Committee of the Whole - City of Ryde · 2016. 1. 12. · Committee of the Whole Page 2 Agenda of...

Committee of the Whole

AGENDA NO. 10/10

Meeting Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010 Location: Committee Room 2, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 7.30pm Note: This meeting will be recorded on audio tape for minute-taking purposes

as authorised by the Local Government Act 1993.

NOTICE OF BUSINESS Item CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Meeting of 15 June 2010 ........................... 2 2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE ............................................................... 3 3 20 WEST PARADE, EASTWOOD. Lot 2 DP 808844. - Local

Development Application for demolition and construction of new part 1 part 2 storey building to be used as a hotel and associated facilities (no accommodation is proposed). LDA2009/0700. ............................................... 4

4 SKATE FACILITIES ACROSS THE CITY OF RYDE - RESULTS FROM THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION............................................................ 10

5 RECREATION AREAS FOR PEOPLE WITH THEIR DOGS ......................... 19 6 18 MIRIAM ROAD, WEST RYDE. Lot 78A DP 6272. - Local

Development Application for urban housing development (2 x 3 and 1 x 2 bedroom villa homes; two storey villa at front, single storey villas at the rear) and strata subdivision. LDA2009/0001. .......................................... 25

7 15-17 WILLANDRA STREET, RYDE - LDA No.2010/17 and associated Land and Environment Court Appeal ............................................................. 68

8 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE......................................................... 121 9 REQUESTS FROM RYDE HUNTERS HILL CRICKET CLUB FOR

WAIVING OF FEES FOR THE USE OF BREMNER PARK AND MORRISON BAY PARK............................................................................... 133

10 RYDE YOUTH COUNCIL Membership and Terms of Reference ................ 151 11 CALL FOR TWO (2) COUNCILLORS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE

CHALLENGE COMMITTEE FOR THE BEST VALUE REVIEW OF SPORTS ALLOCATION AND GROUND MAINTENANCE PROCESS........ 165

12 REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM ROUND 3 - Project Nomination ................................................ 169

13 NSW COMMUNITY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP 2010 PROGRAM - Project Nomination....................................................................................... 173

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 14 LGFS PROCEEDINGS - Funding Agreement.............................................. 178


Agenda of the Committee of the Whole Report No. 10/10, dated Tuesday 20 July 2010.

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Meeting of 15 June 2010

File Number: GRP/10/3/001/3 - BP10/365

RECOMMENDATION: That the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole No. 09/10 held on 15 June 2010, be confirmed.



2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE


In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, Council can determine those matters on the agenda that can be adopted without the need for any discussion. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the recommendations in respect of items 3 to 14 inclusive, as submitted to Committee of the Whole Meeting 10/10, be adopted with the exception of items as determined by the Council.



3 20 WEST PARADE, EASTWOOD. Lot 2 DP 808844. - Local Development Application for demolition and construction of new part 1 part 2 storey building to be used as a hotel and associated facilities (no accommodation is proposed). LDA2009/0700.

Report prepared by: Senior Town Planner Report approved by: Acting Manager Assessment; Group Manager Environment &

Planning Report dated: 5 July 2010 Previous Items: 4 - 20 WEST PDE,

EASTWOOD. Lot 2 DP 808844. Local Development Application for demolition and construction of new part 1 part 2 storey building to be used as a hotel and associated facilities (No accommodation is proposed). LDA2009/0700. - Committee of the Whole - 15 June 2010


1. Report Summary

Applicant: Malcon Pty Ltd. Owner: PG Crino & PR Crino. Date lodged: 14 December 2009.

The Committee of the Whole at its meeting on 15 June 2010 after consideration of the staff report of the proposed development resolved:

That this matter be deferred to the next Committee of the Whole meeting to allow Council to carry out further community consultation prior to the next Committee of the Whole meeting; namely with community organisations, local schools and the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce.

A copy of the report considered by the Committee of the Whole at its meeting on 15 June 2010 is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. This report details the outcome of the community consultation meeting held on Wednesday 30 June 2010 at the Council office. Reason for Referral to Committee of the Whole: Decision of Committee of the Whole meeting held on 15 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION: That the application be determined in accordance with the recommendation contained within the staff report considered by the Committee of the Whole on 15 June 2010.

Committee of the Whole ITEM 3 (continued)


ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Sanju Reddy Senior Town Planner Report Approved By: Chris Young Acting Manager Assessment Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning



COMMUNITY CONSULTATION In accordance with the resolution of the Committee of the Whole on 15 June 2010, a community consultation meeting was held on Wednesday 30 June 2010 at the Council office. The minutes of that meeting is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and was attended by 18 persons generally representing local schools, churches and clubs, as well as local residents. The applicant was represented by 5 persons. The applicant presented an overview of the proposed development. At the conclusion of the overview the applicant responded to questions from those attending. At the conclusion of questions, all persons attending were permitted to ask further questions, make statements or raise issues. All views raised at the meeting were appropriately recorded. The applicant in providing an overview of the proposal referred to their successfully operated pub at Newtown that was the basis for the design of the proposed hotel. In responding to issues, the applicant indicated the ways in which the proposal addresses the concerns of the public which is reflected by the comments (support) from the Eastwood Police. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that the following points represented all community views presented at the meeting. (A) Negative impacts:

• Lack of car parking facilities. (By far the most common listed complaint). • Concerns about where the Section 94 monies would be spent. • Impact on the proper functioning of the nearby bus interchange with loading

vehicles entering the hotel. • Impact of school buses waiting to enter the bus interchange. • Anti-social behaviour by pub patrons in the locality. Possible loss of safety for

persons walking in the locality. • School students likely to be exposed to anti-social behaviour. • Negative impact on the local community of the proposed gambling machines. • Possible crimes flowing from the gambling machines. • There are enough gambling machines in the Eastwood area. • Not an appropriate form of development for a family orientated Eastwood. • Consumption of alcohol will generate health and crime issues. • Too close to community facilities that provide alcohol and gambling

counselling.



(B) Positive impacts:

• Increased security in locality, including the railway underpass. • Improved aesthetic impact upon the locality. • Increased pedestrian safety due to the pub being available for refuge if

persons are afraid for their personal security. All persons attending were notified of the Committee of the Whole meeting on 20 July 2010 when the proposed development would be further discussed, and invited to attend if they were interested in seeing determination of the application. The meeting ended at 7.30pm. It is also relevant to note that an appeal has been lodged by the applicant with the Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal of the application. A directions hearing in respect of the appeal is listed for hearing on 16 July 2010. Since the Committee of the Whole Meeting on 15 June 2010, Council has received a further 170 submissions opposed to the development. Most of these submissions have been received from parents with children at Eastwood Public School and the submissions are in a pro forma letter. FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THE MATTER OF UNDERGROUNDING OF ELECTRICITY AND TELECOMMUNICATION UTILITIES ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY The assessment report considered by Committee of the Whole meeting on 15 June 2010 indicated that the under grounding of electricity cables should not be required for the subject site as it is an isolated site and there were no adjoining sites to ensure continuity of the undergrounding of the electricity poles and cables. Clause 3.5.4 of Part 4.1 of DCP 2010 (Eastwood Town Centre) requires that:

• Where a proposal involves redevelopment of a site with a frontage of at least 40m to a public road, the developer shall arrange for electricity and telecommunications utilities to be under grounded along the entire length of all street frontages. Such utility modifications will be carried out to the satisfaction of the responsible authority (e.g. Energy Australia).

This is to improve the visual amenity of the area and allow street trees to grow unimpeded.

• Where utility installations are undergrounded in conjunction with new development Council will waive 50% of the total contribution towards public space acquisition and embellishment normally payable under Council’s relevant Section 94 Contributions Plan.



Since this meeting the matter has again been reviewed by Council staff given that it was raised at the previous Committee of the Whole meeting. Based on a reassessment of this requirement, the under grounding of electricity and telecommunications utilities in this instance is still not recommended for the following reasons: • The under grounding of electricity cables for this isolated site would not

contribute to any significant improvement to visual amenity of the area since the power poles and electricity cables on the adjoining land (along the railway line) would not be undergrounded as part of any future development works.

• The electricity posts and cables will still be visible along the road/ streetscape and along the railway line.

• There are no other buildings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site along the street to provide continuity in the building form or the streetscape.

• One of the objectives of undergrounding the power cables is to allow trees to grow unimpeded. However there are no trees along the frontage of the subject site and neither are there any plans for any large trees to be planted along the site.

• The undergrounding of cables will require reduction of Section 94 contribution imposed for public space acquisition and embellishment by at least 50%. However, out of the $1,036,567.80 monetary contribution being imposed, only $33626.62 relates to the public space and embellishments works and the rest relates to car parking contributions. Thus the reduction of $33626.62 by 50% would mean $16813.31 allowance for the under grounding work which is excessively disproportionate to the cost of works and the likely cost of under grounding works.

• Technically the frontage of the site is only 36.193m even though the northern boundary has been viewed as part of the primary frontage (as shown in the original assessment report). Therefore this requirement is not applicable to the subject site and undergrounding of electricity cables not required.

• The undergrounding of electricity cables would need to occur in a coordinated manner, however, there are no current plans as to how and when this is going to occur and what happens to sites with less than 40m frontages or sites which are isolated. For developments, less than 40m frontage, it would be better to pool the Section 94 contribution so that future undergrounding could occur in a more coordinated manner and carried out by Council’s Public Works Department.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010

Since the consideration of the previous report by the Committee of the Whole on 15 June 2010, Ryde LEP 2010 was gazetted on 30 June 2010. Under this LEP the site is zoned Mixed Use (B4).



This planning instrument contains a saving provision (Clause 1.8A) which states: If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced. The DA was lodged on 14 December 2009, before the commencement of this Plan and so the DA may be determined as if Ryde LEP 2010 had not commenced and is a draft planning instrument. In this respect, the development is permissible with consent within the above zoning and the development is not contrary to any of the objectives in draft LEP 2010. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010 Upon the gazettal of LEP 2010, DCP 2010 became effective. This DCP replaces DCP 2006. A copy of the report considered by the Committee of the Whole at its meeting on 15 June 2010 has been circulated under separate cover. This report assesses the proposed development under the provisions of DCP 2006. For this particular development, the requirements of DCP 2010 are the same as the requirements in DCP 2006. For this reason, it is not intended to give further consideration to DCP 2010.



4 SKATE FACILITIES ACROSS THE CITY OF RYDE - RESULTS FROM THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Report prepared by: Open Space Planner Report dated: 1/04/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/160

Report Summary The City of Ryde has been considering the provision of skate facilities within the City of Ryde for many years and following the recent and successful partnership with Hunters Hill Council to construct the Gladesville Skate Park, Council has been considering other opportunities to provide more skate facilities across the City. In accordance with a Council resolution from the Committee of the Whole 16 March 2010, a community consultation program has been undertaken that asked the community’s opinion on the provision of skate facilities across the City. The consultation also gathered community opinion on skate facilities at five key locations across the City. The community has expressed resounding support for the creation of additional skate areas within the City. This report and the attached documents provide the results of the community consultation and recommend steps towards the provision of skate facilities in the City of Ryde. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council commence planning and further community discussion on the

provision of a Youth and Unstructured Recreation Precinct at Meadowbank Park;

(b) That Council commence planning and further community discussion on the

provision of a Skate Spot at Blenheim Park; (c) That Council commence planning and further community discussion on the

provision of a Skate path along Shrimpton’s Creek; (d) That Council commence planning and further community discussion on the

provision of a Skate path along the Ryde River Walk; (e) That Council commence formal negotiations with Macquarie University for a

managed facility at the Macquarie University; (f) That Council allocate funding for the preparation of a feasibility study for a skate

facility at the RALC; (g) That Council allocate $100,000 funding in the 2011 /12 budget for the

development of skate facilities in the City of Ryde



ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Fiona Morrison Open Space Planner Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background Council has been considering the provision of skate parks in the City of Ryde for many years and recently, two Councillor Workshops were conducted that assessed the feasibility of providing skate facilities in the parks and open spaces within the City. The outcome of the two workshops was the recommendation to commence planning for the provision of skate facilities at five locations. These 5 options were:

• A Youth and Unstructured Recreation Precinct at Meadowbank Park • Skate path along Shrimpton’s Creek • Skate path along the Ryde River Walk • Skate Spot at Blenheim Park and • A partnership with Macquarie University to provide a skate facility on

University grounds The report presented to the Community of the Whole on March 16, 2010 reviewed the pros and con’s of each option and Council resolved:

(a) That this matter be deferred to allow further consultation with users and the community with regard to Options A, B and C as set out in the report. (b) That consideration be given to seeking alternative funding opportunities and sponsorship.

Report In accordance with the Your City Your Voice Engagement Framework, the community consultation for the provision of skate facilities across the City of Ryde was conducted by the staff of Community Life between March and May 2010. The consultation program was designed to ensure that wide-ranging community engagement took place on the provision of skate facilities across the City of Ryde, taking into account as many views as possible, while focusing on the five specific options as resolved by Council. DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER is the Skate Parks Across the City of Ryde - Community Consultation Report, Volume One: Report and Volume Two: Data. These two documents provide the detailed report on the consultation program including the planning and design of the consultation tools and a thorough analysis and discussion of the results. Due to the scale of the consultation and amount of information provided by the community, this Report has been divided into 2 Volumes. Volume One: Report provides the detail on how the consultation was planned and conducted as well as a snap shot of the results. The discussion of the results for each Option is also contained in this Volume.



Volume Two: Data documents in detail, all results and comments made by the community during the consultation. Furthermore, Volume Two provides further breakdown and a more thorough detailed analysis of the results of the survey that support the discussions contained within Volume One. Volume Two also acts as a reference tool that contains copies of all the submissions made by the community and a copy of the tools that were used by the City of Ryde to capture the opinion of the Community. Note - Volume Two should be read in conjunction with Volume One as Volume Two provides only results analysis. Volume One contains the discussion on the provision of skate facilities in the City. Consultation Summary Within the context of the Council resolution (26 March 2010) a community engagement plan was created to inquire about the following five options.

1. Youth and Unstructured Recreation Precinct at Meadowbank Park 2. Skate Spot at Blenheim Park 3. Skate path along Shrimpton’s Creek 4. Skate path along the Ryde River Walk and 5. A skate facility in partnership with Macquarie University for a managed

facility at the Macquarie University Sports Precinct The main objective of the community consultation was to encourage the community to provide Council with their views on the provision of skate facilities. This information would then be used to inform the Council’s decision-making process. Specific objectives were to:

• Ensure the consultation process provided the community with information and details on the five options and locations;

• Ensure members of the Ryde community had opportunities to raise issues, questions and concerns, and express their views and comments on the provision of skate facilities;

• Develop consultation processes that provided clear information to the community and to avoid misinformation and/or misunderstanding in the community about the community consultation;

• Ensure feedback was provided to the community on the outcomes of the consultation and Council’s future decisions on skate facilities.

Community Involvement Many contacts were made during the Skate Facilities Consultation Program and these contacts were made through a number of communication methods and a summary of these are below:

• 35 letters to local schools informing them of the consultation and inviting all members of their school community to participate.

• Attendance to Youth Events (including movie nights, Battle of the Bands – total of 4 events)



• Attendance to the Gladesville Skate Park Grand Opening Gala Day • Distribution of 5,000 flyers at sportsgrounds, shopping centres, university, train

stations, libraries, Customer Service Centre and the Ryde Aquatic and Leisure Centre

• Over 38,000 surveys distributed in the Ryde City View on 14 April 2010 • Reminder of the survey consultation in the Ryde City View on 12 May 2010 • 10 visits to sporting fields and parks on weekdays and weekends • Approximately 1,000 invitations to participate in the consultation distributed to

surrounding residents of Meadowbank Park and Blenheim Park. Flyers were also distributed to all homes along the western edge of Macquarie University.

• Attendance and or representation to Advisory Committees (Access, Crime Prevention and Sport and Recreation)

• Presentation to sport users forum, Meadowbank Park User Group • Notification sent to local community associations, including progress

associations informing and inviting them to participate in the consultation program

• Letters sent to local state and federal Member of Parliament informing and inviting them to participate in the consultation program

• Posters displayed at libraries, in parks, TAFE’s, Macquarie University and at Gladesville Skate Park

Over the 61 day consultation program, 527 responses were received from the community. The Table provides a summary breakdown of these responses. TYPE OF RESPONSE TOTAL

Face to Face surveys 111

Surveys completed on-line 343

Surveys posted to the City of Ryde 63

Submissions 10

Incomplete surveys 6

Survey Total (excluding incomplete surveys) 517

Submission Total 10

TOTAL 527 Summary Consultation Results The key results from the Survey were as follows: (For more detailed results please refer to Volume One: Snap Shot of the Results and Volume Two – Part 1)

• 517 survey responses where received from the community of which 364 (71%) resided in the City of Ryde.

• 80% of responses agreed that there should be more skate facilities in the City of Ryde.



• The order of support for skate locations was as follows (in order of most

supported to least supported): 1. Meadowbank Park at 76% 2. Blenheim Park at 73% 3. Macquarie University at 72% 4. Ryde River Walk at 63% 5. Shrimptons Creek at 62%

• The community expressed the following levels of opposition for each location (in order of most opposed to least opposed)

1. Ryde River Walk at 21% 2. Shrimptons Creek at 20% 3. Macquarie University at 16% 4. Blenheim Park at 13% 5. Meadowbank Park at 12%

Conclusions

• There is an indisputable message of support for the provision of additional skate facilities across the City of Ryde.

• The residents of Meadowbank demonstrate a hesitation towards the provision of skate facilities anywhere within the City of Ryde.

• 196 residents have asked to be informed on the progress of the provision of skate facilities in the City.

Meadowbank Park Youth and Unstructured Recreation Precinct Option

• The Meadowbank Park option has the highest level of combined support for a skate facility from the Community.

• Of the suburbs surrounding Meadowbank Park, the residents of West Ryde and Melrose Park are supportive of a skate facility located in Meadowbank Park while the residents of Meadowbank are not supportive of a skate facility located in Meadowbank Park.

• Identification of the preferred location for a future skate facility is a critical step should this Option be progressed and the community has provided Council with many suggestions on where the location should be.

• Community feedback expressed excitement and support for the concept of a Youth and Unstructured Recreation Precinct that included a combination of recreation activities for all different ages.

Blenheim Park Skate Spot Option

• The Blehheim Park option has the second highest level of combined support for a skate facility from the Community.

• Residents immediately surrounding Blenhiem Park are opposed to a skate facility located in Blenheim Park based on concerns of noise and antisocial behaviour.

• Residents of North Ryde and Gladesville are supportive of a skate facility located in Blenheim Park.



• Those in support of a skate spot have indicated that the facility should not be

too small and that it should compliment the existing play experience of Blenheim Park.

Macquarie University Skate Facility Option

• There is a high level of community support for the provision of a skate facility in Macquarie University (72%).

• One of the most commonly recurring themes in the community feedback was the concern about paying a fee to enter the facility and how much access the general community would have on a facility on University lands and managed by the University.

• Feedback from the community implies support for University facility in conjunction with the provision of a free access community facility also being provided for in the City of Ryde

Ryde River Walk Skate Path Option

• Combined support for the provision of a skate path along the Ryde River Walk Creek is 63%.

• 15% of people are non-committal on this option. • There is confusion in the community about what a skate path is and how the

elements of a skate path can be incorporated into the surrounding park landscape.

• The community feedback indicated enthusiasm for another type of shared facility but had concerns about pedestrian safety

Shrimptons Creek Skate Path Option

• Combined support for the provision of a skate path along Shrimptons Creek is at 62%.

• 18% of people are non-committal on this option. • There is confusion in the community about what a skate path is and how the

elements of a skate path can be incorporated into the surrounding park landscape.

• The community feedback indicated enthusiasm for another type of shared facility but had concerns about pedestrian safety.

Options for a skate facility at the Ryde Aquatic and Leisure Centre A meeting was held with Councillor Maggio, Brad Shaw (President of the National Skateboarders Association Australia), Paul Hartmann (RALC Centre RALC Centre Manager) and Fiona Morrison (Open Space Planner). During this meeting a number of options were considered for the use of the RALC and the adjoining park (Olympic Park) as a location for a skate facility.



The options discussed were: OPTION DISCUSSION 1. Paid entry skate facility at

the rear of the RALC • There is not much area in this location and

the skate facility would be very small. 2. Paid entry skate facility in

an combined area at the rear of the RALC and the Next Generation Gym

• The area is large enough but waiting on confirmation from the management of Next Generation as to whether the placement of a skate facility in their grounds is acceptable

3. Public skate facility in Olympic Park

• To date, there has been no community consultation on this location and it was previously deemed unsuitable due to proximity to residential areas and access to public transport.

4. Reassign current use of areas

• Determination of provision of similar facilities would need to be undertaken to gauge the appropriateness of losing current space for an alternate use

5. Construction of a multi deck car park and use of top deck for a paid entry or free skate area

• High cost option that would require feasibility analysis that included the RALC and involvement / partnership with Next Generation

Further analysis and testing of these ideas is required. Consultation Refer to previous discussions in this report and in Consultation Report. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact This project / equipment / proposal is provided for in the proposed budget for 2010/11. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options • Councillors may select all of some of the preferred parks as a location for a skate

facility • Councillors may select additional parks for consideration as a location of a skate

facility • That Council decide not to provide a skate facility in the City of Ryde.



Conclusion The City of Ryde has undertaken a community program that asked the community’s what their opinion on the provision of skate facilities across the City and the community has expressed resounding support for the creation of additional skate areas within the City and the results of the consultation also reveals a level of support for each of the options. A decision is now required by Council as to if and where a skate park should be located.



