification of all potentially affected sensitive receivers, including residences, churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive equipment · the construction noise objective specified in the conditions of this consent · the construction vibration criteria specified in the conditions of this consent · determination of appropriate noise and vibration objectives for each identified sensitive receiver · noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures · assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed demolition, excavation and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles and any traffic diversions · description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and procedures that will be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction · construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration restrictions, respite periods and frequency · procedures for notifying residents of construction activities that are likely to affect their amenity through noise and vibration · contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non-compliances and/or noise complaints
Reason: To protect the amenity afforded to surrounding residents during the construction process.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
22. Amendments to approved landscape plan
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved landscape plans, listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:
The above landscape plan(s) shall be amended in the following ways:
(i) The proposed planting of an Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) to the north of Unit 1 shall be relocated to the north-western site corner, with a minimum setback of 5.0m from Unit 1 to ensure its ongoing health and viability and protection under Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO). (ii) To enhance the streetscape and landscape character, an additional small ornamental tree capable of attaining a minimum height of 4.0m shall be planted to the north of Unit 1 outside of the private courtyard area. (iii) To enhance the communal landscape setting and define private open space, the proposed planting of Camellia sasanqua (Chinese Camellia) to the south-west of Unit 7 shall be relocated to be immediately adjacent to the proposed terrace and other planting modified to have layering oriented to the communal area not the private terrace. (iv) To reduce tree impacts to T1 Quercus robur (English Oak), the proposed masonry fence is to be deleted within a 5.0m radius of the tree trunk, and replaced with a lightweight open palisade style fence retaining existing ground levels.
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the landscape plan has been amended as required by this condition.
Note: An amended plan, prepared by a landscape architect or qualified landscape designer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure adequate landscaping of the site.
23. Archbold Road fencing
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that plans showing the proposed masonry fencing works within 5.0m radius of T1 Quercus robur (English Oak) located adjacent to the southern site corner has been deleted for a radius of 5.0m around the tree and replaced with an open palisade style fence, maintaining existing ground levels and grades.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
24. Privacy
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the following amendments (as shown notated red on the approved plans) are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority:
- Privacy screening, to a height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level, is to be incorporated along the eastern edges of the private courtyards of Units 3 and 5.
Reason: To retain adequate privacy to the neighbouring property.
25. 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.
26. Builder’s indemnity insurance
The applicant, builder, developer or person who does the work on this development, must arrange builder’s indemnity insurance and submit the certificate of insurance in accordance with the requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 to the Certifying Authority for endorsement of the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate.
It is the responsibility of the applicant, builder or developer to arrange the builder's indemnity insurance for residential building work over the value of $20,000. The builder's indemnity insurance does not apply to commercial or industrial building work or to residential work valued at less than $20,000, nor to work undertaken by persons holding an owner/builder's permit issued by the Department of Fair Trading (unless the owner/builder's property is sold within 7 years of the commencement of the work).
Reason: Statutory requirement.
27. Access for people with disabilities (residential)
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that access for people with disabilities to and from and between the public domain, residential units and all common open space areas is provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access.
Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1, AS1428.2, AS1428.4 and AS 1735.12.
Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.
28. Noise from plant in residential zone
Where any form of mechanical ventilation equipment or other noise generating plant is proposed as part of the development, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority, shall be satisfied that the operation of an individual piece of equipment or operation of equipment in combination will not exceed more than 5dB(A) above the background level during the day when measured at the site’s boundaries and shall not exceed the background level at night (10.00pm -6.00 am) when measured at the boundary of the site.
C1. Note: A certificate from an appropriately qualified acoustic engineer is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate, certifying that all mechanical ventilation equipment or other noise generating plant in isolation or in combination with other plant will comply with the above requirements.
Reason: To comply with best practice standards for residential acoustic amenity.
29. Driveway crossing levels
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, driveway and associated footpath levels for any new, reconstructed or extended sections of driveway crossings between the property boundary and road alignment must be obtained from Ku-ring-gai Council. Such levels are only able to be issued by Council under the Roads Act 1993. All footpath crossings, laybacks and driveways are to be constructed according to Council's specifications "Construction of Gutter Crossings and Footpath Crossings".
Specifications are issued with alignment levels after completing the necessary application form at Customer Services and payment of the assessment fee. When completing the request for driveway levels application from Council, the applicant must attach a copy of the relevant development application drawing which indicates the position and proposed level of the proposed driveway at the boundary alignment.
This development consent is for works wholly within the property. Development consent does not imply approval of footpath or driveway levels, materials or location within the road reserve, regardless of whether this information is shown on the development application plans. The grading of such footpaths or driveways outside the property shall comply with Council's standard requirements. The suitability of the grade of such paths or driveways inside the property is the sole responsibility of the applicant and the required alignment levels fixed by Council may impact upon these levels.
The construction of footpaths and driveways outside the property in materials other than those approved by Council is not permitted.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
30. Driveway grades - basement carparks
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, longitudinal driveway sections are to be prepared by a qualified civil/traffic engineer and be submitted for to and approved by the Certifying Authority. These profiles are to be at 1:100 scale along both edges of the proposed driveway, starting from the centreline of the frontage street carriageway to the proposed basement floor level. The traffic engineer shall provide specific written certification on the plans that:
· vehicular access can be obtained using grades of 20% (1 in 5) maximum and · all changes in grade (transitions) comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 -“Off-street car parking” (refer clause 2.5.3) to prevent the scraping of the underside of vehicles.
If a new driveway crossing is proposed, the longitudinal sections must incorporate the driveway crossing levels as issued by Council upon prior application.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
31. Basement car parking details
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, certified parking layout plan(s) to scale showing all aspects of the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority. A qualified civil/traffic engineer must review the proposed vehicle access and accommodation layout and provide written certification on the plans that:
· all parking space dimensions, driveway and aisle widths, driveway grades, transitions, circulation ramps, blind aisle situations and other trafficked areas comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 - 2004 “Off-street car parking” · a clear height clearance of 2.6 metres is provided over the designated garbage collection truck manoeuvring areas within the basement · no doors or gates are provided in the access driveways to the basement carpark which would prevent unrestricted access for internal garbage collection at any time from the basement garbage storage and collection area · the dimensions of all parking spaces, including lengths and widths, comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy for Seniors Living relating to height clearances and space dimensions · the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements are to be constructed and marked in accordance with the certified plans
Reason: To ensure that parking spaces are in accordance with the approved development.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
32. 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.
33. 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:
The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.
The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and may vary at the time of payment in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.
Copies of Council’s Contribution Plans can be viewed at Council Chambers, 818 Pacific Hwy Gordon or on Council’s website at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au.
Notwithstanding the total above, in accordance with the s94E Direction issued by the Minister for Planning dated 3 March 2011, for so long as it remains legally in force, the maximum amount payable for the subject development application shall be $20,000 x 11 = $220,000.
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:
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Approved plans to be on site
A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
38. Engineering fees
For the purpose of any development related inspections by Ku-ring-gai Council engineers, the corresponding fees set out in Councils adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges are payable to Council. A re-inspection fee per visit may be charged where work is unprepared at the requested time of inspection, or where remedial work is unsatisfactory and a further inspection is required. Engineering fees must be paid in full prior to any final consent from Council.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Post-construction dilapidation report
The applicant shall engage a suitably qualified person to prepare a post construction dilapidation report at the completion of the construction works. This report is to ascertain whether the construction works created any structural damage to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads. The report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. In ascertaining whether adverse structural damage has occurred to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads, the Principal Certifying Authority must:
· compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report · have written confirmation from the relevant authority that there is no adverse structural damage to their infrastructure and roads.
A copy of this report is to be forwarded to Council at the completion of the construction works.
Reason: Management of records.
44. Further geotechnical input
The geotechnical and hydro-geological works implementation, inspection, testing and monitoring program for the excavation and construction works must be in accordance with the report by Jack Hodgson Consultants dated 30th April 2014. Over the course of the works, a qualified geotechnical/hydro-geological engineer must complete the following:
· further geotechnical investigations and testing recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary · further monitoring and inspection at the hold points recommended in the above report(s) and as determined necessary · written report(s) including certification(s) of the geotechnical inspection, testing and monitoring programs
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
45. Compliance with submitted geotechnical report
A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee excavation.
Geotechnical aspects of the development work, namely:
· appropriate excavation method and vibration control · support and retention of excavated faces · hydro-geological considerations
must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Jack Hodgson Consultants dated 30th April 2014. Approval must be obtained from all affected property owners, including Ku-ring-gai Council, where rock anchors (both temporary and permanent) are proposed below adjoining property(ies).
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
46. Use of road or footpath
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.
Reason: To ensure safety and amenity of the area.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Protection of public places
If the work involved in the erection, demolition or construction of the development is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.
If necessary, a hoarding is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.
The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place.
Any hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.
Reason: To protect public places.
50. 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.
51. Construction signage
All construction signs must comply with the following requirements:
· are not to cover any mechanical ventilation inlet or outlet vent · are not illuminated, self-illuminated or flashing at any time · are located wholly within a property where construction is being undertaken · refer only to the business(es) undertaking the construction and/or the site at which the construction is being undertaken · are restricted to one such sign per property · do not exceed 2.5m2 · are removed within 14 days of the completion of all construction works
Reason: To ensure compliance with Council's controls regarding signage.
52. Maintenance period for works in public road
A maintenance period of six (6) months applies to all work in the public road reserve carried out by the applicant - after the works have been completed to the satisfaction of Ku-ring-gai Council. In that maintenance period, the applicant shall be liable for any section of the public infrastructure work which fails to perform in the designed manner, or as would reasonably be expected under the operating conditions. The maintenance period shall commence once the applicant receives a formal letter from Council stating that the works involving public infrastructure have been completed satisfactorily.
Reason: To protect public infrastructure.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
The applicant must obtain a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994. An application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing CoOrdinator. The applicant is to refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au <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 CoOrdinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
56. Arborist’s report
The tree/s to be retained shall be inspected, monitored and treated by a qualified Arborist during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the Arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required at the following times or phases of work:
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
57. Cutting of tree roots
No tree roots of 30mm or greater in diameter located within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be severed or injured in the process of any works during the construction period. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
58. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
59. Hand excavation
All excavation within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Canopy replenishment trees to be planted
The canopy replenishment trees to be planted shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition until they attain a height of 5.0 metres whereby they will be protected by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Any of the trees found faulty, damaged, dying or dead shall be replaced with the same species.
Reason: To maintain the treed character of the area.
63. Survey and inspection of waste collection clearance and path of travel
At the stage when formwork for the ground floor slab is in place and prior to concrete being poured, a registered surveyor is to:
· ascertain the reduced level of the underside of the slab at the driveway entry, · certify that the level is not lower than the level shown on the approved DA plans; and · certify that the minimum headroom of 2.6 metres will be available for the full path of travel of the small waste collection vehicle from the street to the collection area. · This certification is to be provided to Council’s Development Engineer prior to any concrete being poured for the ground floor slab. · No work is to proceed until Council has undertaken an inspection to determine clearance and path of travel.
At the stage when formwork for the ground floor slab is in place and prior to concrete being poured, Council’s Development Engineer and Manager Waste Services are to carry out an inspection of the site to confirm the clearance available for the full path of travel of the small waste collection vehicle from the street to the collection area. This inspection may not be carried out by a private certifier because waste management is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
Reason: To ensure access will be available for Council’s contractors to collect waste from the collection point.
64. 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:
65. Easement for waste collection
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, an easement for waste collection is to be created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The terms of the easement are to be generally in accordance with Council's draft terms for an easement for waste collection and shall be to the satisfaction of Council's Development Engineer.
Reason: To permit legal access for Council, Council's contractors and their vehicles over the subject site for waste collection.
66. Consolidation of lots
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, Lot C in DP340032 (71 Archbold Road), Lot D in DP340032 (69 Archbold Road) and Lot 20, Section A in DP11626 (67 Archbold Road) are to be consolidated into a single lot.
Reason: To achieve orderly development of the land.
67. Construction Standards - Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability
Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever comes first), certification shall be provided from an accredited access consultant to the certifying authority which demonstrates that the fit out and construction of the development satisfies the design criteria in Schedule 3 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Reason: To ensure compliance with SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
68. Compliance with BASIX Certificate
Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate No's 547839M, 188895, 188901, 188902 have been complied with.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
69. Clotheslines and clothes dryers
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the units either have access to an external clothes line located in common open space or have a mechanical clothes dryer installed.
Reason: To provide access to clothes drying facilities.
70. Completion of landscape works
Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.
Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.
71. Accessibility
Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that:
· the lift design and associated functions are compliant with AS 1735.12 & AS 1428.2 · the level and direction of travel, both in lifts and lift lobbies, is audible and visible · the controls for lifts are accessible to all persons and control buttons and lettering are raised · international symbols have been used with specifications relating to signs, symbols and size of lettering complying with AS 1428.2 · the height of lettering on signage is in accordance with AS 1428.1 - 1993 · the signs and other information indicating access and services incorporate tactile communication methods in addition to the visual methods
Reason: Disabled access & services.
72. Retention and re-use positive covenant
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the applicant must create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the site stormwater retention and re-use facilities on the property.
The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instruments for protection of retention and re-use facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to Part 25R.9 of Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the reuse and retention facility, in relation to the building footprint, must be shown on a scale sketch, attached as an annexure to the request forms.
Registered title documents showing the covenants and restrictions must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
73. Certification of drainage works
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:
· the stormwater drainage works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans · the minimum retention and on-site detention storage volume requirements of Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan have been achieved · retained water is connected and available for use · all grates potentially accessible by children are secured · components of the new drainage system have been installed by a licensed plumbing contractor in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Code AS3500.3 2003 and the Building Code of Australia · all enclosed floor areas, including habitable and garage floor levels, are safeguarded from outside stormwater runoff ingress by suitable differences in finished levels, gradings and provision of stormwater collection devices
Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
74. WAE plans for stormwater management and disposal
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, a registered surveyor must provide a works as executed survey of the completed stormwater drainage and management systems. The survey must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate. The survey must indicate:
· as built (reduced) surface and invert levels for all drainage pits · gradients of drainage lines, materials and dimensions · as built (reduced) level(s) at the approved point of discharge to the public drainage system · as built location and internal dimensions of all detention and retention structures on the property (in plan view) and horizontal distances to nearest adjacent boundaries and structures on site · the achieved storage volumes of the installed retention and detention storages and derivative calculations · as built locations of all access pits and grates in the detention and retention system(s), including dimensions · the size of the orifice or control fitted to any on-site detention system · dimensions of the discharge control pit and access grates · the maximum depth of storage possible over the outlet control · top water levels of storage areas and indicative RL’s through the overland flow path in the event of blockage of the on-site detention system
The works as executed plan(s) must show the as built details above in comparison to those shown on the drainage plans approved with the Construction Certificate prior to commencement of works. All relevant levels and details indicated must be marked in red on a copy of the Principal Certifying Authority stamped construction certificate stormwater plans.
Reason: To protect the environment.
75. OSD positive covenant/restriction
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the applicant must create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the owner with the requirement to maintain the on-site stormwater detention facilities on the lot.
The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to Part 25R.9 of Ku-ring-gai DCP). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the on-site detention facility, in relation to the building footprint, must be shown on a scale sketch, attached as an annexure to the request forms.
Registered title documents, showing the covenants and restrictions, must be submitted and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
76. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate the Section 73 Sydney water Compliance Certificate must be obtained and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority
Reason: Statutory requirement.
77. Certification of as-constructed driveway/carpark
Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:
· the as-constructed car park complies with the approved Construction Certificate plans
· the completed vehicle access and accommodation arrangements comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 - 2004 “Off-Street car parking" and the Seniors Living State Environment Planning Policy in terms of minimum parking space dimensions
· finished driveway gradients and transitions will not result in the scraping of the underside of cars
· no doors, gates, grilles or other structures have been provided in the access driveways to the basement carpark, which would prevent unrestricted access for internal garbage collection from the basement garbage storage and collection area
· the vehicular headroom requirements of: - Australian Standard 2890.1 - “Off-street car parking”, - The Seniors Living SEPP (as last amended) for accessible parking spaces, - 2.6 metres height clearance for waste collection trucks are met from the public street into and within the applicable areas of the basement carpark.
Note: Evidence from a suitably qualified and experienced traffic/civil engineer indicating compliance with the above is to be provided to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To ensure that vehicular access and accommodation areas are compliant with the consent.
78. Reinstatement of redundant crossings and completion of infrastructure works
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that he or she has received a signed inspection form from Council which states that the following works in the road reserve have been completed:
· new concrete driveway crossing in accordance with levels and specifications issued by Council · removal of all redundant driveway crossings and kerb laybacks (or sections thereof) and reinstatement of these areas to footpath, turfed verge and upright kerb and gutter (reinstatement works to match surrounding adjacent infrastructure with respect to integration of levels and materials) · full repair and resealing of any road surface damaged during construction · full replacement of damaged sections of grass verge to match existing
This inspection may not be carried out by the Private Certifier because restoration of Council property outside the boundary of the site is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
All works must be completed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued until all damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works on the subject site (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council. Repair works shall be at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect the streetscape.
79. Fire safety certificate
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a Fire Safety Certificate for all the essential fire or other safety measures forming part of this consent has been completed and provided to Council.
Note: A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be submitted to Council.
Reason: To ensure suitable fire safety measures are in place.
80. Restriction on land title – SEPP Seniors Living development
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that restriction as to use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, has been created restricting the occupation of the premises to:
· people 55 or over or people who have a disability · people who live with people 55 or over or people who have a disability · staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided in this development
Reason: To ensure that the development meets the provisions of the Seniors Living SEPP.
81. SEPP Seniors Living advertising
All advertising, signage, marketing or promotion of the sale of the dwellings in this development shall make clear reference to the fact that this is a SEPP Seniors Living development and that at least one occupier shall be aged 55 years or over or have a disability.
Reason: To ensure that the development meets the provisions of the Seniors Living SEPP.
|
Richard Kinninmont Acting Manager Development Assessment Services |
Michael Miocic Director Development & Regulation |
A1View |
Location sketch |
|
2015/318633 |
|
|
A2View |
Zoning extract |
|
2015/188355 |
|
A3View |
Architectural plans |
|
2015/317688 |
|
A4View |
Landscape plan |
|
2015/263333 |
|
A5View |
SEPP1 objection |
|
2015/262903 |
|
A6View |
DA0223/14 report to Council |
|
2015/319867 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.3 / 159 |
|
|
Item GB.3 |
DA0082/15 |
|
20 November 2015 |
development application
Summary Sheet
Report title: |
1 Tobruk Avenue, St Ives Chase - Alterations and additions, including garage, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscaping |
ITEM/AGENDA NO: |
GB.3 |
Application No: |
DA0082/15 |
Property Details: |
1 Tobruk Avenue, St Ives Chase NSW 2075 Lot & DP No: Lot 28 DP 218785 Site area (m2): 1,563m² Zoning: Residential 2(c) |
Ward: |
St Ives |
Proposal/Purpose: |
To determine Development Application No. DA0082/15 which seeks consent for alterations and additions, including a garage, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscaping.
|
Type of Consent: |
Local |
Applicant: |
Matthew & Emily Crocker |
Owner: |
Mr MS Crocker & Mrs EKP Crocker |
Date Lodged: |
20 March 2015 |
Recommendation: |
Approval |
Purpose of Report
To determine Development Application No. DA0082/15 which seeks consent for alterations and additions, including a garage, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscaping.
Council’s attention is directed to the NSW Department of Planning circular PS 08-014 concerning the determination by Council of development applications where a variation of a development standard is sought under the provisions of SEPP No.1.
The circular (Attachment A20) requires all development applications which involve a variation greater than 10% under the provisions of SEPP No. 1 to be determined by full Council and not by Council staff under delegated authority.
Clause 46(2) of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance states that a dwelling house shall not be erected with a height in excess of 8 metres. The alterations and additions will result in a dwelling height on the subject site of 8.915 metres and therefore a SEPP No. 1 objection is required. The proposal involves a variation of 11.4% to Council’s maximum height requirement and is referred to full Council for determination.
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
Issue: Height
Submissions: Two submissions received
Land & Environment Court: N/A
Recommendation: Approval
History
Site
Council’s records indicate that the site has historically been used for residential purposes.
Pre-DA
PRE0124/13 – Alterations and additions
This meeting was held on 11 November 2013 to discuss the proposed works which are now the subject of this Development Application. Issues raised by Council officers during the Pre DA consultation were addressed and appropriate modifications to the proposal were undertaken as a result of the Pre DA process.
DA history
There are no previous applications of relevance to the subject application.
The Site
Site description
The subject site is a corner site of irregular configuration, with a 12.19 metres frontage to Tobruk Avenue and a curved frontage of 9.435 metres around the corner to the northern boundary which has a partial frontage to the western end of Dalton Road. The site has a maximum depth of 83.63 metres and a total area of 1,563m². The site falls by approximately 27 metres down from the eastern (front) property boundary to the western (rear) property boundary. The site is located within a relatively dense landscaped setting, being an area of biodiversity significance, with many trees and shrubs to the west of the existing dwelling.
The site is currently occupied by a one and two storey brick dwelling, with an attached garage/carport which is accessed from Tobruk Avenue.
Surrounding development
The subject site is bounded to the west and north by Cowan Creek Reserve. It is otherwise surrounded by allotments zoned for low density residential development which are occupied by a mixture of single and two (2) storey dwellings of various architectural styles.
The Proposal
The applicant seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising:
· closure of existing driveway access to Tobruk Avenue and construction of a new driveway accessed from Dalton Road
· construction of a new double garage incorporated into the existing dwelling
· construction of a lower ground floor level to the rear of the existing dwelling, providing for a rumpus room, study/bedroom, bathroom, stairs, lower terrace area and above-ground swimming pool
· demolition of the existing garage/carport and alterations and additions at the ground floor level to provide for a living/dining area, WC, study, master bedroom & ensuite, laundry, link to a new rear kitchen and family room, and upper terrace areas
· retention of the existing three bedrooms and bathroom/WC at the first floor level
· landscaping of the front (eastern) portion of the site surrounding the existing dwelling house
Amended plans dated 9 September 2015
Following a preliminary review of the application, the following issues were identified:
· non-compliant driveway transition
· lack of detail relating to ecological management of the site for fire purposes
These issues were conveyed to the applicant by letter, dated 31 July 2015 and in response the applicant provided amended plans/information satisfactorily addressing these issues.
Consultation
Community
In accordance with Development Control Plan No. 56, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response, submissions from the following were received:
1. John Ginswick, 12 Dalton Road, St Ives Chase NSW 2075
2. Jamie Cryan, 14 Dalton Road, St Ives Chase NSW 2075
The submissions raised the following issues:
Damage to access road
Concern is raised that the construction vehicles and increased use of this section of Dalton Road by an additional property will cause damage to the surface of the privately maintained driveway. This is a public road and Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a condition which will ensure that a dilapidation report is provided to Council prior to the commencement of works and that any damage will be required to be repaired prior to the issue of a final Occupational Certificate (Condition 8).
Access/damage to services
Concern has been raised regarding potential damage of and future access to underground services, in the form of the water supply, to adjoining properties. Council’s Development Engineer has confirmed that a Council stormwater pipe runs across the frontage of the subject property. A condition is recommended to ensure that Council is contacted immediately should a Council stormwater drainage pipe be encountered during the proposed works. In addition, any damage caused to a Council drainage system is to be repaired immediately at no cost to Council (Condition 37).
Sightlines approaching new driveway
Concern has been raised regarding the sightlines for vehicles within Dalton Road approaching the proposed driveway to the subject site. An inspection of the site was undertaken by Council’s Development Engineer and further discussion has taken place with Council’s Traffic Engineers within the Operations Department. It is considered that drivers reversing from the proposed driveway will have clear sight in both directions and that, as in any situation where there is driveway access to a public road, if appropriate care is taken by both parties, the proposal is workable.
Amended plans dated 9 September 2015
The amended plans were not notified to surrounding residents as the proposed amendments do not result in a greater environmental impact than the original proposal.
Within Council
Landscaping
Council’s Senior Tree and Landscape Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:
Tree impacts
There is no objection to the removal of the following trees: T1, T2, T3, T4, & T5. The most significant tree is T2 Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) located within the proposed pool footprint. The tree is an endemic species, outwardly in good health and condition, typical for the species. Beyond conflict with the development footprint, no justification has been provided for its removal. The tree while mature is not viewed from the street and hence has lower landscape prominence. Also refer ecological assessment.
T7 is a mature Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located within the Dalton Road nature strip. The tree is in good health and condition not impacted by development works. The arborists assumption about preferred removal is incorrect and their discussion about conflicts with the proposed driveway is also incorrect as the driveway is outside of the TPZ. The tree is to be retained and protected and a condition is recommended (Condition 16).
T8 is a grouping of Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne) located within the Dalton Road nature strip. No objection on landscape grounds for their removal, subject to ecological concurrence. They are not adversely impacted by the proposed development.
Landscape plan/tree replenishment
Acceptable on landscape grounds. Minor changes regarding tree retention and placement is conditioned (Condition 16).
Stormwater plan
Acceptable on landscape grounds
BASIX
No landscape commitment for low water use/indigenous species has been made.
Fire
The site is identified as bush fire prone land. Fire safety recommendations include a requirement that a IPA be maintained surrounding the house, which does not require further tree removal beyond what is required to accommodate the development works.
Conclusion
The application is acceptable on landscape grounds, subject to conditions.”
Ecology
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:
“This ecological review of the site was based on the results of a desktop review and a site inspection by John Whyte, Ecological Assessment Officer of Ku-ring-gai Council on 2 April 2015.
During the site inspection, native vegetation was found to dominate a large proportion of the site, a high number of native flora species were identified. No intensive targeted searches were conducted for flora or fauna however it was noted that within and adjacent to the site, suitable habitats were present for a number of threatened flora and fauna species listed under both Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The native vegetation, which occurs primarily within the rear of the site, has been mapped as an area of biodiversity significance under the LEP 218.
Impacts from the proposal
The proposal does not propose the removal of any trees that comprise part of the onsite Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest or from the area identified as “biodiversity significance”.
The following land use advice was provided by the Rural Fire Service (RFS)
“At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity, the property around the building to a distance of 10 metres, or to the property boundary whichever comes first 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.”
In accordance with Planning for Bushfire “An IPA should provide a tree canopy cover of less than 15% and should be located greater than 2 metres from any part of the roofline of a dwelling” (NSW Rural Fire Service 2006). Canopy trees should have a separation distance between 2-5 metres.
Native/exotic canopy within the site is considered to achieve IPA requirements of 15% (NSW Rural Fire Service 2006). The understorey within the rear of the subject property requires minimal works to achieve management of the understorey as an IPA. This will involve the removal of noxious & environmental weeds and removal of dead wood. It is also noted that, due to the extensive occurrence of rock within the proposed IPA, minimal modification to ground and shrub vegetation is anticipated.”
A condition is recommended which will effectively address IPA requirements through the removal of noxious and environmental weeds to satisfy Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (Condition 53).
Having consideration to the clause 61L “Biodiversity protection” of LEP 218 it is concluded that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the area of “biodiversity significance” due to the minimal vegetation modification works required for bushfire protection purposes.”
Engineering
Council’s Development Engineer commented on the proposal as follows:
“Access to the site will be via a new layback and driveway crossover. The garage level has been raised by 140mm. The applicant has submitted documentation from Terraffic Traffic Consultants which confirms that the driveway gradients provided will allow satisfactory vehicular access and egress from the development. The garage dimension and driveway gradient, including headroom, complies with Australian Standard AS2890.1:2004. Guide posts are to be installed and maintained on the edge of the concrete driveway on the low side to provide delineation of the driveway (Condition 15).
Council’s approval under the Roads Act is required for the driveway and new retaining wall on the nature strip. Construction details will need to be submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate (Condition 20).
The site is Location C under DCP47. The stormwater Plan prepared by HDG Hydraulic Design Group shows a 5000L bladder type rainwater tank in the rear of the property. BASIX water commitments are satisfied. Re-use will be for pool top up as per BASIX requirements. The overflow from the rainwater tank and grated drain shall be directed to a level spreader at the rear of the property.
The Stormwater Management Plan; Dwg No: SCP 01, Rev:”A”, dated August 2014 prepared by HDG Hydraulic Design Group, is considered a satisfactory system for this type of development.
Concern has been raised regarding the underground services. There is a Council stormwater pipe across the frontage of the property. For that reason, a condition is recommended that works cease and Council must be contacted immediately for advice if a Council stormwater drainage pipe is encountered. Any damage caused to a Council drainage system must be immediately repaired in full, as directed, and at no cost to Council (Condition 37).
Concern has been raised regarding sight distance for vehicles coming up Dalton Road. The site has been inspected. Vehicles reversing out can see both directions. If both parties are careful, the situation is feasible.
Concern has also been raised regarding the proposed driveway access. It was mentioned that the proposed route of access will share the privately maintained driveway for 12 and 14 Dalton Road and may be damaged during construction. This is public road and a dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to works being undertaken, which is conditioned (Condition 8). Any damage will be required to be repaired before a final Occupational Certificate can be issued.
From an engineering perspective there are no objections to approval of this application, subject to conditions.”
Outside Council
Rural Fire Service
In accordance with the provisions of section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council consulted with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, concerning measures to be taken with respect to the protection of persons, property and the environment from danger that may arise from a bush fire. The comments provided by the Rural Fire Service are as follows:
“Reference is made to Council’s correspondence dated 30 March 2015 seeking advice regarding bush fire protection in relation to the above application in accordance with Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The New South Wales Rural Fire Service provides recommended conditions.”
The requirements of the Rural Fire Services are included in Condition No. 54 of the recommendation.
Statutory Provisions
The proposal is “Local Development” under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and requires development consent.
State Environmental Planning Policies
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards
SEPP 1 provides flexibility to development standards and enables Council to vary standards where strict compliance with a standard would be unnecessary, unreasonable or tend to hinder the objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.
Clause 46(2) of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance states that a dwelling house shall not be erected with a height in excess of 8 metres.
The proposed dwelling has a building height of 8.915 metres at the rear of the dwelling and therefore, there is a departure from the development standard. Accordingly, a SEPP No. 1 objection has been lodged and is considered below.
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land
The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of residential use and as such, it is unlikely to contain any contamination and further investigation is not warranted in this case.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River
SREP 20 applies to land within the catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River. The general aim of the plan is to ensure that development and future land uses within the catchment are considered in a regional context. The Plan includes strategies for the assessment of development in relation to water quality and quantity, scenic quality, aquaculture, recreation and tourism.
The proposed development is considered to achieve the relevant aims under this policy.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
A valid BASIX certificate has been submitted. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and adequately reflects all amendments to the application.
Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance
Part A: Development standards
Development standard |
Proposed |
Complies |
Site area: 1563 m2 |
||
Minimum size allotments |
|
|
Site area: 929m2 (min) |
1563m2 |
YES |
Site width: 18m (min) |
>18m |
YES |
Building height 8m (max) |
8.915m |
NO (SEPP No. 1 objection provided) |
Built upon area 60%(937.8m2)(max) |
43.3% (406.102m2) |
YES |
Height of buildings (clause 46(2))
Where there is a variation to a development standard, the application must be accompanied by a SEPP 1 Objection, a written objection that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifying the grounds of that objection.
The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling have a maximum height of 8.915 metres at the rear of the dwelling. The proposal does not comply with the 8 metres maximum height development standard which is exceeded by 915 millimetres (11.4%).
A SEPP No. 1 objection has been submitted by the applicant and is assessed as follows:
Whether the planning control to be varied is a development standard
Clause 46 of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance states:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part III of this Ordinance, a building shall not be erected to a height, across any point of a site, which is greater than 7 metres without the consent of the Council.
(2) A person shall not erect a dwelling-house or dual occupancy building with a height in excess of 8 metres.
(4) In this clause –
“Ground level” means the level of a site before development is carried out on the site under this Ordinance.
“Height” in relation to a building, means a distance measured vertically from any point on the ceiling of the topmost floor of the building to the ground level immediately below that point.
Clause 46(2) of the KPSO restricts the height to which dwelling houses are constructed to a maximum height of 8 metres. As the KPSO is a statutory planning instrument, this control is considered to be a development standard as defined under Section 4 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.
The underlying objective or purpose of the standard
The objectives of clause 46 are unstated in the KPSO.
The relevant specific Aims and Objectives for Residential Zones as stated in schedule 9 of the KPSO are as follows:
(e) all new dwelling-houses and additions to existing dwelling-houses are of a height, size and bulk generally in keeping with that of neighbouring properties and, where larger buildings are proposed, they are designed so as not to dominate and so far as possible to harmonise with neighbouring development;
A similar objective is included in section 4.2 of DCP No. 38 which states:
To ensure that the bulk, scale and height of the proposed works do not dominate the natural landscape, existing streetscape, nor adversely impact on the tree canopy vista.
Whether compliance with the development standard is consistent with the aims of the policy and, in particular, whether compliance with the development standard hinders the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
SEPP No. 1 provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
The objects of the Act are:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,
(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,
The proposed development is consistent with the objects of the Act and represents an orderly and economic use of the land.
Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case
The following are extracts from the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection:
“The non-compliance arises due to the slope of the land and is best illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 1 – Image of height non-compliance
“The proposal considerably improves the existing amenity for the subject dwelling and also provides a high quality addition which does not compromise the streetscape or built/environmental character of the area. The vast majority of the site will be retained as bushland and the impacts upon neighbouring amenity are reasonably minimised through a combination of the nature of the site, context of surrounding development, separation between dwellings and design measures adopted with the proposal. The scale of the proposal and stepping nature is compatible and “harmonious”, while the setbacks and siting of the proposal is sympathetic.”
“The vast majority of the site is unaffected by the proposal, with modest proposed site coverage and FSR. The siting is appropriately located towards the front street and away from natural areas of the site which are also steeper.”
“The height, bulk and scale are not excessive and are compatible with the surrounding area. Further, the design has been highly modulated and articulated to reduce apparent building bulk and also to reduce amenity impacts upon neighbours.”
“It is submitted the proposal meets the objectives of the Act, notwithstanding the non-compliance with the height standard. The proposal will make a superior contribution to the built environment than the current building, which is in a state of disrepair, and the natural environment is appropriately protected in the context of the planning controls which apply to the site. The proposed development of the site is orderly and rational.”
Whether the objection is well founded
The majority of the proposed alterations and additions are consistent with the height development standard and, as can be seen in Figure 1 above, the area of non-compliance is limited to a small portion towards the rear of the dwelling and arises due to the slope of the land. Overall, the dwelling is of a building form and scale which will not significantly impact on the existing streetscape or natural landscape nor result in any detrimental impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties. For these reasons and those listed above, the objection is considered to be well founded and it is agreed that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.
Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning,
It is considered that there are no matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning in this circumstance.
Whether there is public benefit in maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.
The development standard for the building height within the site is consistent with the development outcomes promoted by the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance. There is public benefit in maintaining this planning control but, in this instance, requiring compliance would not be considered reasonable.
Clause 33(a) – aesthetic appearance
Clause 33(a) of the KPSO requires Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed works when viewed from a public reserve adjacent to the site.
The proposed works will not detrimentally affect the visual appearance of the dwelling when viewed from the public reserve. In this respect, the proposed works are considered to satisfy the requirements under this clause.
Cl. 61L Biodiversity
The KPSO was last amended on 5 July 2013 by Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 218 which introduced planning provisions for biodiversity protection, heritage conservation areas (HCA) and riparian lands. The subject site is located within an area of biodiversity identified on the maps. The proposal is considered to meet these provisions for biodiversity protection.
Part B: Aims and objectives for residential zones:
The development: (i) provides satisfactory levels of solar access & privacy to surrounding properties; (ii) is of a bulk, scale and design, characteristic of the area; (iii) maintains adequate levels of soft landscaping; (iv) provides suitable egress/ingress for vehicles; and (v) maintains the landscape quality of the municipality. Consequently, the aims and objectives for residential development as outlined by Schedule 9 have been satisfied.
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015
The KLEP 2015 came into effect on 2 April 2015. The subject site is located within an area identified on the statutory maps, however, clause 1.8A provides that if a development application has been made before the commencement of the LEP and has not been finally determined prior to commencement, the application must be determined as if the LEP had not commenced. The subject application was lodged on 20 March 2015 and has therefore been determined according to the provisions of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance which was the instrument in place at the time that the application was lodged.
Policy Provisions (DCPs, Council policies, strategies and management plans)
Development Control Plan No. 38 - Ku-ring-gai Residential Design Manual
Development Control |
Proposed |
Complies |
4.1 Streetscape: |
||
Building setbacks (s.4.1.3) |
|
|
Front setback:
|
9.3m (no change to existing) |
N/A
|
Side setback: Lower ground floor: 2m (min) Ground floor: 2m(min) 1st floor: 2.5m (min)
Corner sites: 3.8m (min) 4.5m (ave)
|
South: 1.535m South: 1.535m South: 1.535m
6m 6m |
NO NO NO
YES YES |
Rear setback: 12m(min) |
52.5m
|
YES |
Fences (s.4.1.5) |
None proposed |
N/A |
4.2 Building form: |
||
FSR (s.4.2.1) 0.30:1 (482.6m² max)
Height of building (s.4.2.2) |
0.24:1 (387m²) |
YES |
2 storey (max) and 8m (site >200 slope) or 7m (site <200 slope)
|
2 storey & 8.915m |
YES NO |
Building height plane (s.4.2.3) 450 from horizontal at any point 3m above boundary
|
Breaches at various levels on both sides
|
NO |
First floor (s.4.2.4) |
|
|
FSR: < 40% total FSR
|
The proposed floor space is considered to be appropriately distributed throughout the dwelling |
YES |
Roof Line (s.4.2.6) |
|
|
Roof height (5m – single storey) (3m – two+ storey) |
Flat roof |
YES |
Roof pitch 350 (max) |
Flat roof |
YES |
Built-upon area (s.4.2.7) 50% (781.5m2) (max)
|
43.3% (406.102m2) |
YES |
Unrelieved wall length (s.4.2.8) 12m for walls up to 4m in height 8m for walls more than 4m in height |
No excessive unrelieved walls |
YES |
Solar access (4.2.11) 4h solar access to adjoining properties between 9am to 3pm
|
Solar access is maintained to adjoining properties |
YES |
Cut & fill (s.4.2.14) |
|
|
Max cut 900mm |
1.8m |
NO |
Max cut & fill across building area of 1800mm and 900mm |
Cut of 1.8m |
YES |
No cut or fill within side setbacks
|
Some cut proposed |
NO |
4.3 Open space & landscaping: |
||
Soft landscaping area (4.3.3) 50% (781.5m2) (min)
|
56.7% (1156.898m2) |
YES |
Tree replenishment (s.4.3.6) 10 Trees required
|
Tree provision is satisfactory |
YES |
Landscaping cut & fill (4.3.7) |
|
|
max cut or fill 500mm relative to natural ground |
<500mm |
YES |
no cut & fill within 2m of boundary
|
Nominal amount proposed within 2m of boundaries |
NO |
Useable open space (s.4.3.8) Min depth 5m and min area 50m2
|
Depth >5m Area >50m2
|
YES YES |
4.4 Privacy & security: |
||
Refer discussion below.
|
||
4.5 Access & parking: |
||
No. of car parking spaces (s.4.5.1) 2 spaces behind building line |
2 spaces behind building line |
YES |
Size of car parking space (s.4.5.2) 5.6m x 5.4m |
5.7m x 5.5m |
YES |
Carport/garage <6m in width or <40% site width whichever is the lesser
|
<6m in width |
YES |
Driveway width (s.4.5.6) 3.5m
|
4.5m |
NO |
4.6 Ancillary facilities: |
||
Swimming pools (s.4.6.1) |
|
|
Setback from boundary: 2m |
3m |
YES |
Pool coping <500mm above ground level |
6.8m |
NO |
Pool excavation not below the canopy of trees
|
Canopy trees to be removed |
YES |
Streetscape & building form
There are non-compliances with the side setback controls of DCP 38 on the southern side. Further, due to the slope of the land, a small section towards the rear of the dwelling will have a maximum ceiling height of 8.915 metres. This breaches section 4.2.2 of DCP 38 which provides for a maximum height of 8 metres on sites with slopes of more than 20 degrees. Additionally, the building height plane is breached marginally at various floors due to the sloping nature of the site.
The dwelling has been designed to step down the site and is quite modular in form and therefore, what constitutes the ground floor at the front of the dwelling becomes the first floor towards the middle. The dwelling is located on a corner site and the requirements for additional distances to the secondary road frontage have been exceeded. Use is made of the current available space to the eastern end of the site to provide for a footprint which addresses the site’s constraints more effectively.
The proposal has also utilised a flat roof design to the new additions to reduce the overall height of the dwelling. The design of the dwelling additions has incorporated sufficient architectural relief and open balconies and terraces to provide for a structure which does not impose on its surroundings and which makes better use of the sloping lot and minimises any impact on the streetscape and on adjoining properties. The proposed dwelling integrates with and retains the character exemplified by dwellings on this side of the street.
The proposed development will result in excavation for the construction of the dwelling and to accommodate the driveway access into the garage. The site is affected by a fall of approximately 11 metres from the eastern (front) property boundary over the building platform to the rear of the dwelling. The existing topography of the site has largely been respected and retained with cut and fill used only where necessary to create a level building platform for the development. A retaining wall to the eastern side of the driveway access into the site is proposed but is considered acceptable given the fact that the western end of Dalton Road only services three other properties with the subject property being the only one on this southern side of the street. The excavation will not require the removal of any significant vegetation and will not impact on existing trees.
Landscaping and screen planting, canopy trees and open space areas are incorporated into the design of the overall site, ensuring that the predominant landscape character of the locality is maintained.
Therefore, in respect of these factors, it is considered that the proposed development will satisfy the objectives stated in this part of DCP 38.
Part 4.4 – Privacy and security
Any potential for overlooking of No. 3 Tobruk Avenue has been addressed in the proposed design by omitting southern side windows in the new rear addition at ground and first floor level and by recessing the lower ground floor northern terrace and restricting the space for standing between the proposed pool and handrail on that side of the development. Consequently, the aims and objectives of the controls are considered to be met.
Driveway width
It is acknowledged that the driveway width, at approximately 4.5 metres, is wider than would usually be anticipated under the DCP controls. This non-compliance is considered to be acceptable given the requirement for vehicles to be able to manoeuvre to a sufficient degree so as to allow easier access reversing, and for greater visibility by vehicles already within, or approaching the public road.
Swimming pool
DCP 38 states that the pool coping level must not be more than 500mm above existing ground level at any point but qualifies this requirement when considering development on steeply sloping sites, by allowing greater levels, subject to increased setbacks and landscaping. As a consequence of the slope of the land, which falls by approximately 27 metres to the rear boundary, the western elevation presents a coping level of approximately 6.8 metres.
It is noted that the pool structure is integrated into the design of the dwelling and that the longest elevation of the pool faces the rear of the site which is heavily vegetated. Further, the maximum coping level is located approximately 7 metres from the northern side boundary with the nearest adjoining dwelling on that side. Given the distance from the adjoining dwelling, coupled with the existing vegetation on the site, the proposed works are considered to integrate into the landscape and are sited so as to minimise visual impact when viewed from adjacent properties.
Consequently, the aims and objectives of the controls are considered to be met.
Development Control Plan 40 – Construction and Demolition Waste Management
A waste management plan has been submitted and is deemed to be acceptable, subject to conditions relating to the management of waste materials. (Condition 14).
Development Control Plan No. 43 – Car Parking
DCP 43 has been considered under the assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of DCP 38 that relate to car parking and vehicle access by Council’s Development Engineer. The application is considered to be acceptable in this regard, subject to conditions.
Development Control Plan 47 – Water Management
DCP 47 has been addressed under the consideration of DCP 38 and by Council’s Development Engineer. Conditions are recommended to ensure compliance with the provisions of the DCP.
Section 94 Plan
The nature of the proposed development does not attract the payment of Section 94 contributions under Council’s current plan.
Likely Impacts
As has been determined through the assessment of the application, the proposed development is not deemed to be of any unreasonable impact upon the streetscape, the amenity of neighbouring properties or the general interests of the community.
Suitability of the Site
The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.
Public Interest
The approval of the application is considered to be in the public interest.
Conclusion
Having regard to the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved.
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 the building height standard in 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 DA0082/15 is consistent with the aims of the Policy, grant development consent to DA0082/15 for alterations and additions including garage, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscaping on land at 1 Tobruk Avenue, St Ives Chase, for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (alterations and additions)
The development must be carried out in accordance with work shown in colour on the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
2. Inconsistency between documents
In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
3. Approved landscape plans
Landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the following landscape plan(s), listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
4. No demolition of extra fabric
Alterations to, and demolition of the existing building shall be limited to that documented on the approved plans (by way of notation). No approval is given or implied for removal and/or rebuilding of any portion of the existing building which is shown to be retained.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the development consent.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
5. Asbestos works
All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie. Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.
Reason: To ensure public safety.
6. Notice of commencement
At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
7. Notification of builder’s details
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
8. Dilapidation survey and report (public infrastructure)
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures of the following public infrastructure, has been completed and submitted to Council:
Public infrastructure
· Full road pavement width, including kerb and gutter, of Dalton Street over the site frontage, including the full intersection. · All driveway crossings and laybacks opposite the subject site.
The report must be completed by a consulting structural/civil engineer. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording (both written and photographic) existing damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing any damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development.
The developer may be held liable to any recent damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded by the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of works.
Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any excavation works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of public infrastructure before works commence.
9. 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 excavation and demolition process.
C1. 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.
10. Tree protection fencing
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy is fenced off at the specified radius from the trunk/s to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
11. 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.
12. 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.
(i) This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing environment both above and below ground and access is restricted. (ii) Any encroachment not previously approved within the tree protection zone shall be the subject of an arborist's report. (iii) The arborist's report shall provide proof that no other alternative is available. (iv) The Arborist's report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for further consultation with Council. (v) The name, address, and telephone number of the developer.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
13. Tree fencing inspection
Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority is required to verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
14. Construction waste management plan
Prior to the commencement of any works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a waste management plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person, has been prepared in accordance with Council’s Waste Management controls in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.
The plan shall address all issues identified in DCP 40, including but not limited to: the estimated volume of waste and method for disposal for the construction and operation phases of the development.
Note: The plan shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure appropriate management of construction waste.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
15. Driveway guardrail
Where a drop-off greater than 600mm or batter slope greater than 1:4 adjoins the proposed driveway and parking space, a suitable vehicle barrier is to be provided. The design of the barrier, with structural engineer’s certification, is to be provided with the Construction Certificate drawings for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure safe vehicle manoeuvrability through the site.
16. Amendments to approved landscape plan
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved landscape plans, listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:
The above landscape plan(s) shall be amended in the following ways:
(i) T7 Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located within the Dalton Rd nature strip is to be shown to be retained. (ii) Proposed planting shall be limited to the site. Landscape areas within the road reserve shall be left as existing.
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the landscape plan has been amended are required by this condition.
Note: An amended plan, prepared by a landscape architect or qualified landscape designer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure adequate landscaping of the site.
17. 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.
18. Builder’s indemnity insurance
The applicant, builder, developer or person who does the work on this development, must arrange builder’s indemnity insurance and submit the certificate of insurance in accordance with the requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 to the Certifying Authority for endorsement of the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate.
It is the responsibility of the applicant, builder or developer to arrange the builder's indemnity insurance for residential building work over the value of $20,000. The builder's indemnity insurance does not apply to commercial or industrial building work or to residential work valued at less than $20,000, nor to work undertaken by persons holding an owner/builder's permit issued by the Department of Fair Trading (unless the owner/builder's property is sold within 7 years of the commencement of the work).
Reason: Statutory requirement.
19. Driveway crossing levels
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, driveway and associated footpath levels for any new, reconstructed or extended sections of driveway crossings between the property boundary and road alignment must be obtained from Ku-ring-gai Council. Such levels are only able to be issued by Council under the Roads Act 1993. All footpath crossings, laybacks and driveways are to be constructed according to Council's specifications "Construction of Gutter Crossings and Footpath Crossings".
Specifications are issued with alignment levels after completing the necessary application form at Customer Services and payment of the assessment fee. When completing the request for driveway levels application from Council, the applicant must attach a copy of the relevant development application drawing which indicates the position and proposed level of the proposed driveway at the boundary alignment.
This development consent is for works wholly within the property. Development consent does not imply approval of footpath or driveway levels, materials or location within the road reserve, regardless of whether this information is shown on the development application plans. The grading of such footpaths or driveways outside the property shall comply with Council's standard requirements. The suitability of the grade of such paths or driveways inside the property is the sole responsibility of the applicant and the required alignment levels fixed by Council may impact upon these levels.
The construction of footpaths and driveways outside the property in materials other than those approved by Council is not permitted.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
20. Design of works in public road (Roads Act approval)
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that engineering plans and specifications prepared by a qualified consulting engineer have been approved by Council’s Development Engineer. The plans to be assessed must be to a detail suitable for construction issue purposes and must detail the following infrastructure works required in Dalton Street:
· The new driveway crossing and any retaining structures required on either side of the new driveway.
Development consent does not give approval to these works in the road reserve. The applicant must obtain a separate approval under sections 138 and 139 of The Roads Act 1993 for the works in the road reserve required as part of the development. The Construction Certificate must not be issued, and these works must not proceed until Council has issued a formal written approval under the Roads Act 1993.
The required plans and specifications are to be designed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The drawings must detail existing utility services and trees affected by the works, erosion control requirements and traffic management requirements during the course of works. Survey must be undertaken as required. Traffic management is to be certified on the drawings as being in accordance with the documents SAA HB81.1 - 1996 - Field Guide for Traffic Control at Works on Roads - Part 1 and RTA Traffic Control at Work Sites (1998). Construction of the works must proceed only in accordance with any conditions attached to the Roads Act approval issued by Council.
A minimum of three (3) weeks will be required for Council to assess the Roads Act application. Early submission of the Roads Act application is recommended to avoid delays in obtaining a Construction Certificate. An engineering assessment and inspection fee (set out in Council’s adopted fees and charges) is payable and Council will withhold any consent and approved plans until full payment of the correct fees. Plans and specifications must be marked to the attention of Council’s Development Engineers. In addition, a copy of this condition must be provided, together with a covering letter stating the full address of the property and the accompanying DA number.
Reason: To ensure that the plans are suitable for construction purposes.
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:
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:
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Approved plans to be on site
A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Use of road or footpath
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.
Reason: To ensure safety and amenity of the area.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Protection of public places
If the work involved in the erection, demolition or construction of the development is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.
If necessary, a hoarding is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.
The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place.
Any hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.
Reason: To protect public places.
33. 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.
34. Construction signage
All construction signs must comply with the following requirements:
· are not to cover any mechanical ventilation inlet or outlet vent · are not illuminated, self-illuminated or flashing at any time · are located wholly within a property where construction is being undertaken · refer only to the business(es) undertaking the construction and/or the site at which the construction is being undertaken · are restricted to one such sign per property · do not exceed 2.5m2 · are removed within 14 days of the completion of all construction works
Reason: To ensure compliance with Council's controls regarding signage.
35. Road reserve safety
All public footways and roadways fronting and adjacent to the site must be maintained in a safe condition at all times during the course of the development works. Construction materials must not be stored in the road reserve. A safe pedestrian circulation route and a pavement/route free of trip hazards must be maintained at all times on or adjacent to any public access ways fronting the construction site. Where public infrastructure is damaged, repair works must be carried out when and as directed by Council officers. Where pedestrian circulation is diverted on to the roadway or verge areas, clear directional signage and protective barricades must be installed in accordance with AS1742-3 (1996) “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”. If pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily maintained across the site frontage, and action is not taken promptly to rectify the defects, Council may undertake proceedings to stop work.
Reason: To ensure safe public footways and roadways during construction.
36. Services
Where required, the adjustment or inclusion of any new utility service facilities must be carried out by the applicant and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant utility authority. These works shall be at no cost to Council. It is the applicants’ full responsibility to make contact with the relevant utility authorities to ascertain the impacts of the proposal upon utility services (including water, phone, gas and the like). Council accepts no responsibility for any matter arising from its approval to this application involving any influence upon utility services provided by another authority.
Reason: Provision of utility services.
37. Works near Council's drainage pipe
Drainage pipes can be damaged through applying excessive loading (such as construction machinery, material storage and the like).
If a Council drainage pipeline is uncovered during construction, all work is to cease and the Principal Certifying Authority and Council must be contacted immediately for advice. Any damage caused to a Council drainage system must be immediately repaired in full as directed and at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect existing Council infrastructure and services.
38. 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.
39. Trees on nature strip
Removal/pruning of the following tree/s from Council's nature strip to permit vehicular access shall be undertaken at no cost to Council by an experienced tree removal contractor/arborist holding public liability insurance amounting to a minimum cover of $20,000,000:
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
40. 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 AQF3 Arborist/Horticulturist. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees.
Reason: To protect existing trees.
41. Cutting of tree roots
No tree roots of 30mm or greater in diameter located within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be severed or injured in the process of any works during the construction period. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
42. Approved tree works
Approval is given for the following works to be undertaken to trees on the site:
Removal or pruning of any other tree on the site is not approved, excluding species exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
43. Hand excavation
All excavation within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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:
47. Compliance with BASIX Certificate
Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate No. A195676 and dated 14 January 2015 have been complied with.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
48. Completion of landscape works
Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.
Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.
49. Certification of drainage works (alterations/additions)
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:
· the components of the new drainage system have been installed by a licensed contractor in accordance with the National Plumbing and Drainage Code AS3500.3 (2003) and the Building Code of Australia · the stormwater drainage works have been completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans, the nominated BASIX commitments and Ku-ring-gai DCP
Note: Evidence from the plumbing contractor or a qualified civil/hydraulic engineer confirming compliance with this control is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
50. Reinstatement of redundant crossings and completion of infrastructure works
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that he or she has received a signed inspection form from Council which states that the following works in the road reserve have been completed:
· new concrete driveway crossing in accordance with levels and specifications issued by Council · removal of all redundant driveway crossings and kerb laybacks (or sections thereof) and reinstatement of these areas to footpath, turfed verge and upright kerb and gutter (reinstatement works to match surrounding adjacent infrastructure with respect to integration of levels and materials) · full repair and resealing of any road surface damaged during construction · full replacement of damaged sections of grass verge to match existing
This inspection may not be carried out by the Private Certifier because restoration of Council property outside the boundary of the site is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
All works must be completed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Ku-ring-gai Council, dated November 2004. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued until all damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works on the subject site (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub-contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council. Repair works shall be at no cost to Council.
Reason: To protect the streetscape.
51. Construction of works in public road - approved plans
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that all approved road, footpath and/or drainage works have been completed in the road reserve in accordance with the Council Roads Act approval and accompanying drawings, conditions and specifications.
The works must be supervised by the applicant’s designing engineer and completed and approved to the satisfaction of Ku-ring-gai Council.
The supervising consulting engineer is to provide certification upon completion that the works were constructed in accordance with the Council approved stamped drawings. The works must be subject to inspections by Council at the hold points noted on the Roads Act approval. All conditions attached to the approved drawings for these works must be met prior to the Occupation Certificate being issued.
Reason: To ensure that works undertaken in the road reserve are to the satisfaction of Council.
52. Swimming pool (part 1)
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that:
1. Access to the pool/spa shall be restricted by a child resistant barrier in accordance with the regulations prescribed in the Swimming Pools Act, 1992:
(a) The pool shall not be filled with water or be allowed to collect stormwater until the child resistant barrier is installed; and (b) The barrier is to conform to the requirements of AS 1926-1 2012 Fences and Gates for Private Swimming Pools.
Reason: To ensure the safety of children.
2. Any mechanical equipment associated with the swimming pool and/or spa pool shall be located in a sound-attenuating enclosure. The Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the sound levels associated with the swimming pool/spa filtration system and associated mechanical equipment do not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level at the boundaries of the site.
Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.
3. The pool/spa shall pool shall not be filled with water or be allowed to collect stormwater until it is registered on the NSW Swimming Pool Register in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au <http://www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au>).
Reason: Legislative requirement.
Conditions to be satisfied at all times:
53. Removal of noxious plants & weeds
The following noxious and/or environmental weed species listed below shall be removed from the property by a qualified bush regenerator prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:
Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.
54. Rural Fire Service (RFS)
Prior to the commencement of any works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the following RFS requirements have been satisfied:
Asset Protection Zones
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 commencement of building works and in perpetuity, the property around the building to a distance of 10 metres, or to the property boundary whichever comes first 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.
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. To aid in fire-fighting activities, unobstructed pedestrian access to the rear of the property shall be provided and is to be maintained at all times.
Design and Construction
The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:
4. New construction to the roof and on the northern, southern and western elevations shall comply with section 9 (BAL FZ) Australian Standard AS 3959-2009 Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas. However, where any material, element of construction or system when tested to the method described in Australian Standard AS 1530.8.2 Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structures Part 8.2: Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack-Large flaming sources, it shall comply with Clause 13.8 of the Standard except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber.
5. Window assemblies on the northern, southern and western elevations shall comply with one of the following:
a) Clause 9.5.2 of AS 3959-2009 as modified above;
Or
b) They shall comply with the following:
(i) Completely protected by a non-combustible and non-perforated bushfire shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS 3959-2009 excluding parts (e) & (f).
(ii) Window frames and hardware shall be metal.
(iii) Glazing shall be toughened glass minimum 6mm.
(iv) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index no greater than 5 or from silicone.
(v) The openable portion of the window shall be screened internally or externally with screens that comply with Clause 9.5.1A.
6. New external doors and door frames (not including garage doors) on the northern, southern and western elevations shall comply with one of the following:
a) Clause 9.5.3 or 9.5.4 of AS 3959-2009 as modified above;
Or
b) They shall comply with the following:
(i) Completely protected by a non-combustible and non-perforated bushfire shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS 3959-2009 excluding parts (e) & (f).
(ii) Doors shall be non-combustible.
(iii) Externally fitted hardware that supports the panel in its function of opening and closing shall be metal.
(iv) Where doors incorporate glazing, the glazing shall be toughened glass minimum 6mm.
(v) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index no greater than 5 or from silicone.
(vi) Door frames shall be metal.
(vii) Doors shall be tight fitting to the doorframe and to an abutting door if applicable.
(viii) Weather strips, draught excluders or draught seals shall be installed at the base of side-hung external doors.
7. New construction on the eastern elevation shall comply with section 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS 3959-2009 Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas and section A3.7 of Addendum Appendix 3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.
8. The existing dwelling is required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a non-corrosive metal screen mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm. Where applicable this includes any sub floor areas openable windows, vents, weepholes and eaves. External doors are to be fitted with draft excluders.
9. Roofing shall be gutterless or guttering and valleys are to be screened to prevent the build-up of flammable material. Any materials used shall be non-combustible.
Landscaping
10. Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
55. Outdoor lighting
At all times for the life of the approved development, all outdoor lighting shall not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings and shall comply with, where relevant, AS/NZ1158.3: 2005 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.
Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.
56. Swimming pool (part 2)
At all times:
1. Access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as required by the Swimming Pools Act 1992. 2. Noise levels associated with spa/pool pumping units shall not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level at the boundaries of the site. 3. Devices or structures used for heating swimming pool water must not be placed where they are visible from a public place. 4. For the purpose of health and amenity, the disposal of backwash and/or the emptying of a swimming pool into a reserve, watercourse, easement or storm water drainage system is prohibited. These waters are to discharge via a permanent drainage line into Sydney Water's sewer in accordance with Australian Standard AS3500.2 section 10.9. Permission is to be obtained from Sydney Water prior to the emptying of any pool to the sewer. 5. Lighting from the swimming pool and other communal facilities shall not detrimentally impact the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings.
Reason: Health and amenity.
|
Susan Brown Development Assessment Officer |
Shaun Garland Team Leader Development Assessment Central |
Richard Kinninmont Acting Manager Development Assessment Services |
Michael Miocic Director Development & Regulation |
A1View |
Location sketch |
|
2015/317694 |
|
|
A2View |
Zoning extract |
|
2015/317692 |
|
A3View |
Survey plan |
|
2015/070252 |
|
A4View |
Site analysis/site plan |
|
2015/070243 |
|
A5View |
Proposed ground floor plan |
|
2015/070181 |
|
A6View |
Proposed first floor plan |
|
2015/070179 |
|
A7View |
Proposed lower ground floor plan |
|
2015/070183 |
|
A8View |
North elevation |
|
2015/070067 |
|
A9View |
West elevation |
|
2015/070069 |
|
A10View |
East elevation |
|
2015/070065 |
|
A11View |
South elevation |
|
2015/070068 |
|
A12View |
Section A-A |
|
2015/070220 |
|
A13View |
Section B-B |
|
2015/070222 |
|
A14View |
Section C-C |
|
2015/070223 |
|
A15View |
Driveway sections |
|
2015/249759 |
|
A16View |
Landscape plan |
|
2015/070191 |
|
A17View |
Stormwater plan |
|
2015/070251 |
|
A18View |
Tree assessment report |
|
2015/070055 |
|
A19View |
Flora and fauna survey |
Excluded |
|
|
A20View |
Circular PS 08-014 |
|
2010/129057 |
|
A21View |
SEPP No. 1 objection |
|
2015/070224 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.4 / 251 |
|
|
Item GB.4 |
DA0109/15 |
|
20 November 2015 |
development application
Summary Sheet
Report title: |
1407 Pacific Highway, Warrawee - Demolish existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building containing 12 units, basement parking, landscaping and strata subdivision |
ITEM/AGENDA NO: |
GB.4 |
Application No: |
DA0109/15 |
Property Details: |
1407 Pacific Highway, Warrawee Lot & DP No: Part Lot 16, DP 4177 Site area (m2): 1222m2 Zoning: R4 High Density Residential |
Ward: |
Comenarra |
Proposal/Purpose: |
Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction pf a residential flat building containing 12 units, basement parking, landscaping and strata subdivision
|
Type of Consent: |
Integrated (pursuant to Roads Act 1993) |
Applicant: |
Australian Consulting Architects P/L |
Owner: |
Ms C A Chang |
Date Lodged: |
2 April 2015 |
Recommendation: |
Approval (Deferred Commencement Consent) |
Purpose of Report
To determine Development Application DA0109/15 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building containing 12 units, basement parking, landscaping works and strata subdivision.
integrated planning and reporting
PLACES, SPACES & INFRASTRUCTURE
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai
|
Applications are assessed in accordance with State and local plans
|
Assessments are of high quality, accurate and consider all relevant legislative requirements
|
Executive Summary
Issues: |
FSR Site width |
Submissions: |
31 submissions and one petition |
Land and Environment Court: |
No |
Recommendation: |
Approval |
History
Site
The site has a history of low density residential use.
Pre-DA
25 March 2015 A Pre DA consultation was held on 25 March 2014. Issues raised at the meeting included:
- setbacks to heritage item at No. 2 Winton Street
- floor space ratio non-compliance
- retention of BGHF trees within the rear setback
- potential impacts on trees on adjoining property
- site survey to be provided
- site analysis and design verification statement to be provided
- detailed architectural plans to be provided (including solar access diagrams)
- landscape and stormwater plans to be provided
- traffic impact assessment, arborist’s report, flora and fauna assessment and heritage impact statement to be provided
1 October 2014 A follow up meeting was held on 1 October 2014. Issues raised at the meeting included:
- floor space ratio
- building height and number of storeys
- basement setbacks
- carparking shortfall
- top floor area
- requirement for easement
DA history
2 April 2015 The application was lodged.
14 April 2015 The applicant was sent a letter requesting additional information (three dimensional model and title documents).
28 May 2015 Additional information, including a flora and fauna impact assessment, title documents and terms of easement was received. Amended plans (as a result of the flora and fauna assessment report) were also submitted.
29 May 2015 The application was notified to the owners and residents of surrounding properties for a period of 30 days.
21 August 2015 A preliminary assessment letter requesting additional information with regard to the following was sent: solar access, building setbacks, internal amenity, privacy, communal open space, aesthetics, access, deep soil, fill, arborist’s report, landscape plan, stormwater management, construction management, geotechnical assessment, heritage impact statement and tree locations.
The Site
Site description
Visual character study category: |
1920-1945 |
Easements/rights of way: |
No |
Heritage Item: |
No |
Heritage conservation area: |
No |
In the vicinity of a heritage item: |
Yes – Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7 Winton Street |
Bush fire prone land: |
No |
Endangered species: |
Yes – part Blue Gum High Forest |
Urban bushland: |
No |
Contaminated land: |
No |
The site
The site is Lot 16 DP 4177 and is known as No. 1407 Pacific Highway, Warrawee. The site is located on the northern side of the Pacific Highway. The site is irregular in shape with a splayed frontage. The site has depths of 51.365 metres to 62.02 metres and a width of 21.69 metres. The site frontage is 23.975 metres.
The site is situated on the low side of the street, with a fall of approximately 2.7 metres from the south-western boundary to the north-western boundary.
Development currently on the site comprises a part single storey/part two storey dwelling. There is a brick fence along the front property boundary.
The site is heavily vegetated across its frontage and along the western side boundary. Vegetation within includes Blue Gum High Forest which is an Endangered Ecological Community.
Surrounding development
The site is surrounded by residential development. The adjoining site to the west is known as Nos. 1-3 Eulbertie Avenue and comprises a five storey residential flat building.
The adjoining sites to the east are known as No. 2A, 2B and 2C Winton Street. Development at Nos. 2A and 2B Winton Street comprise single dwellings, whilst development at No. 2C Winton Street comprises a three storey residential flat building.
The adjoining property to the rear is known as No.2 Winton Street and contains a dwelling house with detached garage to the rear. This property is a listed heritage item under LEP 2015.
Figure 1: Subject site and surrounding properties
The Proposal
The application proposes demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 12 dwellings over one level of basement car parking accommodating 17 cars.
Amended plans and additional information received 21 May 2015
The following was submitted:
· arborist’s report
· flora and fauna assessment report
· title documents
The following changes were proposed:
· amended ground floor plan and landscape plan
· amended stormwater plans
· title documents
Amended plans and additional information received 13 November 2015
The amended plans proposed the following changes and additional information:
· amended architectural plans
· amended landscape plan
· amended stormwater plans
Clause 4.6 variations to site frontage and FSR were submitted.
Amended information received 20 November 2015
The amended information consisted of the following:
· amended BASIX certificate
· amended heritage statement
· amended access report
Amended plans and information received 26 November 2015
The amended information and plans consisted of the following:
· amended BASIX certificate
· amended architectural plans showing storage to
Units 1.1 and 2.1 and provision of planters to common areas
Consultation
Community
In accordance with Development Control Plan No. 56, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application. In response, submissions from the following were received:
1. H. Sthalekar and M. Nguyen – No. 10/2C Winton Street, Warrawee
2. J. Holmes – No. 4 Winton Street, Warrawee
3. G. Roberts and S. Schwartz – No.2a Winton Street, Warrawee
4. G. Cooney – No. 8/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
5. H. Zhou – No. 34/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue Warrawee
6. G. and K. Demery – No. 11/10-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
7. S. Laycock – No. 7/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
8. H. Yee – No. 27/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
9. Z. Zheng – No. 30/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
10. B. Gu – No. 19/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
11. B. and I. Dickinson - No. 24/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
12. Y. S. Chin and C. H. Tao – No. 6/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
13. A. Ho – No. 39/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
14. F. Son - No. 4/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
15. Y. D. Yu - No. 33/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
16. G. Wu – No. 18/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
17. S. Hoolahan – No. 37/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
18. H. Liang and L. Zhong – No. 15/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
19. H. Xie – No. 5/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
20. X. L. Ding – No. 21/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
21. J. and B. Marlborough – No. 13/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
22. J. Vijayakumar – No. 25/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
23. L. Shao and H. Wang – No. 31/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
24. M. Hossain – No. 29/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
25. W. B. Cheng – No.10/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
26. K. Wong – No. 9/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
27. D. Meyerson – No. 22/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
28. F. Kong and Z. Ma – No. 72A Houison Street, Westmead
29. K. M. Wong – No. 26/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
30. Z. Huang – No. 28/1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee
31. M. and R. Abrahams – No. 2 Winton Street, Warrawee
A petition containing twelve signatures was also received from the owners of Units 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 16, 20, 32, 35, 36 and 40 of No. 1-3 Eulbertie Avenue, Warrawee, which is an adjoining 5 storey residential flat development.
The submissions and petition raised the following issues:
Privacy impacts to 10/2C Winton Street, particularly balcony and master bedroom
Not withstanding that the eastern setback of the development complies with Council’s controls, amended plans have been submitted proposing a privacy screen to the eastern elevation of the balconies to Apartments 1.1 (first floor level) and 2.1 (second floor level). This is considered to adequately address the above privacy concern.
Noise impacts to 10/2C Winton Street
Apartments G.1, 1.1 and 2.1 are adjacent to 10/2C Winton Street. The balconies to these apartments are set back 4 metres from the site boundary and exceed Council’s minimum side setback requirements.
Loss of outlook from 10/2C Winton Street
The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential Development. There is therefore a reasonable expectation that the site can be developed for high density residential use. The proposed residential flat building is adequately set back from the eastern side boundary and complies with Council’s height controls. Screen planting, capable of growing to a height of 3-8 metres, is proposed within the eastern side setback. Once mature, this screen planting will soften the outlook from 10/2C Winton Street.
Solar access impacts on 10/2C Winton Street
Amended solar access diagrams, showing the location of buildings on adjacent properties, have been submitted. The diagrams show that the proposed development will not affect the building at 2C Winton Street between 9am and 12pm. The proposal therefore complies with Council’s requirements for solar access to adjoining properties.
Privacy impacts on 4 Winton Street (to bedroom, kitchen and private open space)
No 4 Winton Street is located 30 metres from the rear boundary of the subject site. The proposed building exceeds Council’s rear setback controls and is located 40 metres from the southern boundary of this site. As such, the proposal will not result in any adverse privacy impacts on this property.
Noise impacts on 4 Winton Street (to private open space area)
No 4 Winton Street is located 30 metres from the rear boundary of the subject site. The proposed building exceeds Council’s rear setback controls and is located 40 metres from the southern boundary of this site. As such, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable noise impacts on this property.
Privacy impacts on 2 Winton Street (to kitchen, bedroom, family room and private open space)
No 2 Winton Street adjoins the subject site to the rear. The proposed development is set back a minimum of 10 metres from the rear boundary and substancially exceeds Council’s minimum rear setback requirement of 6 metres.
Whilst the development as originally proposed did not provide any screen planting to the rear boundary, amended plans incorporating screen planting capable of growing to a height of 1.5 to 4 metres have now been submitted. The amended plans also show a canopy tree with a mature height of 20 metres situated adjacent to the rear boundary.
The generous rear setback, along with the proposed screen planting, means that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to this property.
Insufficient off street parking, impacts on Winton Street and Eulbertie Avenue
The proposal complies with Council’s requirements for off-street carparking as prescribed in Ku-ring-gai DCP.
Bulk and scale impacts to adjoining properties (Nos. 2, 2a and 4 Winton Street)
The proposed development complies with Council’s building height controls and is adequately set back from the side property boundaries. The proposal a three storey development in a zone that allows up to five storeys and will not result in any unreasonable bulk or scale impacts to adjoining properties.
The proposal is inconsistent with the adjacent land use pattern
The proposed works comprise a residential flat building which is a permissible use within the R4 High Density zoning of the site.
Light spill on adjacent properties
A condition is recommended regarding light spill. (Condition 25).
Building envelope and setback non-compliance
The subject site is highly constrained. The site is an isolated site and is constrained by its narrow street frontage. It is also constrained by the presence of an Endangered Ecological Community, Blue Gum High Forest.
Whilst the proposed development has minor front and side setback non-compliances, it satisfies the objectives of the DCP. The proposed development will not result in any adverse bulk impacts to adjoining properties or the streetscape nor will it result in any unreasonable solar access or privacy impacts.
Excessive stormwater run-off and impacts on adjoining properties
It is proposed to create a new drainage connection via a 1 metre wide drainage easement to an existing stormwater pit within the neighbouring easement that drains to Winton Street.
The design proposes a new 225mm diameter pipe and associated drainage easement that commences at the rear boundary of the subject site and runs along to a new pit over the existing easement that also contains a 225mm pipe. Given that a connection is proposed to the existing pipe, the hydraulic engineer has demonstrated (using the rational method) that the pipe within the easement has sufficient hydraulic capacity to accept the additional flow from the post developed site.
The stormwater plans shows a combined on-site detention and stormwater tank comprising 15.77m3 and 9,200L of storage, respectively, located under the rear terrace area with maintenance accessed from the communal open space area. The overflow pipe from the detention system is directed to the proposed drainage easement, which is acceptable.
Privacy impacts on No. 4 Winton Street (to bedrooms and private open space)
Request provision of privacy screens
No 4 Winton Street is located 30 metres from the rear boundary of the subject site. The proposed development exceeds Council’s rear setback controls and is located 40 metres from the southern boundary of this site. As such, the proposal will not result in any adverse privacy impacts to this property.
Noise impacts on No 2a Winton street (to bedrooms and private open space)
Request provisions of acoustic screens
Amended plans, showing provision of an acoustic screen, along the eastern elevation of Apartment 2.4 (Level 2) have been submitted
Privacy of future occupants
It is considered that adequate measures are proposed to ensure the privacy of future residents. Privacy screens are proposed to above ground level balconies which may be vulnerable to overlooking from adjoining properties. Screen planting at ground level will also assist in mitigating potential overlooking.
Tree removal – Tree 4 is shown for removal on Landscape plan but should be retained for screening
Tree 4 has been identified as an Acer Negundo (Box Elder) in fair condition. Whilst the tree value as screening, it has no ecological value or streetscape value. It is also exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As such, Council cannot require its retention.
Replacement screen planting capable of growing to a height of 1.5 metres to 8 metres has been proposed along the eastern side boundary. Once established, this screen planting will assist in softening the view of the proposed development.
Tree removal – Tree 9 is shown for removal on Landscape plan but should be retained for screening
Tree 9 has been identified a Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel). Whilst the tree has value as screening, it has no ecological value. It is also exempt under Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As such, Council cannot require its retention.
A replacement canopy tree is proposed in its place. As the replacement tree does not form part of the Blue Gum High Forest Community, Council’s Tree and Landscape Assessment Officer has recommended an alternative species. Condition 22
Inadequate building separation
Section 7A.1(6) of Ku-ring-gai DCP allows reduced setbacks for residential flat buildings on small sites which are three storeys or less in height. These controls are inconsistent with the building separation controls within the DCP, which are not tailored to small sites.
Privacy impacts to bedrooms and living areas of Units at No. 1-3 Eulbertie Street from windows on eastern elevation of building
The proposed development has been sensitively designed to retain the privacy of adjoining properties. Windows on the eastern elevation of the building are to ensuites, bedrooms and lobby areas. The bedroom and ensuite windows are highlight windows and will not result in any adverse privacy impacts. Likewise, the lobby windows are to non-habitable, transient spaces and will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts.
Retention of 3 hours solar access to No. 1-3 Eulbertie Street
Amended shadow diagrams have been submitted, which show that solar access to the adjoining development at No. 1-3 Eulbertie Street will be largely unaffected by the proposed development between the hours of 9am and 3pm. Only a small portion of the outer edge of one balcony will be overshadowed at 9am. As the overshadowing is to the outer edge of the balcony, there will be no material impacts.
Vehicular access and safety
The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for concurrence. The RMS granted concurrence, subject to the imposition of certain conditions (Condition 89).
Tree impacts to gum trees during construction
Prior to works commencing, tree protection fencing is to be erected around trees of significance.
Screen planting details
A landscape plan has been submitted with the application and has been reviewed by Council’s Tree and Landscape Assessment Officer. The landscape plan shows a variety screen planting species proposed along the side and rear boundaries. The proposed species are capable of growing to heights of 1.5 metres to 8 metres. To ensure consistency with the existing landscape character, some minor changes to species selection are recommended. Condition 22
Impact on property values
This is not a valid consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Amended plans received 21 May 2015
The amended plans were not notified to surrounding residents as the proposed amendments comprised provision of additional information and did not result in a greater environmental impact than the original proposal.
Amended plans received 13 November 2015
Part 26 of Ku-ring-gai DCP specifies that re-notification of amended plans is not necessary except where, in the opinion of Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment, owners or occupiers of adjoining properties would be detrimentally affected in any manner.
The amended plans received 13 November 2015 included the following changes:
· provision of privacy screens and planter boxes
· relocation of the OSD tank to beneath the building
· deletion of pathway and provision of access ramp along eastern setback
· deletion of lobby window and provision of lobby door at ground floor level
· provision of lobby windows at first and second floor level
Whilst the changes to access and windows are discernible, they were not considered to result in any detrimental impacts to the owners/occupiers of adjoining properties. The access ramp is screened by proposed screen planting to a height of 3-5 metres and a fence to a height of 1.7 metres. The lobby windows are to non-habitable spaces and have a separation distance of 10 metres to the building at 1-3 Eulbertie Street. The windows are a positive feature as they will allow natural light and ventilation to enter the lobbies.
Amended plans received 20 and 26 November 2015,
The amended plans were not notified to surrounding residents as the proposed amendments comprised provision of additional information and did not result in a greater environmental impact than the original proposal.
Within Council
Urban design
Council's Urban Design Consultant has reviewed the application against the provisions of SEPP 65 and provided the following comments:
PRINCIPLE 1: CONTEXT
Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.
The proposed development will sit comfortably within the streetscape. It is generally of consistent scale with the adjoining development. The three storey height provides for a good transition to the lower scale R2 zoned land that has a two storey height limit.
The proposed external materials of rendered masonry is consistent with other development in the immediate vicinity.
PRINCIPLE 2: SCALE
Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings. Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.
Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings. Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.
The scale of the proposed development is appropriate for the context the street and the surrounding buildings.
PRINCIPLE 3: BUILT FORM
Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type and the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.
The proposal provides a satisfactory built form outcome. The building is sited comfortably within the context, and relates well to the neighbours.
The entry to the building is clearly identifiable.
The balcony elements at the front have been simplified and the cantilevering element provides some interest and drama to the front street façade.
The front façade provides a good balance been shielding the interior from the noise of the highway and providing windows for visual surveillance and character.
PRINCIPLE 4: DENSITY
Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents). Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.
It is noted that the proposed development exceeds the floor space ratio, however the site is subject to a reduced floor space ratio as a result of the site area being less than 1800m². There are no opportunities for site amalgamation.
The bulk and scale of the proposed development is generally consistent with the adjoining development. There are no significant overshadowing or privacy impacts that result from the proposed development – in part due to the orientation of the site.
PRINCIPLE 5: RESOURCE, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY
Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction. Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.
It is noted that the BASIX Certificate indicates a performance for energy and water consumption that is slightly better than what is required.
The following passive design principles have been identified:
· The floor plate layout allows for one apartment in each corner of the building – resulting in good daylight and ventilation to each apartment
· Awnings are provided to windows that will reduce summer overheating
· Substantial area is provided for deep soil landscaping
PRINCIPLE 6: LANDSCAPE
Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain. Landscape design builds on the site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character. Landscape design should optimise usability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbour’s amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.
The proposed landscape plan provides for satisfactory communal and private amenity. A generous sized communal open space is provided for the residents at the rear with a north facing aspect. Access to this is available from the lift lobby along the side boundary and also from the basement car park.
Existing mature trees have been retained on the site.
PRINCIPLE 7: AMENITY
Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development. Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.
The layout of the floor plate with one apartment in each corner provides the fundamentals for a development with good amenity.
Improvements have been made to the plans during the assessment process, however there remains some matters that remain unresolved. These can be dealt with by condition of consent.
SOLAR ACCESS: Only 8 / 12 (67%) receive 3hrs winter solar access. Apartment 2.2 is on the top floor and only receives 1hr of solar access. This could be improved by including highlight windows in the ceiling of the living rooms. This would also benefit apartment 2.1. This amendment can be made by condition of consent. This would result in 9/12 (75%) of apartments receiving the required solar access.
STORAGE – Storage allocation within the units and the basement is insuffient and does not comply with the DCP or the RFDC. The apartments and the basement are large enough to accommodate the required storage. This amendment can be made by condition of consent.
KITCHEN LAYOUT IN APARTMENTS G.3, 1.3 & 2.3 – For a 2 bedroom apartment the kitchen provided is very small and located in a dark corner of the apartment. Although it complies with the 8 metres minimum distance from a window, the window to the living room is relatively small. The lineal bench space is less than 3.4 metres. There is limited storage space in the kitchen area. The kitchen be swapped with the dining room and be at least 3.2 metres long. This change can be accommodated by condition of consent.
PRINCIPLE 8: SAFETY AND SECURITY
Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain. This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.
The development satisfies the requirements of this principle, being of a design that provides quality space, defined entries, clear sight lines and maximises surveillance. Good passive surveillance is provided to the communal open spaces.
PRINCIPLE 9: SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Good designs respond to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities. New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community. New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.
The proposed development provides for a good mix of apartment sizes and bedroom accommodation. The proposed development provides satisfactory communal spaces for the social benefit of the residents.
PRINCIPLE 10: AESTHETICS
Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.
Minor amendments were requested to the original plans to improve and simplify the aesthetic treatment of the development. These were carried out and the proposal is considered satisfactory in the aesthetic resolution of the development.
The materials, colours and aesthetic treatment is appropriate to the context and consistent with other development in the streetscape.
Conclusion
There remains some outstanding amenity matters that can be easily accommodated and can be resolved by condition of consent.
Improvements have been made to the proposed development since the original application. It is now considered to provide a satisfactory architectural and urban design outcome when assessed against the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code.
Planner’s comment: Conditions have been recommended concerning provision of clerestory windows, storage and relocation of the kitchen in apartments G.3, 1.3 and 2.3 Conditions 18-20
Engineering
Council's Development Engineer commented on the proposal as follows:
The following documents were used for the assessment:
· Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Directions Pty Ltd dated April 2015;
· Stormwater Layout Plan prepared by HKMA Engineers Drawing No. 1898-DA SW001 – SW005 dated 13 November 2015 + Stormwater Quality Management Plan Rev. ’A’ dated November 2015;
· BASIX Certificate 592802M_02 prepared by Designview dated 16 November 2015;
· Site Survey Plan prepared by C & A Surveyors NSW Pty Ltd dated 29 March 2014;
· Architectural Plans drawings prepared by Australian Consulting Architects dated November 2015;
· Traffic & Parking Assessment Report Ref:14804 prepared by Varga Traffic Planning dated 27 March 2015; and
· Preliminary Geotechnical Comments & Assessment prepared by GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd dated 5 December 2014.
Stormwater disposal
The subject site has a gradual fall away from Pacific Highway by approximately 2metres towards the rear. It is proposed to create a new drainage connection via a 1 metre wide drainage easement to an existing stormwater pit within the neighbouring easement that drains to Winton Street.
In discussion with the applicant at the Pre-lodgement meeting, it was understood that negotiations have commenced with the owner of a neighbouring property, 2 Winton Street, regarding creation of a new easement, however, no correspondence has been submitted. A deferred commencement condition has been recommended, with the registration of the easement as the Schedule A condition.
The design proposes a new 225mm diameter pipe and associated drainage easement that commences at the rear boundary of the subject site and runs along to a new pit over the existing easement which also contains a 225mm pipe. Given that connection is proposed to the existing pipe, the hydraulic engineer has demonstrated (using the rational method) that the pipe within the easement has sufficient hydraulic capacity to accept the additional flow from the post developed site.
The stormwater plans shows a combined on-site detention and stormwater tank comprising 15.77m3 and 9,200 litres of storage, respectively, located under the rear terrace area with maintenance accessed from the communal open area. The overflow pipe from the detention system is directed to the proposed drainage easement, which is acceptable.
Accompanying the stormwater plan is a Stormwater Quality Management Plan prepared by HKMA Engineers, which demonstrates the 50% reduction in runoff days required under Part 25B.3-4 of the Ku-ring-gai DCP being satisfied. A revised BASIX Certificate has been submitted, with the water commitments requiring a central water tank (rainwater or stormwater) of 9,000 litres. The tank is configured to collect runoff from the entire roof area and be re-used for garden irrigation purposes only. The results confirm that the proposed landscaping and stormwater tank will reduce site runoff days by 69%.
The basement pump-out system, with storage capacity of 25m3, is designed correctly for the 100 year 2 hour storm.
A water quality model (MUSIC Modelling) has been submitted to investigate stormwater runoff quality from the subject site. The design has provided a proprietary gross pollutant trap (GPT) ‘Stormwater 360 – Stormfilter’ located within the detention and stormwater tank and Enviropods within collection pits located upstream of the detention system to capture litter, debris and other pollutants prior to connection into Council’s public drainage system. The stormwater treatment standards / targets outlined in Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 25B.6 would be achieved by the proposed treatment train.
Vehicle access and accommodation arrangements
The site is zoned ‘R4’ under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015. The parking provisions have been determined using Ku-ring-gai Council Development Control Plan for residential flat building. The site is located greater than 400 metres walking distance from a Railway Station. The following parking provisions have been adopted:
Ku-ring-gai Council DCP Volume C Clause 23R.2 ‘Car Parking Rates’
Residential Flat Building |
Parking Space Requirement |
1 bedroom unit |
1 space per unit |
2 bedroom unit |
1 space per unit |
3 bedroom unit |
1.5 spaces per unit |
Visitor car spaces |
1 space per 4 units |
4 x 1 bedroom = 4 x 1 space/unit = 4 spaces
7 x 2 bedrooms = 7 x 1 space/unit = 7 spaces
1 x 3 bedrooms = 1 x 1.5 spaces/unit = 2 spaces
12 units - visitor space/4 dwellings = 3 visitor spaces
Total parking spaces required = 16 spaces.
The development seeks to provide 17 off-street parking spaces, comprising 14 residents’ spaces (includes 1 adaptable space) and 3 visitor spaces. The parking requirements have been met.
Vehicular access to the car parking facility is to be provided via a new 5.8m wide entry / exit driveway crossing, which also provides adequate sightlines for oncoming vehicles and to pedestrians on footpaths. The driveway clear width satisfies the requirements of Volume C Clause 2.2 of the DCP.
The basement plan shows the visitor space doubling as a carwash space and garbage truck loading bay. The minimum dimension of 3.5m x 6m has been satisfied and as well provides adequate manoeuvring for a service/removalist vehicle and easily accessible by Council’s waste collection vehicle.
The disabled visitor and residential parking spaces comply with AS2890.6:2009 with regards to having a minimum width of 2.4m plus 2.4m shared area whilst the accessible parking space has been assessed under AS2890.1-1993 which is acceptable under the BCA.
A driveway longitudinal section has been shown on the architectural plan. The design includes a maximum gradient of 5% for the first 6 metres from the boundary and a maximum grade of less than 20%. The driveway gradients comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) “Off-Street car parking” as do the dimensions of the parking bay, ramp grades and aisle widths.
Waste collection
The development allows a garbage truck to enter and depart the garbage/room recycle storage area in a forward direction. The driveway grades and turning manoeuvrability are suitable for the small waste collection vehicle as shown by the swept paths within the Appendix of the Traffic Report.
A clear head height of 2.6 metres shown on the Driveway Section plan has been provided to access the basement area and also provided over the travel path of the waste service vehicle.
The sizing of the garbage collection room is adequate to provide 12x240L bins for waste, paper and recycling to satisfy the minimum bin requirements.
The requirements as per Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 24R have been satisfied.
Construction management
The provision of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) may be conditioned, provided that a suitable Environmental Site Management Plan is received for DA assessment and is acceptable to Landscape Services.
A detailed CTMP must be submitted for review by Council Engineers prior to the commencement of any works on site. The CTMP should include truck routes to and from the site in all directions and turning paths for a heavy rigid vehicle to identify any need for construction stage parking restrictions opposite.
Concurrence from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) will be required in particular the potential closure of the kerbside lane off Pacific highway to facilitate the removal of the redundant layback and driveway crossover. All demolition and construction vehicles should be contained wholly within the site as a work zone permit will not be approved on Pacific Highway by RMS.
RMS raised no objections to the application and conditions have been provided to be incorporated into the consent if the DA is to be approved.
If the DA is to be approved, a condition will be placed that NO construction vehicles movements are to occur during the school drop-off (8.00am to 9.30am) and pick-up hours (2.30pm to 4.00pm) on school days.
Geotechnical investigation
A desktop study of the site, including review of geological maps and available information presumably in the vicinity of the site, was submitted. The report states that it is expected that the site to be underlain by clayey soil overlying shale at depths greater than 3m below existing ground surfaces.
Additional geotechnical information can be provided after demolition and before bulk excavation. As there is only one basement level, it is considered unlikely that permanent dewatering will be required.
The report states that all other recommendations during the construction phase shall be carried out as specified within the report that includes dilapidation reports of nearby structures.
Recommendation
The proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions.
Planner’s comment: The following conditions have been recommended concerning engineering matters: Conditions 6, 8, 9-11, 31, 32, 34-36, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 67-69 and 74-81.
Landscaping
Council's Landscape Officer commented on the proposal as follows:
Preservation of trees or vegetation - Clause 5.9, KLEP; Part 20C Section B KDCP 2015
An Arboricultural Assessment, prepared by Redgum Horticultural, dated 6 August 2014, has been submitted with the application. Tree numbers refer to this report.
Trees to be removed
- Tree 2/ Magnolia x soulangiana (Magnolia) The tree is located on the eastern boundary. The tree is to be removed for the proposed basement. There is no objection to the removal of this tree.
- Tree 3/ Castanospermum australe (Moreton Bay Chestnut) The tree is located on the eastern boundary. The tree is to be removed for the proposed basement. There is no objection to the removal of this tree.
- Tree 17/ Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) The tree is located on the front boundary. The tree is to be removed for the proposed driveway. There is no objection to the removal of this tree.
- Tree 18/ Ulmus procera (Elm) The tree is located at the north-western corner of the site. The tree is located on the front boundary. The tree is to be removed for the proposed driveway. There is no objection to the removal of this tree.
There is no objection to the removal of the following trees as they are of low landscape significance (Trees 5, 12) or they are listed as exempt tree species under Part 13.1 Section B KDCP 2015 (Trees 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11).
There are no street trees located within the Pacific Highway nature strip that are proposed to be removed.
Trees to be retained
- Tree 8/ Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum)The tree is located in the rear yard. This tree is representative of Blue Gum High Forest community, a critically endangered ecological community, and is recommended for retention in the arborist report. The impacts would be acceptable.
- Tree 10/ Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum)The tree is located on the western boundary, within the adjoining property. The proposed encroachment is considered acceptable. The proposed stepping stones within the tree protection zone of Tree 10 do not create an accessible path and are to be substituted with pavement by condition.
- Tree 13/ Quercus robur (English Oak) The tree is located on the western boundary of the site, within the adjoining property. The proposed encroachment is considered acceptable.
- Tree 16/ Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum)The tree is located on the southwest corner of the site. The proposed encroachment is considered acceptable.
Deep soil calculation Part 7A.4 Section A KDCP 2015
Where the site area is less than 1800m2, a minimum of 40% of the site is to be deep soil landscape area as per definition in KDCP 2015. The proposed deep soil area is 38% of the site area.
The proposal does not comply with the minimum deep soil zone requirement. The proposal does not provide a deep soil zone to a 7.5 metres section of the building within the eastern setback. Planters have been provided along the eastern setback that will support planting that will reduce the visual dominance of the building.
Communal open space – Part 7C.1 Section A KDCP 2015
The development has a principal area of common open space located within the rear, northern, setback of the site. The proposed location receives adequate solar access and surveillance and is consistent with the development control requiring it to be located behind the building line.
Landscape plan
The landscape plan is to be amended to enable assessment. Refer below.
Screen planting - Part 7A.4 Section A KDCP 2015
The proposed screen planting to the front setback, side boundaries and to the lawn area and drying area in the communal open space is to be substituted with hardy exotic shrubs and groundcovers by conditions.