5 RECREATION AREAS FOR PEOPLE WITH THEIR DOGS

Report prepared by: Open Space Planner Report dated: 15/04/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/186

Report Summary The Australian national average of dog ownership is 18 dogs per 100 people however the population of dogs within the City of Ryde is considered to be lower than this national average. The City of Ryde has approximately 9,000 registered dogs however it is estimated that 10% of the Ryde population owns a dog, potentially lifting the population of dogs to 10,100. Based on this data, it can be further deduced that within the City of Ryde community there is a dog living in every 3.9 houses. Currently the City Of Ryde has established two designated dog recreation areas off leash, Blenheim Park and Meadowbank Park. During the discussion of a report regarding the unstructured recreation activities at Meadowbank Park, (Works and Community Meeting, 2nd February 2010) a request was made by Councillors for a review of what other local government areas provide for dog recreation and further consideration for the provision of these facilities within the City of Ryde. There remains community demand for more designated dog recreation areas and this report together with the “Study on the provision of recreation areas for dogs across the City of Ryde” (CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER) provides an approach to the provision of dog recreation areas across the City and a series of recommendations that may be presented to the Community for consideration and comment. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council undertake community consultation on the provision of an enclosed

off leash recreation area at the following parks: a. Waterloo Park, Marsfield b. Denistone Park, Denistone East c. ELS Hall Park, North Ryde d. Olympic Park, Ryde e. Putney Park, Putney

(b) That Council undertake community consultation on the provision of an off leash recreation area at the following parks:

a. Kotara Park, North Ryde b. Carara Park, Ryde c. North Ryde Common, North Ryde d. Cudal Reserve, Ryde



(c) That Council undertake community consultation on the provision of a sportsfield

shared dog recreation area at the following parks: a. Brush Park, Eastwood b. Darvall Park, Dennistone West c. Forrester Park, Eastwood d. Santa Rosa Park, North Ryde e. Fontenoy Park, Macquarie Park f. Pidding Park, Ryde g. Peel Park, Gladesville

(d) That Council undertake community consultation on the provision of dog walking trails at the following locations:

a. Ryde River Reserve b. Shrimtpons Creek

(e) That Council undertake community consultation on the provision of a dog water hole at Kissing Point Park.

(f) That following the community consultation, a report is brought to Council with

the preferred locations for dog recreation areas. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Fiona Morrison Open Space Planner Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background Over the past five years, there have been numerous reports and plans presented to Council on the location and provision of off leash areas within the City. This has included

- Council resolution to create the of leash area at Blenheim Park (1 November 2005),

- Council resolution to trial Meadowbank Park as a timed leash free area for one year (11 November 2005) and a subsequent decision to make the leash free area permanent (2 May 2006), and

- Council reports have suggested possible locations that have included Darvall Park, West Denistone Park, Glades Bay Reserve, Gannan Park, McCauley Park, Forrester Park and ELS Hall Park.

In addition to this, there have been many community consultation programs that have been run by Council staff and the outcomes of these have been reported to Council. The most recent decision made by Council on the issue of dog recreation areas was with specific reference to the lengthening of hours at Meadowbank Park, Committee of the Whole, 6 October 2009, where the resolution was as follows:

1. That the report of the Manager - Open Space, dated 4/08/2009 on RESULT OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION - Extension of Dog Off Leash Area Times at Meadowbank Park, be received and noted.

2. That there be no change to the current off leash area times at Meadowbank Park. 3. That the General Manager prepare a report to Council detailing suitable alternate

locations within Meadowbank Park with the intention to extend the dog off leash hours.

This report specifically responds to item 3 of the above resolution. Report The provision of open spaces that accommodates the recreation needs of dogs is not only important for the physical and mental well being of the dog but also for the physical and mental well being of the dog owner. Providing suitable recreation areas for dogs is an important role of Local Government and the City of Ryde has two designated dog off leash recreation areas located at Meadowbank Park and Blenheim Park. Dog owners are a substantial group of park and open space users and planning and management of spaces within the City for dog recreation must incorporate both urban animal management and open space and recreation planning. As a part of planning for the provision of dog recreation areas in the City of Ryde, a review has been conducted of the neighboring local government areas to learn what type of facilities they provide (Refer to Part Two – Current Trends in Dog Recreation in the “Study on the provision of recreation areas for dogs across the City of Ryde”). The City of Ryde needs to take a strategic management approach to dog management in public reserves and investigate options for areas and/or time share for dog off leash recreation areas.



Within the context of what the current trends are in the provision of dog recreation areas, an assessment of the City’s parks and open spaces was conducted to ascertain where additional dog recreation areas could be located. The assessment of all 207 parks and reserves was conducted using a combination of elimination, constraining and complementary factors. Each park or reserve was either eliminated or given a score on their suitability as a place for dog recreation. The process taken for the assessment of the parks is outlined in Part Three – Assessment of Ryde Park for Suitability as a place for Dog Recreation in the “Study on the provision of recreation areas for dogs across the City of Ryde”). The key findings of the study

1. That Council applies a strategic approach to the provision of recreation areas for dogs and their owners that is considered on a comprehensive Council wide basis rather than a piecemeal park by park approach.

2. That a variety of recreation area types are installed across the City as one

type of facility does not fit all recreation needs. The suggested types of dog recreation areas are as follows:

• Enclosed free running • Free running • Sportsfield shared • Water holes and • Walking trails

(Refer to Part Two – Current Trends in Dog Recreation in the “Study on the provision of recreation areas for dogs across the City of Ryde” for more information on each type of recreation area).

The 6 recommendations of the Study are as follows: Recommendation 1: Application of a City Wide Approach to the provision of on and off leash dog recreation areas Recommendation 2: Create enclosed free running areas across the City at the following locations:

• Olympic Park, • Denistone Park, • Putney Park • Waterloo Park, • ELS Hall Park, • Blenheim Park and • Meadowbank Park

Recommendation 3: Create free running areas across the City at the following locations:

• Kotara Park, • North Ryde Common, • Carara Park and • Cudal Reserve



Recommendation 4: Create shared sportsfield dog facilities across the City at the following locations:-

• Pidding Park, • Peel Park, • Darvall Park, • Santa Rosa Park, • Fontenoy Park and • Brush Park.

Recommendation 5: Create a dog water hole at Kissing Point Park. Recommendation 6: Create dog walking trails along the Ryde River Walk and Shrimptons Creek.

Each of the recommendations are discussed and outlined in more detail in Part Four – Options and Recommendations in the “Study on the provision of recreation areas for dogs across the City of Ryde”. The next step towards providing additional areas for dog recreation in the City is to seek the community’s opinion on each of the above preferred options. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Open Space – with specific reference to the Recreation Coordinator and Natural

Areas Coordinator for views on the use of sportsfields as dog recreation areas. The next stage would include extensive community consultation as guided by Your City, Your Voice. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options • Councillors may select all or some of the preferred options to seek community

input on, • Councillors may select additional parks for consideration as a dog recreation

area, • Councillor may reject all of the preferred options.



Conclusion This report and the “Study on the provision of recreation areas for dogs across the City of Ryde” presents a strategic and City wide approach to the provision of dog recreation areas that include both on and off leash options. There is an expressed need for more areas where the community can run their dogs off leash and this report and the Study offers a long term solution towards meeting this need. The next step is to gauge the community’s support to this approach and the preferred locations for off leash dog recreation.



6 18 MIRIAM ROAD, WEST RYDE. Lot 78A DP 6272. - Local Development Application for urban housing development (2 x 3 and 1 x 2 bedroom villa homes; two storey villa at front, single storey villas at the rear) and strata subdivision. LDA2009/0001.

Report prepared by: Assessment Officer Report approved by: Acting Manager Assessment; Group Manager Environment &

Planning Report dated: 7 July 2010 Previous Items: 4 - 18 MIRIAM ROAD, WEST RYDE. Lot 78A DP 6272. Local

Development Application for urban housing development (2 x 3 bedroom & 1 x 2 bedroom villa homes; two storey villa at front, single storey villas to the rear) and strata subdivision. LDA2009/0001. - Planning and Environment Committee - 3 November 2009


1. Report Summary Council would recall giving consideration to a proposal seeking development consent for a new urban housing development (2x3 bedroom & 1x2 bedroom villa homes) and strata subdivision at 18 Miriam Road, West Ryde. The previous report is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. At the Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2009, Council resolved

(a) That consideration of the application be deferred and a meeting be facilitated by the Group Manager – Environment & Planning between the applicant’s architect Mr Peter Hall and the owners of 16 Miriam Road, West Ryde within 2 weeks to discuss the issue of overshadowing and seek to mediate an agreed outcome to resolve this issue.

(b) That a further report be referred to Committee of the Whole.

As a result of the mediation meeting held on 19 November 2009, the applicant submitted revised plans, and subsequently on 11 January 2010 an additional set of shadow diagrams prepared by a Registered Surveyor (Rygate & Company Pty Ltd). The revised plans included the following amendments:

• The setback of Villa No. 1 from the side boundary with No. 16 Miriam Road was increased to 6.0 meters (an increase of 1.5 meters).

• Villa No. 1 has been lowered by 300mm reducing its overall height from RL 39.40 to RL 39.10.

• The front dormer window of Villa No. 1 has been reduced in size to measure 2.0m x 1.2m (it previously measured 2.0m x 1.5m).

• The bathroom to the rear of the first floor of Villa No. 1 was reduced in size and the ensuite has been repositioned within bedroom 1.



The amended plans were first delivered to the owners of 16 Miriam Road for review and comment on 12 January 2010. Following a review of the amended plans, written concerns were received from the owners of 16 Miriam Road. These concerns included that two sets of shadow diagrams were not submitted by independent parties. Council subsequently engaged Architectus Pty Ltd to prepare an additional set of shadow diagrams to illustrate the proposed shadow impacts on the adjacent dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road. Following the receipt of the additional shadow diagrams from Architectus Pty Ltd the amended plans were advertised and notified to close neighbouring properties for a period which ended on 8 April 2010. In response to the notification of the revised plans a total of three (3) submissions were received. In summary the matters raised in the submissions included previous concerns relating to the two storey design, heritage impact, the development being out of character with neighbouring residential properties, site coverage, privacy, overshadowing, the accuracy of the submitted shadow diagrams, and concerns regarding the impact of the development on an existing smooth-bark apple tree located on the adjoining property at No.20 Miriam Road. Where appropriate the matters raised in the submissions have been resolved by way of condition. Council’s Heritage Officer, Development Engineer and Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect have raised no objection to the amended plans subject to one additional condition relating to the width of the driveway, this condition has been included in the recommendation of this report. The amended proposal continues to satisfy Council’s DCP overshadowing controls for neighbouring properties. The revised plans submitted by the applicant are considered to represent concessions beyond the requirements of Council’s DCP in an attempt to address the concerns of the adjacent property owners. The submitted shadow diagrams indicate the proposed modifications to the design further reduce the amount of overshadowing of the adjacent property at No.16 Miriam Road. The application is recommended for deferred commencement consent. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No. 2009/0001 at 18 Miriam Road, West

Ryde, being Lot 78A DP 6272 for the erection of an urban housing development (comprising 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 2 bedroom dwelling) and strata subdivision be approved subject to the attached conditions of deferred commencement consent:

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision.



ATTACHMENTS 1 Proposed conditions 2 Map 3 Plans Report Prepared By: Paul Mills Assessment Officer Report Approved By: Chris Young Acting Manager Assessment Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning



2. Background At the Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2009, Council resolved that consideration of the application be deferred and a meeting be facilitated by the Group Manager - Environment and Planning between the applicant’s architect Mr Peter Hall and the owners of 16 Miriam Road. The meeting was to discuss the issue of overshadowing and to seek to mediate an agreed outcome to resolve this issue. As a result of the mediation meeting held on 19 November 2009, the applicant submitted revised plans and subsequently on the 11 January 2010 an additional set of shadow diagrams prepared by a Registered Surveyor (Rygate & Company Pty Ltd). The revised plans included the following amendments:

• The setback of Villa No. 1 from the side boundary with No. 16 Miriam Road was increased to 6.0 meters (an increase of 1.5 meters).

• Villa No. 1 was lowered by 300mm reducing its overall height from RL 39.40 to RL 39.10.

• The front dormer window of Villa No. 1 has been reduced in size to measure 2.0m x 1.2m (it previously measured 2.0m x 1.5m).

• The bathroom to the rear of the first floor of Villa No. 1 has been reduced in size and the ensuite has been repositioned within bedroom 1.

The amended plans were first delivered to the owners of 16 Miriam Road for review and comment on 12 January 2010. Following a review of the amended plans written concerns were received from the owners of 16 Miriam Road which included concerns that the two sets of shadow diagrams were not submitted by independent parties. Council subsequently engaged Architectus Pty Ltd to prepare an additional set of shadow diagrams to illustrate the proposed shadow impacts on the adjacent dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road. Council received the additional shadow diagrams from Architectus Pty Ltd on 18 February 2010. Following the receipt of the additional shadow diagrams from Architectus Pty Ltd the amended plans were advertised and notified to close neighbouring properties for a period ending 8 April 2010. In response to the notification of the revised plans a total of three (3) submissions were received as detailed in Section 6 of this report. During the assessment of the revised architectural plans, the applicant indicated that a further amended Landscape Plan and Stormwater Plan were being prepared attempting to address matters previously recommended to be resolved by way of Deferred Commencement Consent. The assessment was delayed to allow for the applicant to submit these plans and address the outstanding matters. The applicant apologised in writing on 20 May 2010 for the delay in the submission of the amended Stormwater and Landscape Plan. The applicant subsequently submitted an amended Stormwater Plan and Landscape Plan on 10 June 2010.



On 23 June 2010 a further amended Stormwater Plan was submitted relocating a stormwater pipe to more 7.0m from the base of the Smooth-bark Apple tree located on the property at No.20 Miriam Road. 3. Mediation Meeting A meeting between Council officers (Group Manager - Environment & Planning and Assessment Officer), the applicant (and his architect) and the owners of the property at No.16 Miriam Road was held on 19 November 2009. The preferred outcomes for the proposal stated by one of the owners of 16 Miriam Road at the meeting were as follows:

1. The first preference would be for the complete removal of the second storey.

2. Relocation of the development within the site should be investigated (repositioning the driveway from the north side of site to the south side to move the 2 storey development to the approximate location of the existing dwelling.) and to investigate the impact if any on the tree adjoining 20 Miriam Road.

3. The non-compliant second storey element should be deleted, the height of the structure should be reduced and the front setback should be increased.

4. An independent assessment of the shadow diagrams is required, two set sets of shadow diagrams to be provided by independent surveyors and signed.

4. Submission of revised plans Following the meeting the applicant submitted revised plans which included the following amendments:

• The setback of Villa No. 1 from the side boundary with No.16 Miriam Road has been increased to 6.0 meters (an increase of 1.5 meters).

• Villa No. 1 has been lowered by 300mm reducing its overall height from RL 39.40 to RL 39.10.

• The front dormer window of Villa No. 1 has been reduced in size to measure 2.0m x 1.2m (previously measuring 2.0m x 1.5m).

• The bathroom to the rear of the first floor of Villa No. 1 has been reduced in size and the ensuite has been repositioned within bedroom 1.

Subsequently on 11 January 2010 the applicant submitted an additional set of shadow diagrams prepared by a Registered Surveyor of Rygate & Company Pty Ltd.



5. Response from No.16 Miriam Road The amended plans and shadow diagrams were delivered to the owners of No.16 Miriam Road for review and comment on 12 January 2010. The owners of No.16 Miriam Road thanked Council for mediating with the applicant in order to consider their views and it was noted the amended plans would reduce some of the impact of this development on their solar access. However in summary the following concerns were also raised by the owners of 16 Miriam Road:

- The applicant has not submitted two sets of shadow diagrams drawn by independent surveyors to show the impacts;

- The applicant has not considered the relocation of the internal driveway to the northern side of the site;

- The amended design will result in a non-compliance with Council’s excavation control;

- The shadow diagrams show the proposed building will still overshadow the front two north-facing rooms and courtyard/drying areas for much of the afternoon on the winter solstice;

- The location of the outdoor living space (courtyards) of villas 2 and 3 will compromise the amenity of the outdoor living space of the dwelling at No.16.

In response to the concerns from the owners of No.16 relating to the shadow diagrams, Council engaged Architectus Pty Ltd to prepare an additional set of shadow diagrams to illustrate the proposed shadow impacts on the adjacent dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road. Council received the additional shadow diagrams from Architectus Pty Ltd on 18 February 2010. 6. Notification In accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan 2010 - Part 2.1 Notification of Development Applications, the amended plans including the additional shadow diagrams were advertised and notified to neighbouring properties for a period ending 8 April 2010. In response to the notification of the amended plans, a total of three (3) submissions were received. In summary the matters raised in the submissions repeated previous concerns relating to the two storey design, heritage impact, the development being out of character with neighbouring residential properties, site coverage, privacy, and concerns regarding the impact of the development on an existing smooth-bark apple tree on the adjoining property at No.20 Miriam Road. New concerns were raised regarding overshadowing and the accuracy of the shadow diagrams.



It is noted that Council, at the Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2009, resolved that consideration of the application be deferred and a meeting be facilitated by the Group Manager to discuss the issue of overshadowing and to seek to mediate an agreed outcome to resolve this issue. Subsequently the concerns relating to the two storey design, heritage impact, the development being out of character with neighbouring residential properties, site coverage, privacy, and concerns regarding the impact of the development on an existing smooth-bark apple tree on the adjoining property at No.20 Miriam Road were previously considered within original assessment report and reference should be made that report for an assessment of those matters. It is considered the proposed modified design does not have any significant impact upon these matters. New concerns were also raised regarding the overshadowing caused by the amended plans and the accuracy of the shadow diagrams. Reference is made to Section 8 of this report for an assessment of the shadow cast by the revised design. 7. Referrals Development Engineer, 6 July 2010: Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection to the proposed amended plans subject to the proposed internal driveway widths being increased (See recommended Deferred Commencement requirement No.3). Heritage Officer, 15 March 2010: Council’s Heritage Officer has raised no objection to the revised plans. Consultant Landscape Architect, 3 June 2010 & 1 July 2010: Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect has raised no objection to the proposed revised architectural plans, and on 3 June 2010 commented as follows: “In terms of the Smooth-bark Apple, when I considered the original application the driveway was shown as being 1.2m from the boundary and this was considered acceptable. I don't recall asking for or commenting on the curved edge as shown, and reverting back to the 1.2m setback constitutes only a very minor amendment which will have no additional impact upon the tree, as long as all other tree management conditions are adhered to. Similarly the amendments to the driveway in the front setback are minor and should not adversely affect the tree to be retained.” On 1 July 2010, Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect commented in response to the amended Stormwater Plan (submitted 23 June 2010) and Landscape Plan:



“The stormwater plan is considered satisfactory, however, the landscape plan needs to reflect the requirements of the deferred commencement conditions, most importantly the delineation of the tree protection zone, and the design of the fencing for the tree protection zone. The second requirement is for some sort of schedule that reflects an outline of inspections for the supervising arborist.” The outstanding requirements from Council’s Landscape Architect aimed at maintaining the health of the Smooth-bark Apple tree located on the adjacent property No.20 Miriam Road have been included as requirements of deferred commencement consent (see Part 1 of the recommendation of this report and the ATTACHED conditions). 8. Assessment Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Ryde LEP 2010)

Ryde LEP 2010 was gazetted on 30 June 2010 as the new environmental planning instrument applicable to the City of Ryde. This instrument contains a Savings Provision (clause 1.8A) which states: “If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.” The DA was made (lodged) on 2 January 2009, before the commencement of this Plan and so it may be determined as if Ryde LEP 2010 had not commenced. Under Ryde LEP 2010, the zoning of the property is R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with consent within this zoning under the LEP, and it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives of the LEP or those of the proposed zoning.

Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning The subject site is located within the Residential 2(a) under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council.



Mandatory Requirements Clause 41A - Subdivision of Land Generally This clause states that a person shall not subdivide land with consent of the relevant authority. The application for strata subdivision has been submitted as required by this clause. Clause 56A – Urban Housing The Council is not to consent to the urban housing on land within Zone No 2(a) unless the site area of the building is comprised of not less than: (a) 300m² for each 1, 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling; and (b) 365m² for each 4 or more bedroom dwelling. The subject proposal for 2 x 3 bedroom villas and 1 x 2 bedroom villas requires a site area of not less than 900m². The total area of the site is 910.8m² and complies with this requirement.

(b) Relevant SEPPs

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

BASIX Proposed Compliance

Landscaping

Indigenous or low water use species of vegetation

Refer to Landscape Plan Yes

Rainwater Tank

Installation of a 2000 litres rainwater tank per dwelling.

2000 litre rain water tank proposed for each dwelling.

Yes

Hot Water

Gas instantaneous – 4 star or higher

4 star gas hot water systems identified on

drawings.

Yes

Natural Lighting

Installation of a window and/or skylight in the kitchen and 1 bathroom(s)/toilet(s) in the development.

All kitchens have windows. Yes



BASIX Proposed Compliance Thermal Score

PASS PASS Yes Energy Score

Target 40% 47% Yes Water Score

Target 40% 42% Yes (c) Relevant REPs (Deemed SEPPs) There are no Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed SEPPs) relevant to

this application. (d) Any draft LEPs

Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2010 was adopted by Council on 5 May 2009 and gazetted on 30 June 2010. In accordance with the savings provisions of LEP 2010 this instrument has been considered as if had not commenced. Accordingly, the provisions of LEP 2010 have been considered as if it was a draft instrument at the time of writing this report (whilst being certain and imminent). Under LEP 2010 the zoning of the property is R2 Residential Low Density, which is similar to the Residential 2(a) zone in the Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed development is permissible with consent within this zoning under LEP 2010, and it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives of LEP 2010.

(e) Any DCP

City of Ryde Development Control Plan 2010 (Ryde DCP 2010) Ryde DCP 2010 came into effect on 30 June 2010 at the same time of the gazettal of LEP 2010. Following is an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of DCP 2010.

Part 3.5 – Multi Dwelling Housing (for Low Density Residential Zone) Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management Part 8.2 – Stormwater Management Part 9.2 – Access for People with Disabilities Part 9.4 – Fencing



The proposal is in compliance with the above parts of DCP 2010 as illustrated by the development standards below.

Control

Proposal Compliance

2. Site analysis, location, number and type of dwellings Site Analysis (SA) Must have a SA and SA should relate drawings to surrounds + minimise amenity impacts.

A satisfactory assessment of the site and immediate surrounds has been provided on the Site Plan.

Yes

Minimum allotment size Area: (not <600m2) 910.8m² Yes Primary Frontage: (not <20m) 22.409m Yes Not hatchet shaped Not hatchet shaped. Yes Preferred Location Is the proposed development within a non-preferred location?

No. Yes

Linear Separation Is there any approved Villa, Duplex or Urban Housing development within double the frontage (or proposed frontage)?

No. Villas adjoining at rear corner of site, but not within double the frontage.

Yes

Existing building Is the existing building a Heritage Item to be retained?

No. N/A

If yes, is it to be scheduled & does it comply with 2.5.1?

N/A N/A

Density Not more than 12 Dwellings Total of 3 dwellings

proposed. Yes

As per clause 4.5A RLEP2010 – which states: For each 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling 300m2 of site area For each 4 or more bedroom dwelling 365m2 of site area

2 x 3B: 600m² 1 x 2B: 300m² Yes

(b) Each dwelling has its own contiguous private open space (POS) and separate access to that space from unbuilt portion of site.

Each dwelling has its own private open space. Yes



Control

Proposal Compliance

If 4 or more dwellings on site, <75% with same number of bedrooms (rounded down) eg. 6d= 4x3B + 2x2B

N/A

N/A

3. Site Planning Presentation At least one dwelling must present to the street

Villa 1 presents to the street.

Yes

Slope Slope must be <1:6 either up or down from street frontage.

<1:6 slope. Yes

Cross-fall <1:14 <1:14 cross fall. Yes <300mm Cut or Fill outside building envelope

No fill outside building envelope.

Yes

No imported Fill No indication that the proposal will involve the importation of fill to the site. Condition to ensure.

Yes

No basement garages No basement garages. Yes Minimal steps, retaining walls Storeys A Multi Dwelling House must be within single storey building. OR

Single storey dwelling not with frontage to street.

Yes

Dwelling with frontage to street can be 2 storeys provided: o 2 storey dwelling not attached

to any other 2 storey dwelling; and

o 2 storey dwelling is suitable in terms of streetscape.

Dwellings on adjacent properties are single storey. The proposal involves a two storey building with frontage to the street. The second storey is contained within the roof and large dormer windows.

Yes

Corner Allotments Only 1 dwelling can be 2 storeys, the dwelling on street with shortest frontage.

Not a corner site. N/A

Corner lots containing a 2 storey dwelling must be sensitively designed re topography, dwelling size and height.

Not a corner site. N/A



Control

Proposal Compliance

As per Clause 4.3(2a) – which state the maximum height is:

(a) for dwellings in building with no frontage to street – 6.5m

Ridge RL:38.60 NGL below (min): RL:32.92 Min height: 5.68m

(b) for dwellings with a frontage to street, if adjacent lots have dwellings that are <9.5m high – 8m

Ridge RL:39.10 NGL below (min): RL:31.80 NGL below (max): RL:32.60 Min height: 6.8m Max height: 7.3m

Yes

Note: To comply with the 8m height the 2nd storey must be within the roof of the dwelling.

Yes Site Coverage Site coverage must be under 40% (not including access handle for hatchet shaped blocks or area between foreshore building line and high water mark)

Site coverage 40%. Includes dwelling, porch and patio area and lockable garages.

Yes

Pervious area must be greater than 35%

33% pervious area. On site detention system considered acceptable by Council’s Development Engineers.

No

Setbacks Front Setbacks: Similar to adjoining dwellings - same as adjoining if <2m - Average if >2m

Same as adjoining dwelling proposed. Although the average of adjoining setbacks is required as >2m difference in setback in the setback of the dwellings on either side of the site.

No

If streetscape is likely to change: >7.5m for 50% of frontage, >6.5m for 50% of frontage.

N/A

N/A

Provide an irregular front elevation for interest (+/- 1m)

Irregular front elevation provided for interest.

Yes

Secondary Frontage: Min 4.5m

N/A N/A



Control

Proposal Compliance

Side & Rear Setbacks: Min 4.5m unless vehicular access is included in this area, then min 6m.

6m min side setback (inc. driveway).

Yes

Allow variation between 3-6m for less than 50% for visual interest

Variation between 3-6m. Yes

Internal Setbacks Habitable room windows don’t overlook

Habitable room windows do not overlook.

Yes

9m separation between facing dwellings habitable room windows?

N/A. N/A

Private Outdoor Space Min 30m2 for 2B Min 35m2 for 3+B Min dimension 4m (one single space)

2 x 3B: Villa 1 and 3 have >35m². 1 x 2B: >30m².

Yes Yes

Not within front setback Not within front setback. Yes Private Open Space at natural ground level.

POS at NGL Yes

Solar access: 50% for ≥2hrs Villa 1 does not receive 50% sunlight between 9am – 3pm.

No

Access to courtyard two ways? Second access point to private courtyards provided through either the garage or gate to courtyard.

Yes

Visible from living areas? Visible from living areas. Yes Securely enclosed (not roofed) Securely enclosed. ≥1.2m landscape strip between courtyard and adjoining property

Landscape strip proposed however a clothes line for Villa 3 is located on the boundary creating a gap in the landscape strip. A condition has been included within the recommendation to require the relocation of the clothes line located on the boundary within the courtyard of Villa 3.

Yes* (Subject to condition)

Landscaping A landscape concept plan must be submitted with the application.

Landscape concept plan submitted.

Yes



Control

Proposal Compliance

Landscaping must be completed prior to dwelling being occupied.

Condition to require landscape works completed prior to dwelling being occupied.

Condition

Extent of landscaping, existing trees retained in common areas?

6 major trees retained in both common and private areas.

Yes

Privacy Planting ≥1.2m landscaped strip 3<h<4m mature plants? 5<h<6m small trees?

400mm landscape strip provided along the north-western boundary of the site adjacent to the driveway.

No

Lawn areas edged or kerbed? Edged lawn areas proposed. Brick garden edging. Storm water plans read 150 kerb.

Yes

Nature Strips: Street trees retained and protected?

Retaining Brush Box on nature strip.

Yes

Car Parking Number of Parking Spaces 1 space per 1 or 2 B dwelling 2 spaces per 3+B dwelling 1 visitor space per 4 dwellings (at least one space per dwelling must be in lockable garage)

2 spaces for Villa 1 (3 Bedrooms) - 1 tandem space half covered. 2 spaces for Villa 3 (3 bedrooms) 1 garage space for Villa 2.

Yes

Yes

Yes

For hatchet shaped blocks, 1 extra visitor space per 4 dwellings

N/A N/A

Garage location: - Not between dwelling and

street frontage - No tandem parking in front of

garage - Conveniently located for

occupants - Located so they separate

dwellings.

Not between dwelling and street frontage. No tandem parking in front of garage. Conveniently located for occupants. Located to separate dwellings where appropriate.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes



Control

Proposal Compliance

Manoeuvrability: Enter and leave garage/parking area with single 3pt turn, in a forward direction (unless safe to reverse – corner allotment only).

Utilising space in front of garages to V1 and 2, manoeuvrability is achieved.

Yes

Driveways Suitably paved, extent minimised, to avoid excessive amounts of hard paved areas.

Concrete driveway. Extent minimised.

Yes

Driveway Crossings Width: 10 spaces, min 4m >10 spaces, max 6m Driveways <30% of frontage

Proposal seeks to widen existing crossing to 4m.

Yes

Solar Access Habitable room windows face courtyard or other outdoor space open to the sky, no closer than 1.5m to facing wall.

All Habitable room windows face outdoor space open to sky or courtyard.

Yes

Sunlight to at least 50% of each courtyard, and principal ground level open space >2hrs between 9am and 3pm on June 21 or

Villa 1 does not receive 2 hrs of sunlight to 50% POS between 9am and 3pm.

No

Where existing overshadowing by buildings and fences is greater than this on adjoining properties, sunlight must not be further reduced by more than 20%

N/A Existing dwelling is single storey.

N/A

Shadow diagrams must indicate extent of shadowing within development and adjoining properties.

Shadow diagram indicates shadowing extent within development and over adjoining properties.

Yes

Visual & Acoustic Privacy Min 9m separation between facing habitable room windows

No facing habitable windows.

Yes

No direct views between living area windows or adjacent dwellings (otherwise screening or obscuring necessary)

No direct views between living area windows or adjacent dwellings. Villa 1 living area windows are setback 4.5m from boundary.

Yes



Control

Proposal Compliance

Direct views from living areas to private open space of other dwellings should be screened or obscured within privacy sensitive zone of 12m radius.

N/A

N/A

No balconies. Elevated landings (or similar associated with stairs into courtyard) max 1m wide

No balconies proposed. The proposed landing to the rear of Villa 2 is 780mm above ground level and is 1.0m wide.

Yes

Yes

Living and sleeping areas protected from high levels of external noise?

No high levels of external noise exposure.

Yes

Accessibility Pedestrian access provided, separate to vehicle access where possible.

Villa 1 has separate path to front porch from Miriam Rd. Pedestrian access to Villa 2 and 3 is via driveway.

Yes

6 or more dwelling developments have min 35% of dwellings provide access to all indoor areas and outdoor living areas for people with disabilities (street, car parking and common areas accessed in one continuous path of travel)

N/A

N/A

For above such developments, an access audit must be submitted

N/A N/A

4. Building Form Ceiling Height: Floor to Ceiling min 2.7m

2.7m ceiling height.

Yes

Roof & materials Pitch 22-30° (35 where 2nd floor is within roof)

25 - 31º Villa 1 First Floor is within roof.

Yes

Min 300mm eaves overhang for roofs & verandas

Min 300mm eave overhang. Yes

Gables to street frontage? Gable ends included in roof design facing street.

Yes

Variation to roof line? Variation to roof line. Yes



Control

Proposal Compliance

Roof materials consistent with traditional ones in the street?

Concrete roof tiles are consistent with traditional style of street.

Yes

Building materials for walls In keeping with the traditional materials for the locality. Detailing to break up large areas of wall adding interest and individuality

The submitted brickwork details for the proposed walls has been supported by Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Yes

Proportion of windows and other openings consistent with character of locality. (windows 2:1 and 3:1 vertical proportion)

Window proportions consistent with character of locality. No objection from Council’s Heritage Officer.

Yes

Fences Front fence: Max ht 1m, and 70% visually permeable Materials complement dwelling eg wooden pickets, masonry with infill panels, wrought iron or similar etc

The proposed underground OSD system involves the construction of a 510mm high masonry wall.

N/A

Yes

Secondary street frontage: Similar materials to main front fence

- -

Solid fence must have indents for soft landscaping

- -

Other boundary fences Min ht 1.8m Min 1800mm height. Yes Lapped and capped timber 1.8m lapped and capped.

Material not specified so condition has been included to required timber construction.

Yes (Subject to condition)

Clotheslines and drying area External clotheslines (not visible from adjoining properties or public areas)

External clotheslines are not visible from adjoining properties or public areas.

Yes

Each dwelling must have its own laundry

Each dwelling has its own laundry.

Yes

Lighting Front yard lighting and lighting on the front of dwellings is to be provided

Front yard lighting and lighting on the front of dwellings are not shown on plans.




Control

Proposal Compliance

Location of external lighting must not have adverse affect on adjoining properties.

Condition to ensure to specify lighting is not to have an unacceptable impact on adjoining properties.


Garbage bin enclosures For developments up to 5 dwellings on sites that are not steeply sloping and which have a wide road frontage: - Each dwelling must be

provided with a storage area for Council’s standard rubbish and recycling bins.

- Storage area should be behind the dwelling, not visible from public spaces, common areas and habitable room windows

Each dwelling is provided with a bin storage area. The location of the bin storage areas within the garages of Villas 1 and 2 and at the rear of the open car space of Villa 3 are considered acceptable.

Yes

Yes

For developments of 6 or more dwellings or where sites are steeply sloping or have a narrow street frontage: - A central garbage bin

enclosure shall be provided - Behind the building line and

suitably screened by landscaping. A plan indicating the design and location of the garbage bin enclosure must be submitted with the DA.

N/A

N/A

5. Engineering Drainage Part 8.2 Stormwater Management DCP 2010

Proposed method of disposal and discharge point: 50% RW to RWT. Surface/driveway runoff to SWP. SWP connect to underground OSD located under driveway. Driveway OSD and SWP along courtyards drain

Yes



Control

Proposal Compliance

through above ground detention pond and out to Miriam Street.

Surface on-site stormwater detention basins are not permitted within the front setback.

Underground OSD located in front setback however is located underground to the satisfaction of Council Development Engineers.

Yes

Impervious Areas: <65%

The proposal involves the installation of an on-site detention system to manage runoff from the proposed development to the satisfaction of Council Development.

No

NON-COMPLIANCES:

1. Front setback Section 3.5.1(a)(ii) states, in part; If the difference between the setbacks of the adjoining buildings is more than 2m the development must be setback the average of the front setback of the two adjoining developments.

An explanatory diagram of the front setback requirement from Section 3.5.1(a) of Council’s DCP 2006 is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - DCP 2006 explanatory diagram for calculating required front setback distance.



As illustrated in Figure 2 below the front setback distances of the properties on either side are: No. 20 Miriam Road: 13m No. 16 Miriam Road: 6m

Figure 2 – Front setback distances of the properties adjoining on either side

Applying the DCP provisions in this case (with the very large setback of No.20 Miriam Road), would require a front boundary setback of 9.5m (3.5m more than proposed). The proposed front setback of 6.0m is considered acceptable in this instance as: • it is consistent with the setback of the adjacent dwelling at No.16 Miriam

Road which has a setback of 6.0m; • Council’s Heritage Officer has raised no objection to the proposed front

setback; • the proposed front setback is considered to be generally consistent with

the existing streetscape of Miriam Road; and, • the proposed front setback is consistent with the second dwelling at

No.20 Miriam Road.



2. Solar access to Private Open Space of Villa 1. The Private Open Space (POS) area of Villa 1 will only receive mid-winter solar access late in the afternoon. This is a ramification of having a two-storey dwelling on an east-west orientated allotment. In the subject application, as long as the two-storey dwelling is retained, there will be significant shadow impacts on the private open space area. Whilst this is not a preferred situation it is not considered an adequate ground for refusal of the proposal overall, particularly in view of the degree of compliance for the other DCP components. 3. Pervious area Section 3.4(b) specifies that the pervious area of the site must not be less than 35%. Contrary to this requirement the proposed pervious area of the site is calculated to be 33%. The proposed amount of pervious area is considered acceptable in this instance as: • the proposal represents a minor 2% departure from the required

minimum; and • Council’s Development Engineers have raised no objection to the

proposed amount pervious area. 4. Planting strip adjacent to driveway Section 3.7(h) specifies in part that a planting strip not less 1.2m wide should be provided between the driveway and the adjoining property boundary. The front portion of the planting strip for the driveway forward of the dwelling at No.20 Miriam Road has maximum width of 0.5m. The proposed width of the planting strip is considered acceptable in this instance as: • the planting strip is within the front setback and should not detract from

the privacy of the neighbouring property at No.20; and, • the width of the planting strip should not have an unacceptable impact on

the appearance of the development when viewed from Miriam Road. 9. Overshadowing Assessment Side Setback of Villa One The proposed revised plans increase the setback of Villa One from the side boundary with No.16 Miriam Road from 4.5m to 6.0m. This represents a 1.5m increase to the side setback and acts to further reduce the level of overshadowing of the dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road.



Building height The amended plans have also reduced the overall height of Villa One. That part of the building with frontage to the street may include a second storey contained within the roof which does not have an overall height exceeding 8m. The reduced roof ridge height of RL 39.10 reduces the overall height of Villa One to 7.3m. The overall height of Villa One has been lowered by 0.3m (30cm). Building design The amended plans have modified the design and reduced the overall size of the first floor of Villa One. The modifications have reduced the size of the first floor bathroom and the relocated the ensuite of bedroom one. These amendments have reduced the bulk of the first floor and modified the roof profile for Villa One. Subsequently these amendments have also reduced the shadow cast by the proposal. Overshadowing of No.16 Miriam Road The amended proposal continues to satisfy Council’s DCP 2006 overshadowing controls for neighbouring properties. The shadow diagrams indicate the proposed modifications to the design further reduce the amount of overshadowing of the adjacent dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road. It is noted that Part 3.6 Section 3.9(b) of Council’s DCP 2010 specifies, in part: “Sunlight to at least 50% of each courtyard within the development and the principal area of ground level private open space of adjacent properties must not be reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on June 21.” As can be seen in Figure 3 in accordance with Section 3.9(b) the shadow cast from proposed Villa One does not reduce sunlight to the principal area of ground level private open space at No.16 Miriam Road to less than 50% at any time of day on 21 June.



Figure 3 – Aerial view of shadow cast from Villa One at 9am, 12pm & 3pm on 22 June

Figures 4 & 5 contain elevation shadow diagrams prepared by two separate parties to illustrate the shadow cast over the north-western elevation of the dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road. These drawings have been prepared following the mediation meeting held between the applicant and the owners of the adjacent property at No.16 Miriam Road. The elevation shadow diagrams have been prepared by Architectus Pty Ltd and Rygate & Company Pty Ltd. Shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development will not overshadow any of the north-western windows of the dwelling until the early afternoon.



Figure 4 – Shadow diagrams prepared by Architectus Pty Ltd. These diagrams depict the

shadowing caused by the amended design at 9:00am, 12pm and 3pm on the winter solstice (22 June) on the north-western elevation of the dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road.



Figure 5 - Shadow diagrams prepared by Rygate & Company Pty Ltd. These diagrams depict

the shadowing caused by the amended design at 9:00am, 12pm and 3pm on the winter solstice (22 June) on the north-western elevation of the dwelling at No.16 Miriam Road.



5. Conclusion Council’s Heritage Officer, Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect and Council’s Development Engineer and have raised no objection to the amended plans subject to one additional condition relating to driveway width, this condition has been included in the recommendation of this report. The amended proposal continues to comfortably satisfy Council’s DCP overshadowing controls. The shadow diagrams indicate the proposed modifications to the design further reduce the amount of overshadowing of the adjacent property at No.16 Miriam Road. The amended proposal continues to satisfy Council’s DCP overshadowing controls for neighbouring properties. The submitted shadow diagrams indicate the proposed modifications to the design further reduce the amount of overshadowing of the adjacent property at No.16 Miriam Road. The revised plans submitted by the applicant are considered to represent concessions beyond the requirements of Council’s DCP in an attempt to address the concerns of the adjacent property owners. The application is recommended for deferred commencement consent.

Committee of the Whole ITEM 6 (continued) ATTACHMENT 1



Agenda of the Confidential Committee of the Whole Report No. 10/10, dated Tuesday 20 July 2010.



7 15-17 WILLANDRA STREET, RYDE - LDA No.2010/17 and associated Land and Environment Court Appeal

Report prepared by: General Counsel Report dated: 7/07/2010 File No.: GRP/10/5/001/3 - BP10/374

Report Summary This report provides an assessment of Local Development Application No.2010/17 and recommends that Council approve the application subject to identified conditions. RECOMMENDATION: That Local Development Application No.2010/17 be approved subject to the conditions identified in the assessment report at Attachment 1. ATTACHMENTS 1 Planning Assessment Report Report Prepared By: Joe Strati General Counsel Report Approved By: John Neish General Manager



Background On 14 January 2010, Local Development Application No.2010/17 was lodged with Council seeking approval for a 6 villa development at 15-17 Willandra Street, Ryde. On 10 June 2010, Council received notice of an appeal having been lodged with the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the application. The appeal is listed for mention before the Court on 23 July 2010 by which time Council is required to either: 1. advise the Court that it has approved the application; or 2. lodge a Statement of Facts and Contentions identifying why the application

should be refused. This report provides an assessment of the DA for Council’s consideration and a legal analysis for the purposes of the appeal. Report The assessment report for the subject development application is provided at ATTACHMENT 1. Confidential legal advice with respect to the Appeal is provided UNDER SEPARATE COVER. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted include:- • Development Assessment Unit. External public consultation included:- • Notification in relation to the development application. Comments See the attached Assessment Report for an analysis of the submissions received by Council. Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: • 21 July 2010 – Council to file its Statement of Facts and Contentions Financial Impact Adoption of the recommendation outlined in this report will have no financial impact. If the recommendation is not adopted, there will be costs implications in running the proceedings including the cost of external counsel and experts. It is difficult to assess what the cost would be without seeing any reasons for refusal. However, a rough estimate would be between $15,000 and $20,000.



Policy Implications There are no policy implications from adoption of the recommendation in this report. Other Options Council may choose to refuse the development application for whatever valid reasons it sees fit. If so, it must properly explain those reasons so that Council can prepare a Statement of Contentions. Conclusion The subject development application is recommended for approval on the basis of the assessment officer’s report.



ASSESSMENT REPORT - Local Development Application No: LDA2010/17

Report to Manager Assessment – 6 July 2010 Applicant: Junapa Pty Ltd Owner: Bogdan and Ana Grubisic Date lodged: 14 January 2010 Public Submissions: (a) 7 submissions were received objecting to the notification of the original DA plans. (b) No submissions received to the notification of the amended plans. SEPP1 Objection received: Not required. Value of works: $1,188,000 The assessment contained in this report is a summary of the matters deemed relevant to this development proposal and matters contained in the Department of Planning's Guide to 79C - Potential Matters for Consideration have been considered. THE SITE: The subject site is known as 15-17 Willandra St, Ryde and is located on the southern side of Willandra Street near Church St. Currently existing on site are 2 detached dwellings to be demolished as part of this DA. The subject site is a regular shaped allotment with a frontage of 30.48 metres to Willandra St and a total site area of 2124m2. The site slopes down from the street, steeply at the front then at a more gradual gradient towards the rear. TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: The development proposes demolition of the existing dwellings and erection of a multi dwelling housing development of 6 dwellings. The 2 dwellings at the front of the site are both 2 storey, and the other 4 dwellings are single storey. There are 2x2 bedroom, 2x3 bedroom and 2x4 bedroom (including 1xbedroom + study) in the development. The development proposes a total of 12 parking spaces (10 resident and 2 visitor).



PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15-17 Willandra St Ryde Lot 42-43 13597

ZONE: Residential 'A' BACKGROUND: The DA was lodged on 14 January 2010. Shortly after, it underwent a preliminary assessment, referrals to internal/external persons (see “Referrals” section of report), allocation to Team Leader – Assessment, and notification/advertising (closing date for submissions = 25 February 2010). Seven (7) submissions were received as discussed in the “Submissions” section of this report.



On 22 February 2010, the DA was called up to Planning and Environment Committee (see Councillor representations below). On 25 March 2010, a full assessment of the DA was completed and the following additional information was requested from the applicant (in summary): • Additional information/amended plans to address various DCP non-compliances. • Development Engineering matters • A response to the submissions received following neighbour notification and

advertising. On 15 April 2010, Council received comments from it’s consultant regarding accessibility issues (Elton Consulting), and these were forwarded to the applicant for them to respond to the issues raised. On 5 May 2010, the applicant submitted additional information in response to Council’s request. This contained: • Amended plans to address various issues of concern regarding DCP non-

compliances and issues raised by neighbours. • Amended hydraulic/stormwater design • Report from Access Consultant regarding accessibility issues • Comments regarding submissions received from neighbours. The amended plans were re-notified to neighbours (including previous objectors) with a closing date for submissions of 8 June 2010. No submissions were received following this re-notification. On 10 June 2010, Council received notification of an appeal in the Land and Environment Court, lodged by the applicant against Council’s deemed or actual refusal of this DA. The appeal documents were stamped as filed in the Court on 11 May 2010, but Council did not receive the documents until 10 June 2010. On 30 June 2010, Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) commenced as the new environmental planning instrument applicable to the City of Ryde. As discussed later in this report (“Environmental Planning Instruments”), the LEP contains a savings provision (clause 1.8A) which states that DAs lodged before the commencement of the LEP are to be determined as if the LEP had not yet commenced. At the same time as Ryde LEP 2010 commenced, Ryde DCP 2010 took effect (this DCP was adopted by Council on 15 June 2009 to take effect at the same time as LEP 2010 commenced). The assessment of the amended plans (received 5 May 2010) in terms of DCP 2010 appears later in this report. ANY COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATIONS: Name of Councillor: Councillor Petch Nature of the representation: Call-up to PEC meeting



Date: 22 February 2010 Form of the representation (e.g. via email, meeting, phone call): Email to Group Manager Environment & Planning On behalf of applicant or objectors? Objectors Any other persons (e.g. consultants) involved in or part of the representation: None REFERRALS: Heritage Officer: The DA was referred to the Heritage Officer because the subject site is within 100m of 2 heritage items (namely “Willandra” at 770-772 Victoria Road and the Court House at 812 Victoria Road). The Heritage Officer advises that there are no special heritage recommendations with this DA. The Heritage Officer’s full comments are held on the DA file. Development Engineer: Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments:

ACCESS

1. The proposed driveway width in front of unit 4 needs to be a minimum of 6 metres to allow two vehicles to simultaneously pass each and reduce any vehicular conflict;

2. There is some issue with respect to the head clearance from the pedestrian bridge that connects unit 4 and the adaptable unit and this needs to be revised to ensure a minimum head clearance of 2.2m in accordance with AS2890.1:2004.

DRAINAGE

1. The proposed pit levels shown on the drainage plans needs to be consistent with the architectural plans as the courtyard levels shown are inconsistent, this needs to be revised;

2. The rainwater tank overflow for unit 2 needs to be a gravity fed pipe and cannot be charged. This can bypass the OSD system and therefore can connect into silt arrestor pit rather than being routed to the OSD tank.

The Access issues are the major issues that need to be addressed whereas the drainage can be conditioned. (Note: These include comments from Council’s Catchments & Assets Section).



Assessing Officer’s Comment: The issues relating to access (namely driveway width to be increased and head clearance from the pedestrian bridge over the driveway) will result in design changes to villas 4 and 6. These can be resolved via “deferred commencement” conditions – requiring suitable amended plans before the consent becomes operational. Drainage issues can be resolved via conditions of consent. Elton Consulting (Accessibility Issues): Council’s Consultants for Accessibility Issues were requested to comment on the proposal, given the requirements in Part 3.6 DCP 2006 (now part 3.5 DCP 2010) which require developments of 6 or more units to be designed so that not less than 35% of the dwellings provide access to all indoor and outdoor living areas for people with disabilities in accordance with AS 4299. In summary, Elton Consulting have provided the following comments to Council dated March 2010 (full report on file): From the information provided, some aspects of the proposal do not comply with DCP requirements to provide access for people with disabilities. Following classification of the proposal, Council may require the applicant to demonstrate: • Building entry thresholds into the development; • Complying access into the development from the street / provision of a compliant

footpath • Suitability of external route from upper level of accessible units to lower level via

the lift • Internal design of adaptable units • Access routes to the rear and side landscaped areas • Provision of wide bay parking spaces of a compliant width and vertical clearance

from the driveway entrance. The Elton Consulting report was provided to the applicant to enable the issues of concern to be addressed. In response, the applicant has provided a report from Mark Relf of Accessibility Solutions regarding accessibility issues. The following is the executive summary of the report (a full copy of this report is also available on Council’s file): The proposed development seeks to establish a multi-unit residential development on a site at 15-17 Willandra Road Ryde comprising; • 6 units comprising 2x2, 3x3 and 1x 4 bedroom designs. • At-grade parking for 10 car spaces; comprising; 8 resident and 2 visitor spaces. The site provides steep topography with an average slope of 1:6 to 1:7 (11 metre fall over an approximate 70 metres through the centre of the site).



• Nonetheless, while Council's DCP provides some concession for steep sites there

will be 1:14 ramp and bridge access from the street frontage to Unit 6 adjoining Willandra Road and a lift adjoining Units 4 and 6, which enables 33.3% of the dwellings to be visitable and adaptable to comply with Council's DCP.

• ln detail the 1: 4 ramp shall commence from the Willandra Road footpath @RL99.90 to the Unit 4 and 6 entrances @RL89.90 thereby providing appropriate access for people with disabilities.

• The common domain lift attached to Unit 6 shall travel to the lower level of Units 4 and 6 to access carparking.

• From an accessibility and adaptability perspective the residential development proposes 1 of the units shall be "adaptable" (Unit 6) which complies with DCP for urban development to provide at least 35% adaptable dwellings.

• With regard to "adaptable" parking spaces the plans show carspaces #01 and #10 providing 3800mm width in accordance with AS4299 and Council's DCP. The undercroft parking shall provide at least 2300mm ENTRY height clearance while there will be at least 2500mm height clearance above the abovementioned accessible/adaptable parking spaces to enable the deployment of roof-mounted wheelchair hoists in accordance with AS4299/2890.1.

• With respect to the internal design of the designated units 4 and 6 the report provides evidence of how the development will comply with the spatial design requirements of AS 1428 / AS4299.1. DCP and incorporates conditions for further details at construction certificate stage to ensure compliance. For example, interior fitout of sanitary facilities, surface materials, lighting, signage, controls and switches and the like.

Overall I am satisfied that the development will comply with Section 3.6, sub-section 3.11 of the DCP and relevant Australian Standards in terms of access for people with disabilities, especially for a site with steep topography. Assessing Officer’s Comment: Based on the report from Accessibility Solutions, a firm of consultants with recognised expertise in a wide range of access-related issues, it is concluded that the development is satisfactory in terms of compliance with DCP 2010 regarding issues of access for people with disabilities. 1. Relevant Development Control Plan/Council Code against which

development has been assessed:

City of Ryde Development Control Plan 2010: DCP 2010 was adopted by Council on 15 June 2009 and became effective on 30 June 2010 (ie upon commencement of Ryde LEP 2010). Given that there is no savings provisions within DCP 2010, the DA must be assessed having regard to that instrument. DCP 2006 is no longer relevant. The following is an assessment of the amended plans received 5 May 2010. The proposal’s compliance with Part 3.5 of DCP 2010 (which applies to multi dwelling housing) is illustrated in the compliance table attached at Attachment 1.



The Non-compliances identified in the table are assessed below. The remaining relevant parts of DCP 2010 are assessed after the non-compliances are addressed.

Part 3.5 - Non Compliances:

1. Slope of Site: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.1) prescribes controls relating to site slope, including: (b) Sites with a down slope of more than 1:6 will not be acceptable (d) Sites with a cross-fall of more than 1:14 will not be acceptable. The development does not comply with these requirements as detailed in the table above. The objectives of the Slope controls are summarised below, together with a brief comment as to how this development conforms to the objectives: • Ensure that an multi dwelling housing development is compatible with

surrounding development in terms of presentation to the street – the front 2 units in this development will have a similar streetscape presentation to other existing dwellings on the southern side of Willandra St. The upper floor level (RL99) is similar to street level (RL100), and the lower level is excavated below natural ground level, which gives the appearance of dwellings with elevated floor levels, which is similar to existing dwellings. Also, the common driveway is in a similar configuration to the existing driveway (starting at the western side and curving towards the east). It is considered that the development will be consistent with surrounding development in terms of streetscape presentation.

• Prevent adverse impacts on privacy of other properties – as discussed in “Submissions” privacy impacts can be satisfactorily managed via provision of new 1.8m high fencing with 300mm lattice screening on top to the eastern and western sides and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” of villas 1, 2, 3 & 5 (as shown on the site plan).

• Achieve improved streetscape, better accessibility, minimise steps and minimise impacts on adjoining properties from stormwater and overlooking – it is generally considered that the proposal meets these objectives. Improved streetscape results from renewal of the existing/outdated housing on the property, and the development is considered compatible with the streetscape. The development is designed so that 2 of the 6 units are “adaptable”, and the development is satisfactory in terms of compliance with DCP 2010 regarding issues of access for people with disabilities. The development will also not adversely impact neighbouring properties in terms of stormwater or overlooking as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Overall, the development is considered acceptable despite this non-compliance with the Site Slope requirements of the DCP.



2. Altering the Levels of the Site: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.2) prescribes controls relating to alteration to site levels, including: (b) Levels should not be altered by more than 300mm – this relates to all areas not covered by the building floor envelope eg driveways, courtyards, etc. (c) … steps are to be minimised and minimal retaining walls. (d) Private open space to be provided generally at natural ground level. The development does not comply with these requirements as detailed in the table above. The villas are proposed to be provided with levelled terrace areas (adjacent to living rooms) that are up to 1.4m above natural ground level. The terraces of villas 5&6 are partly excavated below natural ground level (up to 1.7m for villa 6). The amended plans have greatly reduced the extent of these terraces to be only the area outside the living rooms – ie the remainder of the courtyard area will be at or near natural ground level. The objectives of this particular control are similar to those for Slope of Site (as discussed above). Therefore, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of these objectives, subject to the provision of 1.8m boundary fencing with 300mm lattice screen on top to the neighbouring properties, and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” (as shown on the site plan).

3. Storey and Height: The height controls in DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.3) refer to the controls in Clause 4.3(2A) of Ryde LEP 2010, which state: “… the maximum height of multi dwelling housing (attached) in zone R2 Low Density Residential is: (a) for dwellings in the building that do not have frontage to the street – 6.5m. (b) for dwellings with a frontage to the street, if adjoining lots contain dwellings that are less than 9.5m high – 8m.” The development does not comply with these requirements as detailed in the table above. In summary: • The maximum (ridge) height of villa 1 ranges from 5m to 7.35m and villa 2

ranges from 7.35m to 7.55m. The maximum height is 6.5m as prescribed in (a) above.

• The maximum (ridge) height of villa 4 ranges from 6.8m to 8.3m as prescribed in (b) above.

The slope of the land makes full compliance with the height requirements difficult to achieve. The design of the villas incorporate multiple level changes within the villa itself to respect the slope of the land. The objectives of the DCP height controls are to ensure the scale of a multi dwelling housing development is related to the character and streetscape of the surrounding area, and to ensure privacy to adjoining development. As discussed previously, the development is considered to be consistent with surrounding development in terms of streetscape, and given that it is a 1-2 storey development it is consistent with the scale of surrounding dwelling houses.



The development will also ensure adequate privacy to adjoining development – subject to the provision of 1.8m boundary fencing with 300mm lattice screen on top to the neighbouring properties, and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” (as shown on the site plan). 4. Front Setbacks: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.5.1) prescribes controls relating to front setbacks, including (in situations where the streetscape is likely to change): (a) Minimum 7.5m front setback for not less than 50% of the frontage and 6.5m for 50% of the frontage. The development proposes setbacks ranging from 6m (eastern side of villa 6) to 9.618m (western side of villa 4) which therefore technically does not comply with the DCP requirements which prescribe a minimum 6.5m setback in situations where the streetscape is likely to change (such as Willandra Street which has a number of older houses). This is considered to be a minor, technical non-compliance. The setbacks of the proposed front villas are greater than those of the buildings on adjacent sites. In particular, villa 4 has a front setback ranging from 8m to 9.618m, which exceeds the front setback of the adjoining dwelling at 13 Willandra (front setback approx 7.5m). Villa 6 has a front setback ranging from 6m to 7m, which exceeds the setback from Willandra St of the detached fibro garage on 63 Church St (approx 1.5m) The front setback of the proposed villas is considered acceptable despite the numerical non-compliance with the DCP.

5. Side/Rear Setback: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.5.4) prescribes controls relating to side/rear setbacks, including: (a) Minimum 4.5m side/rear setback which can be reduced to a minimum 3m for maximum 50% of the wall of the dwelling, to promote variation and interest. The development fully complies with these requirements except for the western side of villa 2 – which has a side setback ranging from 4m to 4.5m. The portion of the wall at less than 4.5m exceeds 50% of the wall length which is a technical non-compliance with the DCP. The objectives of the side setback controls are to allow sufficient separation between the development from adjoining properties to ensure privacy between dwellings and to allow for substantial landscaping. The development is considered to meet these objectives and is therefore satisfactory.

6. Landscaping Requirements: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.7) prescribes controls relating to landscaping, including: (d) Planting along driveways and around pathways – minimum 1m strip between the driveway and the wall of the dwellings.



The development does not comply with this particular requirement as detailed in the table above. Specifically, there is no landscaping provided between the walls of the front units (villa 4 and 6) and the driveway – it is not possible to provide strip landscaping in this position due to the width and curvature of the driveway. This is a minor issue of concern regarding the landscaping for this development, which otherwise fully complies with the objectives and numerical controls in the DCP. In particular, the front setback (except driveway area) will have generous landscaping to help soften the appearance of the development, and the courtyard areas have screen planting along the boundary with neighbouring properties to help preserve privacy. Also, the majority of plants selected (in the landscaping plan) have been selected from a list of indigenous Sydney Blue Gum High Forest species and also in the City of Ryde’s indigenous plant list within the BASIX specification. The development also complies with Council’s requirements regarding site coverage and impervious area. Despite this minor non-compliance, the development is considered acceptable in terms of landscaping requirements. 7. Garbage Bin Storage: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.4.8) prescribes controls relating to bin storage areas, including: (b) For developments of 6 or more dwellings or where sites are steeply sloping – a central bin enclosure shall be provided, which is located behind the building line and screened by landscaping. The development does not comply with these requirements. Although a bin storage area is provided, it is located within the front setback which does not comply with the above requirements. The objective of this control (as stated in the DCP) is “to provide a storage area for rubbish and recycle bins which has minimal visual impact on neighbouring dwellings, the streetscape and within the multi dwelling housing development”. It is considered that the bin storage area is within the most suitable location, having regard to the slope of the site, and ease of collection. It will be located behind the front fence (ie screened from the street behind feature wall of 1m high face brickwork), and mid-way along the frontage of the site so it is away from adjoining dwellings. The bin storage area is considered acceptable despite the technical non-compliance with the DCP. 8. Balconies: DCP 2010 (Part 3.5.3.10) prescribes controls relating visual and acoustic privacy, including: (d) Balconies are prohibited on all dwellings and any elevated landing or similar structure associated with stairs to courtyard areas are to be no more than 1m wide.



The development does not comply with these requirements, the 2 storey villas 4 & 6 have balconies to their upper floor living areas taking advantage of views to the south, while the other villas (1, 2, 3 & 5) have terraces within their courtyards that are elevated above natural ground levels. The 2 storey villas (4 & 6) have been provided with privacy screens to prevent overlooking from the balconies into adjoining properties. It is recommended that the other villas will be provided with 1.5m high timber screens to the courtyard terraces, as well as new 1.8m high boundary fencing with 300mm lattice on top. The objective of the visual and acoustic privacy control is “to ensure that direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings both within the development and adjoining is minimise by building layout, location, design of windows and screening devices and landscaping.” It is considered that, subject to the provision of new 1.8m high fencing with 300mm lattice on top, together with 1.5m high timber screening panels to the courtyard terraces, this objective will be met. Part 7.1 – Energy Smart, Waterwise Over-ridden by BASIX requirements. Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management A satisfactory Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the DA. A condition is included in the Draft Consent that will ensure compliance with this WMP. Part 8.2 – Stormwater Management Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the proposal is satisfactory in terms of stormwater disposal, and is therefore satisfactory in terms of this Part of DCP 2010. Conditions are included in the Draft Consent as recommended by Council’s Development Engineer. Part 9.4 – Fencing Condition in the draft consent addresses fencing issues (including side/rear boundary fencing to be in accordance with DCP requirements). In order to ensure privacy issues are satisfactorily resolved, it is recommended that 300mm high lattice screening be provided on top of the new 1.8m high fencing required by this Part of the DCP, and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” of villas 1, 2, 3 & 5 (as shown on the site plan).



Section 94 Contributions Plan 2007 Council’s current Section 94 Contributions Plan (adopted 19 December 2007) requires a contribution for the provision of various additional services required as a result of new developments. The contribution is calculated based on the number of additional dwellings, and also (in the case of villa developments) the number of 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom and 3+ bedroom dwellings there are in the development proposal. A condition is included in the Draft Consent requiring payment of a Section 94 contribution has been included in the draft conditions. The calculation sheet showing how this amount was calculated has been placed on the LDA file and has been certified by two (2) officers.

2. Matters for consideration pursuant to Section 79C EP&A Act 1979:

(a) Environmental Planning Instruments Ryde LEP 2010 Ryde LEP 2010 commenced on 30 June 2010 as the new environmental planning instrument applicable to the City of Ryde. This instrument contains a Savings Provision (clause 1.8A) which states:

If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.

The DA was made (lodged) on 14 January 2010, before the commencement of this Plan and so it may be determined as if Ryde LEP 2010 had not commenced. What this means is that LEP 2010 is treated as a draft (see below). Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed works are permissible with the consent of Council.

Mandatory Requirements

Clause 56A specifies that an urban housing development shall not be erected on an allotment that is not hatchet-shaped, unless it has a site area of not less than 300m2 for each 1, 2, and 3 bedroom dwelling and 365m2 for each 4+ bedroom dwelling.



The subject site has a total area of 2124m2. The proposed 6 dwellings (2x2 bedroom, 2x3 bedroom and 2x4 bedroom (including 1x3br + study)) would require 1930m2 of site area, and as such, this villa development complies with Clause 56A. Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 A compliant BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the DA. Conditions are included in the Draft Consent to deal with BASIX issues. (b) Draft Environmental Planning Instruments Under Ryde LEP 2010, the zoning of the property is R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with consent within this zoning under the LEP, and it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives of the LEP or those of the proposed zoning.

(c) Other matters prescribed by the regulations

There are no relevant matters prescribed by the regulations in relation to fire safety or demolition other than those detailed in this report.

3. The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on

both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality: Built Environment

The proposed development involving the erection of 6 villa homes will not have any significant adverse impacts on the existing built environment or the amenity of the surrounding area. The development is consistent with the provisions of DCP 2010 except for minor areas of non-compliance.

Natural Environment The proposed development will have no significant impacts on the natural environment. It will not involve any tree removal, and other matters such as sediment control can be addressed via standard conditions. Concerns have been raised by objectors (particularly those living in Morrison Road) regarding drainage issues however Council’s Development Engineer advises that the drainage concept plan submitted with the DA will ensure that stormwater will be disposed of in a satisfactory manner.



4. Suitability of the site for development:

An extract of Council’s map of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, showing the subject property, is shown above. The constraints identified on this map are discussed as follows: Urban Bushland (green/stripes): The above map shows a band of urban bushland through the centre of the properties. This appears to be based on the air photo that shows trees in this location (see air photo earlier in this report). A site inspection (and also the air photo) shows that there are 2 trees on the site. One of these is a Eucalyptus species (single tree) near the centre of the site, and the other is an exotic/ornamental tree near the dwelling on No 17. There is also an assortment of low shrubs across both properties. None of this vegetation is considered significant enough to retain as part of re-development. A landscaping plan has been submitted with the DA, which includes a variety of landscaping (ie screening to boundaries, as well as planting of trees with mature heights of 15m and over). The majority of plants selected (in the landscaping plan) have been selected from a list of indigenous Sydney Blue Gum High Forest species and also in the City of Ryde’s indigenous plant list within the BASIX specification.



Overland Flow (light blue): The rear of the property is indicated as being subject to overland flow. The Development Engineer’s assessment (see referrals above) has included consideration on these issues, and concluded that the development is satisfactory in terms of both stormwater disposal and the overland flow affectation on the site. Heritage Items (yellow): The site is within 100m of 2 heritage items and so the proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Officer. As indicated in “Referrals” above, there are no special heritage recommendations for this application.

5. Public submissions: The proposal – as originally lodged – was notified / advertised in accordance with Council’s DCP 2006: Part 2.1 - Notification of Development Applications for a 14 day period ending on 25 February 2010. This was Council’s Notification Policy in force at the time, which has since become Part 2.1 DCP 2010. During this period 7 submissions were received objecting to the development. When the amended plans were received, the proposal was re-notified for a further 14 day period closing on 8 June 2010. No submissions were received following this re-notification. The issues raised in the submissions (following original notification) are summarised and discussed as follows: 1. Density/overdevelopment. The proposal to build 6 units/17 bedrooms is an

overdevelopment. Comment: For a villa development, the measures of whether or not a proposal is “overdevelopment” generally include density, site coverage, landscaped area and setbacks (front, side, and rear) as contained in the Ryde Planning Scheme and DCP 2010. The development fully complies with all of these requirements except for minor non-compliances with the front and rear setbacks. These are considered acceptable as discussed in the DCP 2010 assessment (earlier in this report). Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment.