Tree replenishment
A minimum of four trees are required for the site. The proposed canopy tree plantings, in addition to existing trees that are being retained, are in excess of this number. The proposed planting of Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) in the front setback and northwest corner are to be substituted by condition with Angophora floribunda (Rough-Barked Apple).
BASIX
The BASIX certificate is consistent with the development.
Stormwater plan
There is no landscape objection to the stormwater plan.
Easement through downstream property
The proposal includes a drainage easement through the adjoining property to the north. There are no impacts on existing trees.
Conclusion
The proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions.
Planner’s comments: The following conditions are recommended with respect to landscaping matters Conditions 12-16, 22, 58-66 and 72.
Heritage
Council's Heritage Advisor reviewed the original proposal and provided the following comments:
Heritage status
The site does not contain a heritage item. The site is within the vicinity of several heritage items and the northern boundary directly adjoins an item at 2 Winton Street. There are other heritage items within the vicinity including:
· 4, 6 & 7 Winton Street
The northern boundary and part of the eastern boundary of the site adjoins a heritage conservation area (HCA) – Area C-2 in KLEP 2015. The HCA includes most of the land along the Pacific Highway from Turramurra to Wahroonga east to the railway line. A small part of the HCA is excluded from this area between Heydon Avenue and Winton Street and is rezoned to allow medium density development. Most of the other rezoned sites have been developed.
In relation to heritage the objectives in Clause 5.10 of the LEP are:
· to conserve the environmental heritage of Ku-ring-gai;
· to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views;
· to conserve archaeological sites; and
· to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal place of heritage significance.
Clause 5.10 (4) of the KLEP requires that before granting consent to the proposed works Council must consider the effect of the works on the heritage item, nearby items or conservation area concerned. Clause 5.10 (5) of the LEP allows Council to require a HIS before granting consent.
The KLEP 2015 was recently gazetted. Council has prepared a DCP which also applies to the site.
Demolition of existing house
The existing house on the site is not considered to have aesthetic or technical heritage significance but would have a low level of historic significance. It has not previously been identified as a potential heritage item.
With regard to demolition of the existing building, the accompanying heritage report finds that the building displays an eclectic mix of features of the Federation Arts & Crafts and Inter War periods, makes little contribution to the streetscape of the Pacific Highway and does not meet the criteria for heritage listing. This assessment is concurred with. However, before demolition occurs, photographic archival recording of the house and site will be required.
Comment
This application has unfortunately not considered the LEP or DCP which applies to the site. The assessment of the application against the specific objectives and controls in the DCP above indicates the proposed development does not reach an acceptable level of compliance. In summary, the following are the main issues:
(i). The setback from the rear of the proposed development is inadequate to ensure the new work respects the adjoining heritage item and HCA. The scale and bulk of the proposal does not provide an appropriate interface and affects the amenity of the adjoining item and HCA. The proposed development would visually dominate the adjoining heritage item and HCA.
(ii). It is likely that the garage/studio on the heritage item would be physically affected during the construction process. It is also likely that during the construction phase landscaping and structures in the rear yards of the HCA would be physically affected.
(iii). The landscaped character of the HCA would be affected by the loss of trees which currently screen the site from the HCA and provide a buffer to it. The effect of the development on the trees within the HCA is unclear as the application does not provide sufficient information. As proposed the development with its associated structures, particularly the OSD area, the paths and retaining walls with planter beds does not provide for sufficient new planting to provide adequate landscape screening of the development to the heritage item and HCA. Comment on this issue is also provided by Landscape Services.
(iv). The proposed metal fencing, screens and masonry walls of the OSD area along the side boundary with the HCA and the heritage item does not contribute to the setting of the heritage item and streetscape character of the HCA.
Planner’s comment: The application has been amended to address the concerns of Council’s Heritage Adviser. The amended plans show the following:
- deletion of the on-site detention basin within the rear setback
- provision of timber fencing to eastern, northern and western boundaries
- provision of screen planting to the rear boundary
- provision of an amended Heritage Impact Statement
It is also noted that the proposed development is set back 10 metres from the rear boundary, which exceeds Council’s minimum rear setback requirement of 6 metres. As a result of this generous setback, the proposed development results in a minimum building separation of 14 metres to the dwelling at 2 Winton Street. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with the numerical setback requirements for development adjacent to heritage items, as contained within section 20F.2 of Council’s DCP.
Having regard to the above, the amended proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to heritage considerations. A condition has been recommended requiring photographic archival of the existing dwelling. Condition 7
Ecology
Council's Ecological Assessment Officer commented on the proposal as follows:
The site contains Blue Gum High Forest, a Critically Endangered Ecological community listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
The BGHF is comprised of a canopy dominated by T8 & T10, Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) & T5-Brachychiton acerIfolius (Illawarra Flame Tree).
No detailed flora survey investigation was undertaken at the time of the site inspection, however, it was noted that residual native grasses and herbs species occurred within the canopy spread of some of the native canopy trees.
Ecological constraints/environmental controls
The native vegetation within the rear of subject property has been mapped as category 5 “Landscape Remnant” under the Ku-ring-gai DCP 2015.
The following controls are applicable to the area mapped on the greenweb map.
1. Retain trees identified as Category 5 Canopy Remnant on the Greenweb map. (Refer to maps in 19.1R.1 of this Part).
2. Planting within land identified as Category 5 on the Greenweb map is to consist of not less than 30% locally native species. Species are to reflect the relevant vegetation communities within the area. A mix of groundcover shrubs and trees is desirable.
Objectives
1. To protect smaller canopy remnants for habitat, species diversity and ecosystem services across a range of topographies.
2. To maintain trees for the services they provide to human well-being.
Ecological assessment
An ecological assessment (7-part test) has been submitted within the development application which assesses the impacts of the proposal upon the threatened BGHF ecological community and threatened species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 which are likely to be affected by the proposed development.
The impact assessment is considered to be satisfactory and has been prepared in accordance with the threatened species assessment guidelines “The assessment of significance” prepared by the Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (dated August 2007). The proposed development will not have a significant impact upon the onsite BGHF community.
Conclusion
The DA is acceptable on ecological grounds.
Building
Council's Building Surveyor has commented on the proposal and has no objection to the proposed development subject to compliance with the BCA. (Conditions 42 and 82).
Roads and Maritime Services
The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) for concurrence in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993. The Roads and Maritime has reviewed the application and would provide concurrence to the construction of a vehicular crossing, subject to conditions. (Condition 89).
Statutory Provisions
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The proposed development constitutes Integrated Development under clause 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal entails digging up or disturbance of a public road and therefore necessitates approval under Roads Act 1993. Consequently, the application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for concurrence. Conditions recommended by Roads and Maritime Services are included elsewhere in this report.
State Environmental Planning Policies
SEPP 65 aims to improve the design quality of residential flat buildings across NSW and provides an assessment framework, the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC), for assessing ‘good design’.
Clause 50(1A) of the EPA Regulation 2000 requires the submission of a design verification statement from the building designer at lodgement of the development application. A design verification statement has been submitted by Aileen Cheah (Registration Number 7728) who is an architect at Australian Consulting Architects which submits the application has been designed in accordance with the design quality principles under Part 2 of SEPP 65.
The SEPP requires the assessment of any development application for residential flat development against 10 principles contained in Clauses 9-18, which was undertaken by Council’s Urban Design Consultant and consideration of the matters contained in the publication “Residential Flat Design Code” which is undertaken below.
Residential Flat Design Code Compliance Table
Pursuant to Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 in determining a development application for a residential flat building the consent authority is to take into consideration the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC). The following table is an assessment of the proposal against the guidelines provided in the RFDC.
|
Guideline |
Consistency with Guideline |
PART 02 SITE DESIGN |
||
Site Configuration |
|
|
Deep Soil Zones |
A minimum of 25 percent of the open space area of a site should be a deep soil zone. |
YES
|
Open Space |
The area of communal open space required should generally be at least between 25% and 30%. |
YES
|
|
The minimum private open space for each apartment at ground level is 25m2.
|
NO Apartment G.4 has a private open space of 16m2 |
Planting on Structures |
Medium trees (8 metres canopy diameter at maturity) - minimum soil volume 35m³ - minimum soil depth 1 metre - approximate soil area 6m x 6 m or equivalent
|
YES
The proposed species within the planter boxes are appropriate. |
Visual Privacy |
The minimum separation between residential buildings on the development sites and the adjoining sites must be:
Up to 4th storey 12m between habitable rooms/balconies 9m between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms 6m between non-habitable rooms |
NO
Refer comments below.
|
Pedestrian Access
|
Identify the access requirements from the street or car parking area to the apartment entrance.
|
YES
|
|
Follow the accessibility standard set out in Australian Standard AS 1428 (parts 1 and 2), as a minimum.
Provide barrier free access to at least 20 percent of dwellings in the development. |
YES
|
Vehicle Access
|
Generally limit the width of driveways to a maximum of six metres.
|
YES
|
|
Locate vehicle entries away from main pedestrian entries and on secondary frontages.
|
YES
|
PART 03 BUILDING DESIGN |
||
Building Configuration |
|
|
Apartment layout |
The back of a kitchen should be no more than 8 metres from a window |
YES
|
|
1 bed – 50m² 2 bed – 70m² 3 bed – 95m² |
YES |
Apartment Mix |
Include a mixture of unit types for increased housing choice. |
YES
|
Balconies |
Provide primary balconies for all apartments with a minimum depth of 2 metres. Developments which seek to vary from the minimum standards must demonstrate that negative impacts from the context-noise, wind – can be satisfactorily mitigated with design solutions. |
YES
|
Ceiling Heights |
2.7 metres minimum for all habitable rooms on all floors, 2.4 metres is the preferred minimum for all non-habitable rooms, however 2.25m is permitted. |
YES
|
Ground Floor Apartments |
Optimise the number of ground floor apartments with separate entries and consider requiring an appropriate percentage of accessible units. This relates to the desired streetscape and topography of the site.
|
NO
Refer comments below. |
|
Provide ground floor apartments with access to private open space, preferably as a terrace or garden.
|
YES
|
Internal Circulation |
In general, where units are arranged off a double-loaded corridor, the number of units accessible from a single core/corridor should be limited to eight. |
YES
|
Storage |
In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates:
- two-bedroom apartments 8m³ - three plus bedroom apartments 10m³
|
NO
Refer comments below. |
Building Amenity |
|
|
Daylight Access |
Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70 percent of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm in mid winter. |
NO
Refer comments below. |
Building depths, which support natural ventilation typically range from 10 to 18 metres.
|
YES
|
|
|
Sixty percent (60%) of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. |
YES |
Building Performance |
|
|
Waste Management |
Supply waste management plans as part of the development application submission as per the NSW Waste Board.
|
YES
|
Water Conservation |
Rainwater is not to be collected from roofs coated with lead- or bitumen-based paints, or from asbestos- cement roofs. Normal guttering is sufficient for water collections provided that it is kept clear of leaves and debris. |
YES
|
Open space
The RFDC Rule of Thumb for private open space for each apartment at ground level is 25m2 with a minimum dimension of 4 metres.
Four ground floor units are proposed, two facing the street frontage and two at the rear of the site. Two apartments comply with the RFDC rule of thumb (G. 2 and G.3). The remaining apartments are addressed as follows:
(i). A courtyard cannot be provided to Apartment G.1, as this apartment is over the basement entrance. The balcony to this apartment is therefore considered acceptable.
(ii). Apartment G.4 has a total private open space of 16m2, comprising a balcony of 4m2 and a terrace of 12m2. Whilst the private open space does not meet the numerical requirements of the RFDC, the space is north-facing and will provide a reasonable level of amenity. Provision of a larger courtyard to this apartment would be undesirable as this would result in a reduction in the area of common open space. The common open space proposed for the development is attractive and useable and provides a high level of amenity for all residents.
Building separation
For buildings up to four storeys in height, the RFDC requires building separation as follows:
- 12m between habitable rooms/balconies
- 9m between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms
- 6m between non-habitable rooms
The objectives of these requirements relate to scale, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, provision of open space and provision of deep soil zones.
A separation of 8.968 metres to 9.826 metres is provided between the bedrooms and balconies of the proposed development and the habitable rooms/balconies of the adjoining development at 1-3 Eulbertie Street. The proposed non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:
(i) No adverse privacy impacts will result as bedroom windows have been directed away from the side property boundary. In addition, the proposed balconies to G.3, 1.3 and 2.3 are partially enclosed.
(ii) Adequate solar access is maintained to the adjoining property.
(iii) Sufficient private open space, common open space and deep soil zones are provided.
Ground floor apartments
The RFDC rule of thumb states that the number of ground floor apartments with separate entries should be optimised. The objectives of this requirement relate to the creation of active and safe streets and provision of housing choice.
The proposed development includes four ground floor apartments. All apartments are accessed via the primary building entrance. This is considered acceptable for the following reasons:
(i). The proposal is for a small development, comprising twelve apartments. Only two ground floor apartments face the street frontage.
(ii). The site is narrow in width (21.69 metres) and is constrained in this regard. Ground floor access to Apartment G.1 cannot be provided as the balcony to this apartment is located over the driveway to the basement.
(iii). The site fronts a busy and noisy street, being the Pacific Highway. Consequently, street activation is less desirable in this location.
Daylight access
The rule of thumb requires living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments to receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3pm in mid-winter. Only eight apartments (67%) receive 3hrs winter solar access.
The proposal has been considered by Council’s Urban Design Consultant who has recommended provision of clerestory windows to two apartments (2.1 and 2.2) to improve solar access. This would result in nine apartments (75%) receiving the required solar access.
It is also noted that a revised SEPP 65 has been gazetted which has changed the requirement for daylight access. Although the proposal is subject to the provisions of the SEPP 65 which has now been superseded, the changes to the solar access requirements are important in the context of this development and its site orientation. The solar and daylight access requirements have been altered to require 70% of apartments to receive solar access for a minimum of 2 hours at mid-winter. Subject to the aforementioned condition, the proposal would also comply with these requirements.
Storage
The rule of thumb requires provision of storage at the following rate:
- 1 Bed: 6m³
- 2 bed: 8m³
- 3 bed: 10m³
The proposed amount of storage has been assessed as follows:
|
External |
Internal |
TOTAL |
COMPLIES |
G.1 (1 bed – 8m3) |
5.7m3 |
16.47m3 |
22.17m3 |
YES |
G.2 (1 bed – 8m3) |
5.7m3 |
1.89m3 |
7.59m3 |
NO |
G.3 (2 bed – 10m3) |
9.6m3 |
2.7m3 |
12.3m3 |
YES |
G.4 (3 bed – 12m3) |
9.4m3 |
4.99m3 |
14.39m3 |
YES |
1.1 (2 bed – 10m3) |
4.95m3 |
4.3m3 |
9.25m3 |
NO |
1.2 (1 bed – 8m3) |
3.9m3 |
4m3 |
7.9m3 |
NO |
1.3 (2 bed – 10m3) |
5.4m3 |
2.7m3 |
8.1m3 |
NO |
1.4 (3 bed – 12m3) |
2.7m3 |
4.99m3 |
7.6m3 |
NO |
2.1 (2 bed – 10m3) |
7.8m3 |
4.3m3 |
12.1m3 |
YES |
2.2 (1 bed – 8m3) |
3.6m3 |
4m3 |
7.6m3 |
NO |
2.3 (2 bed – 10m3) |
4.8m3 |
2.7m3 |
7.5m3 |
NO |
2.4 (2 bed – 10m3) |
4.5m3 |
4.99m3 |
9.49m3 |
NO |
Four (33%) of the proposed apartments comply with the minimum storage requirements under SEPP 65. Council’s Urban Design has considered the proposal and considers that the basement and apartments are large enough to accommodate the required storage. A condition requiring provision of additional storage is recommended. (Condition 18).
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land
The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of low density residential use and as such, it is unlikely to contain any contamination and further investigation is not warranted in this case.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
A valid BASIX certificate has been submitted. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and is consistent with the commitments identified in the application documentation.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
The property has a frontage to a classified road, being Pacific Highway and consideration is required pursuant to Division 17 Clause 101 and 102 of the SEPP.
The applicant submitted a road traffic noise assessment prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics, dated 10 February 2015. A condition of consent is recommended requiring compliance with the recommendations of this report. Condition 1
Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development
The draft SEPP was on exhibition from 23 September 2014 to 31 October 2014. The SEPP 2015 was gazetted on 19 June 2015 and takes effect on 17 July 2015. The development application was lodged on 8 May 2015 and the transitional arrangements of the SEPP indicate applications lodged before 19 June 2015 is subject to the version of the SEPP in force prior to 19 June 2015. The development has been considered under SEPP 65 above. The proposal has nevertheless also been assessed against the controls of the Draft SEPP and was found to be acceptable in this regard.
Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005
Matters for consideration under SREP 2005 include biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection, public access to and scenic qualities of foreshores and waterways, maintenance of views, control of boat facilities and maintenance of a working harbour. The proposal is not in close proximity to, or within view, of a waterway or wetland and is considered satisfactory. Water re-use measures will minimise the impact on downstream waterways.
Local Content (LEP, KPSO, etc)
Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015
Zoning and permissibility:
The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential. The proposed development is defined as a residential flat building.
R4 zone objectives:
· 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 proposed development upholds the zone objectives as it provides high density living in a convenient location close to services such as Warrawee Public School and within a reasonable walking distance of Warrawee train station and Turramurra local centre. The proposed development includes a variety of housing types including one, two and three bedroom apartments, as well as adaptable apartments.
Development standards:
Development standard |
Proposed |
Complies |
Height of buildings: 11.5m (sites less than 1800m2) |
11.5m |
YES |
Floor space ratio (FSR): 0.8:1 (sites less than 1800m2) |
0.93:1 |
NO |
Site requirements for multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings: minimum width 24m (sites less than 1800m2) |
21.69m |
NO |
Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio
For residential flat buildings on sites of less than 1800m2 in area, clause 4.4(2C) limits floor space ratio to 0.8:1.
The LEP defines gross floor area as:
gross floor area means the sum of the floor area of each floor of a building measured from the internal face of external walls, or from the internal face of walls separating the building from any other building, measured at a height of 1.4 metres above the floor, and includes:
(a) the area of a mezzanine, and
(b) habitable rooms in a basement or an attic, and
(c) any shop, auditorium, cinema, and the like, in a basement or attic,
but excludes:
(d) any area for common vertical circulation, such as lifts and stairs, and
(e) any basement:
(i) storage, and
(ii) vehicular access, loading areas, garbage and services, and
(f) plant rooms, lift towers and other areas used exclusively for mechanical services or ducting, and
(g) car parking to meet any requirements of the consent authority (including access to that car parking), and
(h) any space used for the loading or unloading of goods (including access to it), and
(i) terraces and balconies with outer walls less than 1.4 metres high, and
(j) voids above a floor at the level of a storey or storey above.
It is noted that the definition of ‘basement’ only applies where the basement level is less than 1 metre above existing ground level.
In this instance, part of the proposed basement protrudes more than 1 metre above natural ground level and cannot be excluded from gross floor area. The applicant has submitted a plan illustrating the extent of the non-compliance shown hatched (Figure 2). Whilst garbage rooms, loading areas and storage can be excluded from gross floor area calculations if contained wholly within a basement, the aforementioned areas are within the protruding area and therefore contribute to calculable gross floor area in this area. The resulting floor space ratio is 0.93:1 , which breaches the development standard under clause 4.4. The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 variation which is addressed below.
Figure 2: Basement areas protruding more than 1 metre above ground level
Clause 6.6 Requirements for multi-dwelling housing and residential flat buildings
Clause 6.6 states that development consent cannot be granted for a residential flat building for a site with an area of less than 1800m2 unless a minimum width of 24 metres is met.
The subject site has a minimum width of 21.69 metres and does not comply with the above requirement. This is a variation of 2.31 metres or 9.6%. A Clause 4.6 variation has been submitted by the applicant and is addressed below.
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards
The proposed development breaches the site frontage and floor space ratio development standards contained within the LEP. The applicant has made two submissions pursuant of Clause 4.6 to vary that development standard. Clause 4.6 provides flexibility in applying certain development standards on the following grounds:
(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:
(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.
(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.
(3) 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 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.
(4) 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
(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.
Floor space ratio
The non-compliance with the FSR standard is assessed pursuant to Clause 4.6 below:
Whether compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case
The applicant has provided justification that strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable for the following reasons:
The subject site is landlocked. On larger development sites, a FSR of 1:1 to 1.3:1 is promoted within the R4 High Density Residential zone. The proposed FSR of 0.93:1 is compatible with the density of development in the area.
The semi basement level arises from the natural topography of the site that falls away from the street frontage. The parking is contained within a full basement towards the street frontage and progresses to a height of more than 1 metre above ground level towards the rear of the site in response to the fall of the land. This is a common building design response to the topography of the locality and is characteristic of other residential flat building development along the Pacific Highway.
The proposed finished level of the parking provides an appropriate driveway grade facilitating convenient and compliant vehicle access for cars and service vehicles including garbage trucks. This enables the waste storage area and associated loading to be located in the semi basement.
The proposed finished floor levels enable compliant disabled access grades to be provided from the street into the residential foyer/lobby. Lowering the building by cutting further into the site would lower the lobby level and would be prohibitive to disabled access (without extensive ramping that would detract from the streetscape).
The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjoining properties or public domain areas. The proposed development is of a height, bulk and scale that is envisaged by the LEP and is consistent with the bulk and scale of adjoining developments.
The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as previously demonstrated and the floor space ratio development objectives as contained within clause 4.4 of the LEP as demonstrated below:
(a) to enable development with a built form and density that is compatible with the size of the land to be developed, its environmental constraints and its contextual relationship,
(b) to provide for floor space ratios compatible with a range of uses.
In these circumstances, compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary.
Environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard
The applicant has provided sufficient grounds/reasons for the proposed variations to the development standards as follows:
The site is constrained by the presence of a Blue Gum High Forest, an Endangered Ecological Community. The community exists on the subject site, towards the rear, and on the adjoining site to the west, No. 1-3 Eulbertie Avenue. The required Tree Protection Zones significantly constrain the available building footprint on the subject site.
The development as proposed provides sufficient area within the front setback for retention of existing canopy trees and provision of additional planting. If the building were lowered, an extensive network of ramps would be required in order to achieve disabled access to the foyer. This would result in an adverse environmental impact and would result in further tree removal and a reduced area for planting.
It is proposed to utilise the existing easement on the adjoining site to the rear, 2 Winton Street Warrawee. Lowering the basement further would prevent this easement from being utilised and would prevent the site from being effectively drained. This would likely result in adverse stormwater impacts to adjacent properties 2B, 2A and 2 Winton Street.
Public interest – development consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard
The zone objectives have already been identified in an earlier section of this report. The development is consistent with all of the objectives of the zone:
· 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 proposed development upholds the zone objectives as it provides high density living in a convenient location close to services such as Warrawee Public School and within a reasonable walking distance of Warrawee train station and Turramurra local centre. The proposed development includes a variety of housing types including one, two and three bedroom apartments, as well as adaptable apartments. In this regard, the development is considered to be in the public interest.
Concurrence of the Director General
Circular PS 08-003 issued on 9 May 2008 informed Council that it may assume the Director-General’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards.
Conclusion
The development satisfies the criteria outlined in Clause 4.6. The variation is considered acceptable as the proposal has been designed to comply with provisions of the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 and Ku-ring-gai DCP and may be accepted by Council.
Minimum site width
The non-compliance with the minimum site width standard is assessed pursuant to Clause 4.6 below;
Whether compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case
The applicant has provided justification that strict compliance with the site frontage development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable for the following reasons:
The variation of the allotment width is directly attributable to the fact that the site has been landlocked by the construction of residential flat buildings on both adjoining side properties. There are thus no opportunities to consolidate the site with either of its neighbours to achieve compliance with the allotment width development standard.
Strict application of the development standard in this instance would be prohibitive of the development of the land for the primary purpose for which it is zoned.
The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjoining properties or public domain areas. The proposed development is of a height, bulk and scale that is envisaged by the LEP.
The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as previously demonstrated and the site requirement development objectives as contained within the LEP as demonstrated below.
(a) to provide site requirements for development for the purposes of multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings so as to provide for the orderly and economic development of residential land while maintaining the local character, and
(b) to ensure that lot sizes and dimensions of medium and high density residential sites allow for generous landscaped areas and setbacks to ensure the amenity of adjoining properties and to support the desired future character of these areas.
In these circumstances, compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary.
Environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard
The applicant has provided sufficient grounds/reasons for the proposed variations to the development standards as follows:
Development of the site for high density residential housing will improve the rhythm of the streetscape by providing a development that is consistent with the mass, scale and landscaped setting of adjoining properties.
The variation enables the orderly development of land for high amenity housing that positively responds to the built character of the locality and that respects the amenity of neighbours as intended under the prevailing planning controls.
Public interest – development consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard
The zone objectives have already been identified in an earlier section of this report. The development is consistent with all of the objectives of the zone which 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
In this regard, the development is considered to be in the public interest.
Concurrence of the Director General
Circular PS 08-003 issued on 9 May 2008 informed Council that it may assume the Director-General’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards.
Conclusion
The development satisfies the criteria outlined in Clause 4.6. The variation is considered acceptable as the proposal has been designed to comply with provisions of the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 and Ku-ring-gai DCP and may be accepted by Council.
Clause 5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation
Council’s Tree and Landscape Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposed development will not unduly impact upon any existing significant trees or vegetation, subject to conditions.
Clause 5.10 – Heritage conservation
Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposed development and considers that it will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining heritage conservation area nor on any heritage item in the vicinity of the subject site.
Part 6 Additional local provisions
Clause 6.2 – Earthworks
The proposed development will not restrict the existing or future use of the site, adversely impact on neighbouring amenity, the quality of the water table or disturb any known relics. Additionally, the fill to be removed will be disposed of appropriately.
Clause 6.3 - Biodiversity protection
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposed development has been designed to minimise impacts on the diversity and condition of native vegetation, fauna and habitat as per the requirements of the LEP.
Clause 6.4 – Riparian land and waterways
Council’s Ecological Assessment Officer is satisfied that the proposed development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any potential adverse environmental impacts as per the requirements of the LEP.
Clause 6.5 - Stormwater and water sensitive urban design
Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed development has been designed to manage urban stormwater run-off as per the requirements of the LEP, subject to conditions.
Policy Provisions (DCPs, Council policies, strategies and management plans)
Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (2015)
Section A
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||||
Development control |
Proposed |
Complies |
||
Part 2 Site Analysis |
|
|
||
Development applications are to contain a site analysis |
A site analysis has been submitted. |
YES |
||
Part 3 land Consolidation and Subdivision |
||||
3C – Strata and Community Title Subdivision |
||||
Whilst the proposal states that strata subdivision of the proposed building is proposed, no subdivision plan has been submitted. Therefore strata subdivision of the proposed development cannot be considered pursuant to the subject application.
|
||||
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||
Development control |
Proposed |
Complies |
|
||
Part 21 Development Near Road or Rail Noise |
||
21.1 Development Near Road or Rail Noise |
||
Complies with “Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines, December 2008”
|
A Road Traffic Noise Assessment has been submitted with the application. The report notes that windows may need to be closed to meet internal noise requirements and notes that alternative ventilation methods will be required to satisfy the requirement of the BCA. |
YES |
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||
Development control |
Proposed |
Complies |
Volume A |
||
Part 7 Residential flat development controls |
||
7A – Site design |
||
7A.1 Building Setbacks |
||
Side setback areas behind the building line are not to be used for driveways or vehicular access into the building. |
Side setbacks not used for vehicular access |
YES |
Driveways must be set back a minimum of 6m from the side boundary within the street setback to allow for deep soil planting. |
1.329m to eastern side boundary |
NO |
Ground floor terraces and courtyards must have a minimum setback of 4m from the side and rear boundaries |
Balconies to G.2 and G.3 set back 3m from western side boundary |
NO
|
7A.2 Building separation |
||
Up to fourth storey: - 12m between habitable rooms/balconies - 9m between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms - 6m between non-habitable rooms
|
Minimum separation of 8.968m between proposed building and No. 1-3 Eulbertie Street. Minimum separation of 8.56m to No. 2C Winton Street. |
NO |
7A.3 Site coverage |
||
Maximum of 35% of site area, provided that deep soil landscaping requirements are met
|
31% site coverage |
YES |
7A.4 Deep soil landscaping |
||
Minimum deep soil landscaping: - sites less than 1800m2 = 40% of the site
|
38% of site area |
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
1200m2 of less / 1 per 400m2 of site area 1201-1800m2 / 1 per 350m2 of site area 1801m2 or more / 1 per 300m2 of site area |
More than 4 canopy trees proposed. |
YES |
At least 50% of all tree plantings are to be locally occurring trees and spread around the site. |
At least 50% of proposed plantings are endemic. |
YES |
7B – Access and parking |
||
7B.1 Car parking provision |
||
Basement is not to project more than 1m above existing ground level |
Basement projects >1m on eastern side. |
NO |
Subject site is not within 400m of railway station.
Carparking is to be provided as follows:
1 bedroom unit = 1 space 2 bedroom unit = 1 space 3 bedroom unit = 1.5 spaces Visitor car spaces = 1 space/4 units
|
4 x 1 bedroom = 4 spaces 7 x 2 bedrooms = 7 spaces 2 x 3 bedrooms = 3 spaces 12 units = 3 visitor spaces
17 spaces are proposed (14 residents’ spaces and 3 visitor spaces)
|
YES |
For every 4 apartments one visitor car space is required. At least one visitor car space is to comply with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.6 |
3 visitor spaces are proposed |
YES |
One visitor car space is to be provided with a tap to make provision for on-site car washing |
One garbage truck/visitor/car wash bay is proposed. |
YES |
Each adaptable housing dwelling is to be provided with at least one car space which complies with the dimensional and locational requirements of AS2890.6 |
Two adaptable dwellings are proposed (G.4 and 1.4), along with two adaptable parking spaces. |
YES |
A space for the temporary parking of service and revivalist vehicles is to be provided. The space is to have a minimum dimension of 3.5m x 6m and minimum manoeuvring area 7m wide. |
One garbage truck/visitor/car wash bay is proposed. |
YES |
A minimum of 1 bicycle space per 5 units shall be provided on-site (3 resident bicycle spaces required) |
3 resident spaces proposed |
YES |
A minimum of 1 bicycle space per 10 units shall be provided on-site (2 visitor bicycle spaces required) |
2 visitor spaces proposed |
YES |
7C - Building design and sustainability |
||
7C.1 - Communal Open Space |
||
At least 10% of the site area must be provided as communal open space with a minimum dimension of 5m |
The communal open space comprises 10.8% of the site area. |
YES |
A single parcel of communal open space with a minimum area of 80m2, minimum dimensions of 8m and 3 hours solar access to 50% of the space on 21 June must be provided. |
Common open space with an area of 133m2 is proposed to the rear of the building. |
YES |
The communal open space must be provided at ground level behind the building line. |
Proposed communal open space is at ground level. |
YES |
Shared facilities such as BBQs, shade structures, play equipment and seating are to be provided in the communal open space |
Shared facilities such as seating are provided. |
YES |
7C.2 – Private open space |
||
All apartments are to include private open space with a minimum area of: - 10m2 for each one bedroom unit - 12m2 for each two bedroom unit - 15m2 for each three bedroom unit |
Areas of private open space comply with or exceed minimum requirements. |
YES |
The primary outdoor open space must have a minimum dimension of 2.4m |
Minimum dimension of 2.4m provided to all balconies |
YES |
Private open space for ground and podium level apartments is to be differentiated from common areas by: - A change in level - Screen planting, such as hedges and low shrubs - A fence wall to a maximum height of 1.8m, any solid wall component is to be a maximum height of 1.2m with 30% transparent component above plus gate to the common area. |
Screen planting is provided to differentiate private open space |
YES |
7C.3 – Solar access |
||
A minimum of 70% of apartments in each building must receive at least 3 hours direct sunlight to living rooms and adjacent private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June |
67% of apartments receive 3 hours solar access. Refer discussion below. |
YES |
A minimum of 50% of the common open space for residents use must receive direct sunlight for 3 hours between 9m and 3pm on 21 June |
Communal open space receives 6 hours solar access. |
YES |
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 |
Adjoining development at No. 1-3 Eulbertie Street is unaffected by the proposed development between 9am and 3pm.
Adjoining development at No. 2C Winton Street is unaffected by the proposed development between 9am and 12pm. |
YES |
Developments must allow the retention of a minimum 4 hours direct sunlight to all existing neighbouring solar collectors and solar hot water services |
No solar collectors or hot water services are apparent. |
N/A |
All developments must utilise shading and glare control |
Pergolas are proposed to balconies of top level apartments. Sun louvres are proposed over windows on the eastern elevation. |
YES |
7C.4 – Natural Ventilation |
||
All habitable rooms are to have operable windows or doors |
All habitable rooms have operable windows or doors, with the exception of the kitchens. |
YES |
At least 60% of apartments must have natural cross ventilation |
All apartments have natural cross-ventilaion. |
YES
|
At least 25% of kitchens are to be immediately adjacent to an operable window |
50% of apartments are adjacent to an operable window. |
NO
|
Cross ventilation is not to be dependent on skylights or open corridors where it would impact on privacy |
Cross-ventilation does not impact upon privacy. |
N/A |
7C.5 – Apartment depth and width |
||
Dual aspect apartments are to have a maximum internal plan depth of 18m from glass line to glass line |
Dual aspect apartments (G.3, 1.3 and 2.3) comply with this requirement. |
YES |
Single aspect apartments are to have a maximum plan depth of 8m from glass line to internal face of wall |
Single aspect apartments (G.1, G.2m G.4, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4) do not comply with this requirement. |
NO |
All kitchens must not be located more than 8m to the back wall of the kitchen from an external opening |
All kitchens are less than 8m to an external opening. |
YES |
7C.6 – Apartment mix and sizes |
||
A range of apartment sizes and types must be included in the development |
The proposal includes 4 x 1 bedroom units 6 x 2 bedroom units 2 x 3 bedroom units
|
YES |
At least one apartments for each 10 apartments is to be designed as adaptable housing Class C |
Two adaptable units are required. Apartments G.4 and 1.4 are adaptable.
|
YES |
At least 70% of apartments are to be visitable. |
9 visitable apartments are required |
YES |
7C.7 – Room sizes |
||
Living areas in apartments with two or more bedrooms are to have living areas with a minimum internal plan dimension of 4m. Minimum dimension of 3.5m required for all other apartments. |
Unit G.1 (one bedroom) has a minimum living room dimension of 3m. |
NO |
Bedrooms in one and two bedroom apartments must have minimum internal plan dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobes) |
All bedrooms have a minimum bedroom width of 3m. |
YES |
In apartments with 3 or more bedrooms at least two bedrooms are to have minimum internal plan dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobes) |
Two bedrooms in each three bedroom apartment comply. |
YES |
Built in wardrobes are to be provided to all studio apartments, to all bedrooms in one and two bedroom apartments and to at least two bedrooms in apartments of three or more bedrooms |
Built-in wardrobes provided to all bedrooms. |
YES |
7C.8 – Building entries |
||
Building entry must be integrated with building facade design. At street level, the entry is to be articulated with awnings, porticos, recesses or projecting bays for clear identification.
|
Building entry is integrated. |
YES |
All entry areas must be well lit and designed to avoid any concealment or entrapment areas. All light spill is prohibited.
|
The ground floor lobby is spacious and contains no entrapment areas.
A condition is recommended concerning light spill. |
YES |
Lockable mail boxes must be provided close to the street. They must be at 90 degrees to the street and to Australia Post standards and integrated with front fences or building entries. |
Mailboxes provided adjacent to street entry. |
YES |
7C.9 Internal Common Circulation |
||
The design of internal common circulation space must comply with the provisions in AS1428.1 and AS1428.2 to provide adequate pedestrian mobility and access.
|
The Access Report states that adequate access is provided from the entry door to the lift, and within the lobby area. |
YES |
All common circulation areas including foyers, lift lobbies and stairways must have: i) appropriate levels of lighting with a preference for natural light where possible; ii) short corridor lengths that give clear sight lines; iii) clear signage noting apartment numbers, common areas and general direction finding; iv) natural ventilation; v) low maintenance and robust materials. |
Lobby areas at all levels have natural light.
|
YES |
Where artificial lighting is required energy efficient lights are to be used in conjunction with timers or daylight controls. |
A valid BASIX certificate has been submitted which addresses energy efficiency. |
YES |
7C.10 Building facades |
||
Street, side and rear building facades are to be modulated and articulated with wall planes varying in depth. Methods of achieving articulation and modulation include: - defining a base, middle and top - expressing building layout or structure such as vertical bays - expressing the variation in floor to ceiling height - using a variety of window types - using recessed balconies - using change of material, texture or colour |
All elevations are sufficiently modulated and articulated. |
YES |
No single wall plane is to exceed 81m2 in area |
|
|
Air conditioning units must not be located on the building façade or with the private open space |
Air conditioning units are not located within private open space. |
YES |
Building less is not to exceed 36m |
The building has an overall length of 35m. |
YES |
7C.11 Building storeys |
||
Buildings with a maximum height of 11.5m are to have a maximum of 3 storeys |
3-4 storeys |
NO |
7C.12 Ground floor apartments |
||
Where the finished ground level outside the living area at the building line is more than 0.5m, the private open space must be level for a minimum of 2.4m from the living area. |
The terrace to apartment G.4 does not comply with this requirement. |
NO |
7C.13 Top storey design and roof forms |
||
The top storey of a building is to be set back from the outer face of the floors below on all sides. The GFA is not to exceed 60% of the GFA of the storey below it. |
Top floor area equates to 96% of floor below |
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. |
Air conditioning units are shown located on the roof however could be relocated to ‘services’ area in basement. |
YES via condition |
Roof design must respond to solar access, for example, by using eaves and skillion roofs. |
Pergolas are proposed to top floor balconies to provide shade. |
YES |
Lightweight pergolas, privacy screens and planters are permitted on the roof, provided they do not increase the bulk of the building, create visual clutter or impact on significant views from adjoining properties.
|
No pergolas or privacy screens are proposed on the roof. |
N/A |
7C.14 Internal ceiling heights |
||
The minimum ceiling height for a habitable room shall be 2.7m |
Minimum ceiling heights of 2.7m are proposed for habitable rooms. |
YES |
The minimum ceiling height for a non-habitable room shall be 2.25m |
Minimum ceiling heights of 2.4m are proposed for non-habitable rooms. |
YES |
7C.15 Visual privacy |
||
Privacy for ground floor apartments should be achieved by the use of a change in level and/or screen planting. |
Screen planting is proposed to ensure privacy to ground floor |
YES |
Continuous transparent balustrades are not permitted to balconies or terraces for the lower 3 storeys. |
Continuous transparent balconies are not proposed. |
YES |
Screening between apartments must be integrated with the overall building design. |
Privacy screens are integrated with the design of the building. |
YES |
Landscaped screening must be provided to adjoining sites.
|
Screen planting to the satisfaction of Council’s Landscape Officer is shown on landscape plans. |
YES |
7C.16 Storage |
||
Storage space shall be provided at the following minimum volumes: - 6m3 for studio and one bedroom apartments - 8m3 for two bedroom units - 10m3 for two bedroom units - 12m3 for units with three or more bedrooms At least 50% of the required storage space must be provided inside the apartment. |
Less than required amount of storage provided to all apartments |
NO |
7C.17 External air clothes drying facilities |
||
Each apartment is required to have access to an external air clothes drying area, e.g. a screened balcony, a terrace or common area. |
Clothes drying facilities provided in common area. |
YES |
7C.18 Fencing |
||
Front fences and walls (to a public street) and side fences in the street setback must not be higher than: i) 0.9m if of closed construction (such as masonry, lapped and capped timber or brushwood fences); or ii) 1.2m if of open construction (such as open paling and picket fences). Note: Open fencing includes: panels set into a timber frame or between brick piers, where any solid base is not taller than 0.9m, and panels are spaced pickets, palings, or lattice. |
900mm high masonry front fence |
YES |
Closed front fences with a maximum height of 1.8m may be considered where the site fronts a busy road or other sources of undesirable noise. These fences are to be set back at least 2m from the front boundary and screened by landscaping. Note: Rendered masonry boundary walls are generally inappropriate to the landscape character of Ku-ring-gai. |
Proposed fence is 900mm high and complies with maximum fence height requirements. |
N/A |
All fencing must be designed to highlight entrances, and be compatible with buildings, letterboxes and garbage storage areas.
|
Fence is designed to highlight pedestrian and vehicular entrances. |
YES |
External finishes for fencing must be robust and graffiti resistant.
|
The proposed masonry front fence can be re/painted if graffiti occurs. |
YES |
COMPLIANCE TABLE |
||
Development control |
Proposed |
Complies |
|
||
Part 22 General Site Design |
||
22.1 Earthworks and Slope |
||
- Buildings should be stepped down a site - Finished floor level as close to existing ground level as possible - Landscape cut and fill <600mm - 0.6m width between retaining walls - Cut and fill within building footprint max 1.0m maximum level difference 1.8m - Retaining walls max height 1.0m |
Cut and fill is minimised by the proposed design. |
YES |
22.2 Landscape Design |
||
- Site planning and design must retain and enhance vegetation and biodiversity corridors. |
Blue Gum High Forest on the subject site and adjoining site is to be retained and protected. |
YES |
An assessment of the variations to the controls identified in the compliance table is provided below.
7A.1 Building setbacks (front)
Clause 7A.1 states that residential flat buildings are to be set back a minimum of 10m from the street boundary. Building lines are to be parallel to the prevailing building line.. Balconies at ground floor level may also encroach to a minimum setback of 8 metres. The relevant objectives of the building setback provisions are as follows:
1. To ensure buildings are set within a garden setting dominated by canopy trees which soften the built form and maintain the garden character of Ku-ring-gai.
6. To reduce the visual bulk of buildings from the street.
7. To maintain the rhythm of the built form on the street.
The subject site has an angled frontage, with the proposed building set back between 9 metres and 16.4 metres from the street frontage. It therefore entails a minor non-compliance with Council’s minimum building setback control (see red area in Figure 3). The proposal also entails a minor non-compliance with the balcony encroachment control (see orange area in Figure 3). The easternmost balcony is set back a minimum of 6.189m at ground level, instead of the required 8 metres. This non-compliance continues at first and second floor level where the balconies encroach to a minimum of 7.922 metres instead of the required 10 metres setback.
The proposed numerical non-compliances are considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:
(i) Whilst the façade of the building has not been “stepped” along the street frontage as suggested by the DCP, it is adequately articulated and modulated.
(ii) The building has not been “stepped” along the site frontage due to presence of Blue Gum High Forest, an Endangered Ecological Community, in the north-western (rear) corner of the site.
(iii) The balconies on the western side of the building are parallel with the site frontage and provide an interesting design feature.
(iv) The proposal complies with Council’s 12 metres articulation zone, with only 22% of the building encroaching beyond the 12 metres setback line (see blue line in Figure 3).
(v) The proposal satisfies the objectives of the building setback controls and is appropriate in terms of bulk and mass. The proposal maintains the rhythm of the streetscape and presents an intermediate setback between the buildings at 1-3 Eulbertie Street and 2C Winton Street.
Figure 3: Front setback non-compliance
7A. 1 Building Setbacks (Side)
Control 6 states that buildings of three storeys or less on sites of less than 1800m2 should be set back a minimum of 3 metres from the side boundaries. Control 8 requires driveways to be set back a minimum of 6 metres from side boundaries.
2. To ensure adequate space between sites to enable effective landscaping and tree planting.
3. To ensure adequate separation between buildings on different sites to alleviate amenity impacts, including privacy, daylight access, acoustic control and natural ventilation.
4. To provide a transition to adjoining lower scale development on lower density zones.
7. To maintain the rhythm of the built form on the street.
8. To ensure driveways do not compromise the landscape setting or neighbouring amenity.
The proposed development entails the following technical non-compliances with the above controls:
- The basement is set back a minimum of 2.4 metres from the western side boundary and a minimum of 600mm from the western side boundary.
- The setback of 2.4 metres is for a length of 13 metres. The remainder of the western elevation is set back 3 metres or more. Screen planting at grade is proposed adjacent to this boundary.
- The setback of 600mm is for a length of 8.2 metres. The remainder of the eastern elevation is set back between 1.329 metres and 2 metres. Screen planting at grade and within generous planter boxes is proposed along this boundary.
The non-compliances are a result of the narrow site width and small site area which renders provision of a two level basement uneconomic. The design of the basement is also heavily constrained by the presence of Blue Gum High Forest on the subject site and adjoining site to the west, No. 1-3 Eulbertie Avenue. Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposal and has advised that the proposed planter boxes are capable of supporting screen planting to a height of 4 metres. Therefore, the proposal satisfies the objective in relation to provision of landscaping.
Despite the non-compliances at basement and ground floor level, the proposed development complies with the numerical setback controls at first and second floor level. As such, the proposal ensures adequate building separation and maintains the rhythm of the streetscape, thereby satisfying the objectives.
The proposed driveway non-compliance is also the result of the narrow site width. The specific objective relating to driveway location aims to ensure that driveways do not compromise landscape setting or neighbouring amenity. The proposed minimum driveway setback of 1.329 metres allows for the provision of screen planting capable of growing to a height of 3 to 8 metres. This is considered sufficient to maintain amenity to the neighbouring property, 2C Winton Street. It is also noted that the driveway setback at the street frontage is greater and provides ample room for a canopy tree with groundcover beneath. Therefore the proposal maintains the landscape character of the locality.
7A.2 Building separation
As noted above, specific building setback controls exist for residential flat buildings of three storeys or less on small sites. The building separation controls are inconsistent with these controls and cannot reasonably be applied to the proposed development. Nonetheless, it is noted that the proposed development has been sensitively designed with regard to privacy and includes measures such as highlight windows and privacy screens to balconies.
7A.4 Deep soil landscaping
Control 1 specifies that residential flat buildings on sites of less than 1800m2 should have deep soil landscaping for a minimum of 40% of the site area. The relevant objectives are as follows:
1. To provide consolidated deep soil zones in all residential development sites through careful planning and building design.