2. Traffic/parking. Willandra St is very narrow and does not allow 2-way traffic

because cars park on both sides of the street (eg caused by the nearby Court and Police Station, Willandra House etc). Concerns are raised whether the amount of parking is sufficient for the development. The development itself will cause additional traffic. The traffic/parking situation in Willandra St will present a danger to local children. Is the single driveway adequate for the development and acceptable in terms of gradients? Comment: Council’s Traffic Engineer has provided the following comments to address the issues of concern raised by residents:



Traffic Issues (a) Willandra Street is a local road whose function is to provide access to all adjoining properties. Its carriageway has a nominal width of 6.6m from Belmore Street to Devlin Street. Willandra Street merges with Devlin Street at the eastern end and Devlin Street carriageway widens to a nominal 8.0m. There is sufficient width for staggered parking lanes on either side and a single shared two-way traffic lane. The end of Devlin Street ends at circular turning head which has a nominal radius of 8.2m. Vehicles can enter and exit the street in a forward direction. (b) The parking survey shows that residents stagger their parking in Willandra Street to maintain the eastbound and westbound traffic flow. The Australian Road Rules state that a driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another vehicle or stop on a road that obstructs traffic on the road. (c) Willandra Street is a public road and all road users can legally use the road. (d) The parking surveys show that three small rigid trucks regularly park in Willandra Street. During construction trucks will regularly require access to the site. If development consent is granted the applicant must provide a Construction Traffic Management Plan, an on-street Work Zone and possibly some temporary on-street parking management. (e) Increase in the level of traffic. The amount of traffic generated (or difference) is not considered a significant increase with respect to the current traffic levels. The estimated exiting level of traffic would be in the order of 20 vehicle trips per hour in the peak periods. The development is increasing the vehicle trips by an additional 2 vehicle trips per hour in the peak periods. The RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments indicates that the maximum peak hour volume for a local road is 300 veh/hr (traffic lane in each direction) which takes into account both amenity and safety considerations. Given that there is one traffic lane for both directions this should be reduced to, say 150veh/hr. Traffic volumes are within the environmental performance standards for this local road. (f) Pedestrians and vehicles will share the street intermittently. Pedestrian volumes and traffic volumes in this street can be described as low. There are no significant pedestrian attractors (e.g. schools or shops) or pedestrian desire line in the street, although the street does provide parking for staff and visitors to the local Police Station and Court House. If development consent is granted the applicant as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan should provide a Risks and Hazards Assessment/ Management Plan.



(g) Willandra House Art Gallery is located in Devlin Street about 90m from Willandra Street. Access is via Willandra Street. There is ample on-street parking with the art gallery having access to approximately 38 on-street parking spaces. It attracts /generates a small number of vehicle trips per day. Precedent The RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments indicates that the maximum peak hour volume for a local road is 300 veh/hr which takes into account both amenity and safety considerations. Given that there is one traffic lane for both directions this should be reduced to, say 150veh/hr. The estimated exiting level of traffic would be in the order of 20 vehicle trips per hour in the peak period. The development is increasing the vehicle trips by an additional 2 vehicle per hour in the peak period. Traffic volumes are within the environmental performance standards for this local road.

Overall, on the basis of the above comments by Council’s Traffic Engineer, it is concluded that the development is satisfactory in terms of traffic generation and existing traffic conditions in Willandra Street.

3. Stormwater. Property owners to the rear (downhill from the site) raise

concerns that the development should not allow surface water to flow from the site onto their properties. Does the development comply with impervious area controls? Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has considered the proposed stormwater disposal arrangements and advised that they are satisfactory. In summary, these arrangements are to convey stormwater from all impervious areas (roofs, driveways, paved areas etc) via an on-site detention system to Council’s street drainage system in Morrison Road through an easement on the property to the rear (309 Morrison Road). The development complies with Council’s site coverage and pervious area controls as indicated previously in this report.

4. Privacy. Property owners to the rear (south) suggest that the rear boundary

should be planted with landscaping to help ensure privacy. Property owners to the east are concerned about overlooking to/from their properties and request new (min 1.8m high) fencing to replace the old wooden fence. Concerns are also raised that front units in the proposal will impact on the adjoining dwelling/rear yard area at No 63 Church St



Comment: This proposal raises a number of issues regarding privacy/overlooking impacts both to and from adjoining properties. These are discussed as follows. (a) Impacts on properties to the south (307-311 Morrison Road): The rooms

of the rear villas (V1 &V2) facing these properties are all bedrooms which are not considered to cause privacy impacts because they are mostly occupied when people are asleep. Also, the courtyard areas of these villas are proposed to be retained at natural ground levels, and screen plantings (1.2m wide) will be provided along the common boundary. On this basis, privacy impacts on properties to the south are expected to be minimal.

(b) Impacts on properties to the east (63-67 Church St): Villas 1 and 5 have

living areas and elevated “terraces” within their courtyards that face the direction of these adjoining properties. The topography of this locality is such that these adjoining properties are higher than the subject site, and the adjoining dwellings (65-67 Church St) are located 10-15m from the common boundary. Given the slope of the land and the distance between the existing adjoining dwellings and the proposed villas, it is considered that privacy impacts can be adequately resolved via the provision of new 1.8m high boundary fencing with 300mm high lattice screening on top, and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” of villas 1, 2, 3 & 5 (as shown on the site plan). The landscaping plan submitted with the DA also shows that there will be adequate screen planting along the common boundary to assist in preserving privacy.

Villa 6 is also located on the eastern site, and is located adjacent to No 63 Church St. This adjoining property has a shed and existing vegetation along the common boundary which both act to provide a high level of privacy. Villa 6 is a 2 storey villa located at the front of the site, which has it’s living areas at the upper (1st floor) level – given the slope of the land, the floor level is 2-4m above natural ground level. Initially, there were concerns that the balcony (at rear) could overlook the rear yard of the adjoining dwelling/yard at 63 Church St. However, amended plans have been received which provide a privacy screen to the side of this balcony, which will assist preserving adequate levels of privacy from the balcony.

(c) Impacts on property to the west (13 Willandra St): Villas 2-3 have living

areas and elevated “terraces” within their courtyards facing west. The adjoining property has a large rear yard area covered with several trees/shrubs. It does not contain any sensitive features (eg swimming pool or formal outdoor space) to indicate that it is used extensively for outdoor recreation.



However, in order to ensure that privacy issues are addressed for any

future development of this property, it is considered that new 1.8m high boundary fencing with 300mm high lattice screening on top should be provided along the common boundary, and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” of villas 1, 2, 3 & 5 (as shown on the site plan). The landscaping plan submitted with the DA also shows that there will be adequate screen planting along the common boundary to assist in preserving privacy.

Villa 4 is also located on the western side, adjacent to the dwelling at No 13 Willandra St. This adjoining dwelling has no windows facing onto the subject property, and therefore there will be no privacy issues with its relationship to villa 4. The amended plans that have been received also provide a privacy screen to the side of the balcony facing No 13, which will assist preserving adequate levels of privacy from the balcony Overall, subject to the provision of new 1.8m high boundary fencing with 300mm lattice screening on top, and also 1.5m high timber panel screening to the edge of the “courtyard” of villas 1, 2, 3 & 5 (as shown on the site plan), to both the eastern and western property boundaries, it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of privacy impacts to/from the adjoining properties.

5. Streetscape. The development will alter the streetscape of Willandra Street,

which consist of predominantly single dwellings. This development if approved would set a precedent for higher density housing in this area. Are the front setbacks in line with existing properties in the street? Comment: The proposal maintains similar streetscape characteristics to the existing development on the subject land. The site plan confirms that the front villas will have similar front setbacks as neighbouring buildings. Presently there are 2 detached dwellings (a 2 storey dwelling on each of 15 & 17 Willandra St), and these are to be replaced by 2 x 2 storey villas (V4 & V6) in this development in similar locations to the existing houses. The dwellings present as single storey dwellings from the front (given that the lower level is excavated below natural ground level), with ceiling levels marginally higher than those of neighbouring dwellings. See perspective below:



The 2 existing driveways are proposed to be replaced with a single driveway, which will be in a similar location to the driveway on No 17 (although slightly wider). The front setback area also contains a pedestrian pathway, a ramp and garbage storage area, however this will be obscured by the front fence). More formalised landscaping (than presently exists) is also provided to enhance the appearance when viewed from the front. Overall the development is considered acceptable in terms of streetscape considerations.

6. Property Devaluation.

Comment: No evidence has been submitted to support this issue of concern.

7. Permissibility/compliance with DCP controls. Is the proposal permissible

in the zoning of the property and does it comply with the DCP controls? Comment: The proposal is permissible within the residential 2(a) zone. An assessment of the proposal (see earlier in report) indicates how the proposal complies with DCP 2010. Generally, although there are some areas of non-compliance, the proposal is considered satisfactory.



8. Allotment pattern. Will the proposal require lot consolidation and is this

consistent with the subdivision pattern. Comment: Although not technically part of this DA, villa developments such as this proposal normally end up being strata subdivided, which does not significantly change the subdivision pattern of the area.

9. Amenity/noise. The increased density will increase noise and impact on the

amenity of neighbours. Comment: Noise emanating from a residence (house or villa etc) generally decreases very quickly as the distance from the residence increases, to the point where noise measured at the boundary would be very similar to background noise levels. “Noise” from a residence (e.g. resident conversation, TVs etc) is also generally accepted to be a normal consequence of a residential environment in which this site is situated. There is nothing to suggest that this proposal will generate excessive noise.

10. Solar access. Concerns are raised that the proposal will overshadow the

adjoining dwelling/rear yard at No 63 Church St. Comment: The shadow diagrams submitted with the DA shows that the development will have a similar overshadowing impact on No 63 Church St as the existing dwelling (on No 17 Willandra) does. Given the orientation of the land, the proposal would only begin to overshadow the rear yard of this adjoining property at around 12noon. This means that it would receive at least 3 hours (morning) sunlight at the winter solstice, and this complies with the requirements of DCP 2010 (as discussed earlier in this report).

6. Submissions from Public Authorities and the Public Interest:

There were no submissions received from any Public Authority. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact upon the interest of the public.

7. SEPP1 Objection received?

This application does not require a SEPP 1 objection.

CONCLUSION: The proposal has been assessed in terms of the provisions of DCP 2010 and based on a merit assessment of these provisions, the application is considered acceptable for approval under delegated authority subject to conditions. The site constraints, in particular slope away from the street would hamper the ability of any development on this site to achieve DCP compliance. Although there are a number of non-compliances with the DCP, some of these are minor and raise no adverse planning issues.



There are some potential issues of concern regarding privacy impacts on properties either side of this site. While some of these issues have been resolved via amended plans from the applicant (ie privacy screens to the balconies of the 2 storey units), it is considered that the terrace areas of the single storey villas (villas 1, 2, 3, & 5) could result in privacy impacts on the neighbours because these terraces are elevated above natural ground level. In order to overcome these issues, it is recommended that the new 1.8m high boundary fencing be provided with 300mm high lattice screening on top. Also, it is recommended that 1.5m high timber panel screening be provided to the edge of the “courtyard” of villas 1, 2, 3 & 5 (as shown on the site plan). Overall, the development is considered satisfactory subject to conditions (as discussed throughout this report). RECOMMENDATION: That LDA No. 2010/17 at 15-17 Willandra St Ryde be approved subject to the conditions in Attachment 2.



ATTACHMENT 1 – COMPLIANCE TABLE DCP 2010 - Part 3.5 – Multi Dwelling Housing (attached) PART 2.0 – Site Analysis, Location Number and Type of Dwelling DCP Requirement Proposal 2.1 Site Analysis o Must have a SA o SA should relate dwgs to

surrounds + minimise amenity impacts

Suitable site analysis submitted with the DA.

Y

2.2 Minimum allotment size Area: (not <600m2) 2124m² Y Primary Frontage: (not <20m) 30.48m Y Not hatchet shaped Not hatchet shaped. Y 2.3 Non-Preferred Locations Is the proposed development within a non-preferred location? Not within non-preferred location Y

2.4 Linear Separation Is there any approved Villa, Duplex or Multi dwelling housing development within double the frontage (or proposed frontage)?

No existing or approved villas within 2x frontage. Linear separation complies.

Y

2.5 Retention of Existing Dwellings Retention of existing dwg as part of a MDH will not be approved

No Y

Exception may occur if heritage significant bldg or contributing item. Does it comply with Clause 2.5.1?

NA NA

2.6 Density As per clause 4.5A RLEP2010 – which state: (a) Site Area: o 300m2 per 1,2,3br dwg o 365m2 per 4+br dwg

2 x 2br = 300m2 req’d 2 x 3br = 300m2 req’d 2 x 4br = 365m2 req’d (includes 1 x 3br + study) TOTAL = 1930m2 req’d. SITE AREA = 2124m2

(b) Each dwg has its own POS and sep access to that space from unbuilt portion of site Complies with this requirement

Y

2.7 Number of Dwellings Not more than 12 Dwellings 6 dwellings. Y 2.8 Type of Dwellings If 4 or more dwellings on site, <75% with same number of bedrooms (rounded down) eg.

2 each of 2br, 3br and 4br = max 33% of each type. Y



6d= 4x3B + 2x2B PART 3.0 Site Planning 3.1 Slope of Site

At least one dwelling must present to the street

Units 4 & 6 present to street (unit 4 = dining room and kitchen faces street, unit 6 = dining & balcony faces street)

Y

Slope must be <1:6 either up or down from street frontage

Site slopes away from street (fall to rear). Along E boundary: RL @ front = RL100. RL @ rear = RL90.94 Fall = 9.06m. Linear distance = 67.93m Slope = 1 in 7.49 Along W boundary: RL @ front = RL99.7. RL @ rear = RL87.18 Fall = 12.52m. Linear distance = 73.025m Slope = 1 in 5.83

N

Cross-fall <1:14

Along front boundary: RL @ E side = RL100. RL @ W side = RL99.7 Fall = 0.3m. Linear distance = 30.48m X-fall = 1 in 101.6 Along rear boundary: RL @ E side = RL90.94. RL @ W side = RL87.18 Fall = 3.76m. Linear distance = 30.2m X-fall = 1 in 8.03

N

3.2 Altering the Levels of the Site

No imported Fill Fill likely to be re-used on-site both cut and fill proposed. Condition for any imported fill to be clean etc.

Y

V No

Natural GL (RL) Finish GL (RL) Difference:

1 E side: 91 to 91.73 92 0.27m to

1m fill

2 W side: 88.7 to 89.3 90 0.7m to

1.3m fill

3 W side: 91 to 92.4 92.4 0m to

1.4m fill

4 W side: 94 to 96.5 95.8 1.8m fill &

0.7m cut

N side: 93.5 to 95 94.4

0.9m fill & 0.6m cut (max) 5

S side: 92.5 to 94 93.5

1m fill & 0.5m cut (max)

N side: 97 to 98 96.3 0.7m to

1.7m cut

<300mm Cut or Fill outside building envelope.

6

S side: 97.3 to 95.9 1.4m to

N



97.5 1.6m cut NOTE: The figures/levels etc in the columns above refer to terraced areas only within the courtyards & private areas. Areas outside the terraced areas are to remain at existing ground level (as per applicants letter 5 May 2010).

No basement garages, minimal steps, minimal retaining walls

No basement garages proposed. Garages of V4 & V6 are at lower level but not considered “basement”. Slope of the site requires steps and/or retaining walls for courtyards of all units.

N

POS generally at NGL. POS is at NGL as much as possible. Only the terraced areas in the courtyards deviate from NGL. N

3.3 Storey and Height 3.3.1 Storeys A MDH must be within single storey bldg. OR

Single storey only, except front dwellings are 2 storey (see next row) Y

Dwg with frontage to street can be 2 storeys provided: o 2 st dwg not attached to any

other 2 st dwg o 2 st dwg is suitable re

streetscape

Design incorporates 2 x 2 storey dwellings (ie units 4 & 6 are 2 storey), these are not attached to each other except via access bridge. 2 storey dwellings are suitable re streetscape.

Y

CORNER ALLOTMENTS Only 1 dwg can be 2 storeys, the dwg on street with shortest frontage.

Not a corner allotment Y

Corner lots containing a 2 st dwg must be sensitively designed re topography, dwg size and height.

Not a corner allotment Y

3.3.2 Height Villa 1 Lowest Point of Ridge (above NGL) = 5m Highest Point of Ridge (above NGL) = 7.35m

N

Villa 2 Lowest Point of Ridge (above NGL) = 7.35m Highest Point of Ridge (above NGL) = 7.55m

N


Y

As per Clause 4.3(2a) of Ryde LEP 2010 – which states the maximum height is: (a) for dwgs in bldg with no

frontage to street – 6.5m Villa 5 Lowest Point of Ridge (above NGL) = 4.1m Highest Point of Ridge (above NGL) = 5.5m

Y

(b) for dwgs with a frontage to street, if adj lots have dwgs that are <9.5m high – 8m


N




Y

3.4 Site Coverage Site coverage < 40% Site Area = 2124m2

Site Coverage = 816.11m2 Site Coverage = 38.42%.

Y

Pervious area > 35% Site Area = 2124m2 Total Pervious area (as per definition and including paving in courtyards) = 890.9m2 Pervious Area = 41.9% (subject to condition for pervious pavers to be used in courtyards).

Y

3.5 Setbacks 3.5.1 Front Setbacks Front Setbacks: Similar to adjoining buildings - same as adjoining if <2m - Average if >2m

Dwg at No 13 Willandra = approx 7.5m Garage at front of No 63 Church = approx 1.5m. This would require 4.5m setback (not appropriate)

NA

Setback of 1m less than the above std for not more than 50% of the front elevation for interest in the streetscape

See next row Y

Council may vary this requirement if streetscape is likely to change: >7.5m for 50% of frontage, >6.5m for 50% of frontage.

Streetscape likely to change, contains older style dwellings. Front setback varies between 6m and 9.618m. Minor DCP non-compliance, however considered acceptable.

N

3.5.2 Hatchet Shaped Allotment For hatchet allotment – bldgs must be sited so that vehicles can enter/leave site in a fwd direction.

Not a hatchet allotment Y

3.5.3 Second Street Frontage Min 4.5m NA – not a corner lot NA 3.5.4 Side and Rear Setbacks Min 4.5m unless vehicular access is included in this area, then min 6m.

E side: 4.5m – 5.3m S side: 4m – 5.4m (portion at 4m is <50%) W side: 4m – 4.5m (unit 2 4m section is >50%. Minor non compliance, otherwise OK.)

N Must provide appropriate solar access. Appropriate solar access provided Y

Ensure existing substantial trees not within proposed courtyard areas.

No existing substantial trees Y

Allow variation between 3-6m Sufficient interest/architectural relief. Y



for less than 50% for visual interest 3.5.5 Internal Setbacks Habitable room windows don’t overlook

Habitable room walls face each other but windows designed to prevent overlooking. OK Y

9m separation between facing dwellings habitable room windows?

Walls are within 9m, but designed to prevent overlooking. Y

3.6 Private Outdoor Space Min 30m2 for 2B Min 35m2 for 3+B Smallest courtyard is villa 4 @45m2. Y

Min dimension 4m and generally at NGL

All have min dimension of 4m but elevated terraces provided N

Solar access: 50% for ≥2hrs More than 2hr sunlight available to 50% of each courtyard. Y

Do not contain ex’g big trees No Y Access to courtyard other than through dwg?

All courtyards externally accessible (other than through dwelling). Y

Securely enclosed (not roofed) + visible from liv rms L&C 1.8m ht fenced boundaries – not roofed. Y

Not within front setback Balconies off living areas within front setback, but these are not the main outdoor space Y

≥1.2m landscape strip between courtyard and adjoining property

1.2m landscape strip between courtyard and adjoining property. Y

3.7 Landscaping Extent of landscaping, existing trees retained in common areas?

See below

Privacy Planting ≥1.2m landscaped strip 1m strip between driveway and wall of dwgs 3<h<4m mature plants? 5<h<6m small trees?

1.2m strip provided along boundaries. 1m strip not provided between driveway and wall of dwellings (eg V4&6). Type & height of plantings could be conditioned to comply with DCP requirements

N

Lawn areas edged or kerbed? Concrete edging Y Nature Strips: Street trees retained and protected?

No street trees affected Y

3.8 Car Parking, Manoeuvrability and Driveway Crossings Car Parking Number of Parking Spaces 1 space per 1 or 2 B dwelling 2 spaces per 3+B dwelling 1 visitor space per 4 dwgs (at least 1 space per dwg must be lockable garage) Total No of spaces req’d: 12

1 space for each 2B Unit. 2 spaces for each 3&4B Units. 2 Visitor spaces. (7 units) Total No of spaces provided: 12 spaces - 10 resident and 2 visitor.

Y



10 resident spaces 2 visitor spaces. For hatchet shaped blocks, 1 extra visitor space per 4 dwellings

Not a hatchet shaped block -

Garage location: - Not between dwelling and

street frontage - No tandem parking in front of

garage - Conveniently located for

occupants - Located so they separate

dwellings.

Not between dwelling and street frontage. No tandem parking in front of garage. Conveniently located for occupants. Located to separate dwellings where possible. Y

Manoeuvrability: Enter and leave garage/parking area with single 3pt turn, in a forward direction (unless safe to reverse - corner allotment only).

Manoeuvrability issues as per Dev Eng advice Y

Driveways Suitably paved, extent minimised, to avoid excessive amounts of hard paving.

Minimal landscaping in central driveway area, but difficult to achieve more landscaping in this area given need to provide driveways & parking spaces (and access thereto). Acceptable

Y

Driveway Crossings Width: 10 spaces, min 4m >10 spaces, max 6m Driveways <30% of frontage

>10 spaces: 6m required. Proposed at 4m – see Development Engineer. Driveway: 13% frontage.

Y

3.9 Overshadowing and Access to Sunlight Habitable room windows face courtyard or other outdoor space open to the sky, no closer than 1.5m to facing wall.

All such windows are suitably open to the sky Y

Sunlight to at least 50% of each courtyard, and principal ground level open space >2hrs between 9am and 3pm on June 21 or

At least 50% of all courtyards receive > 2hr sunlight. Y

Where existing overshadowing by buildings and fences is greater than this on adjoining properties, sunlight must not be further reduced by more than 20%

Adequate solar access is provided for this and adjoining sites Y

Shadow diagrams must indicate extent of shadowing within development and adjoining properties.

Adequate shadow diagrams submitted. Y

3.10 Visual and Acoustic Privacy Min 9m separation between Walls are within 9m, but windows are designed to Y



facing habitable room windows prevent overlooking. No direct views between living area windows or adjacent dwellings (otherwise screening or obscuring necessary)

Windows mostly designed to prevent overlooking into windows of adjoining dwellings. Y

Direct views from living areas to private open space of other dwellings should be screened or obscured within privacy sensitive zone of 12m radius.

Villa 6 balcony previously allowed overlooking into rear yards of No 63 & 65 Church St – amended plans provide privacy screens to balconies which prevent overlooking.

Y

No balconies. Elevated landings (or similar associated with stairs into courtyard) max 1m wide

Balconies proposed to V 4&6. Previous concerns that villa 6 could overlook rear yard area of No 63 & 65 Church St, addressed via privacy screens in amended plans. Possible overlooking from courtyards of other villas to be resolved via conditions for 1.8m high boundary fencing with 300mm lattice screening on top, and also 1.5m timber screens to the sides of the courtyard areas within the private open space.

N

Living and sleeping areas protected from high levels of external noise?

Sleeping/Living areas suitably located. Y

Noise levels of air con pool pumps etc must not exceed background noise level by more than 5dB(A)

No details of any such equipment shown on plans. Covered by legislative requirements (POEO Act). Y

3.11 Accessibility 3.11.1 Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access provided, separate to vehicle access where possible.

Separate pedestrian access for V4&6, otherwise via driveway Y

3.11.2 Access for People with Disabilities – Devts of 6 or more dwellings 6 or more dwelling developments have min 35% of dwellings provide access to all indoor areas and outdoor living areas for people with disabilities (street, car parking and common areas accessed in one continuous path of travel)

Access audit submitted & V4&6 designed to comply with AS4299. Y

Dwgs designed as per AS4299 must be able to access street, car pkg and common areas using continuous path of travel.

As per access audit. Y

3.11.3 Access Audits For above such developments, an access audit must be submitted Access audit submitted. Y

PART 4.0 Building Form 4.1 Appearance Complement streetscape Complements streetscape Y



Includes pitched roof, eaves, vertically oriented windows, verandahs, rendered and face brick

Building materials consistent Y

At least 1 dwg must face street V4 & 6 face street Y 4.2 Ceiling Height Floor to Ceiling min 2.7m 2.7m min. Y 4.3 Roofscape and Roof Materials Pitch 22-30° (35° where 2nd floor is within roof) 23-26° roof pitch. Y

Min 300mm eaves overhang for roofs & verandas

Variable/min 300mm eaves – complies with BASIX. Y

Gables to street frontage? Hip and gable to street frontage. Acceptable. Y

Variation to roof line? Variation to roof line. Y Roof materials consistent with traditional ones in the street?

Roof materials consistent with neighbouring dwellings. Y

4.4 Building materials for Walls In keeping with the traditional materials for the locality. Detailing to break up large areas of wall adding interest and individuality

Development provides sufficient interest and individuality Y

Proportion of windows and other openings consistent with character of locality. (windows generally 2:1 and 3:1 vertical proportion)

Windows proportionate and consistent with local character. Y

4.5 Fences 4.5.1 Front fence Max ht 1m, and 70% visually permeable 1m high concrete capped piers with

metal picket panels, more than 70% permeable.

Y

Materials compliment dwelling eg wooden pickets, masonry with infill panels, wrought iron or similar etc

Compliment dwelling. Y

4.5.2 Other Boundary Fences which Face a Street Similar materials to main front fence NA, no secondary street. Y Solid fence must have indents for soft landscaping n/a. -

4.5.3 Other boundary fences Min ht 1.8m Condition. Y Lapped and capped timber Condition. Y 4.6 Clotheslines and drying area External clotheslines (not visible from adjoining properties or public areas)

Each villa courtyard provided with suitable area not visible to public/adjoining properties.

Y

Each dwelling must have its own laundry Laundry for each dwelling proposed. Y 4.7 Lighting Front yard lighting and lighting for the front of dwellings is to be provided Condition Y

Location of external lighting must not have Condition Y



adverse affect on adjoining properties. 4.8 Garbage bin enclosures For developments up to 5 dwellings on sites that are not steeply sloping and which have a wide road frontage: - Each dwelling must be provided with a

storage area for Council’s standard rubbish and recycling bins.

- Storage area should be behind the dwelling, not visible from public spaces, common areas and habitable room windows

Site would be considered steeply sloping (driveway gradient up to 1:4). Garbage bin storage provided at front of site. (Now in front of V6 – originally in front of V4 as per original plans)

N

For developments of 6 or more dwellings or where sites are steeply sloping or have a narrow street frontage: - A central garbage bin enclosure shall be

provided - Behind the building line and suitably

screened by landscaping. A plan indicating the design and location of the garbage bin enclosure must be submitted with the DA.

6 dwellings. Bin storage area at front of site. Technical non-compliance but best location given the driveway gradients.

N

PART 5.0 – Engineering Drainage Refer to Part 8.2 Stormwater Management DCP 2010

Subject to Development Engineer requirements. Y



ATTACHMENT 2 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Part 1 – Conditions Relating to a Deferred Commencement Consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 This consent shall not operate until such time as the Council is satisfied of the matters identified in conditions 1 and 2 of this Part of the Consent. 1. Traffic and access Submission of the following to Council: a. Amended plans which:

i. Provide a minimum head room clearance of 2.2m from the driveway pavement to the underside of the foot bridge connecting units 4 & 6. Structural slab thickness of the bridge must be incorporated into the design and clearly shown on the submitted plan.

ii. Widening the driveway from the Willandra Street kerb to the northern building wall of units 4 & 6 to a minimum width of 6.0m, with all curve radii conforming to AS 2890.1-2004.

iii. incorporate driveway alignment levels issued by Council.

b. Longitudinal and cross-sectional plans of:

i. the driveway access extending from the Willandra Street road centreline to the garages for units 1 & 2; and

ii. all carparking spaces

which demonstrate compliance with AS 2890.1-2004, particularly compliance with gradient requirements (including transition gradients).

c. Certification from a qualified traffic engineer that the plans submitted pursuant to

this condition comply with AS2890.1-2004. 2. Stormwater Disposal Submission of a detailed stormwater drainage plan prepared by a chartered civil engineer and related calculations and supporting information that demonstrate compliance with DCP 2010 part 8.2 Stormwater Management. The plan/calculations/information must address, without limitation, the following matters: a. Detailed hydraulic grade line calculations demonstrating the existing council’s

stormwater pipeline through No.309 Morrison Road has adequate capacity to accept the 1 in 100 year 5 minutes unrestricted flows from the subject site in the event of OSD blockage. Should the capacity be deficient, the pipeline shall be amplified, the detailed design of which is to be submitted to Council for approval.

b. The site drainage system shall account for flows entering the site from the upstream catchment e.g 63 to 67 Church Street.



c. The plan shall be consistent with the approved architectural and landscaping plans in relation to proposed floor, driveway and external levels including pervious and impervious areas.

d. Provision of rainwater tanks that comply with BASIX in relation to minimum size and collected roof areas. The tanks including the related invert levels of all in and outlets are to be clearly shown on the plan.

e. All courtyard pits are to have a minimum freeboard of a 150mm above the adjacent finished floor levels.

f. The level of the proposed grated trench located in the driveway shall be consistent with driveway levels proposed on the approved architectural plans.

g. Dimensions of the OSD tank shall be clearly indicated on the plan and the sump of the OSD tank must drain dry via the use of agricultural line, connected to a downstream pit.

h. Detailed internal pipeline including gutters and downpipes calculations must demonstrate that the system will have capacity to convey the 1 in 100 year 5 minutes storm runoff to the OSD tank.

The following requirements shall apply upon satisfactory completion of the requirements outlined in Part 1 of this consent (above). Part 2 – General Conditions of Consent GENERAL 1. Development is to be carried out in accordance with the Plans Project No 2920,

Plan Numbers DA01a to DA06a (inclusive) dated 5 May 2010, Landscaping Plan No 235.10(09)/104 dated April 2010, except as amended by any other condition of this consent, and subject to the following specific requirements:

(a) In order to assist in preserving privacy to adjoining properties, timber panels

to a height of 1.5m shall be provided to the edge of the “courtyard” that faces the adjoining properties, as shown on the site plan.

2. Where practicable, the paving provided to the paved areas within the courtyard

each villa unit shall be pervious pavers (ie not stencilled concrete or any form of paving which would not allow water to pass through).

3. Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

a) All building work (other than work relating to the temporary building) must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (as in force on the date of the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made)

b) This clause does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force

under clause 187 or 188, in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, subject to any terms of any condition or requirement referred to in Clause 187(6) or 188(4).



4. Prior to commencing any construction works, the following provisions of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act, 1997 are to be complied with:

a) A Construction Certificate is to be obtained in accordance with Section

81A (2)(a) of the Act. b) A Principal Certifying Authority is to be appointed and Council is to be

notified of the appointment in accordance with Section 81A (2)(b) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

c) Council is to be notified at least two (2) days prior to the intention to commence building works, in accordance with Section 81A (2)(c) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

5. The applicant may apply to the Council or an accredited certifier for the issuing of

a Construction Certificate and to Council or an accredited certifier to monitor compliance with the approval and issue any relevant documentary evidence or certificate/s.

Council officers can provide these services and further information can be obtained from Council by telephoning 9952 8222 (Customer Service).

6. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the BASIX Certificate No

291035M_02 dated 4 May 2010. 7. Any architectural and/or fixture changes to the development will require the

submission of a new BASIX certificate. Please note that modifications may require the submission of a Section 96 application in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

8. Residential Building Work

a) Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates:

i) in the case of work to be done under the Act: has been informed in

writing of the licensee’s name and contractor licence number, and is satisfied that the licensee had complied with the requirements of Part 6 of the Act; or



ii) in the case of work to be done by any other person: has been informed in writing of the person's name and owner-builder permit number; or has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of “owner builder work” in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

b) A certificate purporting to be used by an approved insurer under Part 6 of

the Home Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purpose of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

9. Excavations and backfilling

a) All excavations and backfill associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

b) All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

10. Retaining walls and drainage

If the soil conditions require it: a) retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or

other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided.

b) adequate provision must be made for drainage. 11. Support for neighbouring buildings

If the soil conditions require it: a) If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building

extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made: i) must preserve and protect the building from damage, and ii) if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved

manner, and iii) must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of

the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.



b) The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of work carried out for the purposes of this clause, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on an adjoining allotment of land.

c) In this clause, “allotment of land” includes a public road and any other public place.

12. Protection of Public Places

a) If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building 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.

b) If necessary, an awning is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place.

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

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

13. Australia Post

Approval for the site and size of proposed household mailboxes must be obtained from Australia Post.

14. Fencing is to be in accordance with Council's Fencing Development Control Plan

and details of compliance are to be provided in the plans for the Construction Certificate. Any replacement side boundary fencing required as a result of the proposed development shall be provided at no cost to adjoining property owners, and shall be provided in the correct position (ie on the property boundary, as verified by a registered surveyor).

15. The provision of a lattice screen 300mm high on top of the boundary fencing with

adjoining properties on the eastern and western sides. NOTE: This is in addition to the requirement for timber panels referred to in condition 1(a).

16. Waste Management Plan - Should you wish to vary the information provided in

the Waste Management Plan you submitted to Council with your Development Application involving demolition and construction works, you are required to give written advice to Council of any changes.

Council’s DCP 2006, Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management, sets out your obligations for waste management.

DEMOLITION CONDITIONS 17. A security deposit (category: demolition) is to be paid to Council (Public Works

and Services Group) prior to the commencement of any demolition works. Please refer to Council's Management Plan for the current fee amounts.



BEFORE WORK COMMENCES 18. If any changes are made to the Waste Management Plan, a new waste

management plan must be submitted to and approved by Council. The new plan must include the types and estimated volumes of waste materials that will be generated; the proposed method of reuse, recycling or disposal; and the name and address of the recycling facility or landfill site if the waste is to be recycled or disposed of off site. Reuse and recycling must be maximised.

19. Council is to be notified in writing before work commences - The applicant

must notify Council of the following particulars in writing at least seven (7) working days before demolition work commences:

(a) the name, address, telephone contact details and licence number of the person responsible for carrying out the work; and

(b) the date the work is due to commence and the expected completion date.

20. Notification of neighbouring residents - At least seven (7) days before

demolition work commences the applicant must notify the occupiers of all neighbouring premises of the date the work is due to commence by placing a written notice in the letter box of each premises.

House Removal 21. If a crane is to be used, a Crane Permit is to be obtained from NSW Police and a

copy faxed to Council’s Traffic Engineers on 9952 8070, before removal of the house.

22. A fee will be payable to Council, if the crane is to be placed on Council property,

as per Council’s Management Plan. 23. If a special type of vehicle is to be used to remove the house, approval from the

Roads and Traffic Authority will be needed. During Demolition 24. Site security - Security fencing must be provided around the perimeter of the

site, and other precautions taken, to prevent unauthorised entry to the site during the demolition period.

25. Hoardings - Where the site adjoins a public thoroughfare the common boundary

must be fenced with a hoarding, unless the horizontal distance between the boundary and the structure being demolished is more than twice the height of the structure. All hoardings must be constructed of solid materials and be at least 1.8 metres high.

26. Overhead protection - Where the site adjoins a public thoroughfare with a

footpath alongside the common boundary, the footpath must be provided with



overhead protection in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 The Demolition of Structures, unless: (a) the vertical height of the structure being demolished is less than 4 metres

above the footpath; or (b) the horizontal distance between the boundary and the structure being

demolished is more than half the height of the structure. 27. Site signage - A rigid durable sign showing the demolition contractor’s name,

address and telephone contact details must be displayed in a prominent position on the site so that they can be easily read by anyone in any public road or other public place adjacent to the site.

28. Warning notices - Notices lettered in accordance with Australian Standard AS

1319-1994 Safety Signs for the Occupational Environment and displaying the words ‘DANGER! DEMOLITION WORK IN PROGRESS’ must be fixed to the security fencing/hoardings at appropriate intervals to warn the public.

29. Additional warning notices in relation to asbestos - Where the work involves

the demolition or removal of asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement sheeting (ie. fibro), notices lettered in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1319-1994 Safety Signs for the Occupational Environment and displaying the words ‘WARNING! ASBESTOS’ must be fixed to the security fencing/hoardings at appropriate intervals to warn the public.

30. Erosion and sediment controls - Appropriate erosion and sediment controls

must be installed before site works are commenced and be maintained at operational capacity until the site has been stabilised. These controls must include: (a) diversion of upslope runoff around disturbed areas in such a manner that the

diverted water will not cause erosion and is diverted to a legal discharge point; and

(b) sediment control fences or other measures on the downslope perimeter of disturbed areas to prevent sediment escaping from the site.

31. Toilet facilities - Toilets and hand washing facilities must be provided for

workers in accordance with the Code of Practice: Amenities for Construction Work (WorkCover, 1996). Where practicable, the toilets must be standard flushing toilets connected to the sewerage system.

32. Protection of underground services - Before work commences the location of

any underground services (eg. gas, water, electricity, telecommunications cables, etc.) must be identified and appropriate measures taken to protect those services.

33. Demolition work - All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with

the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 The Demolition of Structures. 34. Licenced contractor to carry out work - All demolition work must be carried

out by an appropriately licensed contractor.



35. Removal of underground storage tanks - The removal of the underground storage tanks must be carried out in accordance with: (a) the Australian Institute of Petroleum Code of Practice CP22 - Removal and

Disposal of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks (1994); and (b) the requirements of WorkCover New South Wales.

36. Asbestos work - 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 New South Wales.

37. Dust control - Appropriate measures must be taken to control the generation of

dust during demolition work: (a) Any existing accumulations of dust (eg. in ceiling voids and wall cavities)

must be removed using an industrial vacuum cleaner fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.

(b) Any materials that are likely to generate dust during demolition or removal must be wetted down and any dust created must be suppressed by means of a fine water spray. Water used for dust suppression must not be allowed to enter the street or stormwater system.

(c) All stockpiles of materials that are likely to generate dust must be kept damp or covered.

(d) Demolition work must not be carried out during high winds, which may cause dust to spread beyond the boundaries of the site.

38. Hours of work - All demolition work must be restricted to between the hours of

7.00am and 7.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am and 4.00pm on Saturdays. No work is to be carried out on Sundays or public holidays.

39. Noise - Noise must be minimised by the selection of appropriate methods and

equipment and the use of screening or barriers where practical. 40. Noise monitoring - Noise monitoring must be carried out by a qualified

acoustical consultant if complaints are received, or if directed by Council, and any control measures recommended by the acoustical consultant must be implemented during the demolition work.

41. Protection of trees - Trees must not be removed, lopped or trimmed without the

prior written approval of Council and any trees to be retained must be protected from damage during demolition work.

42. Protection of buildings - Any buildings or parts of buildings to be retained on

the site and all adjacent buildings must be protected from damage during demolition work.

43. Excavation and backfilling - All excavation and backfilling associated with the

demolition work must be carried out in a safe manner. 44. Demolition wastes - All demolition wastes must be stored in an environmentally

acceptable manner and be removed from the site at such intervals as may be



necessary to ensure that no nuisance or danger to health, safety or the environment is created.

45. Recyclable wastes - All wastes nominated for recycling or re-use in the

approved waste management plan must be segregated from other wastes and be transported to a place or facility where they will be recycled or re-used.

46. Storage of asbestos wastes - All asbestos wastes must be segregated from

other wastes and stored in a secure area in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.

47. Contaminated soil - All potentially contaminated soil excavated during

demolition work must be stockpiled in a secure area and be assessed and classified in accordance with the Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classification & Management of Liquid & Non-Liquid Wastes (EPA, 1999) before being transported from the site.

48. Demolition wastes not to be placed on public roads, etc. - Demolition wastes

must not be placed on public roads, footpaths or reserves, or be allowed to enter any street gutter, stormwater drain or waterway.

49. Burning of demolition waste - The burning of demolition waste is prohibited

under the Protection of the Environment (Control of Burning) Regulation 2000. 50. Transportation of wastes - All wastes must be transported in an

environmentally safe manner to a facility or place that can lawfully be used as a waste facility for those wastes. Copies of the disposal dockets must be kept by the applicant for at least 3 years and be submitted to Council on request.

51. Disposal of asbestos wastes - All asbestos wastes, including used asbestos-

cement sheeting (ie. fibro), must be disposed of at a landfill facility licensed by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority to receive asbestos waste.

52. Surplus excavated material - All surplus excavated material must be disposed

of at a licensed landfill facility, unless Council approves an alternative disposal site.

53. Covering of loads - All vehicles transporting demolition materials from the site

must have their loads covered. 54. Mud and debris from vehicles - All practicable measures must be taken to

ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or debris on the road. 55. Removal of mud and debris from roadway - Any mud or debris deposited on

the road must be cleaned up immediately in a manner that does not pollute waters (ie. by sweeping or vacuuming).

56. No trees are to be removed as part of this application.



PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 57. A contribution for the services in Column A and for the amount in Column B shall

be made to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

A Contribution Plan

B TOTAL CONTRIBUTION

PAYABLE Community & Cultural Facilities $10762.10

Open Space & Recreation Facilities $26494.04 Civic & Urban Improvements $9011.16 Roads & Traffic Management

Facilities $1229.20

Cycleways $767.78 Stormwater Management Facilities $2440.45

Plan Administration $207.02 TOTAL $50911.73

This contribution is a contribution under the provisions of Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as specified in Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2007 adopted by City of Ryde on 11/12/2007.

The above amount, if not paid within the quarter that the consent is granted, shall be adjusted for inflation by reference to the Consumer Price Index published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Catalogue No 5206.0) on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at time of payment.

58. A security deposit (category: other buildings with delivery of bricks or concrete or

machine excavation) is to be paid to Council (Public Works and Services Group) as well as the infrastructure inspection fee. Please refer to Council's Management Plan for the current fee amounts.

59. An Enforcement levy is to be paid to Council on lodgement of the Construction

Certificate application in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Management Plan (scheduled fees).

60. Documentary evidence of payment of the Long Service Levy under Section 34

of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 is to be received prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

61. The applicant is to apply to Council, pay the required fee, and have issued street

alignment levels by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 62. Documentary evidence of compliance with Conditions 57-61 to the satisfaction of

Council or an accredited certifier is to be submitted to the Council prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.



63. Details of security lighting for internal driveways, visitor parking areas and the street frontage shall be submitted for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. The details to include certification from an appropriately qualified person that there will be no offensive glare onto adjoining residents.

64. Driveway and garden edging must be rolled edged with concrete or brick. 65. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be

obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building, Development and Plumbing section of the website at www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to "Water Servicing Coordinator" under "Developing Your Land" or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, as it may take some time to build water/sewer pipes and this may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design. A copy of Sydney Water's Notice of Requirements must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued. The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development / release of the plan of subdivision.

66. The applicant is to submit to and have approved by Council or an accredited

certifier engineer’s details for all concrete work and structural steelwork prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

67. Fire and Smoke Alarms are to be provided in accordance with Part 3.7.2 of the

Building Code. Location details are to be submitted and approved by Council or an accredited certifier prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

68. All retaining walls to excavated areas are to be completed at the earliest possible

stage and prior to the erection of the timber and masonry framework. Details are to be submitted to and approved by Council or an accredited certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

69. A site works plan must be prepared and submitted with the Construction

Certificate for every demolition, earthworks or building works indicating methods of sediment and pollution control in accordance with Council’s DCP 2006, Part 8.1 – Construction Activities.

PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT 70. In issuing this approval, Council has relied on the information provided by you

about the siting of the building/structure on the allotment. If this information is incorrect, it is your responsibility to correct the errors. It may be advisable to undertake a land survey prior to commencing any works.



71. ‘Dial 1100 Before You Dig’

Underground pipes and cables may exist in the area. In your own interest and for safety, telephone 1100 before excavating or erecting structures. Information on the location of underground pipes and cables can also be obtained by fax on 1300 652 077 or through the following website www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au. If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial Before You Dig service, an amendment to the Development Consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Council’s Assessment Officer should be consulted prior to the lodgment of an application for a Construction Certificate if this is the case.

72. Sediment control works are to be installed and maintained in accordance with

Council’s DCP 2006, Part 8.1 – “Construction Activities”. 73. Signage is to be provided on the site as follows:

o During the entire construction phase signage shall be fixed on site identifying the PCA and principal contractor (the coordinator of the building work), and providing phone numbers.

74. In relation to demolition, all work is to be carried out in accordance with the

requirements of AS 2601-2001 (The Demolition of Structures). 75. Security fencing shall be provided around the perimeter of the building/demolition

site and precautionary measures taken to prevent unauthorized entries of the site at all times during demolition and construction.

76. Adequate precautions must be taken to control the emission of dust from the site

during demolition and construction work. These precautions could include minimizing soil disturbance, use of water sprays, erecting screens and not carrying out dusty work during windy conditions.

77. All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement

sheeting (i.e. fibro) must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover New South Wales.

78. All asbestos wastes including used asbestos-cement sheeting (i.e. fibro), must

be disposed of at a landfill facility licensed by the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority to receive that waste. Copies of the disposal dockets must be kept by the applicant for at least 3 years and be submitted to Council on request.

79. Adequate arrangements must be made for the storage and disposal of

demolition and building waste generated on the premises. In this regard the demolishers and builders are encouraged to maximize the re-use and recycling of materials (e.g. Concrete, bricks, roof tiles, timber, doors, windows, fittings, etc.) by separating these materials from other wastes.



DURING CONSTRUCTION 80. The occasions on which building work must be inspected are:

a) at the commencement of the building work b) after excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings c) prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element d) prior to covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building

element e) prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas f) prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections g) after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation

certificate being issued in relation to the building. Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant standards of construction is to be obtained prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction and copies of the documentary evidence are to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority and be made available to Council officers upon request.

Prior to occupation of the building, an occupation certificate must be obtained. Prior to the issue of the occupation certificate, the mandatory inspections must be carried out.

81. In addition to the abovestated inspections, the Principal Certifying Authority is required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures at each stage of construction, to ensure compliance with the approval and City of Ryde's DCP 2006, Part 8.1 - “Construction Activities”:

a) Sediment control measures. b) Security fencing. c) Materials or waste containers upon the footway or road. d) PCA and principal contractor (the coordinator of the building work) signage

and site toilets. 82. Council recommends that a Registered Surveyors check survey certificate be

submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stages:

Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab showing the area of

the land, proposed building and the boundary setbacks. On completion of the proposed building showing the area of the land,

completed building and the boundary setbacks. 83. Concrete wastes must be collected, stored and treated in accordance with the

Concrete Wastes guide published by the Environment Protection Authority. 84. Only unpolluted water is to be discharged to Council’s stormwater drainage

system.



85. The L10 noise level measured for a period of not less than 15 minutes while demolition and construction work is in progress must not exceed the background noise level by more than 20 dB(A) at the nearest affected residential premises.

86. All demolition and all construction and associated work is to be restricted to

between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday (other than public holidays) and between 8.00am and 4.00pm on Saturday. No work is to be carried out on Sunday or public holidays.

87. All excavated material must be removed from the site. No fill is to be placed

above the natural ground level except for minor fill in the courtyard of dwelling number 4 as shown on the landscape plan.

88. No spoil, stockpiles, building or demolition material is to be placed on any public

road, footpath, park or Council owned land. 89. Site toilets shall be provided in accordance with the WorkCover Code of Practice

entitled “Amenities for Construction Work”. 90. At all times work is being undertaken within a public road adequate precautions

shall be taken to warn, instruct and guide road users safely around the work site. Traffic control devices shall satisfy the minimum standards outlined in AS1742.3-1996 “Traffic Control Devices for Work on Roads”.

91. A first flush device shall be fitted to the rainwater tanks to divert the first 5mm of

runoff from the area draining away from the storage tank (e.g. 0.5 litre per square metre).

92. Adequate provisions shall be made to prevent mosquitoes breeding in the

rainwater tank. This should include suitable screening to prevent eggs being laid within the tank.

93. All tanks and tank stand installations shall be structurally sound and comply with

the manufacturer’s and/or designer’s instructions. 94. Tanks must be a commercially manufactured tank designed for the use of water

supply. 95. Overflow from the tank shall be piped directly to an approved stormwater system. 96. The external finishes of tanks shall be painted or coloured to be compatible with

the surrounding environment. Alternatively, the water tank may be screened behind a permanent physical barrier that serves that purpose.

97. Taps associated with the tank shall be clearly marked indicating the source of the

water and that it is not to be used for Drinking Water. 98. Treads, risers and balustrades to comply with the Building Code of Australia Part

3.9.1 and Part 3.9.2. Balustrading is to be a minimum 1.0 metres high and any openings are not to exceed 125mm.



99. All timber framing is to comply with Part 3.4.3 – Timber Framing of the Building

Code of Australia. 100. All steel framing is to comply with Part 3.4.2 – Steel Framing of the Building

Code of Australia. 101. Perimeter of slabs are to be provided with a drop-edge beam so as to provide

face brickwork from the natural ground level. PRIOR TO OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE 102. Documentary evidence of landscape planting and construction in accordance

with the approved plan and specified items is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the building.

103. An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying

Authority (PCA) and a copy furnished to Council in accordance with Clause 151 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prior to commencement of occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building, an altered portion of, or an extension to an existing building.

104. Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority

is to ensure that the BASIX commitments have been implemented in accordance with the BASIX certificate.

105. A certificate from a suitably qualified person is to be submitted to the Principal

Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that the method of Termite Protection has been provided in accordance with Part 3.1.3 of the Building Code of Australia and the requirements of the Australian Standard 3660.1.


Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that the method of Waterproofing wet areas has been provided in accordance with Part 3.8.1 of the Building Code of Australia and the requirements of the Australian Standard 3740 prior to wall tiling.


Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that Fire and Smoke Alarms have been provided in accordance with Part 3.7.2 of the Building Code.

POST OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE 108. Within 2 days of issuing a final Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying

Authority (PCA) is required to generate a BASIX Completion Receipt in accordance with the provisions of the EP & A Regulation 2000. The PCA is to refer to the BASIX Completion Receipt tool at www.basix.nsw.gov.au/administration/login.jsp in order to generate the BASIX



Completion Receipt and a printed copy of the receipt is to be placed on the PCA file.

OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 109. Noise Limits – The noise level emitted by the air conditioners must not exceed

the background noise level by more than 5dB(A) when measured in or on any premises in the vicinity.

110. Storage and disposal of wastes - All wastes generated on the premises must

be stored and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. 111. Recyclable wastes - Wastes for recycling should be stored in separate bins or

containers and transported to a facility where the wastes will be recycled or re-used.

112. Offensive noise - The use of the premises must not cause the emission of

‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS General 113. Design and Construction Standards. All engineering plans and work shall be

carried out in accordance with the requirements as outlined within relevant sections of Council’s Development Control Plan DCP 2006 except as amended by other conditions.

114. Service Alterations. All mains, services, poles, etc., which require alteration

shall be altered at the applicant’s expense. 115. Restoration. Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times.

Restoration of disturbed road and footway areas for the purpose of connection to public utilities will be carried out by Council following submission of a permit application and payment of appropriate fees. Repairs of damage to any public stormwater drainage facility will be carried out by Council following receipt of payment.

116. Road Opening Permit. The applicant shall apply for a road-opening permit

where a new pipeline is proposed to be constructed within or across the footpath. Additional road opening permits and fees may be necessary where there are connections to public utility services (e.g. telephone, electricity, sewer, water or gas) are required within the road reserve. No drainage work shall be carried out on the footpath without this permit being paid and a copy kept on the site.

Prior To Construction Certificate 117. Council Inspections. A Council engineer must inspect the stormwater

connection to the existing Council stormwater pipeline. Council shall be notified



when the collar connection has been made to the pipe and an inspection must be made before the property service line is connected to the collar. The property service line must not be connected directly to Council’s pipeline. An inspection fee of $135.00 shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

118. Boundary Levels. The levels of the street alignment shall be obtained from

Council. These levels shall be incorporated into the design of the internal driveway, carparking areas, landscaping and stormwater drainage plans and must be obtained prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

119. Driveway Grades. The maximum grade of all internal driveways and vehicular

ramps shall be 1 in 4 and in accordance with the relevant section of AS 2890.1. The maximum change of grade permitted is 1 in 8 (12.5%) for summit grade changes and 1 in 6.7 (15%) for sag grade changes. Any transition grades shall have a minimum length of 2.0m. The driveway design is to incorporate Council’s issued footpath and gutter crossing levels where they are required as a condition of consent. Accordingly, a detailed longitudinal and cross-section of the driveway access extending from Willandra Street road centreline to unit 1 & 2 garage demonstrating compliance with AS 2890.1-2004 shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

120. Water Tank First Flush. A first flush mechanism is to be designed and

constructed with the water tank system. Details of the first flush system are to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

121. On-Site Stormwater Detention. Stormwater runoff from all impervious areas

shall be collected and piped by gravity flow to Council’s existing drainage system via rainwater tank(s) and on-site detention system designed in accordance with BASIX and the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2010: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management. Accordingly, engineering plans including engineering certification indicating compliance with this condition and any amendments as shown in red on the approved concept stormwater plan shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

122. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

(ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction“ prepared by the Department of Housing. These devices shall be maintained during the construction works and replaced where considered necessary. The following details are to be included in drawings accompanying the Erosion

and Sediment Control Plan a) Existing and final contours b) The location of all earthworks, including roads, areas of cut and fill c) Location of all impervious areas d) Location and design criteria of erosion and sediment control structures, e) Location and description of existing vegetation f) Site access point/s and means of limiting material leaving the site



g) Location of proposed vegetated buffer strips h) Location of critical areas (drainage lines, water bodies and unstable slopes) i) Location of stockpiles j) Means of diversion of uncontaminated upper catchment around disturbed areas k) Procedures for maintenance of erosion and sediment controls l) Details for any staging of works m) Details and procedures for dust control.

Prior to Commencement of Construction 123. Sediment and Erosion Control. The applicant shall install appropriate

sediment control devices in accordance with an approved plan prior to any earthworks being carried out on the site. These devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced where considered necessary. Suitable erosion control management procedures shall be practiced. This condition is imposed in order to protect downstream properties, Council's drainage system and natural watercourses from sediment build-up transferred by stormwater runoff from the site.

124. Compliance Certificate. A Compliance Certificate must be obtained confirming

that the constructed erosion and sediment control measures comply with the construction plan and the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2010: - Part 8.1; Construction Activities.

125. Vehicle Footpath Crossings. Concrete footpath crossings shall be constructed

at all locations where vehicles cross the footpath, to protect it from damage resulting from the vehicle traffic. The location, design and construction shall conform to the requirements of Council. Crossings are to be constructed in plain reinforced concrete and finished levels shall conform with property alignment levels issued by Council’s Public Works Division. Kerbs shall not be returned to the alignment line. Bridge and pipe crossings will not be permitted.

Prior to Occupation Certificate 126. Disused Gutter Crossing. All disused gutter and footpath crossings shall be

removed and the kerb and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of Council. 127. Compliance Certificates – Engineering. Compliance Certificates must be

obtained for the following (If Council is appointed the Principal Certifying Authority [PCA] then the appropriate inspection fee is to be paid to Council) and submitted to the PCA: o Confirming that all vehicular footway and gutter (layback) crossings are

constructed in accordance with the construction plan requirements and Ryde City Council DCP 2010 Part 8.3

o Confirming that the driveway is constructed in accordance with the construction plan requirements and Ryde City Council DCP 2010 Part 8.3

o Confirming that the site drainage system (including the on-site detention storage system) servicing the development complies with the construction



plan requirements and the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2010: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management

o Confirming that after completion of all construction work and landscaping, all areas adjacent the site, the site drainage system (including the on-site detention system), and the trunk drainage system immediately downstream of the subject site (next pit), have been cleaned of all sand, silt, old formwork, and other debris.

o From Council confirming that all external works have been completed to Council’s satisfaction.

o From Council confirming that the connection of the site drainage system to the trunk drainage system complies with Section 4.7 of AS 3500.3 - 1990 (National Plumbing and Drainage Code).

128. Work-as-Executed Plan. A Work-as-Executed plan signed by a Registered

Surveyor clearly showing the surveyor’s name and the date, the stormwater drainage, including the on-site stormwater detention system if one has been constructed and finished ground levels is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and to Ryde City Council if Council is not the nominated PCA. If there are proposed interallotment drainage easements on the subject property, a Certificate from a Registered Surveyor is to be submitted to the PCA certifying that the subject drainage line/s and pits servicing those lines lie wholly within the proposed easements.

129. On-Site Stormwater Detention System - Marker Plate. Each on-site detention

system basin shall be indicated on the site by fixing a marker plate. This plate is to be of minimum size: 100mm x 75mm and is to be made from non-corrosive metal or 4mm thick laminated plastic. It is to be fixed in a prominent position to the nearest concrete or permanent surface or access grate. The wording on the marker plate is described in the City of Ryde, Development Control Plan 2010: - Part 8.2; Stormwater Management. An approved plate may be purchased from Council's Customer Service Centre on presentation of a completed City of Ryde OSD certification form.

130. Positive Covenant, OSD. The creation of a Positive Covenant under Section 88

of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the property with the requirement to maintain the stormwater detention system on the property. The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's draft terms of Section 88E instrument for Maintenance of Stormwater Detention Systems and to the satisfaction of Council.

131. Drainage Construction. The stormwater drainage on the site is to be

constructed in accordance with the concept stormwater plans approved under this deferred commencement consent.



8 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Report prepared by: Heritage Officer Report dated: 29/06/2010 File No.: GRP/10/4/001/3 - BP10/361

Report Summary This report advises Council of the outcomes of the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) meeting 03/2010 held on 23 June 2010 and also tabulates the recommendations endorsed by HAC and consequential comments and actions. This report recommends the HAC Minutes be endorsed. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the minutes of the Ryde Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting 03/10 be

adopted. (b) That advice is sought from Aboriginal Heritage Office in regard to researching

Benelong’s grave. (c) That the additional 9 stone markers be incorporated in the Heritage Study 2010. ATTACHMENTS 1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 23 June 2010 Report Prepared By: Garry Stanley Heritage Officer Report Approved By: Lexie Macdonald Team Leader - Strategic Planning Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning



Background The Heritage Advisory Committee meets bimonthly to discuss issues relating to the conservation and enhancement of items and places of natural, indigenous, cultural, social, aesthetic and historic significance within the City of Ryde. Report The Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting 03/2010 are ATTACHED. Recommendations endorsed by the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting 03/2010

Comment / Actions

Heritage Study The committee discussed the Heritage Study, and the consultation during May/June with the owners of potential heritage items. The Heritage Advisory Committee recommends to Council, that: • The proposed Heritage Listings of

dwellings not proceed, unless supported by the property owners.

• The proposed de-listing of properties proceed and the Maxim Street conservation area be reduced in size as proposed.

• A comprehensive Heritage Study is undertaken for the City of Ryde in accordance with NSW Heritage Branch guidelines.

• A consultation strategy is developed as part of a future comprehensive Heritage Study

The consultation with landowners affected by potential heritage listing will be reported to Council in August / September. All submissions will be reported, together with the recommendations of the HAC for Council’s consideration. It should also be noted that the Heritage study proposes de-listing some properties and reducing the size of the Maxim Street Conservation Area. Some landowners have written in support of this proposal. Council has allocated $120,000 to the 2011/12 Urban Planning budget to undertake a Comprehensive Heritage Study - in accordance with NSW Heritage Branch guidelines - for the City of Ryde. A consultation strategy will be developed as part of the future Comprehensive Heritage Study project.



Recommendations endorsed by the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting 03/2010

Comment / Actions

Stone Markers Dr. Peter Mitchell reported that Council’s surveyors have found another 9 stone markers, some of which are underground, and there are 3 which were never installed lying in the bush at the intersection of a ‘paper road’ The Committee agreed that: The additional stone markers be added to the list of markers for consideration in the Heritage Study 2010.

Consideration of the additional stone markers be added to the list of markers in the Heritage Study 2010 is supported.

Bennelong’s Grave That the Committee undertake the following: • Dr Peter Mitchell to interview Ms P

Smythe (an elderly and long term resident of the area)

• Explore options for an Aboriginal art-work or monument as part of Council’s foreshore parklands upgrades.

• Liaise with City of Sydney and other organisations to find out what other celebrations there will be for the anniversary of Bennelong’s death.

• Recommend that Council seek advice from the Aboriginal Heritage Office regarding community consultation in relation to activities to celebrate Bennelong.

The 200th anniversary of Bennelong’s death is 3 January 2013. Bennelong spent his last years, after returning from England, in the Ryde area and was buried in James Squire’s Orchard. A small memorial was erected in Cleves Park in 1988. It is thought to be near Bennelong’s burial site. The HAC intends to research options for celebration / memorial prior to making any recommendations to Council. This item will be scheduled for future HAC agendas. The recommendation to seek advice from the Aboriginal Heritage Office is supported.



Recommendations endorsed by the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting 03/2010

Comment / Actions

Brush Farm Park - Consideration of State Listing

The Committee has previously unanimously supported: That Ryde City Council proceeds immediately with the applications for State and National Heritage listings for Brush Farm and Lambert Parks as recommended in the Britton report which was adopted by Council in 2005. The Heritage Advisory Committee understands that this course of action would be fully supported by the National Trust of NSW and the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning.

The Council has written to the owners of Brush Farm Park seeking their views on State Heritage listing. Replies have been received from 2 agencies - the Department of Corrective Services and Brush Farm Park Bowling Club. Council is waiting on replies from the 2 remaining State agencies. Consultation with the stakeholders, users of the park and heritage organisation will be in the near future – as per the Council resolution dated 23 March 2010.

Denistone Character Area The HAC recommends that a policy is developed so that it is clearly understood that the landscape characteristics of the Denistone Character Area are important in assessing proposed developments in the Denistone Character Area.

This recommendation is not supported as the new planning controls require consultation and exhibition with the community. This would be a protracted and resource intensive process which would be similar to that undertaken for the Denistone Character Area. New provisions are not considered necessary as landscape controls are already within the DCP 2010. A policy which has not been exhibited and adopted is not a fair or appropriate mechanism in the assessment process.

Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Community Services • Buildings and Property • Catchments and Assets



Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Consultation of land owners affected by potential heritage listings or de-listings. Comments The Committee draws representation from a range of organisations – including historical societies, progress and community associations and specific interest groups. The issues addressed by the committee relate to a number of units of Council – in particular Community Services, Building and Property and Parks. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Conclusion The Heritage Advisory Committee 03/2010 endorsed a number of actions associated with the awareness, conservation and protection of heritage within the City. The report makes a number of recommendations for Councils consideration in order to progress actions.



MINUTES OF THE

HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 03/10

DATE: Wednesday 23 June 2010

TIME: Commenced 6.00 pm Finished 8.25 pm

LOCATION: Room 2 Level 5 Civic Centre Ryde

PRESENT: Cr I Petch (IP) Chair Cr T Perram (TP) Delegate Cr J Salvestro-Martin Delegate Cr B Pickering Delegate Mr P Bardos (PB) Meadowbank West Ryde Progress Association Ms E Chaine (EC) Putney & District Progress Association Mr J Hull (JH) Friends of the Hermitage Dr P Mitchell (PM) Community Representative. Ms J Noble (JN) Brush Farm Historical Society. Mr P Sullivan (PS) Community Representative Mr R Wright (RW) Ryde District Historical Society. Mr G Blaxell (GB) Community representative. Ms J Minifie (JM) National Trust of Australia (NSW) and Ryde

Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society

Mr D Johnson (DJ) Group Manager Environment and Planning Ms L Macdonald (LM) Team Leader Strategic Planning Ms A Phippen (AP) Ryde Local Studies Librarian Mr G Stanley (GS) Heritage Officer



1. Welcome and Apologies. Cr. Petch declared the meeting open and called for apologies. Ms M Bishop (MB) Manager Urban Planning 2. Consideration and adoption of minutes. The minutes of the meeting of 02/10 (28 April 2010) were adopted. 3. Heritage Study 2010; Consultation with affected land owners. The affected residents were advised by mail of the possible heritage listing of their properties on 19 May and given the opportunity to respond by 18 June, including two “drop-in sessions” at Council on 24 May and 31 May and a briefing session on 31 May. Many of the affected property owners have made submissions objecting to listing. The following two residents addressed the Committee to object to their property being heritage listed: • Ms Therese Scott (speaking on behalf of her family, Michael, Louise, Anne-Marie and

their mother, the owner Eileen) requested that 6-8 Miriam Road, West Ryde not be listed, because of her mother’s ill-health.

• Ms Susan Hissey spoke on behalf of her husband, stating that there was nothing special about16 Reserve Street West Ryde. The property is part of their financial plan for retirement and the value would be adversely affected by heritage listing. Mrs. Hissey also considers there are better examples of Californian Bungalows elsewhere in the City.