2. To provide landscaped areas that are appropriate to the scale and context of the development.
3. To retain areas that provide habitat for native indigenous plants and animals and contributes to biodiversity in the area.
4. To create high quality landscaped areas through retention and/or planting of large and medium sized trees.
5. To ensure landscape areas contribute to the garden character of the locality and help to protect neighbouring amenity.
6. To ensure that most of the deep soil landscaping is within the common areas.
The development proposes a deep soil area of 38% of the site area (464m2). The proposal therefore represents a minor numerical non-compliance, which is supported for the following reasons:
(i) The proposal enables retention of existing Blue Gum High Forest vegetation on site, which is an Endangered Ecological Community.
(ii) The proposal provides adequate screen planting and canopy trees so as to maintain the garden character of the locality. The site supports in excess of the minimum required four canopy trees.
(iii) Most of the deep soil landscaping is contained within the communal open space area to the rear of the site. This is beneficial in terms of its long term retention as it is preferable for landscaped areas to be within common ownership, rather than private ownership.
7B.1 Car parking provision
The proposed basement protrudes more than 1m above existing natural ground level and therefore does not comply with Control 3. The proposal results in the basement protruding up to 2.16 metres above natural ground level on its eastern side. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 variation which has been considered above and found to be acceptable on merit.
7C.3 Solar access
The proposal is acceptable with respect of solar access for the reasons detailed under the SEPP 65 discussion above in this report.
7C.5 Apartment depth and width
Controls 1 and 2 specify a maximum depth of 18m for dual aspect apartments and 8m for single aspect apartments. The objective of the controls is to provide apartments with good amenity for occupants in terms of daylight access and natural ventilation.
The proposed development contains a combination of dual and single aspect apartments. Whilst the dual aspect apartments comply with Council’s maximum apartment length requirements, nine of the single aspect apartments do not comply. The depth of the non-compliant apartments ranges from 10 metres to 16 metres Council’s Urban Design Cosnultant has reviewed the development and considers the proposal adequate in terms of cross-ventilation and daylight. The proposed numerical non-compliances are therefore acceptable.
7C.7 Room sizes
Control 1 specifies that living rooms of apartments with one bedroom are to have a minimum internal dimension of 3.5m. The objective of this requirement is to provide well proportioned and functional rooms.
The living room of Apartment G.1 has a minimum internal dimension of 3 metres and does not comply with this requirement. Nevertheless, the room is an L-shaped room and is considered to be of a functional size for a one bedroom apartment. The proposed numerical non-compliance is therefore considered acceptable.
7C.11 Building storeys
Control 1 specifies that buildings with a maximum height of 11.5 metres are to comprise a maximum of three storeys. The objectives of this control are to ensure buildings respond to the site and to maximise amenity through the provision of adequate ceiling heights, daylight, sunlight and ventilation.
As noted previously, the basement of the proposed building protrudes more than 1 metre above natural ground level and therefore constitutes a storey. Consequently, the proposed building is technically four storeys high at its eastern elevation. Nonetheless, the proposed building comprises three storeys of habitable spaces, with each floor having compliant ceiling heights. The proposed dwellings offer good amenity and are acceptable with regard to solar access and ventilation.
The proposed building has the appearance of a three storey building with the basement protrusion camouflaged through the provision of generous planter boxes (Figure 4). The basement protrusion is considered acceptable and is discussed in detail elsewhere in this report.
Figure 4: Perspective drawing showing number of storeys
7C.12 Ground floor apartments
Control 3 states that where the finished ground level outside the living area is more than 0.5 metres above ground level, the private open space is to be level for a minimum of 2.4 metres from the living area. The objective of this control is presumably to ensure a high level of residential amenity.
All but one apartment has an area of private open space that complies with control. Apartment G.4 has a multi-level terrace that is 0.5 metres in width adjacent to the living room. The lower portion of the terrace has a minimum dimension of 2.7 metres and provides a sufficient area of private open space. The proposed non-compliance is therefore considered acceptable.
7C.13 Top storey design and roof forms
Control 1 states that the top storey of a residential flat building should not exceed 60% of the gross floor area of the storey immediately below it.
The relevant objectives are to:
1. Ensure that the design of the top floor of buildings minimises visual bulk.
2. To ensure that the design and location of the top floor minimises any increased overshadowing.
3. To contribute to the overall design and environmental performance of buildings.
The proposed development does not comply with this requirement, with the second floor having a gross floor area of 96% of the area of the floor below it. In this instance, the proposed variation is considered satisfactory having regard to the site constraints which result in a reduced building footprint.
The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the control for the following reasons:
(i) The proposal will not result in any adverse bulk impacts bulk impacts to the street or adjoining properties. The proposed building is modest in height (Figure 5), being three to four storeys in a zone that permits buildings of up to five storeys. The finished height of the building will be between approximately 7 metres lower than the adjoining building at 1-3 Eulbertie Street and approximately 2 metres higher than the building at 2C Winton Street.
(ii) Given that the top floor is at third storey height, the proposed non-compliance will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties.
Figure 5: Southern elevation of proposed development
7C.16 Storage
Subject to conditions, the proposal is acceptable with respect of storage for the reasons detailed under the SEPP 65 assessment above in this report. Condition 18
Part 15 and 25 – Water management
Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed development has been designed to manage urban stormwater run-off as per the requirements of the DCP, subject to conditions.
Part 26 – Notification
The application has been notified in accordance with the requirements of the DCP. The submissions received are addressed above.
Section 94 Plan
The development attracts a section 94 contribution of $160,737.77, which is required to be paid by Condition 40.
Likely Impacts
The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable impacts with regard to streetscape, visual bulk, privacy or solar access. The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable impacts to existing trees on the subject and adjoining sites, nor will it result in any detrimental impacts to the endangered ecological community located on site.
Further, the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts to the adjoining heritage item or development within the adjacent Heritage Conservation Area. The proposal also includes adequate stormwater disposal and will not result in any adverse impacts in this regard.
Suitability of the Site
The site is zoned for high density residential purposes and is suitable for the proposed development, being construction of a residential flat building. Whilst the site is heavily constrained by its narrow frontage, topography and presence of an Endangered Ecological Community, the proposed development represents an appropriate design response and is suitable for the site.
Public Interest
The proposal is considered to be in the public interest.
Conclusion
Having regard to the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory.
A. THAT Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the request under Clause 4.6 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the Minimum Site Width and Floor Space Ratio development standards is well founded. Council is also satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest and is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the R4 High Density Residential zone.
B. THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant deferred commencement development consent to DA0109/15 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building containing 12 units, basement parking and landscaping works at No. 1407 Pacific Highway Warrawee for a period of two years from the date of the Notice of Determination.
SCHEDULE A: Deferred Commencement - Terms to be satisfied prior to the consent becoming operable
The following deferred commencement term must be complied with to the satisfaction of Council within 24 months of the date of the Notice of Determination:
Deferred commencement term:
1. Drainage easement
The applicant shall submit documentary evidence that the property benefits from a drainage easement over the downstream properties and including all sites burdened by the easement as far as the public drainage system. This consent will not operate until the documentary evidence has been submitted to and approved by Council’s Development Engineer.
Reason: To ensure that provision is made for stormwater drainage from the site in a proper manner that protects adjoining properties.
Once the deferred commencement term has been satisfied, the consent becomes operable, and the conditions in Schedule B will apply.
SCHEDULE B:
Conditions that identify approved plans:
1. Approved architectural plans and documentation (new development)
The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
2. Inconsistency between documents
In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to demolition, excavation or construction:
3. Asbestos works
All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement-sheeting (ie. Fibro), must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover Authority of NSW.
Reason: To ensure public safety
4. Notice of commencement
At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any development (including demolition, excavation, shoring or underpinning works), a notice of commencement of building or subdivision work form and appointment of the principal certifying authority form shall be submitted to Council.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
5. Notification of builder’s details
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be notified in writing of the name and contractor licence number of the owner/builder intending to carry out the approved works.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
6. Dilapidation survey and report (public infrastructure)
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures of the following public infrastructure, has been completed and submitted to Council:
Public infrastructure
· full road pavement width, including kerb and gutter, of Pacific Highway over the site frontage
The report must be completed by a consulting structural/civil engineer. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording (both written and photographic) existing damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing any damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development.
The developer may be held liable to any recent damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded by the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of works.
Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any excavation works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of public infrastructure before works commence.
7. Archival recording of buildings
Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that an archival report has been submitted to Council’s Heritage Advisor.
The report must consist of an archival standard photographic record of the building (internally and externally), its garden and views of it from the street illustrating its relationship to neighbouring properties and the streetscape. Recording shall be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines for “Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006)” prepared by the New South Wales Heritage Office.
Information shall be bound in an A4 report format. It shall include copies of photographs, referenced to plans of the site. Two (2) copies (one (1) copy to include negatives or CD of images shall be submitted to Council's Heritage Advisor. The recording document will be held in the local studies collection of Ku-ring-gai Library, the local historical society and Council’s files.
Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.
Reason: To ensure the proper management of historical artefacts and to ensure their preservation.
8. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)
Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:
The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.
In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.
Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.
Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.
9. Construction and traffic management plan
The applicant must submit to Council a Construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which is to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.
The plan is to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.
The report is to contain commitments which must be followed by the demolition and excavation contractor, builder, owner and subcontractors. The TMP applies to all persons associated with demolition, excavation and construction of the development.
The report is to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.
NO construction vehicles movements are to occur during the school drop-off (8.00am to 9.30am) and pick-up hours (2.30pm to 4.00pm) on school days.
The report is to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for the longest heavy rigid vehicle.
The Traffic Control Plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One must be provided for each of the following stages of the works:
· Demolition · Excavation · Concrete pour · Construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath · Traffic control for vehicles reversing into or out of the site.
Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users.
When a satisfactory TMP is received, a letter of approval will be issued with conditions attached. Traffic management at the site must comply with the approved TMP as well as any conditions in the letter issued by Council. Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines will be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction process in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.
10. 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 Landcom 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.
11. 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.
12. Tree protection fencing excluding structure
To preserve the following tree/s, no work shall commence until the area beneath their canopy excluding that area of the approved building shall be fenced off for the specified radius from the trunk to prevent any activities, storage or the disposal of materials within the fenced area. The fence/s shall be maintained intact until the completion of all demolition/building work on site:
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
13. 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.
14. Tree protection signage
Prior to works commencing, tree protection signage is to be attached to each tree protection zone, displayed in a prominent position and the sign repeated at 10 metres intervals or closer where the fence changes direction. Each sign shall contain in a clearly legible form, the following information:
Tree protection zone.
· This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing environment both above and below ground and access is restricted. · Any encroachment not previously approved within the tree protection zone shall be the subject of an arborist's report. · The arborist's report shall provide proof that no other alternative is available. · The Arborist's report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for further consultation with Council. · The name, address, and telephone number of the developer.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
15. Tree protection - avoiding soil compaction
To preserve the following tree/s and avoid soil compaction, no work shall commence until temporary measures to avoid soil compaction (eg rumble boards) beneath the canopy of the following tree/s is/are installed:
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
16. Tree fencing inspection
Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority is required to verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.
Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate:
17. Amendments to architectural plans - general
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that the following amendments have been made to the approved architectural plans:
a) Boundary fencing to the eastern, northern and southern boundaries is to be shown as 1.7m high lapped and capped timber fencing on all elevations. b) The air conditioning units on the roof are to be deleted. c) The notation referring to the OSD basin within the rear setback is to be deleted from the elevations.
Reason: To ensure consistency amongst documents and to maintain residential amenity.
18. Amendments to architectural plans - storage
Amended plans showing provision of storage at the following rates are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
a. 1 Bed: 6m³, b. 2 bed: 8m³, c. 3 bed: 10m³, and
No less than 50% of the required amount is to be provided inside the apartment and not located within bedrooms or in the kitchen.
Reason: To ensure adequate residential amenity.
19. Amendments to architectural plans - clerestory windows
Clerestory windows are to be incorporated to the living rooms of Apartments 2.1 and 2.2. They are to be located to the northern edge of the living room. They are to have an area of at least 2m² and a height not less than 0.6m. Amended plans demonstrating compliance with this condition are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure adequate daylight access.
20. Amendments to architectural plans - relocation of kitchens
The kitchen in units G.3, 1.3 and 2.3 is to be swapped with the dining room. The kitchen is to have a width of no less than 3.4m. Amended plans demonstrating compliance with this condition are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure adequate internal amenity.
21. Visitable dwellings
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that compliance with Council’s visitable housing requirements contained within Ku-ring-gai DCP is achieved.
A visitable dwelling is a dwelling that can be accessed by people who use wheelchairs in that there must be at least one accessible entry and accessible path of travel to the living area and to a toilet that is either accessible or visitable as defined by AS 4299.
At least 70% of dwellings within the development must be visitable.
Reason: To ensure equitable access.
22. Amendments to approved landscape plan
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the approved landscape plans, listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, have been amended in accordance with the requirements of this condition as well as other conditions of this consent:
The above landscape plan(s) shall be amended in the following ways:
1. The proposed screen planting to the front setback, side boundaries and to the lawn area and drying area in the communal open space is to be substituted with hardy exotic shrubs and groundcovers such as Photinia glabra ‘Rubens’ or similar.
2. The proposed planting of Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese tree) is to be substituted with a more upright species Eleaocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) or similar. Proposed planting of nine Ozothamnus diosmifolia are to be substituted with four Eleaocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) or similar.
3. The proposed planting of Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) is to be substituted with Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple).
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the amended landscape plan has been submitted as required by this condition.
Note: An amended landscape plan shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
23. 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.
24. Builder’s indemnity insurance
The applicant, builder, developer or person who does the work on this development, must arrange builder’s indemnity insurance and submit the certificate of insurance in accordance with the requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 to the Certifying Authority for endorsement of the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate.
It is the responsibility of the applicant, builder or developer to arrange the builder's indemnity insurance for residential building work over the value of $20,000. The builder's indemnity insurance does not apply to commercial or industrial building work or to residential work valued at less than $20,000, nor to work undertaken by persons holding an owner/builder's permit issued by the Department of Fair Trading (unless the owner/builder's property is sold within 7 years of the commencement of the work).
Reason: Statutory requirement.
25. Outdoor lighting
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all outdoor lighting will comply with AS/NZ1158.3: 1999 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.
Note: Details demonstrating compliance with these requirements are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
Reason: To provide high quality external lighting for security without adverse affects on public amenity from excessive illumination levels.
26. Air drying facilities
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a common open space area dedicated for open air drying of clothes is provided. This area is to be located at ground level behind the building line and in a position not visible from the public domain.
In lieu of the above, written confirmation that all units will be provided with internal clothes drying facilities prior to the Occupation Certificate is to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: Amenity & energy efficiency.
27. Access for people with disabilities (residential)
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that access for people with disabilities to and from and between the public domain, residential units and all common open space areas is provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access.
Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1, AS1428.2, AS1428.4 and AS 1735.12.
Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.
28. Adaptable units
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the nominated adaptable units within the development application, [enter unit nos.], are designed as adaptable housing in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS4299-1995: Adaptable Housing.
Note: Evidence from an appropriately qualified professional demonstrating compliance with this control is to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.
Reason: Disabled access & amenity.
29. Excavation for services
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) unless previously approved by conditions of consent, are located beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order, located on the subject allotment and adjoining allotments.
Note: A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under the Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.
30. Location of plant (residential flat buildings)
Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all plant and equipment (including but not limited to air conditioning equipment) is located within the basement.
C1. Note: Architectural plans identifying the location of all plant and equipment shall be provided to the Certifying Authority.
Reason: To minimise impact on surrounding properties, improved visual appearance and amenity for locality.
31. Driveway crossing levels
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, driveway and associated footpath levels for any new, reconstructed or extended sections of driveway crossings between the property boundary and road alignment must be obtained from Ku-ring-gai Council. Such levels are only able to be issued by Council under the Roads Act 1993. All footpath crossings, laybacks and driveways are to be constructed according to Council's specifications "Construction of Gutter Crossings and Footpath Crossings".
Specifications are issued with alignment levels after completing the necessary application form at Customer Services and payment of the assessment fee. When completing the request for driveway levels application from Council, the applicant must attach a copy of the relevant development application drawing which indicates the position and proposed level of the proposed driveway at the boundary alignment.
This development consent is for works wholly within the property. Development consent does not imply approval of footpath or driveway levels, materials or location within the road reserve, regardless of whether this information is shown on the development application plans. The grading of such footpaths or driveways outside the property shall comply with Council's standard requirements. The suitability of the grade of such paths or driveways inside the property is the sole responsibility of the applicant and the required alignment levels fixed by Council may impact upon these levels.
The construction of footpaths and driveways outside the property in materials other than those approved by Council is not permitted.
Reason: To provide suitable vehicular access without disruption to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
32. Basement car parking details
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, certified parking layout plan(s) to scale showing all aspects of the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority. A qualified civil/traffic engineer must review the proposed vehicle access and accommodation layout and provide written certification on the plans that:
· all parking space dimensions, driveway and aisle widths, driveway grades, transitions, circulation ramps, blind aisle situations and other trafficked areas comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 - 2004 “Off-street car parking” · a clear height clearance of 2.6 metres is provided over the designated garbage collection truck manoeuvring areas within the basement · no doors or gates are provided in the access driveways to the basement carpark which would prevent unrestricted access for internal garbage collection at any time from the basement garbage storage and collection area · the vehicle access and accommodation arrangements are to be constructed and marked in accordance with the certified plans
Reason: To ensure that parking spaces are in accordance with the approved development.
33. Number of bicycle spaces
Five bicycle spaces must be provided on site in accordance with Ku-ring-gai DCP. The bicycle parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
Reason: To provide alternative modes of transport to and from the site.
34. Energy Australia requirements
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must contact Energy Australia regarding power supply for the subject development. A written response detailing the full requirements of Energy Australia (including any need for underground cabling, substations or similar within or in the vicinity the development) shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.
Any structures or other requirements of Energy Australia shall be indicated on the plans issued with the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and Energy Australia. The requirements of Energy Australia must be met in full prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of Energy Australia.
35. Utility provider requirements
Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.
Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.
36. Underground services
All electrical services (existing and proposed) shall be undergrounded from the proposed building on the site to the appropriate power pole(s) or other connection point. Undergrounding of services must not disturb the root system of existing trees and shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the relevant service provided. Documentary evidence that the relevant service provider has been consulted and that their requirements have been met are to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All electrical and telephone services to the subject property must be placed underground and any redundant poles are to be removed at the expense of the applicant.
Reason: To provide infrastructure that facilitates the future improvement of the streetscape by relocation of overhead lines below ground.
37. Noise from plant in residential zone
Where any form of mechanical ventilation equipment or other noise generating plant is proposed as part of the development, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority, shall be satisfied that the operation of an individual piece of equipment or operation of equipment in combination will not exceed more than 5dB(A) above the background level during the day when measured at the site’s boundaries and shall not exceed the background level at night (10.00pm -6.00 am) when measured at the boundary of the site.
C1. Note: A certificate from an appropriately qualified acoustic engineer is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate, certifying that all mechanical ventilation equipment or other noise generating plant in isolation or in combination with other plant will comply with the above requirements.
Reason: To comply with best practice standards for residential acoustic amenity.
38. Car parking allocation
Car parking within the development shall be allocated in the following way:
Each adaptable dwelling must be provided with car parking complying with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 - parking spaces for people with disabilities.
At least one visitor space shall also comply with the dimensional and location requirements of AS2890.1 - parking spaces for people with disabilities.
Consideration must be given to the means of access from disabled car parking spaces to other areas within the building and to footpath and roads and shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.
Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with federal legislation.
Conditions to be satisfied prior to the issue of the construction certificate or prior to demolition, excavation or construction (whichever comes first):
39. 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.
40. Section 94 development contributions - other than identified centres (For DAs determined on or after 19 December 2010).
This development is subject to a development contribution calculated in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, being a s94 Contributions Plan in effect under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as follows:
The contribution shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, Linen Plan, Certificate of Subdivision or Occupation Certificate whichever comes first in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.
The contributions specified above are subject to indexation and may vary at the time of payment in accordance with Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and housing price index. Prior to payment, please contact Council directly to verify the current payable contributions.
Copies of Council’s Contribution Plans can be viewed at Council Chambers, 818 Pacific Hwy Gordon or on Council’s website at www.kmc.nsw.gov.au.
Reason: To ensure the provision, extension or augmentation of the Key Community Infrastructure identified in Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 that will, or is likely to be, required as a consequence of the development.
Conditions to be satisfied during the demolition, excavation and construction phases:
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Approved plans to be on site
A copy of all approved and certified plans, specifications and documents incorporating conditions of consent and certification (including the Construction Certificate if required for the work) shall be kept on site at all times during the demolition, excavation and construction phases and must be readily available to any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Post-construction dilapidation report
The applicant shall engage a suitably qualified person to prepare a post construction dilapidation report at the completion of the construction works. This report is to ascertain whether the construction works created any structural damage to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads. The report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. In ascertaining whether adverse structural damage has occurred to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads, the Principal Certifying Authority must:
· compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report · have written confirmation from the relevant authority that there is no adverse structural damage to their infrastructure and roads.
A copy of this report is to be forwarded to Council at the completion of the construction works.
Reason: Management of records.
48. Compliance with submitted geotechnical report
A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee excavation.
Geotechnical aspects of the development work, namely:
· appropriate excavation method and vibration control · support and retention of excavated faces · hydro-geological considerations
must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Comments & Assessment prepared by GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd dated 5 December 2014. Approval must be obtained from all affected property owners, including Ku-ring-gai Council, where rock anchors (both temporary and permanent) are proposed below adjoining property(ies).
Reason: To ensure the safety and protection of property.
49. Use of road or footpath
During excavation, demolition and construction phases, no building materials, plant or the like are to be stored on the road or footpath without written approval being obtained from Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.
Reason: To ensure safety and amenity of the area.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Protection of public places
If the work involved in the erection, demolition or construction of the development is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.
If necessary, a hoarding is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.
The work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place.
Any hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.
Reason: To protect public places.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
The applicant must obtain a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994. An application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing CoOrdinator. The applicant is to refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-develop” icon or telephone 13 20 92. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the CoOrdinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
58. Project arborist
An Arboricultural Assessment, prepared by Redgum Horticultural, dated 6 August 2014, has been submitted with the application. Tree numbers refer to this report. A suitably qualified project arborist (AQF level 5) is to be engaged to advise the Principal Certifying Authority on the protection of trees at the site and to supervise the installation and maintenance of tree protection measures required by this consent.
Prior to the commencement of any works including demolition on the site in areas required to be protected by this consent, the project arborist shall inspect the site and satisfy himself/herself that the protection measures are in accordance with the approved design and must provide a written certification to the Principal Certifying Authority to that effect.
If not satisfied, the project arborist must provide to the Principal Certifying Authority a list of works that are to be completed to ensure compliance with all conditions of consent relating to the protection of trees at the site. Those works must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the project arborist.
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees
59. Arborist’s report
All trees to be retained shall be inspected and monitored by an AQF Level 5 Arborist in accordance with AS4970-2009 during and after completion of development works to ensure their long term survival. Regular inspections and documentation from the project arborist to the Principal Certifying Authority are required during all works within the canopy spread of all existing trees on site and overhanging from adjoining sites, including date, brief description of the works inspected, and any mitigation works prescribed.
All monitoring shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.
All works as recommended by the project arborist are to be undertaken by an experienced arborist with a minimum AQF Level 3 qualification.
Reason: To ensure protection of existing trees.
60. Canopy/root pruning
Canopy and/or root pruning of the following tree/s which is necessary to accommodate the approved building works shall be undertaken by an experienced Arborist/Horticulturist, with a minimum qualification of the Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate. All pruning works shall be undertaken as specified in Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees.
Reason: To protect the environment.
61. 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.
62. Excavation near trees
No mechanical excavation shall be undertaken within the specified radius of the trunk/s of the following tree/s until root pruning by hand along the perimeter line of such works is completed:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
63. Hand excavation
All excavation, except for the basement and driveway ramp, within the specified radius of the trunk(s) of the following tree(s) shall be hand dug:
Reason: To protect existing trees.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Canopy replenishment trees to be planted
The canopy replenishment trees to be planted shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition until they attain a height of 5.0 metres whereby they will be protected by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Any of the trees found faulty, damaged, dying or dead shall be replaced with the same species.
Reason: To maintain the treed character of the area.
67. Survey and inspection of waste collection clearance and path of travel
At the stage when formwork for the ground floor slab is in place and prior to concrete being poured, a registered surveyor is to:
· ascertain the reduced level of the underside of the slab at the driveway entry, · certify that the level is not lower than the level shown on the approved DA plans; and · certify that the minimum headroom of 2.6 metres will be available for the full path of travel of the small waste collection vehicle from the street to the collection area. · This certification is to be provided to Council’s Development Engineer prior to any concrete being poured for the ground floor slab. · No work is to proceed until Council has undertaken an inspection to determine clearance and path of travel.
At the stage when formwork for the ground floor slab is in place and prior to concrete being poured, Council’s Development Engineer and Manager Waste Services are to carry out an inspection of the site to confirm the clearance available for the full path of travel of the small waste collection vehicle from the street to the collection area. This inspection may not be carried out by a private certifier because waste management is not a matter listed in Clause 161 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
Reason: To ensure access will be available for Council’s contractors to collect waste from the collection point.
68. 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:
69. Easement for waste collection
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, an easement for waste collection is to be created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. This is to permit legal access for Council, Council’s contractors and their vehicles over the subject property for the purpose of collecting waste from the property. The terms of the easement are to be generally in accordance with Council’s draft terms for an easement for waste collection and shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer.
Reason: To permit legal access for Council, Council’s contractors and their vehicles over the subject site for waste collection.
70. Compliance with BASIX Certificate
Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate No. 592802M_04 have been complied with.
Reason: Statutory requirement.
71. Completion of landscape works
Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.
Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.
72. Completion of tree works
Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all tree works, including pruning in accordance with AS4373-2007 or remediation works in accordance with AS4370-2009, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.
Reason: To ensure that the tree works are consistent with the development consent.
73. Accessibility
Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that:
· the lift design and associated functions are compliant with AS 1735.12 & AS 1428.2 · the level and direction of travel, both in lifts and lift lobbies, is audible and visible · the controls for lifts are accessible to all persons and control buttons and lettering are raised · international symbols have been used with specifications relating to signs, symbols and size of lettering complying with AS 1428.2 · the height of lettering on signage is in accordance with AS 1428.1 - 1993 · the signs and other information indicating access and services incorporate tactile communication methods in addition to the visual methods
Reason: Disabled access & services.
74. Retention and re-use positive covenant
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the applicant must create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the site stormwater retention and re-use facilities on the property.
The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instruments for protection of retention and re-use facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 25R.9.2). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the reuse and retention facility, in relation to the building footprint, must be shown on a scale sketch, attached as an annexure to the request forms.
Registered title documents showing the covenants and restrictions must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
75. Certification of drainage works
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:
· the stormwater drainage works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans · the minimum retention and on-site detention storage volume requirements of BASIX and Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 25B.5 respectively, have been achieved · retained water is connected and available for use · all grates potentially accessible by children are secured · components of the new drainage system have been installed by a licensed plumbing contractor in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Code AS3500.3 2003 and the Building Code of Australia · all enclosed floor areas, including habitable and garage floor levels, are safeguarded from outside stormwater runoff ingress by suitable differences in finished levels, gradings and provision of stormwater collection devices
Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
76. WAE plans for stormwater management and disposal (dual occupancy and above)
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, a registered surveyor must provide a works as executed survey of the completed stormwater drainage and management systems. The survey must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate. The survey must indicate:
· as built (reduced) surface and invert levels for all drainage pits · gradients of drainage lines, materials and dimensions · as built (reduced) level(s) at the approved point of discharge to the public drainage system · as built location and internal dimensions of all detention and retention structures on the property (in plan view) and horizontal distances to nearest adjacent boundaries and structures on site · the achieved storage volumes of the installed retention and detention storages and derivative calculations · as built locations of all access pits and grates in the detention and retention system(s), including dimensions · the size of the orifice or control fitted to any on-site detention system · dimensions of the discharge control pit and access grates · the maximum depth of storage possible over the outlet control · top water levels of storage areas and indicative RL’s through the overland flow path in the event of blockage of the on-site detention system
The works as executed plan(s) must show the as built details above in comparison to those shown on the drainage plans approved with the Construction Certificate prior to commencement of works. All relevant levels and details indicated must be marked in red on a copy of the Principal Certifying Authority stamped construction certificate stormwater plans.
Reason: To protect the environment.
77. Basement pump-out maintenance
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a maintenance regime has been prepared for the basement stormwater pump-out system.
Note: A maintenance regime specifying that the system is to be regularly inspected and checked by qualified practitioners is to be prepared by a suitable qualified professional and provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.
Reason: To protect the environment.
78. OSD positive covenant/restriction
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the applicant must create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the owner with the requirement to maintain the on-site stormwater detention facilities on the lot.
The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 25R.9.1). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the on-site detention facility, in relation to the building footprint, must be shown on a scale sketch, attached as an annexure to the request forms.
Registered title documents, showing the covenants and restrictions, must be submitted and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the environment.
79. Easement drainage line construction
Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the required interallotment drainage system has been installed and surveyed under the supervision of a designing engineer or equivalent professional.
Note: At the completion of the interallotment works, the following must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval:
· details from the supervising engineer that that the as-constructed works comply with the approved interallotment design documentation · a full works as executed drawing of the as built interallotment drainage line (dimensions, grades, materials, invert levels) prepared by a registered surveyor, and details from the surveyor that all drainage structures are wholly contained within existing drainage easement(s)
Reason: To protect the environment.
80. Sydney Water Section 73 Compliance Certificate
Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate the Section 73 Sydney water Compliance Certificate must be obtained and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority
Reason: Statutory requirement.
81. 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.
82. Fire safety certificate
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a Fire Safety Certificate for all the essential fire or other safety measures forming part of this consent has been completed and provided to Council.
Note: A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be submitted to Council.
Reason: To ensure suitable fire safety measures are in place.
83. Clotheslines and clothes dryers
Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the units either have access to an external clothes line located in common open space or have a mechanical clothes dryer installed.
Reason: To provide access to clothes drying facilities.
84. Mechanical ventilation
Following completion, installation and testing of all the mechanical ventilation systems, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied of the following prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate:
1. The installation and performance of the mechanical systems complies with:
· The Building Code of Australia · Australian Standard AS1668 · Australian Standard AS3666 where applicable
2. The mechanical ventilation system in isolation and in association with other mechanical ventilation equipment, when in operation will not be audible within a habitable room in any other residential premises before 7am and after 10pm Monday to Friday and before 8am and after 10pm Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. The operation of the unit outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dbA above the background when measured at the nearest adjoining boundary.
Note: Written confirmation from an acoustic engineer that the development achieves the above requirements is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.
Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.
Conditions to be satisfied at all times:
85. Outdoor lighting
At all times for the life of the approved development, all outdoor lighting shall not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of other premises and adjacent dwellings and shall comply with, where relevant, AS/NZ1158.3: 2005 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.
Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.
86. No door restricting internal waste collection in basement
At all times, the basement garbage storage and collection area is to be accessible by Council’s Waste Collection Services. No doors, grilles, gates or other devices shall be provided in any location which would prevent this service. Where a gate, door or the like is to be erected, unimpeded access to the garbage collection point is to be provided by other means through written agreement with Council’s Waste Collection Services.
Reason: To facilitate access to the garbage collection point.
87. Noise control - plant and machinery
All noise generating equipment associated with any proposed mechanical ventilation system/s shall be located and/or soundproofed so the equipment is not audible within a habitable room in any other residential premises before 7am and after 10pm Monday to Friday and before 8am and after 10pm Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. The operation of the unit outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dbA above the background when measured at the nearest boundary.
Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.
88. Car parking
At all times, the visitor car parking spaces are to be clearly identified and are to be for the exclusive use of visitors to the site. On site permanent car parking spaces are not to be used by those other than an occupant or tenant of the subject building. Any occupant, tenant, lessee or registered proprietor of the development site or part thereof shall not enter into an agreement to lease, license or transfer ownership of any car parking spaces to those other than an occupant, tenant or lessee of the building. These requirements are to be enforced through the following:
· restrictive covenant placed on title pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act, 1919 ·
Reason: To ensure adequate provision of visitor parking spaces.
INTEGRATED REFERRAL CONDITIONS
89. Roads and Maritime Services
1. A strip of land has previously been vested as road along the Pacific Highway frontage of the subject property, as shown by grey colour on the attached Aerial - "X".
All buildings and structures (other than pedestrian footpath awnings), together with any improvements integral to the future use of the site are to be wholly within the freehold property (unlimited in height of depth), along the Pacific Highway boundary.
2. The redundant driveway on the Pacific Highway shall be removed and replaced with kerb and gutter to match existing.
3. The design and construction of the kerb and gutter on the Pacific Highway shall be in accordance with Roads and Maritime requirements. Details of these requirements should be obtained from Roads and Maritime Manager Developer Works, Statewide Delivery, Parramatta (telephone 8849 2138).
Detailed design plans of the proposed gutter crossing are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and commencement of any road works.
A plan checking fee (amount to be advised) and lodgement of a performance bond may be required from the applicant prior to the release of the approved road design plans by Roads and Maritime.
4. Council should ensure that post development of any changes to the stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.
Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.
Details should be forwarded to: The Sydney Asset Management Roads and Maritime Services PO Box 973 Parramatta CBD 2124.
A plan checking fee will be payable and a performance bond may be required before Roads and Maritime approval is issued. With regard to the Civil Works requirement please contact the Roads and Maritime Project Engineer, External Works Ph: 8849 2114 or Fax: 8849 2766.
5. The developer is to submit design drawings and documents relating to the excavation of the site and support structures to Roads and Maritime for assessment, in accordance with Technical Direction GTD2012/001.
The developer is to submit all documentation at least six (6) weeks prior to commencement of construction and is to meet the full cost of the assessment by Roads and Maritime.
The report and any enquiries should be forwarded to:
Project Engineer, External Works Sydney Asset Management Roads and Maritime Services PO Box 973 Parramatta CBD 2124.
Telephone 8849 2114 Fax 8849 2766
If it is necessary to excavate below the level of the base of the footings of the adjoining roadways, the person acting on the consent shall ensure that the owner/s of the roadway is/are given at least seven (7) days notice of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings. The notice is to include complete details of the work.
6. The proposed development should be designed such that road traffic noise from Pacific Highway is mitigated by durable materials in order to satisfy the requirements for habitable rooms under Clause 102 (3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.
7. A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
8. All vehicles are to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.
9. All vehicles are to be wholly contained on site before being required to stop.
10. A Road Occupancy Licence should be obtained from Transport Management Centre for any works that may impact on traffic flows on Pacific Highway during construction activities.
11. All demolition and construction vehicles are to be contained wholly within the site and vehicles must enter the site before stopping. A construction zone will not be permitted on Pacific Highway.
Reason: Integrated referral condition.
|
Brodee Gregory Senior Assessment Officer |
Richard Kinninmont Acting Manager Development Assessment Services |
Michael Miocic Director Development & Regulation |
|
A1View |
Location sketch |
|
2015/314847 |
|
|
A2View |
Zoning extract |
|
2015/314839 |
|
A3View |
Site plan |
|
2015/316544 |
|
A4View |
Basement plan |
|
2015/316536 |
|
A5View |
Ground floor plan |
|
2015/316537 |
|
A6View |
First floor plan |
|
2015/316538 |
|
A7View |
Second floor plan |
|
2015/316539 |
|
A8View |
Roof plan |
|
2015/316540 |
|
A9View |
Eastern and western elevations |
|
2015/316541 |
|
A10View |
Northern and southerns elevations; Sections |
|
2015/316542 |
|
A11View |
Landscape plan |
|
2015/308152 |
|
A12View |
Clause 4.6 Variation - Site width |
|
2015/308146 |
|
A13View |
Clause 4.6 Variation - Floor Space Ratio |
|
2015/308145 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.5 / 371 |
|
|
Item GB.5 |
S10467 |
|
29 May 2015 |
Turramurra Community Hub - update report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of the Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan. |
|
|
background: |
In December 2014 Council resolved to adopt Design Option 2CA as the preferred land use scenario for the purposes of public exhibition. Council also resolved to prepare a draft master plan including exhibition material (detailed plans, sections and perspective views) and that the draft master plan be placed on exhibition for a month in the first half of 2015. |
|
|
comments: |
During the last12 months architectural consultants were engaged to prepare a master plan as per Council’s resolution. This work is now largely complete and ready for exhibition. At the same time a number of other studies have been prepared and completed including: - economic feasibility study; - peer review of economic feasibility study; - estimate of construction costs; - review of construction costs for community facilities. More recently a traffic and transport study has commenced for Turramurra local centre. This is anticipated to be completed in April 2016. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That the current draft master plan be refined to be consistent with the findings of recent studies and that the draft master plan is placed on public exhibition within the first half of 2016. That the existing Planning Proposal applying to 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street, Turramurra be amended to include the rezoning and reclassification of the Turramurra Village Park site at 1275 Pacific Highway, Turramurra. |
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of the Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan.
Background
The preparation of a master plan for this site was triggered in July 2013 when Council considered a report on the future of its landholdings within the Ray Street Precinct in Turramurra, in light of a supermarket redevelopment proposal by Coles Group Property Developments Ltd. At the time, the matter was deferred for a Councillor briefing and a meeting with representatives from Coles.
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) held on 9 December 2014 Council resolved unanimously:
A. That Council adopt Design Option 2CA as the preferred option for the purposes of public exhibition and that the consultants are instructed to prepare a draft master plan on that basis including exhibition material (detailed plans, sections and perspective views).
B. That the draft master plan be placed on exhibition for a month in the first half of 2015.
C. That following completion of the exhibition a report be brought back to Council with:
i. a summary of submissions and community feedback from the exhibition; and
ii. recommendation for a final master plan; and
iii. recommended next steps.
D. That staff and consultants meet with private property owners within the master plan site boundary to present the draft master plan as resolved by Council.
E. That a decision in relation to the location of a new library and community centre be delayed pending community input and comment on the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study recommendations.
Resolutions A and D have been completed as set out in this report.
Resolution B has been delayed due to the outcomes of feasibility studies discussed in this report.
Resolution E is addressed in the draft master plan by providing optional locations for community facilities so that the community will be able to vote on their preferences.
Resolution C has been transferred to the recommendations in this report.
Comments
During the last12 months architectural consultants were engaged to prepare a master plan as per Council’s resolution. This work is now largely complete and ready for exhibition. At the same time a number of other studies have been prepared and completed including:
· estimate of construction costs;
· review of construction costs for community facilities
· estimate Report - Proposed Turramurra Railway Overbridge;
· Turramurra Community Hub - Retail Assessment;
· Turramurra Community Hub - Economic Feasibility Study;
· Turramurra Community hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis;
· survey of usage of Turramurra Village Park;
· Turramurra Local Centre Traffic and Transport Study.
An outline of the studies is set out below. The full studies are available as attachments.
1. Estimate of construction costs
Quantity surveyors were engaged to prepare an estimate of construction costs to guide preparation of the master plan and feasibility analysis. A key finding of this study is the high cost of basement parking due to the proximity of the site to the rail line.
Refer Draft Turramurra Community Hub – Concept Design Stage Estimate Report, Rider Levett Bucknall, May 2015 Confidential Attachment A1.
2. Review of construction costs for community facilities (including fit out)
Quantity surveyors were engaged to provide advice on appropriate construction cost rate for community facilities. The study was prepared for the Lindfield Community hub project but is directly applicable to the Turramurra Hub. The study finds:
· To construct facilities that include high quality feature facades, information technology facilities, audio visual facilities and spaces that can be adopted for large and small groups a budget for construction cost rate of $4,500.00/m2 is recommended. This rate would include the construction of internal walls, glazed screens, floor and ceiling finishes and specialised facilities such as computer data points, WIFI networks, security and audio visual systems.
· Fit out costs including items such as loose fittings and equipment e.g. table, chairs, shelving, appliances such as refrigerators, microwave ovens to staff facility areas. An additional allowance of $1,500/m2 is recommended
This study has identified an increase in overall construction costs when compared to the original budget estimate. These additional amounts have not been incorporated into the current feasibility analysis.
Refer Lindfield Community Hub – Peer Review Paper, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015 Confidential Attachment A2.
3. Estimate Report - Proposed Turramurra Railway Overbridge
Quantity surveyors were engaged to prepare an estimate of construction costs for a possible Turramurra Railway Overbridge which would be located at the end of Ray Street connecting to Rohini Street. The study gives an indicative construction cost of $8.6 million.
Refer Estimate Report- Proposed Turramurra Railway Overbridge, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015 Attachment A3.
4. Turramurra Community Hub - Retail Assessment
A retail consultant was commissioned to undertake a retail demand and impact study. The purpose of this study is to provide Council with a better understanding of the quantum of retail floor space that could be supported within the Turramurra Community Hub.
The study finds that:
· There is a large undersupply of retail floor space within Turramurra Centre, particularly in supermarket space.
· The quantum of floor space demanded by residents of the Main Trade Area (MTA) is sufficient for the development of a 4,000m2 supermarket. The unique characteristics of Turramurra centre would also lend weight to the argument that development of a full-line supermarket in this location would be a positive outcome for the surrounding residents (especially north of the Pacific Highway).
· The addition of up to a further 3,200m2 of specialty retail floor space to complement the supermarket is supportable. Given the quantum of supportive retail floor space proposed, there is the possibility for the inclusion of a mini-major to further strengthen the retail offer of the centre.
· Overall the proposed retail would constitute a positive contribution to the economic health of Turramurra Centre as a whole.
Refer Turramurra Community Hub Retail Assessment, HillPDA, January 2015, Attachment A4.
5. Turramurra Community Hub - Economic Feasibility Study
Land economists were engaged to provide economic feasibility and market research advice as well as assisting with the identification of barriers and risks to a successful financial and development outcome for the Turramurra Community Hub.
The study finds that the draft master plan has a positive residual land value which could give incentive for a developer to purchase and redevelop the land in accordance with the master plan. However HILLPDA conditioned this finding with a number of key risks which led them to recommend Council consider a higher floor space ratio on the site to improve feasibility.
As this recommendation was not consistent with Council’s resolution of 11 November 2013 (which requires the master plan to be consistent with current LEP controls) and there is a lack of clarity around the report findings it was decided to undertake a peer review of this study.
Refer Turramurra Community Hub - Development Proposal Feasibility Analysis, HillPDA, June 2015, Confidential Attachment A5.
6. Turramurra Community hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis
Land Economists together with retail specialists were commissioned by Council to undertake a high-level peer review of the feasibility analysis and retail assessment carried out as part of the Masterplan development by HillPDA.
The purpose of the Peer Review is to test the strength/robustness of the Feasibility Analysis from first principles by:
· examining the appropriateness of the methods and techniques employed; and
· considering the appropriateness of assumptions made.
The review finds the original feasibility analysis lacking in clarity and logic. Key issues include:
· estimated sales rates;
· background and property market research;
· premise/logic of feasibility modelling; and
· Council development contributions.
The peer review finds that the master plan is broadly feasible with the contribution of allocated S94 funds by Council (which is the same basis on which Council has moved forward on the Lindfield Community Hub). The report identifies a number of risk inherent in the preferred Masterplan option and recommends further refinement of the master plan prior to public exhibition.
Refer Turramurra Community Hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis, AEC Group and Location IQ, November 2015, Confidential Attachment A6.
7. Survey of usage Turramurra Village Park
Council engaged a specialist to survey the number of people who use Turramurra Village Park over a 5 day period (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday). The method used was to place a small camera in the park (not concealed) and desk top analysis of the film footage. The results are tabulated below.
In total 207 people used the park over this period with 51% (105 people) walking through the park with an average duration of stay of 1.5 minutes; 21% (44 people) stopped to take rest with an average duration of 20 minutes. One person spent 48 minutes in the park feeding the birds; a further 3% used the park to wait for/meet someone with an average duration 17 minutes; the remainder of people used the park for unidentified reasons with stays of between 4 minutes-12 minutes.
Walking through the park |
Exercise |
Taking a rest |
Wait/Meet someone |
Other |
Unknown |
|
Category of use -> |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
qty |
105 |
0 |
44 |
6 |
34 |
18 |
% |
51% |
0% |
21% |
3% |
16% |
9% |
Avg Dur (hr:mins:s) |
0:01:31 |
|
0:20:00 |
0:17:00 |
0:04:00 |
0:12:00 |
incl feeding birds |
0:48:00 |
These numbers represent not insignificant usage rates and it is clear that future planning for the park must retain a path through the site with seats and shade and landscape gardens. This would cater for about 75% or more of current users of the park. The additional parklands proposed within the master plan will cater for existing users of the park as well as a range of new users who currently do not visit the area for recreation.
8. Turramurra Local Centre Traffic and Transport Study
More recently a traffic and transport study has commenced for Turramurra Local Centre. This is anticipated to be completed by April 2016.
A key part of the study will be to test the capacity of the site to support the level of development proposed in the master plan. The study will also determine whether a railway overbridge would be required connecting Ray Street to Rohini Street. Tidal flow operation on the Pacific Highway would also be important considerations within this study.
The study will examine all modes of transport within the area but also specifically consider the role of the existing bus interchange off Rohini Street.
The traffic surveys (Intersection Counts & Travel Time Surveys) were undertaken during the week beginning October 2015 and it is planned to complete the base traffic model by the end of 2015.
9. Summary and Recommendations
During 2015 a considerable amount of work has been undertaken to prepare a draft master plan for the Turramurra Community Hub, this includes:
· Preparation of architectural plans, sections, models and renderings;
· Feasibility analyses including a peer review; and
· Cost estimate reports by quantity surveyors.
Chrofi Architects commenced preparation of a master plan for the Turramurra Community Hub in early 2015 following the resolution of Council in December 2014 to proceed with a preferred option. A draft master plan was completed in June 2015 which is consistent with Design Option 2CA and is consistent with the development standards within the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2013 i.e. maximum building height of 5 storeys (17.5 metres) and FSR of 1.8:1. Figure 1 shows the draft master plan.
Figure 1 - Draft Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan (not exhibited)
Feasibility analysis has found that the master plan is broadly feasible with the contribution of allocated S94 funds by Council (which is the same basis upon which Council has progressed the Lindfield Community Hub). However further refinements are recommended prior to public exhibition.
Additional refinements recommended before public exhibition include:
· incorporation of the revised construction costs for community facility construction and fit out as recommended in the Lindfield Community Hub – Peer Review Paper, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015; and
· completion of the Turramurra Transport Study to ensure the mix and quantum of floor space within the master plan will not have serious negative impacts on the traffic network and to determine whether a railway overbridge connecting Ray Street to Rohini Street would be required to service the site and if it necessary how it might be funded.
integrated planning and reporting
Council has adopted the Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Draft Operational Plan 2015-2016; this plan commits Council to master planning for the revitalisation of the Turramurra Local Centre and surrounding precincts.
Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place. |
4.1.1 Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.
|
Progress master planning for the Turramurra Centre and surrounding precincts.
Engage with key community stakeholders to identify the requirements for new community facilities and infrastructure.
Finalise the reclassification of identified lands as resolved by Council. |
A healthy, safe, and diverse community that respects our history, and celebrates our differences in a vibrant culture of learning. |
C4.1.2 New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.
|
Undertake acquisitions for new parks.
Undertake assessment and identify locations for new parks
Complete the design for identified parks and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.
Construct parks at identified locations and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities |
FIT FOR THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN
The NSW Government's Fit for the Future initiative required all Councils to prepare an Improvement Proposal and supporting Implementation Plan demonstrating how all seven Fit for the Future benchmarks would be met by 2016/17, and maintained or improved thereafter.
Council's Fit For the Future Improvement Proposal and supporting Implementation Plan underpins the decision to stand alone and not merge with Hornsby Council. The objectives established in the Improvement Proposal and Implementation Plan are embedded in Council's adopted Integrated Planning and Reporting documents including the Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2015-2016, Long Term Financial Plan 2015/16 to 2024/25 and Asset Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2024/25.
Council’s Fit For the Future Improvement Proposal sets out the following strategies and outcomes to meet the State governments Efficiency criteria:
EFFICIENCY |
|||
Objective |
Strategies |
Key milestones |
Outcome |
Major Local and Town Centres projects i.e. Community hub projects are commercially feasible in their own right |
Projects should include commercial opportunities for Council to offset ongoing operational costs (life cycle costs) of the public benefits provided |
Masterplans adopted for Local and Town Centres 2015/2016
EOI for the redevelopment of Turramurra Local Centre 2015/2016.
Redevelopment of Turramurra Local Centre 2016/2017. |
Masterplans adopted for the Local and Town Centres with development options substantially progressed to deliver community facilities and public benefits. |
Governance Matters
In November 2013 Council resolved to reclassify its land holdings at 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street, Turramurra, to remove the RE-1 zone from the precinct and commence preparation of a master plan. At the OMC held on 9 December 2014, Council resolved to adopt Option 2CA as the preferred option for purposes of public exhibition, and the basis on which to prepare a Draft Master Plan for the site.
A key aspect of Option 2CA is the proposal to relocate Turramurra Village Park and utilise the existing park site for a community building. The current draft master plan is consistent with this proposal and it is now timely to commence reclassification and amending the LEP standards to facilitate Council’s vision. Section 45 of the Local Government Act, 1993 prevents Council from selling; exchanging, or otherwise disposing of Community classified land.
A Planning proposal to reclassify 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street from Community land to Operational land and to remove RE1 zone from the precinct and replace it with a B2 Local centre zone via an amendment to Ku-ring-gai Local Centres LEP (2012) has been prepared in accordance with Section 55, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination. A Gateway determination has yet to be issued for the Planning Proposal.
Under section 58 of the EP&A Act, Council may, at any time, vary its proposals as a consequence of its consideration of any submission or report during community consultation or for any other reason. If it does so, a revised Planning Proposal is to be forwarded to the Minister. Given that a gateway determination has yet to be issued for the existing Planning Proposal the opportunity exists to seek to amend the existing planning proposal to also incorporate the Turramurra Village Park rather than prepare a new separate planning proposal. This would also have the benefit of having only one Planning Proposal applying to the whole master plan area.
In terms of Floor Space Ratio provision the park is 870m2 in area and a 3 storey community building with 2,250 GFA is proposed. The master plan provides for a path and landscape gardens on the eastern side so the building does not have full site coverage. Given this an FSR of 2.5:1 is appropriate.
It is therefore proposed that the existing planning proposal applying to 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street be varied as follows:
i. incorporate the site 1275 Pacific Highway, Turramurra (Turramurra Village Park) (Lot 1 DP 81994);
ii. reclassify the site from Community land to Operational land and extinguish any necessary interest applying to the land to enable the implementation of the Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan; and
iii. rezone the site from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 –Local centres with a maximum building height of 17.5m and FSR of 2.5:1.
Risk Management
The major risk to Council at this point in time is reputational.
While the draft master plan could be publicly exhibited in its current form (as it is consistent with all Council’s resolutions and it is feasible) it is considered prudent to undertake a number of refinements as recommended in this report as well as complete the Turramurra local centre traffic and transport study prior to public exhibition. This will ensure that when the master plan is exhibited the plan will be robust, feasible, meet the likely market demand as well as community expectations.
Financial Considerations
If Council adopts the recommendations in this report, the draft master plan will progress to public exhibition in the first half of 2016. There are currently adequate funds available within the project account to cover the costs of this work.
To date Council has expended over $400,000.00 on this project including salaries and consultancies. These funds have been taken from development contributions 2010 Plan Recreational, Cultural & Social Facilities. It is important that Council continues to progress this project, if not Council may be required to repay part of the S94 funds spent to date if the works are not delivered.
Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) identifies a total of approximately $26 million allocated from S94 Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 for works associated with the Turramurra Community Hub. These funds will be Council’s contribution toward the project and have been taken into account when preparing the preliminary economic feasibility assessment.
Social Considerations
Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030, recognises the community’s vision for Ku-ring-gai as a place with infrastructure and facilities which accommodate the needs of the community. The plan further emphasises the desire for an adopted program for the implementation of new facilities, identified funding sources and a program to maintain Council’s assets at a sustainable standard.
Currently the precinct is utilised for car parking by shoppers, commuters and local business owners. Beyond this function the site provides very little social benefit to the community and is very much an under-utilised asset for Council. The site has the potential to provide new community buildings and open space which will provide a high level of social benefit to the community. If Council were to actively participate in redevelopment within this precinct it would present new opportunities to bring forward the delivery of public infrastructure or facilities by many years.
Environmental Considerations
The following environmental studies have been undertaken to date:
· Stage 1 preliminary site investigation (to assess the likelihood of contamination to be present on the site);
· Initial geotechnical site assessment; and
· Dial before you dig.
Community Consultation
To date the draft master plan has not been publicly exhibited. Targeted stakeholder consultation has occurred as follows:
- landowner meeting - 16 February 2015 – all landowners within the precinct were invited to attend a briefing and question and answer session;
- meetings on 12 February 2015, 2 April 2015 and 16 June 2015 between Coles representatives, Council staff and Council’s architects to discuss for working inputs around design matters, details of Coles design requirements and examples of similar mixed-use projects Coles have previously undertaken;
- ongoing discussions and meetings with representatives from Beautify Turramurra and Support Turramurra;
- meeting with Turramurra HACC service providers on 12 May 2015; and
- meetings and discussions with representatives from Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains regarding re-alignment of railway fences on Rohini Street and William Street.
Internal Consultation
A Project Control Group [PCG] has been established for the major projects within the local centres; the PCG meets bi-monthly and forms the primary management entity for the duration of the project, comprising the project manager and the relevant discipline project team leaders from across Council. The PCG will vary its composition during the different phases of the project, depending on the skills and expertise required. Three (3) PCG meetings have been held to date during 2015.
Six information sessions have been held for Councillors:
· a briefing was held on 8 October 2014 at which consultants presented a draft site analysis, design principles, preliminary design options and financial assessment;
· the draft design options were presented to Councillors at two site inspections held on 22 and 28 October 2014. At the final site inspection chalk markings were provided around the site to assist Councillors in understanding the design options;
· consultants briefed Councillors on 1 December 2014 on the draft Turramurra Community Facilities Study as well as the Ku-ring-gai Community Facilities Strategy (LGA wide);
· a briefing session was held on 4 June 2015 to update councillors on the Draft Master Plan for the site; and
· a briefing session was held on 4 August to present to Councillors the completed draft master plan and model.
Summary
This report finds that the Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan is broadly feasible with the contribution of allocated S94 funds by Council, subject to ongoing review of costs.
The report also notes that the draft master plan is consistent with Design Option 2CA and is consistent with the development standards within the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2012 i.e. maximum building height of 5 storeys (17.5 metres) and FSR of 1.8:1.
The Turramurra Community Hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis prepared by AEC Group recommends further refinement of the master plan prior to public exhibition to ensure the plan is robust and will meet the likely market demand.
In addition to the above this report recommends the following be undertaken prior to public exhibition:
· Modifications to the feasibility model to incorporate the revised construction costs for community facility construction and fit out as recommended in the Lindfield Community Hub – Peer Review Paper, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015;
· Completion of the Turramurra Transport Study to ensure the mix and quantum of floor space within the master plan will not have serious negative impacts on the traffic network and to determine whether a railway overbridge connecting Ray Street to Rohini Street would be required to service the site and if it necessary how it might be funded.
It is further proposed that the existing planning proposal applying to 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street, Turramurra be varied to also incorporate the Turramurra Village Park site at 1275 Pacific Highway, Turramurra (Lot 1 DP 81994). That the site be reclassified from community land to operational land and rezoned to B2 Local centre so as to facilitate the implementation of the Council’s vision.
That: A. The draft master plan be refined to take into account the findings of the Turramurra Community Hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis, December 2015;
B. The project construction estimates be updated to reflect the refinements to the master plan and the updated cost estimates for the construction and fit-out of community facilities;
C. The feasibility modelling and analysis be updated to take into account the refinements to the master plan and the updated cost estimates;
D. The Turramurra local centre traffic and transport study be completed and consideration given to the implications for the master plan prior to exhibition;
E. The refined draft master plan is publicly exhibited within the first half of the year 2016;
F. The refined draft master plan be reported back to Council prior to public exhibition if the above amendments cannot be made within the current LEP provisions or within the scope of Council’s resolutions in relation to the project; G. That following completion of the exhibition a report be brought back to Council with: i. a summary of submissions and community feedback from the exhibition; ii. recommendation for a final master plan; and iii. recommendations on the next steps.
H. That the existing Planning Proposal applying to the 5 Ray Street and 12 William Street, Turramurra be varied in accordance with section 58 of the EP&A Act as follows:
i. incorporate the site 1275 Pacific Highway, Turramurra (Turramurra Village Park) (Lot 1 DP 81994); ii. reclassify the site from Community land to Operational land and formally seek to discharge all necessary interests applying to the land to enable the implementation of the Turramurra Community Hub Master Plan; and iii. rezone the site from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centres with a maximum building height of 17.5m and FSR of 2.5:1.
|
Sarah Koshy Senior Urban Designer |
Bill Royal Team Leader Urban Design |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
Draft Turramurra Community Hub - Concept Design Stage Estimate Report, Rider Levett Bucknall, May 2015 |
|
Confidential |
||
|
Lindfield Community Hub - Peer Review Paper, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015 |
|
Confidential |
|
|
A3View |
Estimate Report - Proposed Turramurra Railway Overbridge, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015 |
|
2015/137422 |
|
A4View |
Turramurra Community Hub Retail Assessment, Hill PDA, January 2015 |
|
2015/154945 |
|
Turramurra Community Hub - Development Proposal Feasibility Analysis, Hill PDA, June 2015 |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Turramurra Community Hub - Peer Review of Retail Assessment and Feasibility Analysis, AEC Group and Location IQ, November 2015 |
|
Confidential |
APPENDIX No: 3 - Estimate Report - Proposed Turramurra Railway Overbridge, Rider Levett Bucknall, June 2015 |
|
Item No: GB.5 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.6 / 442 |
|
|
Item GB.6 |
S10748 |
|
21 September 2015 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
For Council to consider a Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra. |
|
|
background: |
The Planning Proposal was lodged on 12 August 2015 and seeks to amend the KLEP 2015 as follows: · Rezone the subject sites from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre; · Amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites from 0.3: 1 to 0.75 :1; and · Amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops on the subject sites. |
|
|
comments: |
The purpose of this report is to determine whether the Planning Proposal should be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council notifies the applicant that it will not support the Planning Proposal. |
Purpose of Report
For Council to consider a Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.
Background
A Pre- Planning Proposal meeting was held with the proponents and Council staff on 27 May 2015.
The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 12 August 2015, which seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:
· rezone the subject sites from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;
· amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites from 0.3: 1 to 0.75 :1; and
· amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops on the subject sites.
The documents submitted were not in accordance with Council’s requirements. Following the submission of additional documentation, the review of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 2 September 2015. A copy of the Planning Proposal and appendices are included at Attachments A1 – A10.
A copy of the Planning Proposal and appendices were made available on Council’s website mid November 2015. It should be noted that there is no requirement to make these documents publically available until the proposal proceeds to public exhibition, after a Gateway Determination is issued.
A flow chart of the Planning Proposal process is included at Attachment A11.
Site Description and Local Context
The sites that are the subject of this Planning Proposal are:
· 45-47 Tennyson Avenue, Turramurra (Lot 1 DP 4323 and Lot 2 DP 515147); and
· 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra (Lot 1 DP 515147).
The sites have frontages to Eastern Road, Tennyson Avenue and Alice Street, with combined area of approximately 5,120sqm.
The sites are currently occupied by Parkers Nursery and the GRD Automotive Services’ Service Station.
The sites are currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015).
The KLEP 2015 was largely a translation of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) into the form of the Standard Instrument LEP. Under the KPSO the subject sites were zoned Residential 2(C), and were translated to the comparable Standard Instrument LEP zoning of R2 Low Density Residential zone within the KLEP 2015.
The subject sites are located within a predominantly low density residential area. To the south of the subject sites is the Eastern Road neighbourhood centre shops – which consist of a small IGA supermarket, BWS liquor store, pharmacy, butcher, fruit shop, café and drycleaner. This group of shops is currently zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under the KLEP 2015.
Image 1: Location – 45 -47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra
Image 2: Zoning Extract from KLEP 2015 – R2 Low Density Residential (pink) and B1 Neighbourhood Centre (blue)
Planning Proposal – Amendments to the KLEP 2015
The Planning Proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:
· rezone the subject sites from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;
· amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites from 0.3: 1 to 0.75 :1; and
· amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops on the subject sites.
These amendments to the KLEP 2015 are intended to facilitate the development of an Aldi supermarket and two (2) speciality shops on the subject sites. Consent for the construction of an Aldi supermarket would be required through a future Development Application should the rezoning be finalised.
The applicant’s justifications for the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015 are as follows:
· Ku-ring-gai is the largest council per capita in NSW without an Aldi supermarket;
· Ku-ring-gai has undersupply of supermarket floorspace, with 12,000sqm additional supermarket floorspace being able to be “comfortably supported” in the local government area;
· increased competition resulting in lower prices for shoppers;
· local employment opportunities; and
· increased construction activity and the revitalisation of the existing adjacent centre.
A Planning Proposal is not a Development Application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under section 79C of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Planning Proposal relates only to an LEP amendment and the proposed amendments need to be acceptable as an outcome on the sites, regardless of the subsequent approval or refusal of any future Development Application.
Comments
A Planning Proposal must demonstrate the strategic merit of the proposed amendments to a Local Environmental Plan. The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s “A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals” and section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The following is an assessment of the relevant merits of the amendments proposed to the KLEP 2015.
Zoning
As detailed above, the subject sites are currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the KLEP 2015, and this zoning is a result of the translation of the KPSO zoning into the comparable zoning in the Standard Instrument LEP.
The current land uses – service station and nursery - are prohibited by the R2 zoning, however as these uses were established prior to the KLEP 2015 coming into effect on 2 April 2015, they may be able to continue to operate under existing use rights. Clause 41 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 outlines that the existing use rights applying to the sites do not allow for significant intensification of the existing uses or an increase of more than 10% of the floor area.
The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the zoning of the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre. The rezoning is required as the use of the sites for “shops” is a prohibited land use under the current R2 Low Density Residential zone.
Under the KLEP 2015 “shops” are defined as:
“premises that sell merchandise such as groceries, personal care products, clothing, music, homewares, stationary, electrical goods or the like or that hire any such merchandise, includes a neighbourhood shop, but does not include a food and drink premises or restricted premises”
Within the Ku-ring-gai local government area, there are numerous centres zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre. These neighbourhood centres are generally comprised of a small cluster of retail and commercial businesses that service the convenience needs of residents and workers in the immediate surrounds (i.e. small trade area).
An analysis of the centres zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre within Ku-ring-gai was undertaken to compare the number and type of shops and the floor space within each centre. The following is a summary of some of surrounding centres that are also zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.
Centre |
No. of shops |
Type |
Supermarket Floorspace (based on NLA from 2005 Hill PDA Retail Study) |
Floorspace (based on NLA from 2005 Hill PDA Retail Study) |
average floorspace per shop within centre |
Princes Street Turramurra |
9 |
Café – newsagent – hairdresser – vet – bottle shop |
242sqm |
1112sqm approx. |
123sqm |
Eastern Road Turramurra |
7 |
Small supermarket – chemist – café – butcher |
295sqm |
1065sqm approx. |
152sqm |
Bobbin Head Road North Turramurra |
22 |
Butcher – cafes –bakery – dentist - small IGA |
508sqm* |
2443sqm approx. |
111sqm |
Hampden Avenue Wahroonga |
9 |
Dentist – small supermarket – newsagent |
190sqm |
1190sqm approx. |
132sqm |
Table 1 – Analysis of B1 Neighbourhood Centres
*508sqm based on DA approval for IGA retail floor space
Note: NLA – Net Lettable Area is the area leased or potentially leased to a store operator and includes back of house storage and office and excludes common areas, plant rooms and loading docks. As a rule – the NLA is generally 80% of the gross floor area when calculated using the Property Council of Australia’s guidelines.
The permitted land uses within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone primarily provide for small scale retail and business uses such as chemists, bakeries, café’s and newsagents. An excerpt from the KLEP 2015 Land Use Table is included at Attachment A12 which details all permitted and prohibited land uses applying to the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.
It is acknowledged that the existing and preceding land uses on the subject sites are of a commercial nature, and in this regard are more aligned to a business zone than the current residential zoning.
However when assessing the proposal as a whole – the rezoning, the FSR and amendment to Schedule 1 to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm– the proposal will be inconsistent with the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, which is:
· To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposal will allow for the development of approximately an additional 2,000sqm of floorspace within the neighbourhood centre. The addition of this amount of floorspace will bring the total floorspace of the centre to approximately 3000sqm – making the centre the largest neighbourhood centre in terms of floorspace. The addition of the proposed 1,955sqm of floorspace will effectively triple the existing amount of floorspace within the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre.
As shown in Table 1 above, the supermarkets that are located within neighbourhood centres are of a small size between 200-500sqm. The provisions of the KLEP 2015 allow a commercial development of up to 1,000sqm in neighbourhood centres. In this regard, the proposal to allow a supermarket/retailer of approximately 2,000sqm is inconsistent with the size of supermarkets located within the neighbourhood centres.
It should also be noted that the whole amount of the 1,955sqm of additional floorspace could be used for a single retailer. A single retailer of this size is inconsistent with the general size of retail tenancies within the neighbourhood centres. As shown above in Table 1 – the average size of a tenancy is less than 150sqm. In this regard, the proposal will allow for future retail development within the neighbourhood centre that could not be considered “small-scale”.
Concern is raised that the proposal will allow for retail development of a size that will no longer just “serve the needs of the people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood”. This is demonstrated by the trade area diagram (see Image 4 under “Retail Impact Assessment”) which shows the extent of the estimated trade area. The estimated trade area will service a much wider population that just the immediate area surrounding the neighbourhood centre.
The independent review of the Retail Impact Assessment by Leyshon Consulting also notes “an Aldi in this centre effectively would expand the centre’s trade area well beyond its present boundaries”
In this regard, the proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone relating to the provision of small scale retail with a small trade area. The planning proposal is contrary to the strategic direction in terms of the objectives and intended outcomes of the KLEP 2015 for the neighbourhood centre zone.
Floor Space Ratio
The existing Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites is 0.3:1. This is consistent with the floor space ratio applied to other sites zoned R2 Low Density Residential within the surrounding area. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Floor Space Ratio to 0.75:1.
The proposed Floor Space Ratio of 0.75:1 is consistent with the Floor Space Ratio that applies to other parcels of land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre within Ku-ring-gai, including the adjoining Eastern Road shops. Despite the floor space ratio applying to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre, Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015 limits the gross floor area for development to 1,000sqm.
In itself the proposed floor space ratio of 0.75:1 is not without merit, noting that it is consistent with the floor space ratio applied to the adjoining Eastern Road neighbourhood centre. However, concern is raised that the proposal is seeking to overcome the 1,000sqm gross floor area limit under Clause 6.9 through the inclusion of site specific provisions within Schedule 1. This is discussed in more detail below.
Amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses
The proposal seeks to make a site specific amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and specialty shops on the subject sites.
The proposal is seeking this amendment to Schedule 1 as Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015 applies to development on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.
In order to ensure retail development is of an appropriate scale within neighbourhood centres, Clause 6.9(2) limits the development of commercial premises to a maximum 1,000sqm gross floor area. Clause 6.9(3) requires that any development for the purposes of a commercial premises with a gross floor area greater than 500sqm (either one tenancy or a number of tenancies) the economic impact of the development must be considered.
The Planning Proposal outlines that the intended use of the site as an Aldi supermarket with two (2) speciality stores would require a gross floor area of approximately 1,955sqm – nearly double the maximum allowable gross floor area for the proposed neighbourhood centre zoning.
The Planning Proposal is therefore seeking the site specific provision within Schedule 1 as a way to overcome the requirement of Clause 6.9 and allow future development on the sites with a gross floor area that exceeds 1,000sqm.
Commercial Hierarchy
Commercial hierarchy is an important planning tool, as each level in the hierarchy relates to centres with different roles and functions. The hierarchy helps to identify where particular types of retail should be encouraged to be located.
Council has two adopted studies which have established the strategic direction for the role and function of centres within Ku-ring-gai. These studies are:
· Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study - 2005 - Hill PDA; and
· Ku-ring-gai & Hornsby Subregional Employment Study - 2008 - SGS Economics and Planning.
These studies were based on the population projections under the Metropolitan Strategy 2036 for the North Subregion and therefore have taken into consideration the future growth in housing and employment currently accommodated for by KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 and KLEP 2015. These studies helped to inform the zoning and planning controls for Ku-ring-gai’s commercial centres. These studies are still relevant and valid, noting that there has been very limited growth within the retail centres since these studies were completed.
Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study - 2005 – Hill PDA
This study looks at the demand for retail centres within Ku-ring-gai and established a retail hierarchy within the existing retail centres and considers options for expansion. The study recommends expanding Gordon to the principal retail centre, with the remaining centres retaining their existing functions.
It should be noted that this study used different terms to that used in the Sydney Metro Strategy 2036 – but the established retail hierarchy is still relevant.
Image 3 – Retail Hierarchy recommended in Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005 – Hill PDA
Note: Eastern Road shops are identified as a “Local Centre” (circled in black for ease of reference)
The Eastern Road neighbourhood shops are identified as a local centre within the retail hierarchy – which is the lowest tier in the hierarchy. The study defines local centres as having a general size less than 2,500sqm (lettable area) and containing a mini supermarket/local convenience store or no anchor tenant. The study outlines that the primary role and function of these centres in the retail hierarchy is to provide local convenience retail for the immediate residential area.
The study measures floorspace by lettable area (the area leased or potentially leased to a store operator and includes back of house storage and office) and excludes common areas, plant rooms and loading docks.
The study recommended the following development principles to guide planning and management of retail and commercial centres:
· Protect the integrity and viability of existing centres from threats generated by new centres, expansion of existing centres , changes in the retail hierarchy, “out-of-centre” and other forms of retailing
· Encourage the development of convenient and price competitive supermarkets in neighbourhood centres that lack such offer.
(Note: This study identified neighbourhood centres as the centres located along the train line and Pacific Highway including Wahroonga, Turramurra, Pymble, Lindfield, Roseville- refer to Image 3 above)
Ku-ring-gai & Hornsby Subregional Employment Study – 2008 – SGS Economics and Planning
The study provides strategic direction for the future role and function of centres and employment lands, including the application of zones from the Standard LEP and the confirmation of the commercial centre hierarchy contained in the (then) Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2036.
The Eastern Road neighbourhood shops are identified as a neighbourhood centre within the retail hierarchy, again the lowest tier in the hierarchy. The study identifies neighbourhood centres as consisting of a small cluster of shops and services and hosting predominantly local service functions with a very small trade area. The study recommended zoning the Eastern Road neighbourhood shops B1 Neighbourhood Centre.
The study made the following recommendation for centres zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre:
· Range of services should be limited so as not to detract draw activity away from higher order centres
The study also outlined the following strategic direction for neighbourhood centres:
· Strategic Direction – Reinforce the local service role of villages, small villages and neighbourhood centres
This strategic direction was the result of the issue where significant higher order retail and employment uses were existing in some smaller centres and that these uses would be more appropriate at town and major centres. In order to enforce the strategic direction, the study recommended that action be taken to limit development capacity at village, small village and neighbourhood centres that have very high excess supply.
While it is not disputed that there is some need and demand for additional supermarket floorspace within the whole of the Ku-ring-gai local government area, the additional floorspace needs to be appropriately located and have regard to the established commercial hierarchy.
Clause 6.9 was specifically included as an additional local provision within the KLEP 2015 as a planning measure to uphold the local service role and function of neighbourhood centres within the commercial hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai. The 1,000sqm maximum gross floor area is a way to ensure that larger scale retail is located within the higher order town centres.
The proposed amendment to Schedule 1 in order to allow a development of 1,955sqm seeks to effectively double the size of what is permitted within a neighbourhood centre zone. Concern is raised that this may create a precedent to be applied to other neighbourhood centres and undermine the existing commercial hierarchy.
The proposal will allow for the development of a single retail store with a gross floor area of nearly 2,000sqm – and in this regard could no longer be considered “small-scale” or an appropriate scale within a neighbourhood centre, as demonstrated by the analysis of floorspace within Table 1 above.
It should be noted that the LEP will not be able to limit this gross floor area on the sites for the specific use of an Aldi store – as this would be contrary to s117 direction 6.3 relating to site specific provisions which seek to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. The assessment needs to assume that any supermarket or larger retailer could be developed on the site.
As described above under “zoning” the proposal will result in an expansion to the trade area of the neighbourhood centre, so that it will no longer be considered to just serve the immediate surrounding residential area and expand the centres local service role and function.
The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations and strategic directions identified in the two Council adopted studies. These recommended the retention of the local service role and function of the existing neighbourhood centres by limiting development capacity and encouraging larger retailers within the higher order centres.
Concern is raised that by allowing larger retailers (like medium to large supermarkets) to be located outside of the higher order town centres, this will compromise the ability of these higher order centres to attract additional supermarket floorspace in the future. The higher order town centres have been identified as the areas for growth in order to provide local employment and services that are accessible by the train line.
In this regard, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with local service role and function of neighbourhood centres within the commercial hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai. The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the objective of Clause 6.9 which is to maintain the commercial hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai by encouraging retail development of an appropriate scale within neighbourhood centres.
Retail Impact Assessment
A Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) was submitted with the Planning Proposal, which assesses the need and demand for an Aldi supermarket and the likely trading impacts on other centres.
Council had the RIA independently reviewed by Leyshon Consulting in order to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the assessment. A copy of the independent review is included at Attachment A13.
Trade Area
Leyshon Consulting considers the extent of the estimated trade area in the submitted RIA (see Image 4 below) to be realistic having regard to the location of other Aldi supermarkets in the surrounding region, the location and nature of major centres containing supermarkets in the surrounding region and the road system in Turramurra and surrounding suburbs.
Image 4 – Trade Area Aldi Turramurra (Source – Deep End Services RIA August 2015)
Existing Supermarket Floorspace Supply
The Planning Proposal makes the point that the Ku-ring-gai local government area in general currently has a significant under-supply of supermarket floorspace when measured on a per capita basis. This general conclusion was also reached in the Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study prepared by Hill PDA in 2005. Since this time, no substantial addition of supermarket floorspace has occurred in Ku-ring-gai.
Leyshon Consulting estimate that the trade area could theoretically support up to 20,000sqm of supermarket floorspace and on this basis has an existing shortfall of around 10,600sqm.
The significant under-supply of supermarket floor space within Ku-ring-gai reduces the overall economic impact of the proposal on the existing centres.
Impact on Centres
Leyshon Consulting agree with the submitted RIA in that it is expected that the Aldi would primarily attract sales away from those centres which contain national chain supermarkets at present – being Hornsby, St Ives and Turramurra. The submitted RIA forecasts an impact of -$12million on these three major centres.
Leyshon Consulting have estimated a higher annual sales figure for the proposal than what is estimated in the submitted RIA, and accordingly consider the impacts projected on the three major centres of Hornsby, St Ives and Turramurra slightly too low and estimates the percentage impacts on the three centres as follows:
· Westfield Hornsby -0.8%
· Turramurra -2.4%
· St Ives -2.0%
The submitted RIA estimates the impact on the existing Eastern Road centre to be $0.8million per annum, equating to 5% of the centres estimated annual turnover.
Leyshon Consulting advises that it is difficult to assess the likely impact on the IGA with any precision, however in their experience, the impact depends significantly on the relationship the IGA operator has with residents of the surrounding area and their skills (and resources) as a retailer. For example – if the IGA is well regarded in the community and provides excellent service – then it could retain a large proportion of its patronage by existing customers.
Leyshon Consulting is of the opinion that the impact of an Aldi supermarket on the Eastern Road Centre may be greater than the 5% estimated in the submitted RIA, and predicts it could be up to 9.7%. It is noted that it is expected that this rate would decline in future years due to growth in available spending and the benefits of Aldi on the centre through increased patronage and higher total centre sales.
Implications of Impact
The general agreement between Australian retail analysts is that impacts of less than 5% fall within the “very low” category of impact. As noted above, the percentage impacts on Hornsby, Turramurra and St Ives are all less than 5%.
Impacts in the range of 5% to 10% are regarded as being in the low/medium range of impact. The potential impact of 9.7% on the Eastern Road centre is considered at the top end of the ‘low/medium’ category of impact. Leyshon Consulting concludes that such an impact would not threaten the overall viability of the centre and should not lead to the closure of the centres IGA supermarket. In their experience, impacts of less than -10% seldom result in existing businesses (particularly supermarkets) ceasing to operate.
Net Community Benefit
Leyshon Consulting notes that if viewed objectively, an Aldi is likely to create a positive net community benefit through addressing the shortfall in the provision of supermarket floor space in the trade area and LGA, reducing the need to travel to more distant centres to undertake regular food/grocery shopping trips, improve price competition in the supermarket sector in the LGA in general.
Leyshon Consulting concludes that the estimated impacts of the proposal are not of an order which would warrant refusal of the application on economic impact grounds.
Traffic
A traffic report was submitted with the Planning Proposal, which examines the traffic implications of an Aldi supermarket on the subject sites and to the surrounding local area. Council had the traffic report independently reviewed by Traffix in order to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the assessment. A copy of the independent traffic report is included at Attachment A14.
Traffic Generation/Environmental Capacity/Impacts to Local Road Network
The peer review found that weekday evening peak trip rates as adopted are about 50% lower than Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) trip rates, and suggests further survey data is required to justify any deviation from these RMS rates. This is considered to be critical and may have implications in the assessment of intersection performances and environmental amenity impacts along nearby local roads and Tennyson Avenue in particular.
The weekend trip rates have been underestimated by about 14% based on RMS trip rates. However, the peer review suggests this does not give rise to any significant issues. No assessment has been made of critical intersections along Eastern Road, particularly at Burns Road and Junction Road, during the weekday evening or on Saturdays.
No information is available to enable an understanding of the adopted trip distributions, with particular concern expressed over possible impacts on the amenity on local streets if future traffic volumes exceed the environmental capacity as suggested in the RTA (now RMS) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments. However, if the environmental capacity for local streets such as Tennyson Road is exceeded as a result of this proposal, the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments suggests that the environmental capacity of a street could be increased if a reduction in traffic speed could be achieved (such as through traffic calming).
By virtue of the fact that if the environmental capacity of local streets could be increased when the environmental capacity is otherwise exceeded as a result of this proposal, this suggests the site would not be incompatible with the proposed zoning and intensification of development on the site. Similarly, if levels of service of nearby intersections are found to be affected by the proposal, improvements could be undertaken (such as a new roundabout or other higher form of intersection traffic management)
However, the risk if a series of traffic calming measures are proposed on those local roads is that because the proposal is the subject of objection by surrounding residents, this may result in the measures not being installed and the proposal having a substantial impact to amenity on those local roads if the development proceeds.
Therefore, if the Planning Proposal was to proceed, as part of a formal public exhibition of the planning proposal, the applicant should undertake further surveys and investigation work to determine the impacts to nearby intersections and local roads. If surveys and investigations find that traffic calming is necessary on local roads, the applicant should be required to undertake all the necessary technical investigations and resident consultation in the preparation of a traffic calming scheme to support the public exhibition.
Site Access Arrangements
The site access arrangements are considered to be unsupportable in terms of their location onto Eastern Road on safety grounds. No assessment has been made of the performance of the access driveway and the resultant queuing and delays. No assessment has been made of the impacts of bus operations on site access and associated delays. The proposed service vehicle access arrangements are considered unsatisfactory. Pedestrian safety across the two adjacent driveways would also be unacceptably compromised.
However, these are matters that would be assessed during the development application stage and are not a relevant matter for consideration at the Planning Proposal stage. Should alternative access arrangements be developed to address these issues, the proposed zoning and use of the site would not be incompatible with the sounding traffic network.
Parking
The proposed parking provision would be significantly lower than Council’s DCP and the peer review found that the available survey data that seeks to justify this is not available, not explained, and not rigorous. It also appears to be inconsistent with very recent observations. It is recommended that further survey data is required to justify the substantial deviation sought from the DCP.
Again, this is a matter that would be assessed during the development application stage and is not a relevant matter for consideration at the planning proposal stage. Additional parking could be provided (possibly underground) to meet the requirements of the DCP. Therefore, this would not be incompatible with the proposal.
Conclusion
The traffic study submitted with the proposal is considered to be inadequate in a number of areas including potential traffic generation and resulting impacts to the local road network. As a result of these inadequacies in the traffic study, it is not possible to assess the capacity of the existing local road infrastructure to accommodate the proposal and what additional infrastructure, if any, may be required.
Should the Planning Proposal proceed to gateway approval, a revised traffic study, addressing the identified short comings, should be submitted by applicant prior to any formal exhibition of the planning proposal.
Biodiversity
The subject sites contain 4 native canopy trees, being, Eucalyptus saligna (x2) and Syncarpia glomulifera (x2) which are endangered ecological communities being Sydney Turpentine – Ironbark Forest (STIF) and Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF).
The preliminary plans and flora constraints report submitted with the Planning Proposal indicate the removal of one tree, Tree 37, which is a large Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna). A Planning Proposal cannot give consent to the removal of any vegetation on the sites. The removal of trees and impact of future development would be assessed and determined through a future development application.
Council’s Team Leader Natural Areas has reviewed the report and has advised that future development on the site could be designed and constructed to ensure the retention of all the STIF/BGHF on the site, and that the sites are capable of supporting the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.
The presence of the STIF/GBHF does not make the subject sites incompatible with the proposal.
Contamination
State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires consideration of contamination issues when rezoning land.
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report was submitted, which establishes whether activities have occurred on the sites which may have resulted in contamination.
The report identifies that the following potentially contaminating activities have occurred the subject sites:
· service station with mechanics workshop;
· orcharding, market gardening and use a retail nursery;
· bus depot with mechanical maintenance activities; and
· demolition of former structures.
Given the history of the sites there is potential for contamination, and further investigation would be required to assess the presence or otherwise of such contamination.
If the sites are found to be contaminated – remediation would be required prior to any future development being undertaken on the sites.
The potential for contamination on the sites does not make them incompatible with the proposal.
Requirements under Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The following is an assessment of the adequacy of the Planning Proposal under Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Department of Planning and Environments “A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals” (2012).
Objective and Intended Outcomes
The proposal’s stated objective is to facilitate the development of an Aldi store and two speciality shops.
This section includes discussion of specific components for the development of an Aldi store (including demolition and construction) and how the objectives would be achieved. Should the proposal progress, the specific development application matters should be removed and the discussion on how the objectives are to be achieved should be included in “explanation of provisions”.
Explanation of Provisions
The proposal seeks to achieve the objectives by:
· rezoning the subject sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;
· amendment to the floorspace ratio to 0.75:1; and
· amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and specialty shops on the subject sites as follows:
Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses
52 Use of certain land at 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra
(1) This clause applies to land at 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra, being Lot 1 DP 515147, Lot 2 DP515147 and Lot 1 DP 4323
(2) Development for the purposes of an ALDI store and speciality shops with a combined maximum gross floor area of 1,955sqm is permitted with consent
Concern is raised with the proposed amendment to Schedule 1, including the use of overly specific and restrictive terms ie “ALDI store” and “Speciality shops”. The terms used should be terms used within the Land Use Table and defined within the Standard Instrument LEP, as it cannot be limited to a specific retailer. In this regard, “ALDI store” and “Speciality shops” fall under the definition of “Shop” – which is defined as “a premises that sell merchandise such as groceries, personal care products, clothing, music, homewares, stationary, electrical goods or the like or that hire any such merchandise, and includes a neighbourhood shop but does not include a food a drink premises or restricted premises”.
It is noted that “Shops” are already a permitted uses within the Land Use Table for land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre, and accordingly this is an inappropriate use of Schedule 1.
As the proposal is seeking to overcome the 1,000sqm gross floor area maximum required by Clause 6.9(2) of the KLEP 2015, the amendment sought should be to Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015.
Justification
Q1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?
The proposal is not the result of a strategic study or report and was initiated by the applicant – not Council.
A number of reports and studies have been prepared on behalf of the applicant in order to justify the proposal, including a retail impact assessment, traffic report, contamination, biodiversity and urban design. Council had the Retail Impact Assessment and Traffic Report independently reviewed.
Council has two adopted studies which have established the strategic direction for the role and function of centres within Ku-ring-gai. These studies are:
· Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study - 2005 - Hill PDA; and
· Ku-ring-gai & Hornsby Subregional Employment Study - 2008 - SGS Economics and Planning.
These studies helped to inform the zoning and planning controls for Ku-ring-gai’s commercial centres. These studies are still relevant and valid noting that there has been limited growth within the retail centres since these studies were completed.
The studies have identified the primary role and function of neighbourhood centres within the hierarchy is to provide local convenience retail for the immediate residential area. The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations and strategic directions identified in the two Council adopted studies which recommended the retention of the local service role and function of the existing neighbourhood centres by limiting development capacity and encouraging larger retail within the higher order centres
Q2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?
Yes, a Planning Proposal is the best means of achieving the outcomes sought by the applicant for the sites.
Q3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?
· Metropolitan Strategy - A Plan for Growing Sydney
The proposal is inconsistent with the following directions and actions contained the Metropolitan Strategy – A Plan for Growing Sydney:
- Direction 1.7: Grow strategic centres – providing more jobs closer to home
- Action 1.7.1: Invest in strategic centres across Sydney to grow jobs and housing and create vibrant hubs of activity
The proposal seeks to provide employment and retail growth within a location that is not supported by high density housing and in an area outside of an identified strategic centre. The plan identifies strategic centres as priority locations for employment and retail activity.
- Direction 2.2: Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs
- Action 2.2.2: Undertake urban renewal in transport corridors which are being transformed by investment, and around strategic centres
The proposal seeks to provide growth in a location that is situated away from the main transport corridor of the North Shore train line and the Pacific Highway and in a location that is not serviced by other high frequency public transport.
- Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs
- Action 3.1.1: Support urban renewal by directing local infrastructure to centres where there is growth
The proposal’s provision of growth in this location is considered to be unsuitable having regard for its context, which is away from the main transport corridor of the Pacific Highway and Northern train line, and away from areas of high density development and outside of the higher order town centres where growth is being directed in Council’s LEP and in the metro strategy A Plan for Growing Sydney.
- Urban renewal corridor is identified in Figure 30 along the North Shore rail line between North Sydney and Hornsby
The plan specifically identifies that within the North District there is an urban renewal corridor along the North Shore rail line between North Sydney and Hornsby. In this regard, the proposal is inconsistent with this priority as it seeks to provide growth within an area that has not been identified for future growth and is not supported by higher density housing or the main transport corridor of the Pacific Highway and train line.
Q4. Is the planning proposal consistent with a Council’s local strategy or other local strategic plan?
Community Strategic Plan 2030 -
The community strategic plan is the long term strategic plan for the future of the Ku-ring-gai local government area.
The proposal is inconsistent with the following objectives and achievements contained in the Ku‑ring-gai Strategic Plan 2030:
· Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development
The planning proposal seeks an amendment to Councils planning measures that were specifically included within the KLEP 2015 to uphold the role and function of neighbourhood centres within the commercial hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai and as a way to manage the impact of new development within neighbourhood centres.
· Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community
· Opportunities are pursued to strengthen our local and neighbourhood centres to promote small and medium businesses in Ku-ring-gai
The planning proposal will conflict with the commercial hierarchy by seeking to establish large scale retail development outside of the higher order local centres which have been identified in the community strategic plan as areas for revitalisation and growth.
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015
The proposal is inconsistent with the following aims and objectives of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015:
1.2 Aims of Plan
(g) to ensure that development does not conflict with the hierarchy of commercial centres in Ku-ring-gai
The proposal is inconsistent with the local service role and function of neighbourhood centres within the centre hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai. The proposal conflicts with the established hierarchy of commercial centres in Ku-ring-gai.
Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre
1 Objectives of zone
· To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood
As described previously in this report, the Planning Proposal will allow for the development of a single retail store of nearly 2,000sqm – which could no longer be considered small scale. The estimated trading area as a result of the proposal services a much wider catchment than just the immediate surrounding neighbourhood. In this regard the proposal fails to satisfy the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.
6.9 Development in Zone B1
(1) The objective of this clause is to maintain the commercial hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai by encouraging retail development of an appropriate scale within neighbourhood centres
The proposal will allow for the development of a single retail store of nearly 2,000sqm which is an inappropriate scale within a neighbourhood centre. The proposal is also inconsistent with the local service role and functions of a neighbourhood centre zone, and will conflict with the commercial centres hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai. In this regard, the proposal fails to satisfy the objective of the Clause 6.9.
Q5. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies
The proposal is not inconsistent with any of the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies.
Q6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?
Direction and objectives |
Comment |
1.1 Business and Industrial Zones (a) Encourage employment growth in suitable locations (b) Protect employment land in business and industrial zones (c) Support the viability of identified strategic centres |
Consistent.
The existing commercial uses on the sites provide for some employment generation. The proposal will not result in a reduction to the total potential floorspace for employment uses or employment generation.
Some concern is raised regarding the suitability of the location in terms of growth. |
2.1 Environment Protection Zones The objective of this direction is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas |
Consistent.
The sites the subject of the Planning Proposal have been identified as containing STIF/BGHF, and have been identified on the KLEP 2015 Biodiversity map –requiring the protection and maintenance of native vegetation and habitat.
The proposal is not inconsistent with the objective of this direction in that future development of the site could be designed and constructed to ensure the retention of the STIF/BGHF.
Councils LEP and DCP contain numerous controls and requirements to ensure the protection and conservation of these environmentally significant vegetation.
The proposal is considered to be not inconsistent with this direction. |
3.1 Residential Zones (a) to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs (b) to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services (c) to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands
|
Justifiably Inconsistent.
The proposal is considered to be justifiably inconsistent with the terms of this direction, as it results in the re-zoning of residential zoned land to business zoned land.
The inconsistency is considered to be of minor consequence noting that the subject sites are currently and have historically been utilised for commercial purposes –not aligned with the residential zoning. |
3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives: (a) improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport (b) increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars (c) reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car (d) support the efficient and viable operation of public transport services (e) providing for the efficient movement of freight |
Inconsistent.
The proposal is isolated from higher density residential areas and the major transport corridor of the Pacific Highway and train line.
The proposal is likely to result in a car orientated development as a result of the assessed trade area.
The location is does not have the sufficient residential density to promote access to housing, jobs and services by means other than car. The area is not an area that is targeted for growth.
In this regard, the proposal is unlikely to improve access to housing jobs and services by walking, cycling or public transport.
A site that is within the existing local centres that is supported by the train line and has existing and planned higher density residential will reduce the potential for traffic – compared to the sites the subject of the proposal. |
6.3 Site Specific Provisions The objective of this direction is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls |
Inconsistent.
The proposal is inconsistent with this direction as it proposes to include a site specific provision through an amendment to Schedule 1 of the KLEP 2015. The proposal seeks to allow development for the purposes of an Aldi store and specialty shops with a maximum gross floor area of 1,955sqm.
The proposal is seeking this site specific amendment as Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015 applies to development within B1 Neighbourhood Centres and limits the gross floor area to 1,000sqm.
The site specific amendment to Schedule 1 is proposed as way to overcome the requirement of Clause 6.9 and allow future development on the sites with a gross floor area that exceeds 1,000sqm
The proposed use of the term “Aldi” within the amendment to Schedule 1 is overly specific and restrictive – noting that it limits the expanded use to a specific retailer.
The proposed amendment may create a precedent to be applied to other neighbourhood centres within Ku-ring-gai, which will result in undermining the commercial hierarchy.
|
7.1 Implementation of A Plan For Growing Sydney The objective of this direction is to give legal effect to the planning principles; directions and priorities for subregions, strategic centres and transport gateways contain in A Plan For Growing Sydney |
Inconsistent.
The proposal is inconsistent with the following directions and actions contained within A Plan for Growing Sydney as discussed in Q3 above:
- Direction 1.7: Grow strategic centres – providing more jobs closer to home - Action 1.7.1 : Invest in strategic centres across Sydney to grow jobs and housing and create vibrant hubs of activity - Direction 2.2: Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs - Action 2.2.2: Undertake urban renewal in transport corridors which are being transformed by investment, and around strategic centres - Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs - Action 3.1.1: Support urban renewal by directing local infrastructure to centres where there is growth - Urban renewal corridor is identified in Figure 30 along the North Shore rail line between North Sydney and Hornsby |
Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?
The subject sites contain 4 native canopy trees, being, Eucalyptus saligna (x2) and Syncarpia glomulifera (x2) which are endangered ecological communities being Sydney Turpentine – Ironbark Forest (STIF) and Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF). The presence of the STIF/GBHF does not make the subject sites incompatible with the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning, noting that future development on the sites could be designed and constructed to ensure the retention of the STIF/BGHF.
Q8. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
The subject sites are not identified as flood prone land, land at risk of land slip, or identified as being bushfire prone land.
The biodiversity mapping over the subject sites is not proposed to be amended as part of the proposal and in this regard, the sites will continue to have protection under the controls and provisions of the KLEP 2015 and DCP relating to protection of biodiversity.
Q9. Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?
The proposal included a Retail Impact Assessment, which assesses the need and demand for an Aldi supermarket and the likely trading impacts on other centres. Council had the Retail Impact Assessment independently reviewed by Leyshon Consulting. Leyshon Consulting have advised that the estimated impacts of the proposal are not of an order which would warrant refusal of the application on economic impact grounds.
The proposal argues that it will result in the creation of 34 full time equivalent jobs to benefit the local economy.
The independent review of the Retail Impact Assessment by Leyshon Consulting notes that the potential job creation is a positive benefit – although it is relatively insignificant in terms of the overall size of the employed labour force in Ku-ring-gai LGA, which was 27,512 (2011 Census).
Q10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?
As discussed previously in this report, insufficient information has been submitted with regard to the traffic impacts in order to determine whether there is adequate public infrastructure, such as roads, for the planning proposal.
Q11. What are the views of state and commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway Determination?
Should the Planning Proposal receive a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition, consultation will be undertaken with the State and Commonwealth agencies as required in the Gateway Determination.
Mapping
The proposal contains indicative maps showing the amendment sought the zoning map and floorspace ratio map.
Community Consultation
In the event that the Planning Proposal is granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal would be placed on a statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway and the Departments publication A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals.
Despite the Planning Proposal not being formally placed on public exhibition, numerous submissions were received.
The submissions raised the following concerns:
· inappropriate location for Aldi within predominantly low density residential area – should be in local centres;
· existing supermarkets in Hornsby, Turramurra and St Ives to service community;
· increase in traffic associated with Aldi supermarket, including trucks;
· existing infrastructure unable to cope with development of this size and scale;
· impact on parking in surrounding area;
· additional traffic danger to children;
· local village shops currently provide for needs of residents;
· supermarket would destroy village atmosphere;
· impact on local businesses;
· decrease in value to surrounding houses;
· re-zoning at odds with recently finalised KLEP2015;
· impact on amenity of residential properties; and
· loss of sense of community.
Many of the concerns raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report or are matters that would be considered at the Development Application stage, and are not relevant to consideration or assessment of the Planning Proposal.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai |
P1.1.2 Strategies plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique landscape character |
Continue to review existing strategies and plans
|
Governance Matters
The process for the preparation and implementation of Planning Proposals is governed by the provisions contained within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
The process involves the applicant requesting Council to consider an amendment to an LEP. If Council fails make a decision within 90 days or if Council makes a decision not to support the Planning Proposal, the proponent can request the Department of Planning and Environment for a Pre-Gateway Review.
The Pre-Gateway Review process is a mechanism which allows the applicant to request an independent body review Council’s decision. The Department of Planning and Environment will undertake an assessment to determine whether the proposal has merit. If the Department of Planning and Environment determines that the proposal has merit, it will be forwarded to the Joint Regional Planning Panel who will then make a recommendation on whether the proposal has merit and should proceed to Gateway. The Minister for Planning will make the final decision in respect to a Pre-Gateway Review and whether the Planning Proposal has sufficient merit to proceed to Gateway.
Attachment A11 includes a flow chart of the Planning Proposal and Pre-Gateway Review processes.
Risk Management
This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council needs to determine its position on the matter as to whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.
Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.
Financial Considerations
The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s 2015/2016 Fees and Charges schedule. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.
Social Considerations
Social issues cover all aspects of human life including how we live, our culture, our community, health, wellbeing and aspirations.
Part 3 Q9 requires the social considerations relating to the proposal to be assessed and in this regard, the potential job creation is a positive social benefit arising from the proposal.
Environmental Considerations
The sites contain endangered ecological communities STIF/BGHF and there is potential for contamination on the sites. These environmental constraints do not make the sites incompatible with the proposal.
Community Consultation
In the event that the Planning Proposal is granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the planning proposal would be placed on a statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway and the Departments publication A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals. This would include notification to the surrounding community and state agency consultation.
To date, information regarding the Planning Proposal process and a copy of the Planning Proposal documents have been placed on Councils website.
Internal Consultation
Internal Consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer and Team Leader Natural Areas was undertaken.
Summary
A Planning Proposal has been lodged for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra which seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:
· rezone the subject sites from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;
· amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites from 0.3:1 to 0.75:1; and
· amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops on the subject sites.
The Planning Proposal has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Section 117 Ministerial Directions, State Environmental Planning Policies, as well as Council’s plans, policies and strategies.
Council has had the Retail Impact Assessment and Traffic Assessment independently reviewed. The impacts of the proposal are not of an order which would warrant refusal of the application on economic grounds. Insufficient information has been submitted with regard to the traffic impacts in order to determine the impacts of the Planning Proposal on the surrounding road network.
The amendments sought by the Planning Proposal are inconsistent with the terms of the objective the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and intended outcomes of the KLEP 2015 for this zone relating to the provision of small scale retail that services the surrounding residential area.
The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the local service role and function of the neighbourhood centre within the commercial hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai. The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the aim of KLEP 2015 and the objective of Clause 6.9 of the KLEP 2015 which seeks to maintain the commercial hierarchy and ensure new development will not conflict with this hierarchy.
The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the directions and actions contained in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy which outlines urban renewal is to be undertaken in transport corridors and strategic centres.
The proposal is inconsistent with the s117 Ministerial Directions 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport, 6.3 Site Specific Provisions and 7.1 Implementation of “A Plan for Growing Sydney”.
The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Council’s community strategic plan relating to the revitalisation of local centres and managing the impacts of new development.
A. That Council not support the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the KLEP 2015 to re-zone the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, amend the floor space ratio to 0.75:1 and amend Schedule 1 –to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with directions and actions in the Metropolitan Strategy “A Plan for Growing Sydney” which seek to undertake urban renewal and growth within transport corridors and strategic centres in order to create jobs that are closer to home. Specifically Directions 1.7, 2.2, 3.1 and Actions 1.7.1, 2.2.2, and 3.1.1.
2. The proposal is inconsistent with s117 Directions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, specifically:
· 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport · 6.3 Site Specific Provisions · 7.1 Implementation of “A Plan for Growing Sydney”
3. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030 relating to the revitalisation of local centres and managing the impacts of new development within centres.
4. The proposal is inconsistent with the local service role and functions of neighbourhood centres and will conflict with the hierarchy of commercial centres in Ku-ring-gai.
5. The proposal is inconsistent with the strategic directions and development principles within the Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005 (Hill PDA) and Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Subregional Employment Study 2008 (SGS Economics and Planning) which seek to retain of the local service role and function of the existing neighbourhood centres by limiting development capacity and encouraging larger retail within the higher order centres.
6. The proposal is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, specifically aim 1.2(g), objective of Clause 6.9(1) and the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in that the proposal is of a scale that is inappropriate for a neighbourhood centre, will service a wider catchment than the surrounding residential area and will conflict with the commercial hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai.
B. The applicant be advised of Council’s decision.
|
Alexandra Plumb Urban Planner |
Craige Wyse Team Leader Urban Planning |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
A1View |
Planning Proposal - 45 - 47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra |
|
2015/217498 |
|
|
A2View |
Planning Proposal Appendix B - Preliminary Plans (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A3View |
Planning Proposal Appendix C - Photomontage (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A4View |
Planning Proposal Appendix D - Urban Design Statement (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A5View |
Planning Proposal Appendix E - Retail Impact Assessment (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A6View |
Planning Proposal Appendix F - Traffic Report (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A7View |
Planning Proposal Appendix G - Assessment of flora constraints and Assessment of Significance (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A8View |
Planning Proposal Appendix H - Stormwater Management Report (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A9View |
Planning Proposal Appendix I - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for 105 Eastern Road (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A10View |
Planning Proposal Appendix J - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for 45 to 47 Tennyson Avenue (circulated separately) |
Excluded |
|
|
A11View |
Flow chart of Planning Proposal and Pre-Gateway Review process |
|
2015/269225 |
|
A12View |
Zone B1 - Excerpt from KLEP 2015 - Land Use Table |
|
2015/281498 |
|
A13View |
Independent Review Retail Impact Assessment - Leyshon Consulting |
|
2015/303282 |
|
A14View |
Independent Peer Review - Traffic - Aldi PP - Traffix |
|
2015/309010 |
APPENDIX No: 1 - Planning Proposal - 45 - 47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
APPENDIX No: 2 - Planning Proposal Appendix B - Preliminary Plans (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix B - Preliminary Plans (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 3 - Planning Proposal Appendix C - Photomontage (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix C - Photomontage (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 4 - Planning Proposal Appendix D - Urban Design Statement (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix D - Urban Design Statement (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 5 - Planning Proposal Appendix E - Retail Impact Assessment (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix E - Retail Impact Assessment (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 6 - Planning Proposal Appendix F - Traffic Report (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix F - Traffic Report (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 7 - Planning Proposal Appendix G - Assessment of flora constraints and Assessment of Significance (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix G - Assessment of flora constraints and Assessment of Significance (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 8 - Planning Proposal Appendix H - Stormwater Management Report (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix H - Stormwater Management Report (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 9 - Planning Proposal Appendix I - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for 105 Eastern Road (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix I - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for 105 Eastern Road (circulated separately)
APPENDIX No: 10 - Planning Proposal Appendix J - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for 45 to 47 Tennyson Avenue (circulated separately) |
|
Item No: GB.6 |
Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.DOC
Planning Proposal Appendix J - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for 45 to 47 Tennyson Avenue (circulated separately)
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.7 / 556 |
|
|
Item GB.7 |
S10611 |
|
22 October 2015 |
Deferred Areas Planning Proposal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
For Council to consider a Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to include 13 Deferred Areas. |
|
|
background: |
13 areas within Ku-ring-gai were deferred from inclusion within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 when it commenced on 2 April 2015.
These areas had been identified as areas of high bushfire evacuation risk, and were deferred to allow Council to undertake a re-assessment of the bushfire evacuation risks and zoning within these areas. |
|
|
comments: |
The purpose of this report is to progress the Planning Proposal to the next stage in the process – where it will be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination. |
Purpose of Report
For Council to consider a Planning Proposal to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to include 13 Deferred Areas.
Background
On 26 November 2013, in considering a report on the submissions made in response to the public exhibition of the then Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013, Council resolved the following:
B. That Council request the Minister, under S59(4) of the EP&A Act, defer the inclusion of the 13 areas identified on the maps at Attachment A14 and that Council resolve to prepare a planning proposal in accordance with section 55 of the EP&A Act to re-exhibit these areas within the proposed zoning outlined in the body of this report. This planning proposal then be forwarded to the DoPI for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provision of the EP&A Act and Regulations.
Accordingly, when the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 commenced on the 2 April 2015, the 13 areas were deferred from inclusion within the plan. The Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance currently applies to land within these 13 deferred areas.
These 13 areas were identified as areas of high bushfire evacuation risk, and were deferred from the KLEP 2015 to allow Council to undertake re-assessment of the bushfire evacuation risk and proposed zoning within these areas.
The 13 deferred areas are as follows:
· Area 1 – North Turramurra
· Area 2 – North Wahroonga
· Area 3 – Warrimoo Avenue
· Area 4 – Campbell Drive
· Area 5 – Browns Road, Fox Valley Road, Jordan Avenue
· Area 6 – Howson Avenue
· Area 7 – Eastern Arterial Road
· Area 8 – Parker Avenue, Evans Street
· Area 9 – Bowen Avenue
· Area 10 – Ashburton Avenue
· Area 11 – Boronga Avenue, Gloucester Avenue
· Area 12 – East Killara
· Area 13 – Bradfield Road
Council also made the following resolution with regard to South Turramurra and bushfire on 26 November 2013:
K. That further consultation occur with the NSW Rural Fire Service and other relevant state agencies to investigate the incidence of fire and the implications on evacuation risks for South Turramurra with the view of identifying an appropriate planning response for the area, including potential further amendments to the KLEP to address bushfire issues.
Bushfire Evacuation Risk
As part of the preparation for the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, Council prepared a background study – Managing Bushfire Risk, Now and Into the Future, March 2012. A copy of the background study is included at Attachment A2. One of the aims of this background study was to better understand the future risk of bushfire in the Ku-ring-gai local government area.
In order to reduce the risks to people and property from bushfire, the background study made a number of recommendations which focused on the use of land use planning and development controls, such as zoning, lots sizes and lot depths.
In order to assess bushfire evacuation risk, the background study considered research undertaken by Thomas Cova (2005) Public Safety in the Urban – Wildland Interface: Should Fire-Prone Communities Have a Maximum Occupancy?
This research identified a range of factors that affect the capacity of evacuate from areas with a high bushfire risk, which include the capacity of the road, type of land use and the number and location of exits.
The research proposes that fire prone communities at the bushland interface should have a maximum occupancy rate dependent on the above factors. Cova (2005) recommends a minimum number of exit roads based on the number of households in a sensitive area – this is shown in the table below.
Number of households |
Minimum Number of Exit Roads |
Maximum Number of Households per exit |
1 – 50 |
1 |
50 |
51 - 300 |
2 |
150 |
300 – 600 |
3 |
200 |
601+ |
4 |
|
The background study – Managing Bushfire Risk, Now and Into the Future - notes: “Development has also occurred in a number of locations where the local community is surrounded by extensive areas of bushfire prone vegetation, often with inadequate road networks to enable safe evacuation. Pressure to increase development in these areas has led to increasing evacuation risk to residents and workers, including a high number of elderly and very young residents.”
Environmental zoning
The background study – Managing Bushfire Risk, Now and Into the Future – identified zoning as a mechanism for managing the risks associated with bushfire and evacuation. The background study recommended that environmental zones – such as E3 Environmental Management and E4 Environmental Living – could be applied to properties as a way to reduce the risks from bushfire as these zones would limit or exclude incompatible development within areas where it is likely to be difficult to evacuate during a bushfire.
The environmental zones – E3 and E4- permit residential development, but exclude development types, such as childcare centres – which would lead to increased evacuation risks to vulnerable groups of people. Prohibited uses include those uses identified as “special fire protection purposes” under s100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.
Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013
The background study – Managing Bushfire Risk, Now and Into the Future – made the following recommendation for land use in the then Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013:
b. Apply the E3 – Environmental Management to sites that are both:
· identified as extreme bushfire risk using the Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2010 (Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Councils) as a guide; and
· within the evacuation risk zones identified by the Rural Fire Service ‘Bushfire Prone Land Map and Bushfire Evacuation Risk Map’ that do not meet the exit criteria identified by research by Cova (2005).
Based on the above recommendation, the then Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013 was exhibited between 25 March 2013 and 6 May 2013 with the E3 Environmental Management zone applying to properties that were identified at extreme bushfire risk, within a bushfire evacuation risk area and did not meet the exit criteria as specified by Cova (2005).
The “Bushfire Prone Land Map and Bushfire Evacuation Risk Map” has a category which is linked to the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. This category is an exclusion zone with areas being identified as having an evacuation risk. Accordingly, there are restrictions on further development of housing for seniors or people with a disability (such as retirement villages and nursing homes) within these areas of evacuation risk.
Changes to methodology
During the exhibition of the Draft Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2013, a number of submissions were made regarding the application of the E3 zone in areas of high bushfire evacuation risk. The issues raised in the submissions questioned the methodology and the consistency of the application of the methodology.
Consultation was undertaken with the Rural Fire Services and NSW Police, and based on the discussions the following change was made to the methodology:
· apply the environmental zoning to all land in the evacuation risk zones (as identified on the Bushfire Evacuation Risk Map) that do not meet the exit criteria.
This was due to advice from the emergency services that in the event of a bushfire, they would be looking at evacuating more than those properties identified as extreme bushfire risk under the Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2010 (Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai).
Council undertook a re-assessment against the revised methodology (above). As a result, additional streets and catchments were found not to satisfy the minimum number of exit roads criteria, and therefore should have the environmental zone applied. There were also areas identified that did satisfy the minimum number of exit roads, and therefore should not be subject to the environmental zoning.
Changes to zoning
Also as a result of the consultation with the RFS and Police, it was advised that secondary dwellings (granny flats) do not pose a great evacuation risk. Accordingly, the following change was proposed:
· permit secondary dwellings within the bushfire evacuation risk areas.
Secondary Dwellings are not a permissible development type within the E3 zone – which was applied to land within the bushfire evacuation risk areas within the Draft KLEP 2013. Secondary Dwellings are a permissible development type within the E4 zone.
Accordingly, it was recommended to zone all the properties within the bushfire evacuation risk areas (as identified on the Bushfire Evacuation Risk Map), which do not meet the exit criteria as specified by Cova(2005), E4 Environmental Living.
Deferred from KLEP 2015
Due to the extent of the changes to the methodology and zoning, Council requested that the 13 areas be deferred from inclusion within the KLEP 2015, in order to allow further assessment and further community consultation, which will allow Council to re-exhibit the proposed changes prior to making a final decision on the zoning within these areas.
KLEP 2015 Amendment No. 5
On 23 October 2015 KLEP 2015 Amendment No. 5 was gazetted. This amendment included the provision of Complying Development provisions for Dwelling Houses within Zone E4 Environmental Living. This amendment allows for complying development to be carried out under Schedule 3 of the KLEP 2015 on land zoned E4 – where the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 does not apply.
The amendment includes appropriate standards and exclusions, such as for landscaped area, riparian and biodiversity, to ensure that the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone can still be met.
In line with the recommendation to zone properties identified in bushfire evacuation risk areas that is E4 Environmental Living, the Amendment No.5 to the KLEP 2015 also included inserting the following bushfire zone objectives from the E3 zone to the E4 zone:
· To minimise direct and indirect risks to life property and the environment from bushfire events.
· To ensure development in this zone on land that adjoins land in Zone E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves or Zone E2 Environmental Conservation is compatible with the objectives of those zones
· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents
Comments
The following section details information regarding the re-assessment of the deferred areas and the Planning Proposal.
Consultation with emergency services
As part of the re-assessment of all the deferred areas and as required by Council resolution K with regard to South Turramurra, Council meet with representatives from the Rural Fire Service, NSW Police, Fire and Rescue, State Emergency Service and National Parks and Wildlife Service on 12 August 2015 to discuss the evacuation risks within the 13 deferred areas and Council’s proposed planning measures to prevent significant increases in density and development types that would increase evacuation risks. Also discussed were the implications on evacuation risks for South Turramurra.
Some of matters discussed by the representatives included what are the evacuation issues and how would emergency services evacuate these areas, views on the methodology and whether the proposed planning measures were supported.
The emergency services advised that the area to be evacuated would depend on the incident, the fire, conditions and available resources. They advised that evacuation from some areas, such as North Turramurra, were further complicated by the number of Special Fire Protection Purpose developments with vulnerable people including retirement villages, schools, hospitals and nursing homes.
It was agreed that excluding land uses that provide for vulnerable groups (children, elderly, infirmed) in evacuation risk areas was a reasonable approach as it would ease the number of resources and co-ordination required by the emergency services.
It was also noted that these areas generally adjoin wider bushland areas, including national parks, which is a fact that is not going to change in the future, and that it is likely that a fire event will impact these areas eventually.
With regards to South Turramurra it was noted that South Turramurra does not contain the types of developments as North Turramurra, such as nursing homes, retirement villages, limited childcare centres and one high school. It was noted that the bushland surrounding the area is not as extensive as that surrounding North Turramurra, however it was noted due to the narrow nature of the valley, this could make the fire behaviour unpredictable. It was also noted that the area had a number of bushfires in the past.
The full notes from the meeting are included at Attachment A3.
Following on from the meeting, Council sought written feedback to the following questions:
· What are the issues for evacuation within these 13 areas?
· What are your views on the methodologies and assumptions that Council has used to inform the decisions?
· Based on the methodology and assumptions, is Council making responsible, reasonable and realistic decisions?
· Are Council’s proposed planning measures to prevent increase in density and development types that increase evacuation risks supported?
· What are the evacuation risks for South Turramurra as a whole? Would the proposed planning response be necessary or appropriate for the whole of the South Turramurra peninsular?
The responses from the Police and RFS generally advised that the concepts adopted by Council are supported and noted that increasing population densities and certain land uses in these areas may be problematic and require more resources to evacuate them.
With regards to South Turramurra, the RFS advised that the NSW RFS is proposing to undertake an evacuation risk modelling study which is intended to be used to assess evacuation risk issues and may be applied to areas such as South Turramurra. It is hoped that this will be undertaken in the next 12 months. Accordingly, it is recommended that at this stage Council take no further planning response for the whole of the South Turramurra area with regards to addressing bushfire issues and wait for the NSW RFS evacuation risk modelling study.
Copies of the written responses from the NSW Police and RFS are included in Appendix B of the Planning Proposal which is included at Attachment A1.
Proposed zoning
A summary of the proposed zoning in each of the 13 deferred areas is provided below:
Deferred Area 1 – North Turramurra
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living except for:
· 245-247, 261-265, 270, 272-274, 276, 278-280, 284, 286, 288 and 290 Bobbin Head Road to be zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre
· 243 Bobbin Head Road to be zoned SP2 Infrastructure
· 24 Apps Avenue, 16A Allara Avenue, Lot 34 DP206882, Lot 3 DP557349, Lot 34 DP710498 zoned RE1 Public Recreation
· Lot 323 DP752031 (part of Glengarry) zoned RE2 Private Recreation
· Knox Curagul Playing Fields 408, 410-412 Bobbin Head Road North Turramurra – RE2 Private Recreation
North Turramurra is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as the area is within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the require number of exit roads required for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire. The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the North Turramurra area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
Recommended Max. Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
2 |
1325 |
300 |
1025 |
1 (north of 359A Bobbin Head) |
256 |
50 |
206 |
It should be noted there is a high proportion of Special Fire Protection Purpose developments, such as schools, nursing homes and retirement villages, already existing within this area.
The neighbourhood centre zoning, the infrastructure zoning and the public recreation zoning to be applied to lots along Bobbin Head Road, Apps Avenue and Allara Avenue are a translation of the KPSO zoning into the comparable Standard LEP zoning.
Knox Curagul Playing Fields 408, 410-412 Bobbin Head Road North Turramurra
During the exhibition of the then Draft KLEP 2013, a submission was received on behalf of Knox Grammar School. The submission noted that the proposed zoning of the playing fields under the Draft KLEP 2013 was E3 Environmental Management, and requested the site be zoned SP2 Infrastructure. The submission raised concern that the E3 does not reflect the purpose for which Knox uses the land. Concern was also raised that the E3 zoning prohibits educational establishments, and the E3 zone is not a prescribed zone under the Infrastructure SEPP, and in this regard there would be no avenue for obtaining consent to develop the site.
The Council comments on the submission by Knox were included in a report to Council on 26 November 2013. The Council report acknowledged that the Draft KLEP 2013 and Infrastructure SEPP prohibit school uses within the E3 zoning. The Council report noted that whilst E3 might restrict uses, the reasoning behind its allocation is sound, noting the site is located within a bushfire evacuation risk area and the zone limits the density of the population and developments which cater for vulnerable groups of people, including schools, nursing homes and childcare centres.
As part of the re-assessment of the North Turramurra deferred area, further consideration was given to the zoning of this site. It is acknowledged that an SP2 Infrastructure zoning would be consistent with the zoning of other school sites across the LGA. However, a zoning of SP2 Infrastructure on the site would allow the site to be further developed and its use intensified under the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP. In this regard, the further intensification of the use of the site for a school campus is not compatible with the aims of the Planning Proposal or the surrounding area. The North Turramurra area is identified as a bushfire evacuation risk area, and the Planning Proposal is seeking to exclude land uses such as schools, retirement villages and childcare centres, which area identified as Special Fire Protection Purposes under s100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. These uses will lead to increased excavation risks to vulnerable groups of people and in this regard are incompatible.
The Knox Curagul Playing Fields are recommended to be zoned RE2 Private Recreation. The Department of Planning and Environments LEP Practice Note PN11-002 outlines that the RE2 Private Recreation zone “is generally intended to cover a wide range of recreation areas and facilities on land that is privately owned or managed. The use of facilities developed on this land may be open to the general public or restricted e.g. to registered members only. Private recreation may include racecourses, golf clubs, bowling clubs, rifle ranges, speedways, tennis complexes and other sporting or recreational facilities which may be on significant parcels of privately owned land or on land leased from councils or state authorities”
In this regard, the proposed RE2 Private Recreation zoning is consistent with the current use of the site. This zoning will facilitate the ongoing use of the site for its current purposes for private recreation and will not permit further intensification of the use for school purposes.
Lot 323 DP752031 (part of Glengarry)
Lot 323 DP752031 which is part of Glengarry is proposed to be zoned RE2 Private Recreation. The lot is currently zoned part residential 2(c) and part recreation 6(a) under the KPSO. The Lot was exhibited with part RE2 and part E3 zoning under the Draft KLEP 2013. A submission was received from the Girl Guides NSW/Act which requested that the whole of Lot 323 DP752031 be zoned RE2. It was acknowledged that the RE2 zoning across the whole of the lot would better facilitate the ongoing use of the site for its current purposes and is therefore supported.
9, 9a and 11-15 Curagul Road, North Turramurra
These 3 properties are located at the north-eastern end of North Turramurra. Due to an error they were not included within the boundary of the North Turramurra Deferred Area. The properties are currently zoned E3 under the KLEP 2015. The planning proposal seeks to amend the zoning of these 3 properties from E3 to E4, consistent with the zoning for the rest of North Turramurra.
Deferred Area 2 – North Wahroonga
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living except for:
· 29 Scullin Place and 2A Holt Avenue to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation as these are Council reserves categorised and managed as natural areas.
North Wahroonga is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as the area is within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the number of exit roads required for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire. The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the North Wahroonga area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
Recommended Max. Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
487 |
50 |
437 |
Deferred Area 3 – Warrimoo Avenue
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living except for:
· 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Waipori Street to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential;
· 149B,151,153 Warrimoo Avenue to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential;
· 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11A, 12, 14, 15, 17 Ovens Place to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
The above properties are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential as they fall outside of the catchments and therefore do not rely on the identified exits for evacuation in the event of bushfire.
Warrimoo Avenue is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as the area is within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the number of exit roads required for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire. The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Warrimoo Avenue area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
Recommended Max. Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
2 |
526 |
300 |
226 |
1 (Warrimoo) |
438 |
50 |
388 |
1 (Waipori) |
88 |
50 |
38 |
In this area, there are two separate catchments, each with one exit road – Warrimoo Avenue and Waipori Street.
Deferred Area 4 – Campbell Drive
All land to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential except for:
· 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 Cooper Crescent to be zoned E4 Environmental Living;
· 112 Campbell Drive to be zoned E4 Environmental Living.
Campbell Drive is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential as the area meets the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings. No.’s 1-11 Cooper Crescent and 112 Campbell Drive are proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living due to the riparian and biodiversity values mapped across these properties. The application of the E4 Environmental Living zone on these properties is not due to bushfire evacuation risk.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Campbell Drive area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
Recommended Max. Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
2 |
83 |
300 |
-217 |
Deferred Area 5 – Browns Road – Fox Valley Road – Jordan Avenue
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living except for:
· 198, 200, 206, 208, 208A The Comenarra Parkway to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
This area has a frequent fire history, with more than 2 fires in 30 years. The area is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as the area is within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
198-208A The Comenarra Parkway are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential as they are not located within the catchment area, and do not have a direct interface within the bushland.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Browns Road-Fox Valley Road-Jordan Avenue area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 to 2 |
381 |
50 to 300 |
331 to 81 |
1 (Browns) |
72 |
50 |
22 |
1 (The Broadway) |
249 |
50 |
199 |
1 (Jordan) |
60 |
50 |
10 |
There are three catchments within this area, with all exit roads exiting on The Comenarra Parkway, both to the north and south. Due to the bushland to the north and south it is likely that only one exit would be feasible. Accordingly, a maximum of two exit roads have been included in the assessment.
Deferred Area 6 – Howson Avenue
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living
The area of Howson Avenue is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire. The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Howson Avenue area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
67 |
50 |
17 |
Both exits out of this area exit onto The Comenarra Parkway, however, as the exit to the north goes into bushland – in the event of a bushfire the only feasible evacuation option would be to the south. Accordingly, only one exit onto The Comenarra Parkway has been included in the assessment.
Deferred Area 7 – Eastern Arterial Road
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living except for:
· A9, A11, A15, A17, A19, A21, A23 Hunter Avenue to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
The area of Eastern Arterial Road is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
A9-A23 Hunter Avenue is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential as these properties are not located within the catchment area and have numerous exit road options in the event of an evacuation.
The table below provides and assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Eastern Arterial Road area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
305 |
50 |
255 |
Both exits out of this area are onto Eastern Arterial Road
(to the north and south), however due to the bushland to the south, in the
event of a bushfire the only feasible evacuation option would be to the north.
Accordingly, only one exit has been included in the assessment.
Deferred Area 8 – Parker Avenue – Evans Street
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living.
This area of Parker Avenue and Evans Street has a frequent fire history, with more than 2 fires in 30 years.
The area is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Parker Avenue-Evans Street area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
105 |
50 |
55 |
Due to the exit through bushland to the north, it is likely
that only the exit to the south will be feasible in the event of a bushfire.
Accordingly, only one exit has been included in the assessment.
Deferred Area 9 – Bowen Avenue
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living.
This area has a frequent fire history with more than 2 fires in 30 years.
This area of Bowen Avenue is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Bowen Avenue area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
70 |
50 |
20 |
Deferred Area 10 – Ashburton Avenue
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living.
This area has a frequent fire history, with more than 2 fires in 30 years and has been the subject of arson attempts.
This area of Ashburton Avenue is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Ashburton Avenue area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
78 |
50 |
28 |
Deferred Area 11 – Boronga Avenue – Gloucester Avenue
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living.
This area has a frequent fire history, with more than 2 fires in 30 years.
This area of Boronga Avenue and Gloucester Avenue are proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as the area is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Boronga Avenue-Gloucester Avenue area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
2 |
112 |
300 |
-188 |
1 (Gloucester) |
54 |
50 |
4 |
1 (Boronga) |
58 |
50 |
8 |
This area is unusual in that it is made up of two separate cul-de-sac catchments – which means each street only has one exit. If each catchment (street) is considered separately the number of dwellings exceeds the required number of exit roads.
Deferred Area 12 – East Killara
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living except:
· 20 Kanowar Avenue to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation;
· 56-58 Koola Avenue to be zoned part E4 Environmental Living and part B1 Neighbourhood Centre;
· 23 Wentworth Avenue to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential;
· 18 and 20 Fairbairn Avenue to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential; and
· Lot 32 DP28795 in Redfield Road to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation.
20 Kanowar Avenue East Killara
20 Kanowar Avenue covers an area of approximately 2.8ha. This area was originally Crown Land and was the subject of Aboriginal Land Claim 6039, which was granted in 2000 by the then Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Land and Water Conservation. A Torrens title redefinition plan was registered on the 26 June 2012 which defined the land to be granted under Section 36 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, 1983. The site is currently owned by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.
The site was zoned Residential 2(b) under the KPSO. The site was exhibited with a draft zoning of E2 Environmental Conservation in the Draft KLEP 2013.
As part of the re-assessment of the zoning within the East Killara deferred area, Council engaged independent consultants to undertake an ecological assessment of the site. The assessment evaluated the site in terms of its ecological condition and determined its potential use as a biobank offset site in order to inform the future land use as zoning. The full ecological assessment report is included at Attachment A4.
The ecological report included assessment of onsite vegetation in accordance with the Biobanking Assessment Methodology (OEH 2014). The site was found to support over 95% native vegetation with the remainder made up of exotic turf surrounding residential properties as well as access and fire trails (See table below).
Vegetation Community |
% cleared since European settlement |
Approximate area (ha) |
Legal status |
Status |
Red Bloodwood – Scribbly Gum Woodland on the Sydney Sandstone Plateaux of the Sydney Basin Bioregion |
25% |
2
|
not listed as threatened under State or Commonwealth Legislation |
The substantial proportion of younger trees and small occurrences of scattered older growth trees, indicate that these communities are regrowth woodland. |
Sydney Peppermint – Smooth-barked Apple – Red Bloodwood shrubby open forest on slopes & gullies of the Eastern Sydney Basin Bioregion. |
30% |
1 |
Fauna habitat within the site included five hollow bearing trees and over 25 metres of fallen logs (providing foraging and shelter for a wide range vertebrate species including bird, mammals, amphibians and reptiles). Records of threatened fauna include a potential call from a Red Crowned Toadlet and potential feather from a Powerful Owl (both species are vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995).
This site is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Practice Note PN 11-002 regarding the use of standard zones outlines that the E2 Environmental Conservation zone “is generally intended to protect land that has high conservation values outside the national parks and nature reserves system. The use of this zone needs to be justified by appropriate evaluation of the area in term of meeting the core objectives of having high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.”
The site has high ecological value, containing bushland in good condition with only minor weed infestation. It adjoins other more extensive vegetation which together provide important wildlife connectivity between larger areas of bushland from Garigal National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase National park to the north to Middle Cove in the south. It was mapped as forming part of the then Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Regional Fauna Habitat with ‘Highest Fauna Values’ (DECC 2008). It also forms part of the Regional Fauna Habitat within the Middle Harbour Valley, one of three key areas of regional fauna habitat identified by Ku-ring-gai Council (Ku-ring-gai 2013). The site is identified as Biodiversity lands on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map under the KLEP 2015 and Core Biodiversity Lands with the Greenweb mapping of the KDCP 2015.
The site is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation instead of translating the existing Residential 2(b) zone to the equivalent standard instrument LEP zone, which is E4 Environmental Living. Development on the site under an E4 zoning would be severely constrained by the bushfire planning requirements, which would require limiting the Asset Protection Zone* to within the site which would in turn require construction to BAL40**.
*An asset protection zone is a buffer zone between bushfire hazard and buildings, which is managed to minimise fuel loads and reduce the potential radiant heat levels, flame contact, ember and smoke attack on life and property.
*** The Rural Fire Service defines BAL40 bushfire attack level as increased attack from burning debris with significant radiant heat and the potential for flame contact, which could threaten building integrity. This requires buildings to be designed and constructed in a manner that can withstand the extreme heat and potential flame contact.
The Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP practice note PN 09-002 outlines that there are no mandatory permitted uses within the E2 Environmental Conservation zone, and the uses Council choses should protect the high conservation value of the land and avoid adverse effect in relation to natural hazards.
LEP practice note PN 09-002 outlines that with the permitted uses chosen for the E2 zone;
“Council’s should be aware that uses should not be drawn too restrictively as they may, depending on circumstances, invoke the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and the need for the Minister to designate a relevant acquiring authority”
Currently within the KLEP 2015 the following uses are permitted within the E2 zone:
Environmental protection works; Environmental facilities; Flood mitigation works; Roads; Water storage facilities.
As the site is currently within private ownership and in order not to expose Council to a potential claim under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, it is recommended that “Eco tourist facility” also be included as a permitted use specifically for 20 Kanowar Avenue. This will be achieved through an amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses within the KLEP 2015. “Eco tourist facility” means “a building or place that:
(a) Provides temporary or short-term accommodation to visitors on a commercial basis, and
(b) Is located in or adjacent to an area with special ecological or cultural features, and
(c) Is sensitively designed and located so as to minimise bulk, scale and overall physical footprint and any ecological or visual impact
It may include facilities that are used to provide information or education to visitors and to exhibit or display items”
Clause 5.13 of the Standard LEP Template outlines the requirements in relation to the granting of development consent for eco-tourist facilities. The requirements include conservation of the natural environment, design and construction requirements, infrastructure requirements and requirements for the monitoring and review of the development on the natural environment. The Planning Proposal will seek an amendment to the KLEP 2015 to include this standard clause relating to the development of eco tourist facilities.
The additional permitted use on the site for “Eco tourist facilities” is well-suited for the site, noting that objective of the use is to maintain the environment and cultural values of land on which development is to be carried out which is compatible with the high ecological values assessed on the site.
The inclusion of “Eco tourist facility” is an additional commercial use of site and in this regard the use of the E2 zoning on the site provides a reasonable range of uses.
Additionally the site is of sufficient size and quality that a Biobanking site (under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) may also be considered. The ecological assessment (Attachment A4) generated a total of 24 ecosystem credits for the proposal site. This may be increased through improved site management or by creating species credits (should further work confirm the presence of selected threatened species).
Further information on the creation of biobanking site within lands owned by aboriginal land council’s is available at: http://www.alc.org.au/land-rights/biobanking.aspx
56-58 Koola Avenue East Killara
56-58 Koola Avenue covers an area of 3,276.4sqm and currently operates as a communal carpark, natural area (Warrington Avenue Reserve) and park (Reading Avenue Reserve) surrounding the East Killara neighbourhood shops.
The site was zoned part B1 Neighbourhood Centre (part of the site fronting Koola Avenue) and part RE1 Public Recreation (part of the site fronting Warrington Avenue) under the Draft KLEP 2013.
Council made the following resolution regarding 56-58 Koola Avenue East Killara on the 26 May 2015 after considering a report following the public hearing into the proposed re-classification of four properties in St Ives, East Killara, Roseville Chase and Wahroonga:
Recommendations relating to Part 56-58 Koola Avenue East Killara
H. That Part 56-58 Koola Avenue (being Lot 3 DP 588630) be classified as operational land and the zoning unchanged.
I. That, following gazettal of the reclassification for Part 56-58 Koola Avenue, that the General Manager be authorised to proceed with the preparation and lodgement of a subdivision plan for the property to divide the property along the present zoning.
J. That the appropriate zoning and classification for each of the new allotments under the standard template be considered as part of the Planning Proposal for the whole of surrounding area which was also deferred from Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.
K. That the area fronting Warrington Avenue be considered as part of the Planning Proposal referred to in J above be investigated for a potential residential zoning and the lot facing Koola Avenue be considered for a Neighbourhood Business zone.
A Planning Proposal for the reclassification of the site is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment awaiting gazettal.
As part of the investigation for the zoning, Council engaged independent consultants to carry out a biodiversity assessment of the subject sites. The biodiversity assessment evaluated the site conditions and potential ecological constraints on the site in order to inform the future land use and zoning. The full copy of the biodiversity site condition report for 56-58 Koola Avenue is included at Attachment A5.
The biodiversity assessment included assessment of onsite vegetation in accordance with the Biobanking Assessment Methodology (OEH 2014).
The site was found to contain Red Bloodwood – Scribbly Gum Woodland on the Sydney Sandstone Plateaux of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. This vegetation community is common in the greater Sydney area. It is estimated that this vegetation type has only been cleared by 25% since European settlement (OEH, 2015) and as such, is not listed as endangered or threatened under State or Commonwealth Legislation.
Vegetation communities at the site were also assigned a vegetation condition as per the Biobanking Assessment Methodology (OEH 2014), which compared onsite data against benchmark data for that community. Under the methodology native vegetation is either in low condition or moderate to good condition.
Whilst the site was determined to be in good to moderate condition, all values scored below the bench mark; within the exception of native over-storey and native grass ground cover (See Table 1). The decreased species diversity, lack of mid-storey and dominance of grass within the ground cover rather than shrubs or herbs, are a result of past and ongoing impacts (including edge effects, clearing, hydrological changes, weed invasion, time since fire).
Table 1 Comparison of site obtained data against the benchmark data
|
Native plant species |
Native over-storey cover |
Native mid-storey cover |
Native ground cover (grass) |
Native ground cover (shrubs) |
Native ground cover (other) |
# trees with hollows |
Over-storey regeneration |
Total length of fallen logs |
Bechmark data |
≥39 |
17 to 27 |
75 to 85 |
1 to 10 |
7 to 11 |
13 to 17 |
≥1 |
1 |
≥30 |
Site data |
23 |
17 |
6 |
22 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Fauna habitat observed on site included several arboreal termite mounds (which may provide habitat for avian fauna) and fallen logs (provides foraging and shelter for a wide range vertebrate species including bird, mammals, amphibians and reptiles). Considering the lack of important habitat features (such as hollows, caves, bush rock etc) and the small patch size, which is impacted by edge effects, the proposal site only provides minor disturbed habitat and is more likely to be used by highly mobile fauna species able to withstand high levels of disturbances. The proposal site is therefore not considered vital in maintaining habitat connectivity or providing breeding/foraging habitat for native species in a local or regional context.
Funding allocation within Council’s bush regeneration program is directed through a bushland prioritisation matrix. This matrix is currently limited to reserves containing threatened species or threatened ecological communities and as such does not include Warrington Avenue Reserve. Due to resource constraints this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Over the past 6 years, works within the site have included reactive requests to clear the reserve of rubbish, fallen branches and debris listed as potential fire hazards and minor targeting of noxious weeds. The site has however been actively regenerated since 2005 by a local bush care group (which is currently listed as inactive).
The entire site is identified as “Biodiversity” lands on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map under the KLEP 2015 and Core Biodiversity Lands with the Greenweb mapping of the KDCP 2015. The intent is to retain the application of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map and associated LEP provisions within the site.
The part of the site which has a frontage to Warrington Avenue is currently zoned 6(a) Open Space under the KPSO and has an area of approximately 2,709sqm. The Council resolution K above required the investigation of a potential residential zoning for this part of the site. Having regard for the findings of the biodiversity assessment, it is proposed to zone this part of the site E4 Environmental Living due to its location within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and which does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
E4 Environmental Living zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 1,500sqm. Accordingly, the site only has capacity for 1 allotment that meets the minimum lot size requirements of Clause 4.1 of the KLEP 2015.
Any future development of the site would require considerations of:
· Bushfire planning requirements in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (as the site is located within bushfire prone lands). This will include the management of onsite vegetation/ gardens as asset protection zones.
· Section 3A General Controls for Consolidation and Subdivision (KDCP 2015)
· Section 22 - 22.1 Earthworks and Slope (KDCP 2015)
· Biodiversity provisions within Section 6.3 KLPE 2015 and Section 19 KDCP 2015. Including (but not limited to):
- minimising disturbance and adverse impacts on remnant vegetation communities and habitat; and
- no net loss of significant vegetation and habitat. Where proposed works will impact vegetation on site, offsetting will be required. These offsetting requirements are to be determined at subdivision stage and are to be partially funded through sale of the site.
· The potential for unrecorded sites within sandstone outcrops in the western part of the reserve was noted. Should future development affected this sandstone, the Aboriginal Heritage Office recommend that further Aboriginal heritage assessment be undertaken (including removal of all on ground debris). If these outcrops are not impacted, then no further assessment is required. See Attachment A6 for full copy of advice from the Aboriginal Heritage Office.
The part of the site which has a frontage to Koola Avenue which is currently used as a communal carpark is recommended to be zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre which is consistent with its current zoning and the zoning of the adjoining neighbourhood centre shops and carpark.
23 Wentworth Avenue and 18 and 20 Fairbairn Avenue
These properties are located on the edge of the deferred area boundary and are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential as there is numerous exit options in the event of bushfire for these properties.
This deferred area of East Killara is proposed to be mostly zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
The below table provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the East Killara area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
2 to 3 |
651 |
300 to 600 |
351 to 51 |
Deferred Area 13 – Bradfield Road
All land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living.
Houses were lost in this part of Bradfield Road in the 1994 bushfire.
This area of Bradfield Road is proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living as it is located within an identified bushfire evacuation risk area and does not meet the required number of exit roads for the number of dwellings – leading to increased evacuation risk in the event of bushfire.
The table below provides an assessment of the number of exit roads and dwellings within the Bradfield Road area in accordance with Cova (2005).
No. Exits |
No. Dwellings |
No. Recommended Dwellings |
No. over recommended |
1 |
95 |
50 |
45 |
The proposal to apply the E4 Environmental Living zone within the deferred areas is a planning measure to prevent development types that will result in an increase to the evacuation risk.
Proposed zoning maps for each of the 13 deferred areas are included in Part 4 of the Planning Proposal which is included at attachment A1.
Complying Development - KLEP 2015 Amendment No. 5
During the exhibition of the Draft KLEP 2013, a number of submissions raised concern that the proposed Environmental zoning (E3 and E4) meant that they would not be able to rely on the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 to undertake complying development.
Under the provisions of the General Housing Code within the SEPP, complying development can only be carried out on land zoned R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5.
It was assessed that it was not unreasonable to allow complying development in the Environmental zones (E3 and E4), as the main land use within these zones is dwelling houses, the same as R2 Low Density Residential.
On 23 October 2015 KLEP 2015 Amendment No. 5 was gazetted. This amendment includes the provision of Complying Development provisions for Dwelling Houses within Zone E4 Environmental Living. This amendment allows for complying development to be carried out under Schedule 3 of the KLEP 2015 on land zoned E4 – where the Codes SEPP does not apply.
The amendment includes appropriate standards and exclusions, such as for landscaped area, riparian and biodiversity, to ensure that the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone can still be met.
In this regard, the proposed E4 Environmental Living zoning to the majority of properties within the deferred areas will not adversely impact on the ability to undertake complying development.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P2 – Managing Urban Change
|
Land use strategies, plan and process are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development
|
P2.1.1.1.2 Implement and monitor the Local Environmental Plans and supporting Development Control Plans |
Governance Matters
The process for preparation and implementation of Planning Proposal is governed by the provision contained within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
Council should seek the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal. This involves Council taking on the Director General’s function under s59(1) of the Act in liaising with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required local environmental plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal as well the Minister’s function under s59(2) of the Act in making the Plan.
Risk Management
The 13 deferred areas are still subject to the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance, which as a planning document is out dated in its approach to zoning, land use controls and is difficult to interpret. This Planning Proposal seeks to include the 13 deferred areas into the KLEP 2015. There is a risk that if Council does not progress the amendment to the KLEP 2015 to include these 13 deferred areas there could be ongoing uncertainty for both staff and the general public.
There is a risk that if the permitted land uses are too restrictive within the E2 zone applying to 20 Kanowar Avenue, East Killara, they may depending on circumstances invoke the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and the need for the Minister to designate a relevant acquiring authority, which under the circumstances would be Council. There is no identified funding source for such an acquisition.
Financial Considerations
The cost for the preparation of this Planning Proposal and additional supporting studies is covered by the Strategy and Environment operational budget.
Social Considerations
Social issues cover all aspects of human life, including how we live, our culture, our community, health, wellbeing and aspirations.
It is not expected that the Planning Proposal will result in any adverse social impacts.
Environmental Considerations
The Planning Proposal and the use of the proposed E4 zoning is a proactive approach to both the management of natural resources and the management of the environmental hazards caused by bushfire risk. The risks result from the historical development patterns in Ku-ring-gai which has seen fingers of bushland into residential areas protected from development and large residential sites which support an extensive tree canopy and areas of remnant bushland.
Biodiversity assessments of 56-58 Koola Avenue and 20 Kanowar Avenue, East Killara were undertaken by independent consultants in order to evaluate the site conditions and potential ecological constraints on the site in order to inform the future land use and zoning on the sites.
20 Kanowar Avenue, East Killara is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation as the site has high ecological values.
Community Consultation
Should the Planning Proposal be granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal will be placed on statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Departments publication A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals.
During the statutory public exhibition the community will be invited to make submissions on the proposal.
Internal Consultation
Council officers from Development and Regulation and Strategy and Environment have been consulted with during the preparation of the Planning Proposal and this report.
Council officers also held a workshop on the deferred areas with representatives from the Rural Fire Service, NSW Police, Fire and Rescue, State Emergency Service and National Parks and Wildlife Service on 12 August 2015.
Summary
13 areas within Ku-ring-gai were deferred from inclusion within the KLEP 2015 when it came into effect on 2 April 2015. These areas were identified as bushfire evacuation risk areas, and were deferred to allow Council to re-assess the evacuation risks and zoning within these areas.
The deferred areas that are located within bushfire evacuation risk areas and that do not meet the number of exit road requirements as per the Cova (2005) research are proposed to be zoned E4 Environmental Living. The E4 zoning is a planning measure to prevent increases in density and development types that would increase evacuation risks within these areas.
A. That the Planning Proposal (Attachment A1) be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations.
B. That delegation be granted to the General Manager to make any necessary corrections and amendments for drafting inconsistencies, or minor amendments as necessary to ensure consistency with NSW Standard Order Template and Department of Planning & Environment Policy.
C. That Council request the plan making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act for this Planning Proposal.
D. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the EP&A Act and with the Gateway Determination requirements.
E. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.
F. That Council wait for the NSW Rural Fire Service evacuation risk modelling study to be completed prior to further investigating a planning response for the whole of the South Turramurra area with the aim of addressing bushfire issues. |
Alexandra Plumb Urban Planner |
Craige Wyse Team Leader Urban Planning |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
A1View |
Deferred Areas Planning Proposal |
|
2015/318887 |
|
|
A2View |
Planning Proposal Appendix A - Managing Bushfire Risk, Now and into the Future |
|
2015/078565 |
|
A3View |
12 August Meeting Notes - Deferred Areas Bushfire Evacuation Risk |
|
2015/222172 |
|
A4View |
Ecological constraints report 20 Kanowar Avenue East Killara |
|
2015/317652 |
|
A5View |
Biodiversity Site Condition Report - 56-58 Koola Avenue East Killara |
|
2015/313448 |
|
A6View |
Advice from Aboriginal Heritage Office - 56-58 Koola Avenue East Killara (Warrington Reserve) |
|
2015/317689 |
APPENDIX No: 2 - Planning Proposal Appendix A - Managing Bushfire Risk, Now and into the Future |
|
Item No: GB.7 |
APPENDIX No: 6 - Advice from Aboriginal Heritage Office - 56-58 Koola Avenue East Killara (Warrington Reserve) |
|
Item No: GB.7 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.8 / 986 |
|
|
Item GB.8 |
S10750 |
|
10 November 2015 |
Lindfield Community Hub: Project Delivery
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To advise Council on the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the Lindfield Community Hub Project (Project). |
|
|
background: |
At OMC of 6 October 2015, Council resolved in part to advertise an EOI seeking proposals from development companies based on Option 2 (revised EOI version); and to advertise an EOI by end October 2015 and select a preferred development company by early 2016. |
|
|
comments: |
Further legal advice was sought on the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the Project. Spark Helmore Lawyers recommend that the most appropriate delivery method for the Project is a Public Private Partnership (PPP). This advice has triggered a series of new actions, and has necessitated an amendment to Council’s adopted timeframe for the Project. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council resolve to deliver the project by way of a Public Private Partnership (PPP), in accordance with Local Government Act and PPP Guidelines. |
Purpose of Report
To advise Council on the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the Lindfield Community Hub Project (Project).
Background
At OMC of 6 October 2015, GB.10, Lindfield Community Hub Update Report, Council resolved the following:
A. That Council adopts Option 2 (as exhibited) with a maximum building height of 7 (seven) storeys as the preferred option for the Lindfield Community Hub project;
B. That Council adopts a variation of Option 2, with a maximum building height of 7 (seven) storeys, for the purposes of an Expression of Interest (EOI), which excludes Scouts Association land located at 1A Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield (Lot 2 of DP184154; Lot C of DP 399995; and Lot A of 327729) and AUSGRID land located at 1 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield (Lot 1 of DP184042);
C. That Council advertises an Expression of Interest (EOI) seeking proposals from development companies based on option 2 (revised EOI version) as described in resolution B;
D. That in order to encourage innovation Council will accept non-conforming bids from the EOI process on the condition that a fully conforming bid is submitted. Where a non-conforming bid is submitted the proposal must describe in detail all the benefits and costs; the financial impacts; and potential impacts on the project risk profile
E. That Council adopts the following community infrastructure elements as mandatory requirements for any bid arising from EOI to be considered as conforming:
LINDFIELD COMMUNITY HUB – PROJECT SCOPE/MANDATORY ELEMENTS |
||||
Category of works |
Items of inclusion |
Location and extent |
Minimum requirements |
Relevant guidelines and controls |
General |
Mix of residential, retail and commercial uses |
_ |
_ |
_ |
Streetscape works |
-New footpaths -Underground power lines -LED street lighting -Street trees and tree grates -Landscaping of verges -Installation of street furniture such as benches, litter bins and bike racks, on strategic locations |
Bent Lane Bent Street Woodford Lane Beaconsfield Parade |
_ |
Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010
Council’s streetscape technical manual
|
Road and transport works |
-Road realignment and resurfacing -Kerb and gutter realignment |
Bent Lane Woodford Lane |
_ |
Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan , 2010
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010
Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study Report 2013-14 |
|
-Construction of new public street (realignment and extension of Drovers Way) -Formal closure of existing Drovers Way road reserve |
Between Bent Street and Beaconsfield Parade |
_ |
Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010
Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study Report 2013-14 |
|
-Construction of new kiss & ride zone - Construction of taxi rank with shelters and signage |
Woodford Lane |
_ |
Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010
|
|
-Modifications to traffic signals |
Intersection of Pacific Highway and Balfour Street/Havilah Road |
_ |
Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study Report 2013-14 |
|
-Installation of new traffic signals |
Intersection of Beaconsfield Parade and Pacific Highway |
_ |
Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study Report 2013-14
|
Public Domain Works |
-Construction of new public park -Construction of new urban plaza |
Fronting Bent Street
|
Minimum size of consolidated green open space 3,000m2
|
Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan, 2010 Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan, 2010 Design specifications as provided by Council |
|
-Construction of new pedestrian plaza on Bent Street |
Within road reserve between Bent Lane and Pacific Highway |
|
Design specifications as provided by Council |
Community building |
-Construction of a community hub building comprising a café, new branch library, community centre and child care centre with roof garden |
Corner of Bent Street and new street (realigned Drovers Way) |
-Minimum size 2,950m2 -High design quality - Iconic |
Lindfield Community Facilities Study, Elton consulting, 2013 Design specifications as provided by Council |
|
-Full internal fit-out of branch library (turn-key) |
Level 1 of community hub building |
Minimum size 1,250 m2
|
Lindfield Community Facilities Study, Elton consulting, 2013 Design specifications as provided by Council |
|
-Full internal fit-out of community centre (turn-key) |
Level 2 of community hub building |
Minimum size 1,200 m2
|
Lindfield Community Facilities Study, Elton consulting, 2013 Design specifications as provided by Council |
|
-Full internal fit-out of childcare centre (turn-key) |
Level 3 of community hub building |
Minimum size 500 m2 with external roof top garden area |
Design specifications as provided by Council
Council’s DCP |
Car parking |
-Council car parking for community uses |
Basement car park |
Minimum of 55 spaces |
Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia |
|
-Public parking (Commuter) |
Basement car park |
Minimum of 140 spaces |
Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia |
|
-Council car parking (replacement of existing at-grade spaces) |
Basement car park |
Minimum of 112 spaces |
Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia |
|
-Private parking (retail and commercial) |
Basement car park |
_ |
Local Centres DCP, 2012 Lindfield Community Hub - Site specific DCP |
|
-Private parking (residential) |
Basement car park |
_ |
Local Centres DCP, 2012
Lindfield Community Hub - Site specific DCP |
Retail & Commercial uses |
-Supermarket
-Commercial & Retail (including supermarket)
|
Basement and ground level |
Minimum supermarket size 3,000 m2
Maximum retail (including supermarket) + commercial floor space 5,000m2 |
Local Centres DCP, 2012
Lindfield Community Hub - Site specific DCP |
F. That Council adopts the following general programme for the next phase of the Lindfield Community Hub project:
§ advertise EOI by end October 2015;
§ EOI submissions close by December 2015;
§ EOI evaluation period January 2016;
§ selection of preferred development company by early 2016;
§ negotiation with preferred development company completed by mid-2016; and
§ submission of development application by late 2016.
G. That Council writes to the Office of Local Government advising them of the Lindfield Community Hub project and noting that Council intends to submit a report that responds to the requirements of the Office of Local Government Capital Expenditure Guidelines, 2010;
H. That Council staff report back to Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) on 27 October 2015 regarding a planning proposal and a site-specific DCP in support of the preferred option; and
I. That Council staff report back to Council on the findings of the Lindfield Local Centre Transport Network Model Study with a view to seeking concurrence from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).
J. That all EOI submissions should wherever practicable incorporate the principles of low energy-use design, sustainability and environmental sensitivity and describe how they will deliver sustainable outcomes consistent Ku-ring-gai Council policies.
The full list of Council reports which pertain to the Lindfield Hub project have been set out below for reference:
1. OMC – 26 June 2012 – GB.9 - Council Car Park – Woodford Lane, Lindfield – Reclassification
2. OMC – 26 February 2013 – GB.16 - Woodford Lane, Lindfield Commuter Car Park
3. OMC – 28 May 2013 – GB.10 - Lindfield Community Hub and Commuter Car Park – Next Steps
4. OMC – 30 July 2013 – GB.5 – Proposed Reclassification of 1B Beaconsfield Parade and 19 Drovers Way, Lindfield (Woodford Lane Car Park) to Operational Land Following the Exhibition and Public Hearing Process
5. OMC – 12 November 2013 – C.1 - Potential Property Acquisition – Lindfield
6. OMC - 10 December 2013 - GB.19 - Lindfield Village Green - Tryon Road - Project Update
7. OMC – 24 June 2014 – C.1 - Property Acquisition - Lindfield
8. OMC – 9 September 2014 – GB.4 – Lindfield Community Hub – Woodford Lane – Report on Progress
9. OMC - 11 November 2014 – GB.7 – Lindfield Community Hub – Probity Matters
10. OMC – 25 November 2014 – GB.8 – Lindfield Community Hub – Probity Management Plan
11. OMC – 9 December 2014 – Tender No. RFT22/2014 – Lindfield Community Hub – Tender For Consultants to Prepare Illustrative Development Options and Master Plan
12. OMC – 21 April 2015 – GB.5 – Compulsory Acquisition of Roads – Lindfield
13. OMC – 8 September 2015 – GB.9 – Lindfield Community Hub Preferred Option
14. OMC – 6 October 2015 – GB. 10 – Lindfield Community Hub Update Report
15. OMC – 10 November 2015 – GB .11 – Lindfield Community Hub - Planning Proposal and Site-Specific DCP
Comments
1. Summary
The report to Council of 6 October 2015 GB.10 assumed that the project delivery mechanism for the Project would be a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). Since that time legal advice has been received from Spark Helmore Lawyers (SHL) with respect to the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the Project.
In summary, SHL recommend that the Lindfield Hub project is best delivered through a PPP rather than through a VPA arrangement. Their full report can be viewed at Confidential Attachment A1: Project Delivery Mechanism by Spark Helmore Lawyers (trim link: 2015/315466).
2. Reasons for Recommending a PPP
Several compelling reasons were cited in the SHL report for recommending a PPP over a VPA. These have been summarised below.
· Contributions made by Council: The arrangement involves contributions made not only by the developer but by Council for an amount of $15 million (from section 94).
· Council Involvement: Council wishes to be involved with and have a certain amount of control over the design and development of the proposed facilities that will ultimately be dedicated to Council. The project is also envisaged to be marketed as a Council initiative. Both of these points do not occur in a VPA arrangement.
· Ongoing Obligations: There may be ongoing maintenance requirements or management obligations associated with Council-owned facilities. A VPA can require maintenance contributions or a lump sum payment towards ongoing maintenance, however where another party may be responsible for managing Council facilities, a PPP is the preferred option.
· Non-Conforming Submissions: Non-conforming submissions can be accepted under a PPP arrangement without seeking further review by the Office of Local Government or additional submissions from proponents.
· Perceived Avoidance of Legislative Provisions: Attempting to establish a VPA arrangement may appear artificial or perceived as an attempt to avoid the PPP requirements under the LG Act.
3. Process for PPPs
The Office of Local Government (OLG) issued PPP guidelines in accordance with section 400C of the LG Act, which sets out the procedures and processes to be followed by Council when entering into and carrying out projects under a PPP.
A summary of this process is given below:
· Step 1: Concept Approval by Council
A decision to enter into a PPP may only be made by resolution of Council.
· Step 2- Council must provide assessment to OLG
A formal Project Proposal has to be developed and submitted for initial assessment by OLG.
· Step 3: Initial Assessment
Having regard to the information submitted by Council and based on the level of risk that is assessed, the Departmental Chief Executive will determine whether the proposal should be referred to the Project Review Committee for review.
· Step 4: Where referral to Committee not required
If referral to the Committee is not required, Council can then proceed to receive expressions of interest, determine an appropriate management structure for the PPP, and once a suitable partner is found, commence negotiating contracts for the project.
· Step 5: Review by Committee – Pre-expression of interest/market testing
If the proposal must be submitted to the Committee for review, it will be considered in two stages as follows:
1. Pre expression of interest and market testing stage; and
2. Pre-contract signing stage
Once the Committee has assessed all of the information submitted by Council, it will advise the Council whether it can proceed to carry out the expression of interest/market testing stage, or whether any other matters are required to be addressed.
· Step 6: Expression of Interest stage
Once Council receives confirmation from the Committee that is has satisfied the criteria set out in Step 5, it may commence the EOI process.
· Step 7: The pre-contract signing stage
The established evaluation panel is to assess the EOIs and rank the proposals on relative merit and create a shortlist of partners. Once a preferred partner is identified for the PPP, Council may enter into negotiations regarding the terms of the contract for the project. However, before the contracts are signed the Committee will undertake its next review. Council is to provide comprehensive documentation to the Committee for its review.
· Step 8: Entering into the PPP contracts
Once the Committee is satisfied that the PPP complies with the Guidelines, it will advise Council that it can proceed with the PPP. Council may then pass a resolution to enter into the PPP and subsequently sign the contracts.
integrated planning and reporting
Places, Spaces and Infrastructure - P4 Revitalisation of our centres
Community, People and Culture - C4 Healthy lifestyles
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public spaces designed with a strong sense of identity and place. |
P4.1.1 Plans to revitalise local centres are being progressively implemented and achieve quality design outcomes in collaboration with key agencies, landholders and the community.
P4.1.4 An improvement plan for Lindfield centre is being progressively implemented in collaboration with owners, businesses and state agencies. |
Implement a place management approach for the local centre improvements to coordinate works and achieve quality outcomes.
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. |
A healthy, safe, and diverse community that respects our history, and celebrates our differences in a vibrant culture of learning. |
C4.1.2 New and enhanced open space and recreational facilities have been delivered to increase community use and enjoyment.
|
Undertake acquisitions for new parks.
Undertake assessment and identify locations for new parks
Complete the design for identified parks and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities.
Construct parks at identified locations and include design principles which facilitate passive recreation activities |
FIT FOR THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN
The NSW Government's Fit for the Future initiative required all Councils to prepare an Improvement Proposal and supporting Implementation Plan demonstrating how all seven Fit for the Future benchmarks would be met by 2016/17, and maintained or improved thereafter.
Council's Fit For the Future Improvement Proposal and supporting Implementation Plan underpins the decision to stand alone and not merge with Hornsby Council. The objectives established in the Improvement Proposal and Implementation Plan are embedded in Council's adopted Integrated Planning and Reporting documents including the Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2015-2016, Long Term Financial Plan 2015/16 to 2024/25 and Asset Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2024/25.
Council’s Fit For the Future Improvement Proposal sets out the following strategies and outcomes to meet the State governments Efficiency criteria:
Objective |
Strategies |
Key milestones |
Outcome |
Major Local and Town Centres projects i.e. Community hub projects are commercially feasible in their own right |
Projects should include commercial opportunities for Council to offset ongoing operational costs (life cycle costs) of the public benefits provided |
Masterplans adopted for Local and Town Centres 2015/2016
EOI for the redevelopment of Lindfield Local Centre 2015/2016
Redevelopment of Lindfield Local Centre 2016/2017
EOI for the redevelopment of Turramurra Local Centre 2015/2016.
Redevelopment of Turramurra Local Centre 2016/2017.
EOI for the redevelopment of Gordon Town Centre 2015/2016. |
Masterplans adopted for the Local and Town Centres with development options substantially progressed to deliver community facilities and public benefits. |
Governance Matters
The following set of governance documents for the Lindfield Community Hub Project have been completed and reported to Council. These documents are intended to guide the day-to-day management of the project:
· Governance Structure;
· Probity Management Framework;
· Probity Plan & Market Sounding Probity Protocol; and
· Project Decision Making Framework.
Risk Management
1. Risk Management Plan
A Risk Management Plan for the Lindfield Community Hub Project was adopted by Council on 8 September 2015. A project-specific Risk Management Matrix is currently being prepared in conjunction with Council’s risk officer. The details of this Plan will be reported to Council once finalised.
2. Project Resourcing
There is an acute shortage of suitably qualified and experienced resources within Council to deliver major projects in the LGA. This fact has been long-identified and unanimously agreed. Accordingly, a human resources consultant has been engaged to assess the resourcing requirements of the team and the required future structure for a major projects delivery team within Council. This work is currently underway.
3. Financial Risk Considerations
A total of $851,000.00 has been spent during the financial years 2013/14 and 2014/15 on this project. It is noted that this represents a considerable amount of expenditure on staff salaries and consultants, although not uncommon for a project of this value of approximately $120M. The funding sources have been from development contributions including the 2010 Plan as well as earlier Plans. During this time the work undertaken has included project scoping, preliminary project feasibility, master plan options, exhibition, community engagement and assessment of options. A possible result of any failure to progress the project could mean that Council will be required to repay the S94 funds spent to date because the community infrastructure will not be delivered. Delays also lead to escalation in construction costs, which are out of the control of Council.
Therefore, it is recommended that all effort is to be taken to progress the major projects to implementation.
4. Council’s Reputation
Council has consulted extensively with the community regarding this project. In addition, the private sector has also been consulted with during the market sounding meetings held in October 2015. Should the project not progress as planned, it will lead to irreparable damage to Council’s reputation with the community and with the market.
Financial Considerations
The funding sources have been from development contributions including the 2010 Plan as well as earlier Plans. Approximately $14 million in funds (2014/2015 dollars) have been allocated to this project in Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). This represents Council’s contribution to the costs of streetscape works, road and transport works, public domain, community buildings and car parking identified in the project scope earlier in this report. Council’s LTFP also includes financial contributions from ‘development partners’ where Council is unable to fund certain facilities such as community buildings and car parking due to apportionment rates within the development contributions plan or a lack of nexus. The funds are identified as expenditure for the years 2017 through to 2021. In order for Council to spend these funds in a timely manner, it will be necessary to progress the project expeditiously.
Social Considerations
Council, as part of the Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2013-2014, seeks to revitalise the Lindfield local centre to improve the vitality and liveability. The key objective of the project is to create a vibrant community hub for Lindfield incorporating a new branch library and community centre, town centre park, commuter and community parking with other uses such as retail and residential spaces. Council envisages this to be a rare opportunity to create a precinct which will be a valuable asset to the residents of Lindfield and the wider Ku-ring-gai community to gather in a quality urban environment. The provision of additional community infrastructure providing both outdoor and indoor community spaces will continue to support this process and help Ku-ring-gai continue to be a vibrant and popular place to live for all ages.
Environmental Considerations
A Design Specifications Report for the project is currently being prepared by ROOT Projects Australia, in conjunction with Council staff. This report outlines the environmental and sustainability requirements of the project, and clearly illustrates Council’s strong intent to be market leaders in this area. Recommendations include a minimum of 5-star Green star rating for the buildings, the use of solar photovoltaics, use of energy-efficient appliances, LED lighting for community buildings, green roofs, minimising water usage, rainwater harvesting, etc.
Community Consultation
Community consultation is not required in the preparation or reporting of this matter.
INTERNAL CONSULTATION
Internal consultation for this project is prescribed by the Governance Structure (decision-making framework/hierarchy) for the project which is as follows:
· Councillors;
· Executive Steering Committee (GMD);
· Project Sponsor - Director Strategy and Environment;
· Project Manager - Team Leader Urban Design;
· Project Control Group (PCG) (meetings are currently held bi-monthly);
· Project Working Group (PWG); and
· Tender Review Committee (various).
Summary
Based on recent legal advice received from Spark Helmore Lawyers, it has been concluded that the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the Lindfield Hub project is a Public Private Partnership (PPP), as opposed to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). In the interests of project progress and in order to take advantage of favourable market conditions, it is imperative to commence the PPP process at the earliest, and to amend the project timeline in light of this recent advancement. It is proposed to work with Council’s lawyers over the next month to develop a new project program (which will supersede the 6 October 2015 Council resolution) and report this to Council in early 2016.
A. That Council proceeds with the Lindfield Community Hub Project as a PPP in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and, before seeking any Expressions of Interest (EOI), undertakes the actions and processes required to establish a PPP under the Act and the Public Private Partnership Guidelines issued by the Offoce of Local Government.
B. That a revised program for the project be prepared in light of PPP requirements and reported to Council in the new year 2016, which will supersede the 6 October 2015 Council resolution with respect to project program.
|
Bill Royal Team Leader Urban Design |
Sarah Koshy Senior Urban Designer |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
Lindfield Hub_Spark Helmore Legal Advice on PPPs_23 November 2015 |
|
Confidential |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.9 / 997 |
|
|
Item GB.9 |
S10520 |
|
11 November 2015 |
The Mall Shops, Warrimoo Avenue, St Ives Chase - Neighbourhood Centre Upgrade
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To seek Council's endorsement of the final concept design for the upgrade to Warrimoo Avenue Neighbourhood Centre (The Mall Shops) located at St Ives Chase. |
|
|
background: |
As part of the Ku-ring-gai Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2015-2016, improvements and upgrades are planned to a number of neighbourhood shopping centres across Ku-ring-gai over the coming years. Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre has been identified as a priority in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program. Council officers have prepared a concept design, cost estimates, and undertaken community consultation seeking comment on a range of proposed improvements. |
|
|
comments: |
A draft concept design, based on site analysis, an assessment of design opportunities and constraints, and initial stakeholder discussions, was sent out for comment to over 1,086 local property owners, shopkeepers and residents within St Ives Chase. A plan of the draft concept design was also exhibited for public comment on Council’s website and on-site. A total of eight (8) written responses and one verbal response were received and the majority of comments indicate general public support for the planned upgrade. It can be assumed that the other residents and stakeholders that were given opportunity to respond either liked the design or did not feel strongly enough to make comment against it.
The range of improvements proposed are an opportunity to provide Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre with a safer, secure and more accessible pedestrian environment which will better meet the needs of shop owners, operators and the local community. It is proposed that detailed design plans and specifications be prepared, tenders called and construction commenced by mid-2016. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council endorse the final concept design for the upgrade to Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre, as the basis on which staff undertake design development and prepare construction documentation for the calling of tenders. |
Purpose of Report
To seek Council's endorsement of the final concept design for the upgrade to Warrimoo Avenue Neighbourhood Centre (The Mall Shops) located at St Ives Chase.
Background
As part of the Ku-ring-gai Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2015-2016, improvements and upgrades are planned to a number of neighbourhood shopping centres across Ku-ring-gai over the coming years.
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 June 2014 (minute no. 180) Council resolved:
A. That Warrimoo Avenue Shops in St Ives Chase will be the next centre to be revitalised under the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program.
B. That a meeting of Councillors and Staff be held to discuss the prioritisation matrix results for the remainder of the neighbourhood centres and reprioritise when necessary based on community and business interest and input.
C. That unspent funds within the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program be returned to the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve for reallocation in future years to other projects within the Program.
Part A of this resolution has been progressed with the preparation of a final concept design plan, estimates and public consultation as outlined for consideration in this report.
Part B of this resolution was undertaken at a meeting of Councillors and staff held on Tuesday 27 January 2015 to discuss the prioritisation matrix results for the remainder of the neighbourhood centres.
The results were further considered and endorsed at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 11 August 2015 at which the Babbage Road Shops at Roseville were adopted as the next priority neighbourhood centre following completion of the Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre project.
Part C of the resolution has been noted for implementation as the program progresses.
Comments
Council officers have undertaken a design process that has included:
· site survey and analysis;
· initial consultation with shopkeepers and internal stakeholders;
· preparation of draft concept design and cost estimates;
· community consultation;
· review of comments; and
· preparation of a final draft concept design plan and estimates.
1. Site analysis
Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre services the daily convenience shopping needs of the local community of St Ives Chase and is variously referred to as The Mall Shops, Warrimoo Shops or St Ives Chase Shopping Centre.
The building complex is surrounded by a Council road named The Mall which provides parking and access to the shops. Pedestrians and vehicles access the centre via Warrimoo Avenue and Dalton Road, and public transport is available from a bus stop located directly in front of the centre on Warrimoo Avenue.
The centre adjoins residential properties, a local service station / motor mechanic workshop and a local park known as The Mall Reserve. Pedestrian access to shop fronts is via a standard concrete footpath which fronts the building on two sides. Service access is located to the rear of the building complex. There are two distinct carpark areas with a total of 39 spaces, currently available without time restrictions.
Council’s assets and the general condition of the centre is good/average however overall presentation and amenity is low. Carpark line marking has been recently reinstated; however, parts of the carpark surface appear to be in poor condition and in need of renewal. Carpark landscape areas and signage would also benefit from some rationalisation and renewal. There is no accessible pathway link to adjoining streets and parkland, and no accessible parking space is provided.
2. Design Opportunities and Constraints.
Given the existing carpark configuration and access arrangements, there is limited scope to improve amenity by providing additional landscaping or widening of the existing shopfront footpath. However, opportunity does exist for the use of alternative paving materials and to rationalise access and parking requirements to improve the overall accessibility, appearance and amenity of the centre.
The Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre adjoins The Mall Reserve. The shops and the park are currently separated by a driveway, a fence and a retaining wall, with no clear connection between them. There is opportunity for the park to be better used as a community space and act as a ’village green‘ provided that access between the two is improved.
In support of this proposal two grants from the NSW Government totalling $30,000 have been received to assist with upgrading the adjoining park playground [works already completed] and with construction of a new accessible link between the shops and the park.
Budgetary constraints do not allow for provision of a public toilet as part of this project.
3. Stakeholder consultation
A preliminary concept design was prepared for initial consultation with shopkeepers via their Strata Management. Comments were also canvassed from internal stakeholders regarding the preliminary design proposals. Where possible the comments received were incorporated as part of a developed draft concept design plan which was subsequently sent out for comment to over 1,086 local property owners, shopkeepers and residents within St Ives Chase. The draft concept design plan was also exhibited for public review and comment on Council’s website and on-site.
Refer to Community Consultation section later in this report.
4. Final design concept plan
The final concept design plan (Attachment A1) is based on staff site analysis, an assessment of design opportunities and constraints, stakeholder discussions, and a review of feedback from community consultation. Following is a description of the concept design.
a) Design objective
The objective of the design is to provide an upgraded neighbourhood centre which adds value to the streetscape and character of the area, assists the business viability of shopkeepers, and provides an inclusive, engaging community space for local residents to shop and recreate.
b) Proposed improvements
The proposed upgrade will include improvements to the footpath adjacent to shopfronts with new unit pavers, rubbish bins, bicycle racks, a seat and refreshed planting and signage used to improve user amenity and the appearance of the centre.
Access and parking arrangements will be rationalised to enable construction of a dedicated accessible car space and a compliant accessible ramp to the rear carpark area. If possible existing clothing bins will also be relocated to reduce visual clutter and improve sightlines for pedestrian safety along Warrimoo Avenue.
The proposed upgrade will also provide an accessible link between the shops and the park with a new raised pedestrian threshold and walkway.
The character and use of the existing park and playground will be retained and upgraded. Open grassed play areas will be maintained and park amenity enhanced. A permanent fixed shelter with picnic table seating and a new bubbler will be provided with connecting pathways to the recently upgraded playground. These areas will be visible from the street, adjoining carpark and shops to encourage casual use and provide for safe passive surveillance.
New landscaping including planting, fencing and low walls along park frontages to the street, carpark and shops are also proposed.
c) Vegetation and planting design
The proposed design aims to retain existing significant trees and shrubs, but will require the removal of some existing problematic species and trees in poor condition. The design will also open up sightlines between the shops and the park and provide for passive surveillance.
A range of robust native and exotic understorey plantings will be selected to provide seasonal character and interest. Plants will be selected for their hardiness to prevailing site conditions.
d) Access and parking
A range of access improvements are proposed. The existing pedestrian footpath to shopfronts will be renewed, seating will be installed and a new bike rack will be provided to encourage local bicycle use. Renewal of the footpath also provides an opportunity to eliminate threshold steps at shop entries wherever possible so as to eliminate barriers to access.
A dedicated accessible car space will be provided and a compliant accessible ramp will be constructed to the rear carpark area.
The condition of the existing carpark surface will be separately assessed by Council’s Operations Department and if needed the carpark surface will be programmed for renewal as part of established maintenance programs.
At the request of the shopping centre Strata Management, Council’s Manager of Traffic and Transport is separately investigating ways to improve the availability of shopper parking by possibly introducing time restrictions. To promote turnover of parking spaces a 1hour time limit on the front carpark and a 3 hour time limit on the rear carpark are currently being considered.
A new accessible link between the shops and the park will also be created with a raised pedestrian threshold and walkway proposed between the two. An accessible drinking fountain, picnic table and paths will also be provided within the park to complement the newly completed inclusive playground.
integrated planning and reporting
Theme 3 Places, Spaces and Infrastructure – A range of well planned, clean and safe neighbourhoods and public places designed with a strong sense of identity and place.
P1. Preserving the unique visual character of Ku-ring-gai.
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P1.1 - Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained
|
P1.1.1 - Opportunities are provided to our community to contribute to plans for enhancing the local area and visual amenity of our centres.
P1.1.3 - Place making programs are being implemented for selected Council owned areas.
|
P1.1.1.1.1 - Engage with key stakeholders and the community in the revitalisation of our neighbourhood centres and local areas.
P1.1.1.1.2 - Implement neighbourhood centres programs.
P1.1.1.2.1 - Develop concept plans for the neighbourhood centres informed by community engagement.
P1.1.3.1.1 - Report quarterly on established project teams and status of milestones for improvement works for neighbourhood centres consistent with place making. |
Theme 5 Local Economy and Employment – Creating economic employment opportunities through vital, attractive centres, business innovation and technology.
E1. Promoting Ku-ring-gai’s businesses and employment opportunities
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
E1.1 - Ku-ring-gai is an attractive location for business investment |
E1.1.2 - Opportunities are pursued to strengthen our local and neighbourhood centres to promote small and medium sized businesses in Ku-ring-gai. |
E1.1.2.1.2 - Engage with businesses to identify needs and opportunities for public domain and neighbourhood improvement plans. |
Governance Matters
Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, with each neighbourhood centre upgrade Council is required, wherever possible, to provide a continual accessible path of travel. This is a key consideration with the Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre upgrade. As part of the upgrade Council will provide an accessible car space to service the centre and improve overall access by constructing a compliant accessible ramp to the rear carpark area and eliminating threshold steps at shop entries where possible. The upgrade will also provide a new accessible link between the shops and park and provide accessible facilities within the park to enable inclusive community recreation.
Environmental approval for the proposed upgrade works will entail preparation of a Potential Impacts Assessment (PIA) to be approved and signed by Council’s Director Operations and Director Strategy and Environment, prior to tender.
Risk Management
All contractors engaged to undertake construction works on the Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre upgrade will be required to carry appropriate insurances, including Public Liability, Professional Indemnity and Workers Compensation Insurance. Contractors will also be required to have construction methodologies and safe works method statements approved by Council prior to commencing construction.
To minimise its financial exposure Council also conducts an independent financial assessment of any proposed contractor for any works valued over $150,000 requiring a tender process.
Decreasing the risk to Council from degraded public infrastructure and asset condition will be a positive outcome from the centre improvements.
Financial Considerations
An initial program budget of $242,400 was allocated in the Capital Works Program as part of the Operational Plan 2015/16. In addition two grants totalling $30,000 have also been received from the NSW Government to assist with upgrading the adjoining park playground [works already completed] and for construction of a new accessible link between the shops and the park.
A preliminary project estimate of $358,000 was reported to Councillors at the Capital Works Program Project Updates Presentation held on 6 October 2015. At that time there was an available budget of $750,400 including carry forwards for the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program including the proposed works to Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre. Subsequent to this the program was reduced by $300,000 at the 1st Quarter Quarterly Budget Review in order to cover other Council expenses.
Currently there is $421,119 in funding available for the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program consisting of:
· PJ104327 – $4,938 - Neighbourhood Business Centres Design Warrimoo Avenue Shops
· PJ105155 - $241,477 - Warrimoo Avenue Shops Streetscape Upgrade
· PJ105159 – $117,400 - Neighbourhood Centres Streetscape Improvements Construction
· PJ106224 - $57,304 - Neighbourhood Centres Improvement Program Design & Consult
The Probable Cost Estimate for the final draft concept indicates that the scope of work proposed is within the available budget. The estimate includes suitable additional allowances for design development, detailed documentation, tendering, project management and a contingency amount, but does not include any allowance for maintenance renewal of the carpark surface which would require a separate funding source.
Project documentation is planned to be completed for tendering during early-2016 with construction works proposed to commence by mid-2016. The costs associated with the project are entirely funded from the Infrastructure and Facilities Reserve and the grant, and the final budget amount required to be allocated to this project will be advised when the Tender Acceptance Report is considered by Council.
Any unspent funds within the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program will be carried forward for re-allocation to other projects within the program. Further funding for the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program is listed in the Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2016-2017 which includes amounts of $44,047 for project design and documentation, and $509,848 for project construction.
Based on the above, there will be sufficient funds to undertake the scope of works currently proposed at Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre and to continue with the design of the next adopted priority neighbourhood centre – Babbage Road Shops at Roseville - as planned. Construction of the latter would be during the 2016/17 financial year.
Social Considerations
An upgrade of the Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre will assist to build an inclusive community and strengthen local businesses. By improving the centre and the connection to the local park, more people may use the area and new business may be attracted to the area. A wider range of services and greater shopper activity will enhance the business viability of the centre. The improvement of the centre can also help build a positive relationship between local business owners, residents and Council.
By upgrading and strengthening the connection between the shops and park, the park will be activated as a ‘village green’ to function as a community space that encourages users of the neighbourhood centre to engage in passive and active outdoor recreation, as well as providing valuable open space for local community events. The new accessible paths, park shelter, picnic table, seating and bubbler will add to the amenity of the park and complement the recently installed inclusive playground.
The use of neighbourhood centres by the general public assists to provide local employment and income within the Ku-ring-gai area.
Environmental Considerations
The physical upgrade of neighbourhood centres can improve sustainability and energy efficiency of a centre by using new technology and also by providing microclimate improvements in the vicinity such as increasing shade to reduce heat island effects.
The Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre upgrade will include changes in surface treatments to shopfront footpaths which will serve to reduce glare. New tree planting within the park to replace existing problematic species and trees in poor condition will also increase shade.
The improved visual appearance of the centre will add value to the streetscape and character of the area. Hard surface materials will be selected to be sympathetic to the local character and to create a sense of place. The concrete footpath to the shops will be upgraded to unit paving. Garden beds will be created at the park entrance and at the connection to the shops creating a cohesive and inviting community space. Weed species will be removed and carpark planting will be refreshed with appropriate plant species which improve Ku-ring-gai’s landscape and reduce maintenance obligations.
Environmental issues will be considered in detail as part of the design development process. To ensure Council meets its legislative requirements a Potential Impacts Assessment (PIA) will be prepared and approved by Director Strategy and Environment and Director Operations, prior to tender.
During construction the site will be subject to an environmental management plan which will ensure appropriate controls are in place such as, erosion control, silt fencing, runoff protection, tree protection, recycling appropriate materials, and dust and noise abatement.
Community Consultation
A range of community information and consultation activities were undertaken that involved engagement with project stakeholders.
A preliminary concept design was prepared for initial consultation with shopkeepers via their Strata Management. Comments were also canvassed from internal stakeholders regarding the preliminary design proposals. Where possible the comments received were incorporated as part of a developed draft concept design plan which was subsequently sent out for comment to over 1,086 local property owners, shopkeepers and residents within St Ives Chase. The draft concept design plan was also exhibited for public review and comment on Council’s website and on-site.
A total of eight (8) written responses and one verbal response were received. The key results of the stakeholder engagement are outlined below:
(a) Strong support for the proposed upgrade
The majority of respondents were pleased with the proposed upgrade project and supportive of the concept design. Typical comments include:
· “I'm positively delighted by your and Council's vision.”
· “I was delighted to hear of the proposed upgrade of the Mall Shops on Warrimoo Ave. The plans look great.”
· “…thank you to the council for the plan to upgrade the local shops off Warrimoo. I have been a resident in the area since 2008 and feel the area around the shops could definitely do with some development”
· “…the proposed upgrade would be welcomed and I look forward to seeing this all happen in 2016.”
· “The upgrade to Warrimoo Park is fantastic. It is a huge improvement and the little ones have such a great time”
(b) Suggestions for improvements to concept plan
A number of respondents suggested extra features or raised issues that warrant discussion:
Additional landscaping to corner of Warrimoo Avenue and Dalton Road
One submission asked that street front landscaping along Warrimoo Avenue be continued along the frontages to the adjoining service station.
This request would entail landscaping of privately owned land and is considered to be outside the current project scope and budget.
Bus shelter
One submission requested that the existing brick bus shelter be replaced with a modern glass and metal shelter.
This idea has been considered however the current shelter is functional and priority for replacement is considered low when compared to other sites across Ku-ring-gai. As such replacement of the shelter is not proposed as part of this program and is considered to be outside the current project scope and budget.
Pedestrian crossing
Two submissions requested installation of a pedestrian crossing to reduce the danger of pedestrians crossing Warrimoo Avenue.
Council’s Manager of Traffic and Transport has advised that this matter has been previously investigated and rejected by Roads and Maritime Services as it currently does not meet their set minimum requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossing or refuge. It is considered that existing circumstances and pedestrian desire lines may change following the construction of the new accessible walkway link to the park entry off Warrimoo Avenue. The provision of a pedestrian crossing or refuge could be further reviewed following completion of the upgrade.
Skateboard or similar area
One submission requested that a skateboard or similar area be provided for local teenagers.
This request is considered to be outside the current project scope and budget. Construction of a skate facility within a small local park is considered inappropriate. The respondent has been advised of Council’s plans to incorporate this type of facility as part of a new recreation area at St Ives Village Green.
Junior bike track
One submission requested that a junior bike track be provided within the park.
This request may have some merit but is considered to be outside the current project scope and budget. The major focus of the Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program is to help build an inclusive community and strengthen local businesses. At the Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre this will be achieved by improving the amenity, appearance and accessibility of the shopping area and by creating a new accessible link to new facilities within the park which will act as a ‘village green’ drawcard for the local community. The pathways proposed within the park will not provide a continuous circuit however they will provide access to the new inclusive playground and can still be used for junior bike riding.
Car parking
One submission requested that Council introduce time limited parking to the carpark areas to improve availability for shop patrons over all day commuters. Also that Council review the width of existing car spaces.
At the request of the shopping centre Strata Management, Council’s Manager of Traffic and Transport is separately investigating ways to improve the availability of shopper parking by possibly introducing time restrictions. To promote turnover of parking spaces a 1hour time limit on the front carpark and a 3 hour time limit on the rear carpark are currently being considered.
Existing carapaces are marginally narrower than current standards however they are in accordance with the standards that were applicable at the time that they were constructed. Adjustment of existing widths to meet current standards would entail re-linemarking with a resultant reduction in the number of available car spaces. Alternatively the removal of existing mature shade trees and the reconstruction of kerbs and carpark pavement would be required to achieve no net loss of parking spaces.
The first option is counterproductive and contrary to previous requests from the Strata Management and shoppers that availability of car parking be maximised. The second option cannot be justified on a cost benefit basis and is contrary to the landscape guidelines and design principles outlined in Council’s adopted Landscape Management Policy and in the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2015.
The proposed new accessible parking space will be fully compliant with current standard requirements.
Dog signage
One submission requested that Council install signs within the park area to prohibit dogs off-leash as there have been a number of incidents with young children and uncontrolled dogs in and around the new playground.
To address immediate concerns, signs requiring dogs to be on a leash have now been installed at the existing park entries. As part of the upgrade, similar signage will be installed at the new park entries.
(c) Non-support for the proposed upgrade
There was only one submission expressing non-support.
This submission requested that youth oriented facilities be provided within the park in lieu of those proposed. The respondent was advised of Council’s plans to incorporate youth oriented facilities as part of a new recreation area at St Ives Village Green.
(d) Findings from the community consultation
Despite the very low response Council can be reasonably assured the local community are pleased with the concept design. Nearly all comments were positive of the design and the other residents that were mailed the design package either liked the design or did not feel strongly enough to comment against it.
Internal Consultation
Consultation has been held with officers within the Strategy & Environment, Operations and Finance Departments regarding design proposals and funding options. The draft concept design, budgets and timing of the project was also presented to Councillors at the Capital Works Project Update Presentation held 6 October 2015.
The next step is for the Strategy & Environment Department to commence design development and the preparation of construction documentation including detailed plans, cost estimates and specifications for tender, in consultation with the Operations Department.
Summary
As part of the Ku-ring-gai Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2015-2016, improvements and upgrades are planned to a number of neighbourhood shopping centres across Ku-ring-gai over the coming years.
The Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre has been identified as a priority in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Neighbourhood Centres Revitalisation Program. Council officers have prepared a concept design, estimates and undertaken consultation seeking comment on a range of proposed improvements.
A draft concept design, based on site analysis, an assessment of design opportunities and constraints, and initial stakeholder discussions, was sent out for comment to over 1,086 local property owners, shopkeepers and residents within St Ives Chase. A plan of the draft concept design was also exhibited for public comment on Council’s website and on-site. A total of eight (8) written responses and one verbal response were received.
The majority of comments indicate general public support for the planned upgrade. It can be assumed that the other residents and stakeholders that were given opportunity to respond either liked the design or did not feel strongly enough to make comment against it.
The range of works proposed in the final concept design will improve the overall accessibility, appearance and amenity of the Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre. The upgrade is an opportunity to provide a safer, secure and more accessible pedestrian environment which will better meet the needs of shop owners, operators and the local community.
There will be sufficient funds to undertake the scope of works currently proposed at Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre and to continue with the design of the next adopted priority neighbourhood centre – Babbage Road Shops at Roseville - as planned.
If the final concept plan is adopted by Council then the Strategy & Environment Department will commence design development and the preparation of construction documentation including detailed plans, cost estimates and specifications for the calling of tenders, in consultation with the Operations Department.
It is proposed that plans be prepared, tenders called and construction commenced by mid-2016.
A. That Council endorses the final concept design plan for the upgrade to the Warrimoo Avenue Neighbourhood Centre, St Ives Chase, as the basis on which staff undertake design development and the preparation of construction documentation including detailed plans, cost estimates and specifications for the calling of tenders.
B. That Council authorises the General Manager to allow minor changes to the plan during the design development process where budget or other constraints warrant amendments.
C. That the provision of a pedestrian crossing or refuge across Warrimoo Avenue be further investigated following completion of the upgrade.
|
Lino Querin Landscape Planner |
Marissa Gidall Landscape Architect |
Roger Faulkner Team Leader Sport & Recreation Planning |
Ian Dreghorn Manager Strategic Projects |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Warrimoo Neighbourhood Centre - Final Draft Concept Plan |
|
2015/316524 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.10 / 1010 |
|
|
Item GB.10 |
CY00470/2 |
|
12 November 2015 |
Creation of Right of Way on
Council Land - St Ives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To obtain approval to create a Right of Way on Council land benefitting a private property at 15 Stratford Place St Ives. |
|
|
background: |
Since its construction in 1969, a residential property situated at 15 Stratford Place St Ives has accessed a portion of adjacent Council land, being Lot 36 DP226375 to access the premises. Access has, to date, been formalised through a Deed and Caveat arrangement granting the property owners non-exclusive use of part of Lot 36 for pedestrian and vehicular access to their land. The existing Deed and Caveat arrangement is an out dated property practice which becomes problematic each time a transaction occurs that requires a notion on title such as a sale or mortgage. Solicitors representing the property owners have requested that Council grant an easement in lieu of the current access arrangements. |
|
|
comments: |
The creation of an easement, in the form of a Right of Way, represents a more contemporary approach to addressing access arrangements of this nature. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council resolve to grant the current property owners a Right of Way over Council land as set out in this report. |
Purpose of Report
To obtain approval to create a Right of Way on Council land benefitting a private property at 15 Stratford Place St Ives.
Background
Since the construction of a residential property at 15 Stratford Place St Ives (Lot 2 DP 525518) in 1969 access over a portion of adjacent Council land (access track), being Lot 36 DP226375, part of a bushland reserve known as Degotardi Park has been formally provided to the property owners. The access track is approximately 59 metres (refer to Attachments A1 & A2).
The original 1960 subdivision also saw the creation of a Right of Way over Lot 2 for five newly created allotments being 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 Stratford Place St Ives. The northern boundary of the property is a 9.6 metre arc on Stratford Place. The residence faces the eastern boundary with the garage at the southern end of the premises. The property is landlocked for vehicular access due to the topography of the land.
Since that time Council has granted the previous and current property owners access over Council land on a non-exclusive basis formalised through a Deed and registered Caveat on the title of Lot 2.
On 13 August 1987, Council agreed to grant the current property owners a similar Deed to traverse Council’s land for pedestrian and vehicular access to the property. The Deed also enabled a Caveat (X225689) to be secured over the title of (Lot 2 DP 525518) to protect Council’s interest.
The enactment of the Local Government Act 1993 had unintended consequences for the property owners. The Deed entered into with the property owners granted them non-exclusive use of the access track which is in the nature of a licence. The lands were classified as community lands and, as the category of Degotardi Park is bushland, any new interest in the form of a lease, licence or other estate could only be dealt with in accordance with section 46 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). In particular, section 46(1)(b) provides that leases, licences or other estate may only be granted in accordance with an express authorisation in the Plan of Management.
These legislative requirements, in effect, prevented the property owners from being able to sell their land due to the inability to grant any new owner formal access rights.
The current property owners are an elderly couple in their late 70’s who acquired the property in August 1987. The property owners also faced significant difficulties re-financing their loan with the bank as a consequence of the caveat over the property. The resultant constraints and uncertainty attached to the property has caused the elderly property owners, who are in a poor state of health, to experience severe stress and anxiety.
In 2000, Council sought legal advice on options to resolve the impasse over legal access to the property. The options ranged from the property owners making an application under Section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for the Supreme Court to order a Right of Way, reclassification and sale and having a Plan of Management in place which expressly permits private access. Subsequently, in 2002, solicitors representing the property owners proposed that the access track be declared a public road. This latter option was not feasible as section 47F (1) of the Act prohibited such a dedication as the purpose would conflict with the object to facilitate enjoyment of the community land.
On 23 December 2002, Council staff advised the property owners’ solicitors of the options that might be feasible to formalise ongoing access to the property over Council’s land but no response was received. In the subsequent years, the property owners regularly sought Council’s approval to withdraw the caveat which was not given. It is important to note that the caveat is not, in itself, the impediment to the owners being able to sell their home.
In 2009, the Ku-ring-gai Council Bushland Reserves Plan of Management was reviewed and adopted and expressly permitted the grant of easements to individuals in favour of private land on the condition that Council is satisfied there are no reasonable alternatives, that appropriate benefits are obtained for the use of community land and any adverse impacts on the bushland is remedied at the cost of the easement holder. The current 2013 Plan of Management contains identical provisions.
Comments
Access to15 Stratford Place St Ives has, to date, been formalised through a Deed and Caveat arrangement granting the property owners non-exclusive use of a portion of Council’s land. The property is landlocked for vehicular access due to the topography of the land and there is no practical alternate means of access to the property.
The existing Deed and Caveat arrangement is an out dated property practice which became especially problematic for the property owners following the enactment of the Local Government Act 1993. In essence, the access track and adjacent bushland were classified as community land which meant that any new interest in the form of a lease, licence or other estate could only be dealt with in accordance with section 46 of the Act once it was expressly authorised in a plan of management.
These legislative requirements had the effect of preventing the property from being able to be sold due to the inability to grant any new owner formal access rights until a Plan of Management was adopted which expressly permitted the grant of access rights. The uncertainty surrounding their main asset of value caused the elderly property owners, who are in a poor state of health, to experience severe stress and anxiety.
In 2014, Council’s solicitors provided advice on a way forward to resolve this long outstanding matter (Confidential A3).
Since the adoption of the Plan of Management, several issues have served to delay resolution of the matter including the form of tenure to be granted, survey, valuations and agreement on the payment of compensation.
In May 2015, solicitors representing the property owners made a formal application for a Right of Way in favour of their clients’ land. The creation of an easement, in the form of a Right of Way, represents a more contemporary approach to addressing access arrangements of this nature and is supported by Council officers. All costs associated with the Right of Way is to be met by the property owners including the payment of compensation.
integrated planning and reporting
Theme – Leadership and Governance - L2 Financial capacity and sustainability
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
Council rigorously manages its financial resources and assets to maximise service delivery |
Council maintains and improves its long term financial position and performance |
Continue to analyse opportunities to expand the revenue base of Council |
Governance Matters
Council is permitted to deal with property, including easements, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.
Section 6.4 of the Ku-ring-gai Bushland Reserves Plan of Management also has an express provision enabling the grant of an easement for individuals in favour of private lands over lands identified in the plan where there is no reasonable alternative, that appropriate benefits are obtained for the community land and any adverse impacts on the bushland is remedied at the cost of the easement holder. The property owners do not have alternate access to their property and have agreed to pay compensation for the Right of Way. Additionally, the access track is already formed in bitumen and will not result in any adverse impacts on the bushland.
Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that the grant of leases, licences and other estates in respect of community land for a term greater than 5 years must be publicly notified for at least 28 days and allow for public submissions to be made and considered before any lease, licence or other estate is granted. Section 47(5) further provides that if a person makes a submission by way of objection to the proposal, Council will only be able to grant the Right of Way with the Minister’s consent.
In the event any public submissions are received which object to the proposal, Council will be notified of the results along with an assessment of the comments made for further consideration.
In relation to applications for easements over Council lands, Council’s adopted Easement Management Policy 2013, outlines the processes and requirements for both internal and external parties. The policy has been provided to the solicitors representing the property owners to ensure that they have been informed of Council’s requirements and that dealings would be conducted consistent with the terms of the policy.
Risk Management
Subject to Council resolution, the Right of Way will be prepared by Council’s solicitors and include the appropriate protections for Council such as indemnities and remediation obligations.
Financial Considerations
The property owners will be responsible for all costs associated with the creation of the Right of Way, including legal, valuation costs, lodgement and registration fees etc., and payment of final compensation.
In line with the adopted Easement Management Policy and established procedure, Council staff have commissioned an independent valuation report to assess fair compensation. The valuer’s report (Confidential Attachment A4) recognises the nature of the benefit conferred to the property owners is solely for the purpose of providing pedestrian and vehicular access to the residence.
The solicitors representing the property owners have confirmed that the property owners are prepared to pay the compensation assessed by Council’s valuer.
Social Considerations
The property that is the subject of this report is landlocked and requires Council’s approval to legally access their property. Council would be acting in a socially responsible manner if it contemporised the nature of the access arrangements from the existing Deed and Caveat to a Right of Way.
Council and its officers also have a responsibility to the community to only dispose of Council’s interests in property in an objective and fair manner.
Environmental Considerations
The Right of Way replaces the formalisation of existing access rights to the property through a Deed and Caveat arrangement. There are no detrimental environmental impacts associated with the creation of the Right of Way in favour of the property owners.
Community Consultation
Public notification of the proposed Right of Way will be undertaken in accordance with section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the public will have a minimum of 28 days to lodge a submission.
At the conclusion of the public notification process any submissions received must be considered by Council prior to granting the Right of Way. Section 47(5) provides that if a person makes a submission by way of objection to the proposal, Council can only grant the Right of Way with the Minister’s consent.
Internal Consultation
Consultation has been held with staff from Council’s Operations and Strategy and Environment Departments.
Summary
The property owners of 15 Stratford Place, St Ives currently access their property over Council land (Lot 36 DP226375) pursuant to a Deed and Caveat entered into between the parties on 13 August 1987.
The existing Deed and Caveat arrangement is an out dated property practice which becomes problematic each time a transaction occurs that requires a notion on title such as a sale or mortgage. The creation of an easement, in the form of a Right of Way, represents a more contemporary approach to addressing access arrangements of this nature and enables the right of access to be noted on the title of the land that is benefitted by the Right of Way. In this way successive owners of the property do not need to enter into separate arrangements with Council for future access.
The solicitors acting on behalf of the property owners have made a formal application to Council to surrender the existing Deed and Caveat in favour of the grant of a Right of Way. The property owners have been advised of Council’s requirements to progress the application and have paid the required application fee and submitted written confirmation agreeing to Council’s requirements set out in Council’s adopted Easement Management Policy.
A Right of Way would burden Council’s land (Lot 36 DP226375) to benefit 15 Stratford Place, St Ives (Lot 2 DP 525518) for pedestrian and vehicular access purposes only. In all respects, Council will still retain ownership and control of the land. The Right of Way will also be conditioned to protect Council’s interests including indemnities and remediation obligations.
The current 2013 Ku-ring-gai Bushland Reserves Plan of Management has an express provision enabling the grant of an easement for individuals in favour of private lands over lands identified in the plan where there is no reasonable alternative access available. The subject property is landlocked and has no other practical means of access.
Council and Council staff have an obligation to deal with real property in a commercially transparent, fair and proper manner. The conventional practice for the landowners who are “burdened” by an easement is to secure compensation reflecting the nature of the burden and impact on the land. Council has obtained independent valuation advice to assess fair compensation and the property owners have agreed to pay the amount assessed.
Subject to Council resolving to grant the Right of Way, section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that the grant of leases, licences and other estates in respect of community land for a term greater than 5 years must be publicly notified for at least 28 days and allow for public submissions to be made and considered before any lease, licence or other estate is granted. Section 47(5) further provides that if a person makes a submission by way of objection to the proposal, Council will only be able to grant the Right of Way with the Minister’s consent.
Council’s approval is sought to progress the application process and endorse the General Manager as the delegated authority to conclude the required statutory procedural steps including advertising of the intent to grant a Right of Way over Council land to benefit 15 Stratford Place, St Ives and the execution of the Right of Way and all associated documentation including survey plans.
In the event that public submissions are received which object to the proposal, Council will be notified of the results along with an assessment of the comments made for Council’s further consideration.
A. That Council approve of a Right of Way being granted in favour of 15 Stratford Place, St Ives (Lot 2 DP 525518) over Council’s land (Lot 36 DP226375) for pedestrian and vehicular access only subject to the payment of compensation as assessed by Council’s valuer. The current Deed and Caveat (X225689) will be rescinded on the registration of the Right of Way.
B. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all documentation associated with the Right of Way including the signing survey plans and administration sheets.
C. That public notification of the proposed Right of Way be undertaken in accordance with section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993.
D. That, in the event no public submissions are received objecting to the proposal, the General Manager or his delegate be authorised to negotiate the final terms of the Right of Way consistent with this report.
E. That, pursuant to section 47(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, if a person makes a submission by way of objection to the proposal, Council note that it will only be able to grant the Right of Way with the Minister’s consent.
|
Vince Rago Property Program Co-ordinator |
Deborah Silva Manager Integrated Planning, Property & Assets |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
A1 - 15 Stratford Place St Ives - aerial |
|
2015/320242 |
|
|
A2View |
A2 - 15 Stratford Place St Ives - location sketch |
|
2015/320251 |
|
A3 - Letter - Legal Advice - 15 Stratford Place St Ives |
|
Confidential |
|
|
A4 - Valuation - assessment of compensation for easement for access - 15 Stratford Place |
|
Confidential |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.11 / 1019 |
|
|
Item GB.11 |
CY00413/3 |
|
16 November 2015 |
Heritage Reference Committee Meeting Minutes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
Council to consider the minutes of the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meetings held on 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015. |
|
|
background: |
The minutes were taken at three meetings. The minutes taken at the meeting held on 15 June 2015, were confirmed and accepted at the HRC meeting held on 14 September 2015. The minutes taken at the meeting on 14 September 2015 were confirmed and accepted at the HRC held on 19 October 2015. The minutes taken at the meeting on 19 October 2015 were confirmed and accepted at the HRC held on 11 November 2015. |
|
|
comments: |
A number of issues regarding heritage items and policies were discussed at the HRC’s meetings on 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council receive and note the Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes from 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015. |
Purpose of Report
Council to consider the minutes of the Heritage Reference Committee (HRC) meetings held on 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015.
Background
The Ku-ring-gai Heritage Reference Committee was re-formed in August 2014 in accordance with Council’s requirements.
Comments
A range of heritage issues were discussed at the HRC meeting of 16 June 2015 (Attachment A1). Items discussed included an update on the heritage assessments for 28 Cook Road, Killara and 140 Pentecost Avenue, Turramurra. It was recommended that a systematic approach to identifying properties that were overlooked in previous studies be developed.
At the 14 September 2015 meeting (Attachment A2) the HRC discussed the draft inventory sheets for Pymble, Lindfield and Roseville Railway Stations. The progress of the heritage assessments for the interim heritage orders were again discussed and the HRC were also updated on the progress of the Wahroonga Heritage Walk.
At the meeting held on 19 October 2015 (Attachment A3) a guest speaker Margaret Middleton addressed the HRC with regards to the heritage significance of 6 Caithness Street, Killara.
With regards to Council’s Heritage Fund the HRC adopted a resolution to recommend Council as a guide have a minimum grant of $1,000 and a maximum grant of $5,000. The HRC also adopted a resolution to endorse Council’s recommendation to heritage list the garden and components of 140 Pentecost Avenue, Turramurra. The HRC discussed the membership of the committee and endorsed a recommendation to change the membership to include one additional community member.
integrated planning and reporting
Heritage conservation
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets |
Implement, monitor and review Ku-ring-gai’s heritage planning provisions
|
Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans
|
Governance Matters
Consisting of five members, the Heritage Reference Committee includes Councillors, community representatives and heritage practitioners.
The HRC provides advice on heritage matters and assists with the promotion, understanding and appreciation of heritage. While not a decision-making body, the HRC nevertheless plays an important function in shaping Ku-ring-gai's future. This HRC is also an important link in Council's communication strategy with the community.
Risk Management
In providing advice and recommendations to Council on the management of strategic heritage issues in Ku-ring-gai, this Committee assists in the future management of Ku-ring-gai’s cultural heritage.
Financial Considerations
The costs of running the HRC are covered by the Strategy and Environment Department budget.
Social Considerations
The aims of the HRC are to provide advice to Council on heritage matters and to provide assistance to Council in promoting an understanding and appreciation of heritage, including matters of social heritage significance.
Environmental Considerations
A role of the HRC is to support Council in identifying and managing Ku-ring-gai’s Cultural Heritage.
Community Consultation
The HRC meets on a monthly basis and notification of meetings is provided on Council’s website.
Internal Consultation
The HRC includes Councillors and heritage practitioners and is facilitated by Council staff. Where relevant, consultation with other Departments may occur.
Summary
The HRC held its meeting on 15 June 2015. The Committee reviewed and discussed current interim heritage orders.
At the meeting on 14 September 2015 the committee discussed the draft inventory sheets for Pymble, Lindfield and Roseville Railway Stations, existing IHOs and the Wahroonga Heritage Walk.
At the meeting on 19 October 2015 the committee discussed 6 Caithness Street, Killara, the Heritage Fund, IHOs and the committee membership.
A. That Council receive and note the Heritage Reference Committee meeting minutes of 15 June 2015, 14 September 2015 and 19 October 2015.
B. That as a guide the minimum grant for the Heritage Fund is $1,000 and the maximum is $5,000.
C. That a report be prepared for Council to consider changing the membership of the Heritage Reference Committee to include one additional community representative.
|
Andreana Kennedy Heritage Specialist Planner |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Heritage Reference Committee Minutes - 15 June 2015 |
|
2015/150445 |
|
|
A2View |
Heritage Reference Committee Minutes - 14 September 2015 |
|
2015/247597 |
|
A3View |
Heritage Reference Committee Minutes - 19 October 2015 |
|
2015/292620 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.12 / 1030 |
|
|
Item GB.12 |
S09362 |
|
24 November 2015 |
Human Dimensions in Wildland Fire Management Conference
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
For Council to note the outcomes of staff member attendance and contribution to the 13th International Wildland Fire Safety Summit & 4th Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference (IAWF Conference) held in Boise, Idaho, USA on 20 – 24 April 2015. |
|
|
background: |
Ku-ring-gai Council began implementing a community resilience program called Climate Wise Communities (CWC) in 2012. This program has been improving community preparation and response to the increasing risks of extreme weather events including bushfire. Council was invited by the NSW Rural Fire Service to submit an abstract on the CWC project to the IAWF conference. Jennie Cramp, Council’s Bush Fire Technical Officer was approved to attend the conference to present Council’s research. |
|
|
comments: |
The IAWF conference presented a forum to share knowledge of the importance of human dimensions in wildfire management including community engagement and risk management. The benefits to Council of Jennie’s attendance at the conference included the collaborative nature, and a focus on best practice community engagement and other social aspects of fire management. These elements will assist to inform the future direction of Council’s bushfire risk management processes. Council officers have also written and submitted a research paper for publication in the Conference Proceedings. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council receives and notes the outcomes arising from attendance at the IAWF Conference. |
Purpose of Report
For Council to note the outcomes of staff member attendance and contribution to the 13th International Wildland Fire Safety Summit & 4th Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference (IAWF Conference) held in Boise, Idaho, USA on 20 – 24 April 2015.
Background
The International Association of Wildland Fire (IAWF) facilitates communication and best practice in wildfire scientific and technical knowledge, education, networking and professional development across the world. Over the past decade fire researchers and practitioners have developed a significant body of knowledge about many of the social aspects of fire management. This has led to the establishment of a conference series called Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference where past experience and lessons learned can be showcased, and emerging ideas/technology presented.
Since 2012, Ku-ring-gai Council has been implementing a community resilience program called Climate Wise Communities (CWC). This program has been improving community preparation and response to the increasing risks of extreme weather events including bushfire. Council was invited by the NSW Rural Fire Service to submit an abstract on the CWC project to the joint 13th International Wildland Fire Safety Summit and 4th Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference held in Boise, Idaho, USA. Jennie Cramp, Council’s Bush Fire Technical Officer was approved to attend the conference to present Council’s research.
Comments
Council’s attendance at the IAWF conference presented a unique opportunity to present our local research to a global scale forum. Other benefits to Council included:
· Access to relevant socio-ecological research and bush fire behaviour science to inform the development of Council’s Community Bush Fire Education Strategy, the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Risk Management Plan, and Council’s emergency and risk management processes.
· Access to best practice community engagement methods, community resilience projects, bush fire risk management and bush fire evacuation planning; to inform the future direction of Council’s CWC program and to enhance program outcomes.
· Networking opportunities with other professionals, facilitating sharing of ideas and knowledge in relation to bush fire management and community resilience.
· An introduction to new technology trends and techniques that could be used to inform fire behaviour modelling, scenario planning and incident management training both internally and with other emergency management agencies.
· International recognition for Council’s work in the area of climate change adaptation and disaster resilience management.
Parts of the USA and Australia share similar climates, fire weather, hazard mitigation techniques and societal values. During the visit, Jennie:
· Attended a one day training workshop around the assessment of residential wildfire hazards. Discussion centred around the physical science of structure ignition as well as the social science processes and models that facilitate behaviour change.
· Along with a small group of Australian delegates from a range of agencies including the NSW Rural Fire Service, Tasmanian Fire Service, RMIT University and University of Western Australia also visited a community-led fire group located at Warm Springs Mesa. This community included a community of similar demographic to Ku-ring-gai living in a ridgetop location. The residents shared their neighbourhood and fire mitigation experiences with us.
Other key learnings and outcomes included:
· Hearing from the Principal of Strathewen Primary School on the social and economic challenges of recovery and renewal.
· New approaches for managing wildfire risk such as incorporating community adaptive capacity (communities ability to self-organise) into policies and programs.
· Challenges with information flow to and throughout communities during bushfires.
· Ways that local governments and communities may work together to better utilise existing information networks within communities during disasters.
· Emphasis on social and ecological resilience and a re-prioritisation of funding towards risk and preparedness to strengthen the resilience of buildings on the interface.
· Risk tolerance and decisions around evacuation. A binary approach of ‘stay and defend or leave early’ strategies does not reflect the reality of what people do during bushfires. This is informing further study around sheltering practices and strengthening of standards.
· Complexity of decision-making required in an emergency and measuring psychological preparedness.
· Research on fire management decision making and risk, public perceptions and trade-offs.
· Fuel modification to achieve risk reduction and better ecological outcomes.
· Dealing with preparedness fatigue.
Upon return, Council staff have written a research paper to be published in the Conference Proceedings. A copy of the paper as submitted for peer review is provided as Attachment A1.
integrated planning and reporting
Natural Environment
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
N4.1 A community addressing and responding to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. |
Council’s vulnerability to climate change is reduced.
|
Develop initiatives to build Council’s capacity to prepare, respond and recover to the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events as a result of a changing climate. |
|
The community is effectively informed and engaged on climate change issues. |
Deliver the Climate Wise Communities program. |
Governance Matters
The conference provided opportunities for sharing knowledge and accessing best practice community engagement methods. By sharing our research, Council is promoting participatory community engagement methods and an ability to incorporate research into its programs in order to better serve the community.
Risk Management
From a litigation perspective, Councils are advised that they need to take steps to demonstrate that they have investigated the risks posed to their communities from climate change related extreme weather events and put plans in place and undertake actions to reduce the risk exposure. Council is implementing the CWC program to reduce community vulnerability to extreme weather events and has chosen to share its knowledge around the successes and challenges to inform future risk management processes.
Financial Considerations
Council sponsored the cost of the conference attendance and accommodation. All other expenses including airfare and all in country travel, food and associated expenses was covered by Jennie
Social Considerations
Council has responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1993 and Rural Fires Act 1997 to take steps to reduce the risk of bush fire to the community. The Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development must be considered in public decision-making at the local level. The CWC program was developed from a model that based on social, environmental and economic considerations.
Environmental Considerations
Fire management practices are often focused on actions within the physical environment that can reduce the risk. Research is indicating that these approaches are failing to sufficiently reduce risks during extreme events and can cause detrimental environmental impacts. The CWC program developed and presented, aims to strengthen existing fire management with thorough community engagement to encourage greater preparedness, decision-making capacity and resilience.
Community Consultation
Climate Wise Communities is a community engagement program based on the principles of shared responsibility, collaboration and empowerment. Its aims are to improve community resilience to extreme weather events through facilitated community workshops. By presenting, Councils research and experiences we hope that others can adapt the techniques used and developed in collaboration with their own communities around the globe.
Internal Consultation
The learnings from the conference have been shared with the Strategy and Environment team and are where applicable are being incorporated into the development of future policies, programs and strategies.
Summary
Attendance at the 13th International Wildland Fire Safety Summit & 4th Human Dimensions of Wildland Fire Conference (IAWF Conference), Boise, Idaho, USA presented a unique opportunity to showcase Ku-ring-gai Council’s Climate Wise Communities Program on an international platform. This forum facilitated a shared knowledge of the importance of human dimensions of wildfire management including community engagement and risk management. The benefits to Council of Jennie’s attendance at the conference included access to relevant socio-ecological research, bush fire behaviour science and best practice community engagement methods. Through the networking opportunities provided, the knowledge and ideas gleaned will assist to inform the future direction of Council’s bushfire risk management processes.
A. That Council receives and notes the outcomes arising from attendance at the IAWF Conference.
|
Jennie Cramp Technical Officer - Bushfire |
Penny Colyer Team Leader - Natural Areas |
Marnie Kikken Manager Environment & Sustainability |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
A1View |
Conference proceedings: Climate Wise Communities research paper submitted for peer review |
|
2015/317297 |
APPENDIX No: 1 - Conference proceedings: Climate Wise Communities research paper submitted for peer review |
|
Item No: GB.12 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.13 / 1046 |
|
|
Item GB.13 |
S10066 |
|
25 November 2015 |
Planning Proposal to Heritage List 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To have Council consider 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville as a potential heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and also request the Minister for Heritage to make an interim heritage order over 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville. |
|
|
background: |
A development application to remove and harm significant fabric at the property is being considered by Council. 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville has potential heritage significance for its historical association with renowned photographer Harold Cazneaux. |
|
|
comments: |
A preliminary heritage assessment has been prepared for 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That a planning proposal be prepared to list 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville as an item of local heritage significance under KLEP 2015 and a letter be sent to the Minister for heritage requesting a state interim heritage order be placed over the property. |
Purpose of Report
To have Council consider 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville as a potential heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 and also request the Minister for Heritage to make an interim heritage order over 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville.
Background
24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville is located within the Clanville Conservation Area (C32), a heritage conservation area (HCA) under KLEP 2015. As such, any development applications within the HCA require a heritage impact statement (HIS).
A development application was received for alterations and additions to 24 Dudley Avenue. No Pre Development Application meeting was held. The detailed history in the HIS identified the property as the former long-time home and workplace of renowned photographer and artist Harold Cazneaux. A comparison of recent and historic photographs identified extant heritage fabric at the rear and the interior of the property. This fabric is not protected under the HCA designation and is threatened by the current development application. A preliminary heritage assessment suggests the property warrants investigation for potential local and/or state heritage listing.
Council does not have authority under s.25 of the Heritage Act delegation to make an interim heritage order on the property. Schedule 2 of the Ministerial Order published in the NSW Government Gazette on 12 July 2013 states:
“Council must not make an IHO where….the item is within a heritage conservation area identified in an environmental planning instrument”.
Comments
Heritage significance of 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville
A preliminary heritage assessment of 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville can be found at Attachment A1. The property including the house, garden and studio may have local or state cultural significance based upon the historical association with Harold Cazneaux. During his life Cazneaux was an accomplished and recognised Sydney artist, photographer and social demographer. Celebrated Sydney photographer Max Dupain described Cazneaux as the father of modern Australian photography.
“Ambleside” at 24 Dudley Avenue Roseville was the home of Harold Cazneaux from 1915 until his death in 1953. In the book “Cazneaux: The quiet observer” Helen Ennis describes the felicitous marriage of Cazneaux’s domestic and professional life when he started working from his home in Roseville in the 1920s. Images of family parties, Christmases and daily domestic family life at Ambleside were captured by Cazneaux and are conserved today in depositories at the National Library of Australia, the NSW State Library and Ku-ring-gai Library. The house, studio and many of the interiors captured in these images are still present today.
As the home and workplace of a highly significant Australian artist, Ambleside should be protected to allow investigation of its significance. As Council is unable to make an interim heritage order over 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville (Lot 1, DP 209190) the power to protect the heritage values of the property and make an IHO resides with the Minister for Heritage, pursuant to s. 24 of the Heritage Act.
In support of the recognised heritage value, above and beyond that of a contributory building within a heritage conservation area, it is also recommended that Council prepare a planning proposal to include 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville on schedule 5 and the heritage map of KLEP 2015. To support the planning proposal a state heritage inventory form will also be prepared for Ambleside.
integrated planning and reporting
Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
Ku-ring-gai’s heritage is protected, promoted and responsibly managed.
|
Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively protect and preserve Ku-ring-gai’s heritage assets. |
Identify gaps in existing strategies and plans.
|
Governance Matters
This report addresses the first stage in obtaining a gateway for a Planning Proposal which seeks to list an item of local heritage significance under an amendment to the KLEP 2015.
If the Planning Proposal is supported by the Department, the draft plan will be placed on exhibition seeking further State agency and stakeholder feedback prior to being reported back to Council.
The process for the preparation and implementation of planning proposals is governed by the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
Council will seek the plan-making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act to finalise the Planning Proposal. This involves Council taking on the Director General’s function under s59(1) of the Act in liaising with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to draft the required local environment plan to give effect to the Planning Proposal as well the Minister’s function under s59(2) of the Act in making the Plan.
Risk Management
There is a community expectation that places of heritage significance within the Ku-ring-gai Council LGA will be identified and protected. There is a strategic risk of damaging the reputation of Council if these culturally significant places are not identified and considered for protection.
Financial Considerations
The cost of preparing this report is covered by the Ku-ring-gai draft Principal Local Environmental Plan - Urban Planning & Heritage Budget – Strategy and Environment Department.
Social Considerations
The identification and protection of Ku-ring-gai’s heritage places contributes to the ongoing conservation of Ku-ring-gai’s community-valued historic landscape and garden suburbs.
Environmental Considerations
The retention and conservation of heritage places has an important role in protecting the environment. The environmental sustainability benefits afforded by the retention of heritage places includes the substantial reduction in building demolition and new construction waste, and the conservation of embodied energy in the existing buildings.
Community Consultation
The affected property owner will be notified of this report going to Council and will be further notified and have the opportunity to provide feedback during the formal exhibition period.
Should the Planning Proposal receive a favourable Gateway Determination, it will be exhibited in accordance with the Department’s Gateway Determination requirements and with explanatory heritage information. This will involve appropriate notification and receipt of submissions on the draft plan from the relevant State agencies and the general community and a further report back to Council
Internal Consultation
Consultation with relevant Departments of Council has taken place in preparing this report, in particular, Development and Regulation. In addition, Council’s Heritage Reference Committee has reviewed the proposed heritage item.
Summary
A preliminary assessment of heritage significance suggests that 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville is worthy of further heritage assessment. The purpose of this report is to have Council consider requesting the Minister for Heritage place an interim heritage order on 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville and that Council commence a planning proposal to include Ambleside as a heritage item under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.
A. That Council requests the Minister for Heritage make an Interim Heritage Order (IHO) over 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville (Lot 1, DP 209190), pursuant to s. 24 of the Heritage Act.
B. That Council proceeds to prepare a planning proposal to amend KLEP 2015 to include:
· 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville (Lot 1, DP 209190) as a potential heritage item in Schedule 5 and on the Heritage Map.
C. That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and Regulations.
D. That in order to facilitate an expedient gateway determination, the NSW Heritage Office be consulted prior to submitting the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment. Should comments not be received within 21 days, the planning proposal is to be submitted regardless.
E. That Council requests the plan making delegation under Section 23 of the EP&A Act for this planning proposal.
F. That upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, the exhibition and consultation process is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and with the Gateway Determination requirements.
G. That a report be brought back to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.
|
Andreana Kennedy Heritage Specialist Planner |
Antony Fabbro Manager Urban & Heritage Planning |
Andrew Watson Director Strategy & Environment |
|
A1View |
Preliminary heritage assessment of 24 Dudley Avenue, Roseville |
|
2015/303394 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.14 / 1056 |
|
|
Item GB.14 |
S03151 |
|
17 November 2015 |
Proposal to re-establish alcohol free zones
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To consider the re-establishment of alcohol free zones in South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives. |
|
|
background: |
The existing alcohol free zones have expired and Council is requested whether it wishes the areas to be re-established. |
|
|
comments: |
In accordance with Section 644 of The Local Government Act, Council can re-establish an alcohol free zone subject to advertising and consultation process. |
|
|
recommendation: |
That Council proceed with the proposal to re-establish the alcohol free zones in South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives by notification and invitation for public comment in accordance with Section 644A of The Local Government Act 1993. Council endorsed community events are to be excluded from the Alcohol Free Zone requirements. |
Purpose of Report
To consider the re-establishment of alcohol free zones in South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives.
Background
In 2010, at the request of local residents, Council re-established the alcohol free zones in the South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, and Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives under Section 644 of The Local Government Act.
Under the Act, alcohol free zones may only be established for a period not exceeding four (4) years.
Attachments A1, A2 and A3 are maps identifying the respective locations.
Comments
To renew the alcohol free zones as required in the Section 644A of The Local Government Act and in accordance with the Ministerial Guideline on Alcohol Free Zones 2009, Council must publish, by notice, in a local newspaper indicating the following:
· Declare it proposes to re-establish alcohol free zones, indicating the location of the zone, and the proposed period;
· State the place at which, the date on which and the times during which the copy of the proposal may be inspected;
· Invite representations and objections from persons and groups within the area indicating that any representations or objections by them must be made within thirty (30) days after the date on which the notice is published.
Council must also give a copy of the proposal for alcohol free zones to:
· The officer in charge of the police station within or nearest to the alcohol free zone;
· Liquor licenses, whose premises border on, adjoin or are adjacent to the proposed alcohol free zone;
· Secretaries of registered clubs that border on, adjoin or is adjacent to the proposed alcohol free zone.
Should Council adopt this report, advertising and notification to renew the zones, will be undertaken as outlined above. If no substantial objections are received, signs will be erected and the zones will remain valid for four (4) years from the date of declaration in accordance with the provisions of The Local Government Act (Ministerial Guideline on Alcohol Free Zones) 2009.
Attachment A4 is a copy of the confirmation of support from the police at the Ku-ring-gai Local Area Command.
However, at St Ives Village Green, Council has a number of community events that may involve the consumption of alcohol and the re-establishment of Alcohol Free Zones is not intended to deter the use of alcohol during these events. Therefore, it is considered that community events be excluded from the Alcohol Free Zone requirements at all sites.
integrated planning and reporting
Community, People and Culture
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
C3.1.1 Our community is engaged in shaping the identity of their local areas and feel secure and socially connected.
|
Facilitate and promote community safety and social initiatives.
|
Resource and support local community safety and crime prevention initiatives.
|
Governance Matters
Section 644 A of the Local Government Act 1993 sets out the requirements for re-establishing Alcohol Fee Zones.
Risk Management
The inclusion of Alcohol Free Zones is intended to reduce the risk of use at the sites nominated.
Financial Considerations
Administrative costs for the public consultation process and the supply of signage will be met from existing budgets within Operations Department.
Social Considerations
Consumption of alcohol in public places is considered to result in anti-social behaviour and alcohol free zones help improve the amenity of the area.
Environmental Considerations
Not applicable
Community Consultation
Support has been received from the Police at the Ku-ring-gai Local Area Command.
Internal Consultation
The Development and Regulation Department and the Community Department have been consulted and both support the proposal to renew the alcohol free zones.
Summary
The Alcohol Free Zones at South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives are due to be renewed.
The Local Government Act 1993 requires advertising and notification to renew the zones, which will be undertaken should Council adopt this report. Should no substantial objections be received, signs will be erected and valid for four (4) years.
However, at St Ives Village Green, Council has a number of community events that may involve the consumption of alcohol and the re-establishment of Alcohol Free Zones is not intended to deter the use of alcohol during these events. Therefore, it is considered that community events be excluded from the Alcohol Free Zone requirements at all sites.
A. That Council proceeds with the proposal to renew the alcohol free zones in South Turramurra Shopping Centre, South Turramurra, Wade Lane car park, Gordon and St Ives Village Green, St Ives by notification and invitation for public comment in accordance with Section 644A of The Local Government Act 1993.
B. That should there be no substantial objections, the General Manager be authorised to implement the operation of the alcohol free zones.
C. That the alcohol free zones be established for a period of four (4) years from the date of declaration in accordance with the provisions of The Local Government Act (Ministerial Guideline on Alcohol Free Zones ) 2009.
D. That Council endorsed community events be excluded from the Alcohol Free Zone requirements at all sites.
|
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
|
A1View |
Proposed alcohol free zone - St Ives |
|
2015/183541 |
|
|
A2View |
Proposed alcohol free zone - Gordon |
|
2015/183544 |
|
A3View |
Proposed alcohol free zone - South Turramurra |
|
2015/183550 |
|
A4View |
Confirmation of continual support from the NSW Police |
|
2015/319766 |
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 December 2015 |
GB.15 / 1064 |
|
|
Item GB.15 |
S09881 |
|
26 November 2015 |
T15-2015 - NTRA - Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
purpose of report: |
To consider the tenders received for the construction of North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield and appoint the preferred tenderer. |
|
|
background: |
The Master Plan for the development of a new recreation facility at North Turramurra was adopted in 2007. The staged construction of works consistent with the adopted masterplan has seen the former landfill site rehabilitated and the pre-existing golf course reconfiguration and extension. The next stage of works is the construction of new sportsfields and facilities for North Turramurra Recreational Area (NTRA). |
|
|
comments: |
Tender documents were produced with five (5) submissions received. The submissions were assessed using agreed criteria to identify the best value to Council. |
|
|
recommendation: |
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations, and following the request for tender, it is recommended that Council accepts the tender submitted by tender ‘D’ as indicated in the confidential attachment by the Tender Evaluation Committee. |
Purpose of Report
To consider the tenders received for the construction of North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield and appoint the preferred tenderer.
Background
The Master Plan for the development of a new recreation facility at North Turramurra was adopted in 2007. The features of the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA) works include the rehabilitation of the former landfill site, the redevelopment of the existing golf course and the provision of new sportsfields and recreation facilities to contribute towards meeting a growing demand for recreation facilities in general and playing fields in particular, in the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.
The next stage of the NTRA works is the design and construction of the synthetic sportsfield, stormwater and sub-soil drainage and associated works known as NTRA Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield.
The tender documents for the construction of a synthetic Sportsfield were released through Tenderlink on 10 October 2015. The closing date for receipt of tenders was 6 November 2015.
As the estimate of the construction works is over $150,000, tenders were called using Tenderlink in accordance with the tender requirements of the Local Government Act and Tender Regulations.
Comments
Five (5) tenders were received and recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. Tenders were received from the following companies:
Court Craft Australia Pty Ltd
Greenplay Australia Pty Ltd
Landscape Solutions Australia Pty Limited
Turf One Pty Ltd
TigerTurf NZ Ltd Hargraves Urban Pty Ltd
It should be noted the order above is alphabetical and does not correspond to the order of the list of tenderers named from ‘A’ to ‘E’ in the confidential attachment.
A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the Operations Department, and Strategy & Environment Department was formed to assess the five (5) tenders received.
The evaluation took into account:
· Conformity of submission,
· Lump sum fee,
· Company Experience/Personnel Experience and Qualifications,
· Construction Methodology,
· Program of Works / timeline
· Environmental Risk; and
· Risk Management
The confidential attachments to this report include:
· List of tenders received and additional financial information
· Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation
integrated planning and reporting
Enhance Recreation, Sporting and Leisure Facilities. Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective Delivery Program Term Achievement Operational Plan Task P6.1 Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.
A program is being implemented to improve existing recreational, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities and deliver park asset refurbishment program at priority locations.
Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective |
Delivery Program Term Achievement |
Operational Plan Task |
P6.1 Recreation, sporting and leisure facilities are available to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs.
|
A program is being implemented to improve existing recreational, sporting and leisure facilities and facilitate the establishment of new facilities.
|
Deliver sports fields, facilities and park asset refurbishment program at priority locations.
|
FIT FOR THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN
The NSW Government's Fit for the Future initiative required all councils to prepare an Improvement Proposal and supporting Implementation Plan demonstrating how all seven Fit for the Future benchmarks would be met by 2016/17, and maintained or improved thereafter.
Council's Fit For the Future Improvement Proposal and supporting Implementation Plan underpins the decision to stand alone and not merge with Hornsby Council. The objectives established in the Improvement Proposal and Implementation Plan are embedded in Council's adopted Integrated Planning and Reporting documents including the Revised Delivery Program 2013-2017 and Operational Plan 2015-2016, Long Term Financial Plan 2015/16 to 2024/25 and Asset Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2024/25.
The requirements for Council being Fit for the Future do not impact on this project as funding is already committed and not related to asset sales to address Council’s infrastructure backlog.
Governance Matters
Tender documents were prepared and released through Tenderlink on 10 October 2015 with a closing date of 6 November 2015. At the close of tender, five (5) tenders were received. All submissions were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. A Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from Operations and Strategy & Environment Departments was formed to assess the five (5) tenders received. The evaluation took into account the evaluation methodology, criteria and weighting as predetermined by the Tender Evaluation Committee:
The Confidential Attachments to this report includes the list of tenders received and the Tender Evaluation Panel’s comments and recommendation. The attachments are considered to be confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2)(d)(iii) of The Local Government Act 1993 as they are considered to contain commercial in confidence information.
Risk Management
Three (3) key areas of risk were identified in relation to the proposed work:
· That work needed to be carried out under the contract should be done by a suitably qualified company with experience in synthetic sport field construction and knowledge of the proposed synthetic product.
· That the company was available to commence work within a few weeks of the work being awarded and has the resources to complete the work quickly and efficiently and without major delays.
· That Council should not be exposed to financial risk.
An independent Performance and Financial Assessment has been carried out on the preferred tenderer to ensure they are trading responsibly and have the financial capacity to undertake the work as detailed within the tender documents and or negotiated.
The independent Performance and Financial Assessment examines the following areas:
· The tenderer’s financial capacity to undertake the proposed value of work;
· That the tenderer has been trading in a profitable and responsible manner during the last three (3) years; and
· That the tenderer has sufficient assets/reserves to cover all possible debts during the period of work.
A copy of the financial assessment is included in the confidential attachments.
Financial Considerations
This project is currently listed in Council’s 2014/15 Delivery Program and Operational Plan – project numbers and present available funds are detailed in the Confidential Attachments.
In accordance with statutory obligations, at the finalisation of the project, all unspent funds will be returned to appropriate plan.
There are sufficient funds provided in the Long Term Financial Plan and Delivery Program to fund the works under this contract.
Social Considerations
Over the last few years with the increased use by a growing number of sporting users, it has been identified the need for additional sportsfields to meet the ever growing demand.
The upgrade of the present facilities with an addition of sportsfields, it is expected to enhance the recreational and sports value of the site and provide greater access for sports clubs and casual users.
The proposed upgrade and expansion of the present facilities is in line with Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030 and the Plan’s long term directions, including the objective to have a community embrace healthier lifestyle choices and practices; and to provide quality open space, community and recreational facilities to meet the needs of our changing community.
Environmental Considerations
Prior to tender, the project was subject to a Review of Environmental Factors which determined as follows:
· The proposal is unlikely to have significant impact upon species, populations or ecological communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act and a Species Impact Statement is not required.
· The proposal will not affect any matters of National Environmental Significance listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
· The proposal will include mitigation measures and methods to avoid a significant impact on the environment should it proceed.
Community Consultation
Community consultation has been carried out prior to finalising the NTRA Master Plan in 2007 for the development of a new recreation facility at North Turramurra.
The project has been developed in response to a steadily growing demand within the LGA for new recreational facilities.
A communications action plan has been prepared to inform the community and stakeholders on the progress of the proposed works. The action plan outlines the communication goals, provides a list of the target audience and sets out the key messages that are to be provided to the community and stakeholders by a variety of strategies over the length of the project.
Council has a dedicated website updated every three (3) months informing the public of any updates regarding the project.
Prior to the commencement of on-site works, local residents, schools and businesses will be advised of the commencement of works and be provided with a time estimate for the completion.
During the construction period, the sportsfield site will be closed to the public. However, the golf course and the carpark will remain open for use.
Internal Consultation
Community consultation has been carried out prior to finalising the NTRA Master Plan in 2007 for the development of a new recreation facility at North Turramurra. The project has been developed in response to a steadily growing demand within the LGA for new recreational facilities.
A communications action plan has been prepared to inform the community and stakeholders on the progress of the proposed works. The action plan outlines the communication goals, provides a list of the target audience and sets out the key messages that are to be provided to the community and stakeholders by a variety of strategies over the length of the project.
Council has a dedicated website updated every three (3) months informing the public of any updates regarding the project.
Prior to the commencement of on-site works, local residents, schools and businesses will be advised of the commencement of works and be provided with a time estimate for the completion.
During the construction period, the sportsfield site will be closed to the public. However, the golf course and the carpark will remain open for use.
Summary
Council, as part of the 2014/2015 Open Space Capital Works Program, approved funding for the North Turramurra Recreation Area (NTRA)
Following internal and community consultation, tender documentation was produced with tenders being called on 10 October 2015 with a closing date of 6 November 2015.
A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed consisting of representatives from Operations and Strategy & Environment Departments. At the close of tender, five (5) tenders were received.
All tenders were recorded in accordance with Council’s tendering policy. At the conclusion of the evaluation process a tender assessment and recommendation report was prepared for presentation to Council.
A. That Council accepts the tender from Tenderer ‘D’ as listed in the confidential attachment from the Tender Evaluation Committee to award a contract for T15-2015 Stage 4C Synthetic Sportsfield.
B. That the tender documents be referred to Council’s solicitor to assist in preparing contract documents that is in Council’s best interest.
C. That the Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to execute all tender documents on Council’s behalf in relation to the contract.
D. That the Seal of Council be affixed to all necessary documents.
E. That That all tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 178 of the Local Government Tendering Regulations.
|
Phillip Beninati Contracts Supervisor Strategic Projects |
Greg Piconi Director Operations |
Tender Assessment and Recommendation Report |
|
Confidential |
||
|
Pre Tender Estimate (Appendix 1 to above report) |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Tender Weighted Criteria (Appendix 2 to above report) |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Tender Evaluation Scorecard (Appendix 3 to above report) |
|
Confidential |
|
|
Independent financial assessment (Appendix 4 to above report) |
|
Confidential |