Cr. Perram stated that his position is that if residents do not want to be heritage listed, they should be removed. Some of the residents have been through a heritage listing process before and should not be subjected again to the uncertainty. He also suggested that any owners supporting heritage listing should be included in the Heritage schedule. Mr. Gregory Blaxell expressed his concerns regarding the heritage listing process;

(1) The HAC should be made conscious of the many complaints that have been received about the proposed 70 + dwellings that are to be considered for placement on the City of Ryde’s Local Government Heritage listings as part of the LEP being developed for the City. Some of these complaints were heard at specially convened meetings and one general meeting. All complaints were noted and presumably formed the data for a report. It has come to my attention that councillors have received many emails / letters raising objections to their property being listed. I was present for one of these sessions and would have attended more but was prevented by health issues.

(2) This process has been tried in the past and was not successful then and appears to be not successful now.

(3) Many of the complaints focused on asking Council to explain why a particular residence was listed when other almost identical units were not listed. One of a possible number of recommendations might be to give owners a specific statement of why their property was listed. At present there is only a list of general principles that govern the listing of heritage properties and this is not sufficient data from which owners can raise objections.



(4) The major work for selection was carried out by the heritage officer Garry Stanley. He did submit the listing to the HAC and we may have confirmed that it was an appropriate list. However, when the list was presented to residents, they were informed that it had been compiled by the HAC. I do not think that this was the case. As a member of the HAC, I was asked why the committee had listed a particular property and what was the criteria? I was unable to answer but always told them that the meeting was simply the beginning of a process and they had every right to file a formal objection or lobby their local Councillor. It appears as if many took that advice.

(5) The timing was very poor. Residents of affected homes received notice of listing on a Friday and were told they could attend a meeting on the following Monday or on the Monday of the following week. They were also told that there would be a general meeting held on the Monday evening of the following week. The perception was that there was not sufficient time given for them to voice their objections and as a consequence they felt pressured.

(6) There have been many mixed messages about the City’s commitment to heritage. The large obviously historically significant buildings owned by Council have generally been covered ; eg Brush Farm House, Willandra, Addington and perhaps the Hermitage. But in nearly all of these examples, the City has compromised heritage values and has often run foul of the State Heritage Council; e.g. Brush Farm and the marquee, the compromise over false walls, the removal of the cellar as a place of great importance in developing an understanding of the significance of Gregory Blaxland’s contribution to agriculture and viticulture. And further, the reluctance to include a remnant of the former brush Farm property in the form of brush Farm and Lambeth Parks to be considered for heritage listing by the Heritage Council (with their support of the Heritage Council (with their support of the Heritage Council itself and the National Trust of Australia NSW)

Further points raised by Mr. Blaxell included:

• The listing of some properties as part of a conservation area in Miriam Road and Clanalpine Street was tried in the past and was not successful.

• Continued demolition of significant houses that are not heritage listed. Mr Peter Bardos appreciated the concerns of property owners and is sensitive to their issues regarding property value. However, heritage should ideally be retained for the future. Mr. Bardos noted that the heritage list was commenced years ago and evolved very slowly. Heritage listing can protect against inappropriate development in an area and suggests considering a mechanism which would take a broader approach to heritage, such as conservation areas. This was broadly supported by the committee members. Ms Jennifer Noble stated that the Outlook Estate is being eroded, isolated heritage items are not the answer and the importance of setting and character should be significant considerations. The main concern of owners was the potential loss of property value. Councillor Pickering enquired as to the content of the information sent to owners. Ms. Lexie Macdonald stated that each affected property owner was sent;

• A covering letter, • A Heritage Office pamphlet entitled “Benefits of Heritage Listing” • Council’s Heritage Information Sheet



• The data inventory sheet relevant to their property. • Complete list of proposed items.

Regarding property value, Mr John Hull suggested that Real Estate Agents are most interested in larger scaled developments and returns – such as from demolition of houses and villa/multi-unit development. Heritage is viewed negatively by real estate agents as a result. Mr Dominic Johnson advised that the Urban Planning Unit has requested that $120,000 is budgeted for a Comprehensive Heritage Study in the Management Plan currently being considered by Council. Mr Johnson suggested that residents will be concerned about heritage listing even in the event of a comprehensive heritage study being undertaken. Consequently Estate Agents are probably not the best people to advise on changing property values. Mr Johnson stated that churches were divided on being listed because of development constraints. However the new LEP has to consider heritage. Mr Johnson noted that the 2010 Heritage Study also proposes reducing the size of the Maxim Street Conservation Area and that some items were proposed to be removed from the heritage list (e.g. Top Ryde Shopping Centre). Owners had written supporting delisting and this process should still proceed. It was also argued that listing the “stone markers” should proceed. Councillor Petch stated that a previous listing process was debated at great length by Council and it was “put to bed” Cr. Pickering stated that the Royal Rehabilitation site needs to be part of a comprehensive review, which would include the listing of Moorong and the Stables. Recommendation: That the Heritage Advisory Committee recommends to Council, that • Only those properties - whose owners have indicated their willingness - be listed as

new heritage items on the Ryde Heritage Schedule • A complete heritage assessment of the City of Ryde be carried out in accordance with

criteria for assessing heritage status and that methodological procedures which directly involve affected owners, are carefully developed and trialled.

The recommendation was carried unanimously. ACTIONS: The Committee recommends to Council that: • The proposed Heritage Listings of dwellings not proceed, unless supported by the

property owners. • The proposed de-listing of properties proceed and the Maxim Street conservation

area be reduced in size as proposed. • A comprehensive Heritage Study is undertaken for the City of Ryde in accordance

with NSW Heritage Branch guidelines. • A consultation strategy is developed as part of a future comprehensive Heritage

Study.



4. Bennelong’s Grave Site. Dr. Peter Mitchell circulated his report on preliminary findings of the grave site and addressed the Committee. The anniversary of Bennelong’s death is January 3, 2013 The grave site may be on private land. Even with ground penetrating radar there will probably be no conclusive indication of exactly where the grave site is located. If bones are found there is also no way of identifying who they belong to. The view of the committee was that if found, bones should not be exhumed but left in-situ. Mr Richard Wright reported that an elderly member of the Ryde Historical Society, Ms Pat Smythe, may remember useful information. Ms Jenny Minnifie noted that other organisations, including City of Sydney, are considering celebrations for Bennelong and that council could consider an artwork or other form of memorial. Cr Petch suggested that an appropriate location for an artwork or memorial would be Kissing Point Park. Members of the committee considered that an artwork/memorial as part of the foreshore parklands improvements would be a good idea and that the Aboriginal Heritage Office could provide guidance on consulting the community. ACTIONS: The Committee to undertake the following: • Dr Peter Mtichell to interview Ms Pat Smythe. • Explore commissioning an Aboriginal art-work or monument as part of Council’s

foreshore parklands upgrades. • Liaise with City of Sydney and other organisations to find out what other celebrations

there will be for the anniversary of Bennelong’s death. • Recommend that Council seek advice from the Aboriginal Heritage Office regarding

community consultation in relation to activities to celebrate Bennelong. 5. Reports from Community Representatives. Dr. Peter Mitchell reported that Council’s surveyors have found another 9 stone markers, some of which are underground, and there are 3 which were never installed lying in the bush at the intersection of a ‘paper road’. ACTIONS: The additional stone markers be added to the list of markers for consideration in the Heritage Study 2010. Mr John Hull reported that work is still progressing on the Hermitage, with some thinning of trees underway. John suggested that a site visit would be valuable later this year. Brush Farm Historical Society 1. Ms. Jennifer Noble reported that the Heritage Advisory Committee commends Ryde

City Council for its action to pursue funding so that an archaeological study can be



carried out on the site of Gregory Blaxland’s vineyard terraces. 2. The Heritage Advisory Committee also requests that Ryde City Council proceed immediately with the applications for State and National Heritage listings for Brush Farm and Lambert Parks as recommended in the Britton report which was adopted by Council in 2005. The Heritage Advisory Committee understands that this course of action would be fully supported by the National Trust of NSW and the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning. The request was unanimously supported by the Committee. 3. Ms Macdonald reported that Council has written to the owners of Brush Farm Park seeking their views on State Heritage listing. Two have replied -- Brush Farm Park Bowling Club and Corrective Services. Council is still waiting on replies from 2 other State agencies. 4. Ms. Noble reported that there will be a dinner on 10 November to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the visit to Brush Farm House of Governor Macquarie. . 6. General Business. Denistone Character Area Mr Pat Sullivan expressed concern about interpretation of the DCP, and misconceptions regarding landscape controls as follows; The Heritage Advisory committee notes that in the Council Assessment Report on LDA2009/0646 which was a proposal for restoration of the front garden at 154 Chatham Road, the Assessment of Heritage Statement in that report (page 27) states; “With regard to the key characteristics of the Denistone Character Area, which deal with the architectural design, the proposed works are essentially landscape design and were not subject to the controls”. The HAC views this Assessment of Heritage Statement to be wrong and misleading. Landscape design is clearly subject to the controls. Whilst the key characteristics of the architectural design of houses are mentioned in the Character Statement, many other characteristics are also mentioned in the Character Statement, including “well established and highly visible front gardens, feature lawns, garden beds and mature specimen tree plantings” And since the Denistone Character Area Controls require that “New development is to be consistent with the characteristics described in the key character statement’, development proposals must be assessed against all the characteristics described in the Character Statement. The HAC recommends that Council give direction in this matter so that assessing officers clearly understand that all of the characteristics of the Denistone Character Area described in the Character statement are equally important, and all are to be applied to proposed developments in the Denistone Character area. ACTIONS: The HAC recommends that a policy is developed so that it is clearly understood that the landscape characteristics of the Denistone Character Area are important in assessing



proposed developments in the Denistone Character Area. Ryde Historical Society Mr Richard Wright stated that there will be sausage sizzle on the Saturday of the October long weekend to celebrate the 50th anniversary of The Dress Circle Estate. A booklet on the origins of the street names in the estate will be available. National Trust Ms Jennifer Minnifie reported that the Trust has written to Council recommending that Council proceed with State listing of Brush Farm Park. Ryde Foreshore Study Mr Gregory Blaxell and Dr Peter Mitchell attended a positive meeting with Elizabeth Reed, Ian Andrews and Matthew Lewis from Council to discuss corrections to the Ryde Foreshore Study. Corrections and comment were to be forwarded to GML for their response. It is suggested that the Godden Mackay Logan report not be the only source of data and that other sources be used for projects along the river (such as signage). 7. Next Meeting: 25 August 2010 Meeting Closed: 8.25 PM



9 REQUESTS FROM RYDE HUNTERS HILL CRICKET CLUB FOR WAIVING OF FEES FOR THE USE OF BREMNER PARK AND MORRISON BAY PARK

Report prepared by: Acting Manager Open Space Report dated: 18/06/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/5 - BP10/351

Report Summary Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club has requested a waiver of fees for the 12 weekly hire of Bremner Park and Morrison Bay Park for developmental cricket programmes to take place during the 2010/11 summer season. The request is not for a one off waiver of fees, but for two 12 week programs. To date Council has only granted fee waivers for ‘one off’ events with project based programs afforded opportunities for funding through the community grants programs. Granting of the waiver as requested will result in Council foregoing income of $360.00. In isolation this is not significant and would be easily absorbed within the 2010/11 income budget. Council needs to consider the wider financial implications of setting a precedent for the waiver of hire fees for established sport and recreation activities and for seasonal hires that are not a ‘one off’ event. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council decline the request from Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket for the waiver of

fees for the 12 week seasonal hire for an existing, previously paid for program at Bremner Park and a 12 week seasonal hire of Morrison Bay Park.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Notes from meeting with Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club 3 May 2010 2 Application for Seasonal Use of Sporting Fields (Bremner, Morrison Bay,

Monash and Westminster Park) Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club, plus request for waiver of fee of $360 for the forthcoming 2010/11 season.

3 Response to Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club re request for waiver of sportsground hire fees, applications for sportsgrounds for training & Harmony Howzat

4 Letter from Hunters Hill Cricket Club requesting review of decision not to waive seasonal hire fees for hire of Bremner and Morrison Bay

Report Prepared By: Peter Montague Acting Manager Open Space Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club (RHHCC) has been in communication with Council regarding this matter as follows:

O RHHCC wrote to the General Manager on 12 April 2010 requesting a meeting to discuss the waiver of fees for the hire of sportsgrounds to run existing and new Youth Developmental Programs for 4-6 year olds.

O A meeting was held on 3 May 2010 attended by representatives from RHHCC, Councillor Maggio, the General Manager, Group Manager Community Life and the Recreation Coordinator. With respect to the request for the waiver of fees, the notes of the meeting (ATTACHMENT 1) record that: “Council fees for sportsground hire currently reflect a significant subsidy to sports users within the City of Ryde (approximately 80%). Unfortunately, the increased subsidisation of existing activities is an unsustainable precedent for Council to offer all users”.

O A second letter from RHHCC was received on 17 May 2010 with a further request for a fee waiver the hire of Bremner Park and Morrison Bay Park for one existing and previously paid for and one new 12 week program for 4-6 year olds (ATTACHMENT 2).

O The Group Manager Community Life responded on 26 May 2010 repeating the previous advice regarding existing activities and indicating that the new initiatives would be appropriate candidates for the 2009/10 Sports Grants program (ATTACHMENT 3).

O An application for such a project was submitted as part of the 2009/10 Sports Grants program but was unsuccessful on this occasion.

O A third letter from RHHCC was received on 10 June 2010 with a request to reconsider the club’s request for a fee waiver and that the matter be reported to Council for consideration (ATTACHMENT 4).

Report RHHCC are a proactive and successful sport and recreation club. In addition to offering opportunities to participate in junior cricket the club has organised a number of cricket based projects in the Gladesville and surrounding areas. In addition to the subsidy already reflected in the adopted fees and charges (estimated at $19,800 for the 2009/10 season), Council has consistently supported RHHCC in these endeavours including:

O Annual Charity Cricket Match - waiver of turf wicket hire fees for the last 7 years

O Free use of a Shuttle Bus for a fundraising event for RHHCC on 6 March 2010

O RHHCC successfully applied for total funding of $6,000 for two sport and recreation projects as part of the Sports Grants 2009/10 program



To date Council has placed importance on the consistent treatment of all sporting organisations. Income from the hire of parks for the 2010/11 year is budgeted at $292,600. Council needs to carefully consider the financial and other implications of setting a precedent for the waiver of hire fees for existing sport and recreation activities and for seasonal hires that are not a ‘one off’ event. New sport and recreation development initiatives are supported by Council through the Sports Grants program. There are also other funding opportunities available from peak sporting bodies and NSW Communities Sport and Recreation. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: • The field hire requested by RHHCC commences in October 2010. Financial Impact Adoption of the recommendation outlined in this report will have no financial impact. However, should Council approve the waiver of fees, $360 will be lost in income. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through the adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Granting of the fee waiver as requested will result in Council foregoing income of $360.00. In isolation this is not significant and would be easily absorbed within the 2010/11 income budget. Council needs to consider the wider financial implications of setting a precedent for the waiver of hire fees for established sport and recreation activities and for seasonal hires that are not a ‘one off’ event.



Conclusion RHHCC are a proactive and successful sport and recreation club offering opportunities to participate in junior cricket in the Gladesville and surrounding areas and Council has consistently supported RHHCC in these endeavours; however, the waiver of fees for established activities and for seasonal hires that are not a ‘one off’ event will set an unsustainable precedent and undermine the consistent treatment of sporting organisations within the City of Ryde. Council continues to support new development initiatives via the Sport Grants program and other funding opportunities are also available for the funding of project based sport and recreation activities.



Notes from meeting with Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club (RHHCC) – 3 May 2010 Present: Councillor Roy Maggio, Alison Jones (RHHCC), Alastair Snell (RHHCC), John Neish (COR), Simone Schwarz (COR), Peter Montague (COR). 1. Request for waiver of sportsground hire Council’s fees for sportsground hire currently reflect a significant subsidy to sports users within the City of Ryde (approximately 80%). Unfortunately the increased subsidisation of existing activities is an unsustainable precedent for Council to offer all users.

2. Hire of Grounds for Training It was agreed that RHHCC would contact Inner West Harbour Cricket Association (IWHCA) regarding agreement for the Club to hire training grounds direct as opposed to through the association. It is requested that written confirmation of IWHCA’s agreement with this proposal is forwarded to Peter Montague. Subject to this agreement, this practice will remain in place with respect to RHHCC until superseded by the policy outcomes as a result of the Best Value Review of Sportsground Allocation and Maintenance Processes (see point 3).

3. Best Value Review of Sportsground Allocation and Maintenance Processes This project will cover all aspects of the sportsground allocation and maintenance processes including the impact of different activities, fees and charges, training ground hire and all other matters relating to the hire, use and maintenance of sporting facilities. An allocation will be requested in the 2010/11 budget for this project and subject to adoption by Council, will take up to 18 months to implement. This process will provide the opportunity for input from all sporting organisations and the results will form the basis for the development of policy that will cover this area. In the interim, the existing practices for ground allocation and hire will remain in place, excepting the hire of training grounds as referred to in point 2 above. 4. Community Events The Harmony Day Celebrations are not yet determined for 2011 as previously advised in email correspondence from our Community and Cultural Services team. RHHCC will be invited to participate in the subcommittee for this event which will be convened later this year. Field availability of Ryde Park Field 1 around mid to late March 2011 will need to be determined in consultation with the seasonal hirer of the facility (Sydney Cricket Club in recent years) as this period coincides with their semis and finals series. In relation to holding stalls at other Council community events, Council will through a formal process, call for expressions of interest from all community based organisations that would like to manage and run BBQs and other activities at Council events. RHHCC are encouraged to express their interest through this process which will be advertised by June 2010.



5. Morrison Bay Cricket Nets While not specifically covered in our meeting, Morrison Bay Cricket Nets were raised in your letter of 12 April. The Plan of Management for Morrison Bay Park identifies the additional cricket net as a medium term priority (4-6 years). “Consideration should be given to the installation of one additional cricket adjoining the existing nets. Funding for the additional cricket net should be included in Council’s annual Capital Works Program and partnerships with local cricket clubs or associations are encouraged. Irrespective of the source of funding for the existing or future cricket nets, the cricket nets are a community asset and will remain freely available to the general public. (Section 5.2.4. page 70).” A copy of the document is available on Council’s website at the following link - http://www.ryde.nsw.gov.au/morrisonbaypark The nets facility was upgraded in August 2008 with complete rewiring. Repairs were also made to the surfaces in the recently completed 2009/10 season.

Committee of the Whole Page 144 ITEM 9 (continued) ATTACHMENT 2




Ms Alison Jones Secretary, Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club PO Box 3370 PUTNEY NSW 2112 26 May 2010 Dear Alison I am writing to in response to your letter of 16 May 2010. Fee Waiver for sportsground hire As discussed and documented at our meeting of 3 May 2010 (see the enclosed notes from the meeting) unfortunately the increased subsidisation of existing activities is an unsustainable precedent for Council to offer all users. In terms of the new initiative proposed at Morrison Bay, this programme would be a good candidate for the upcoming Participation Grants offered by NSW Communities Sport and Recreation which opens on 1 June 2010. Council’s Sports Grants will also provide an opportunity to obtain funding with the next round commencing in October 2010. Hire of Sportsgrounds for Training The seasonal hire of sportsgrounds for training was discussed at our meeting of 3 May 2010 and a course of action agreed on. Please refer to the enclosed notes from the meeting with reference to this matter. Harmony Howzat Thank you for the application for the hire of Ryde Oval on Sunday 13 March 2010. The availability of the facility has been confirmed and the request for fee waiver will be reported to Council for their consideration and the application processed accordingly. Yours sincerely Simone Schwarz Group Manager Community Life Encl.



RYDE/HUNTERS HILL CRICKET CLUB www.piratescricket.com

10 June 2010 Mr John Neish General Manager City of Ryde Ms Simone Schwarz Group Manager Community Life City of Ryde

Dear John and Simone I refer to our letter of 16 May (sent by email and also by hand) and to your subsequent letter dated 26 May 2010. Would you please reconsider our request to have the waiver of fee sent to the Works and Community Committee. I have reviewed the Minutes of the most recent Meeting of 1 June on the City of Ryde website and note that a special late item was Item 5, to have waiver of fees for ground hire of UTS Northern Suburbs Athletics Club, and this was approved. In this regard, please note that the UTS NSA website described the club as follows:- "Northern Suburbs Amateur Athletic Club was formed in Sydney in 1927 and amalgamated with the Northern Suburbs Women's Amateur Athletic Club in 1982. The University of Technology, Sydney joined with the club in 1994 to continue a history of the club contributing to University athletics in Sydney and this has been a major boost. The name of the club was changed to UTS Northern Suburbs Athletic Club. The club membership includes athletes from age 10 to 90 and covers all abilities with sprinters, jumpers, distance runners and throwers all having access to an excellent training facility with qualified coaches and various competition options. The club has had its base at Rotary Field, Chatswood West which is Sydney's leading grass track, since 1965. It is an eight lane track with separate 110M hurdles/100M sprint lanes and includes high jump, long jump, triple jump, discus, shot, hammer and javelin facilities. The clubhouse at Rotary Field contains a fully equipped weight room and would not have been possible without the assistance of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). The weight room is available for members use at no additional cost. Rotary Field has a perfect setting in bushland on the banks of the Lane Cove River. UTS Norths welcome new members of all ages and talents and offers not only



competition but also training facilities and quality coaching in all disciplines of athletics. One of the charters of the club is to assist UTS students with coaching, training and competition in athletics to develop the University as a major power in Australian University athletics. The club training days are Monday to Thursday evenings and Sunday mornings. I have also reviewed the attached Annual Report of the UTS NSA on its website. Not only does the club cater for a much older age group (10-19years), and specialise in programmes for "University athletes", and in some cases elite athletes, its main programmes are run at Chatswood and it obtains substantial funding from University of Technology. In this regard, in 2008/9 its sponsorship from UTS was $25,000 and in 2007/8 funding was $22,000. The Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club is completely self funded and the programmes for which waiver was sought is for the 3-6 year age group of children in the City of Ryde. As a matter of fairness and equity, our proposal should have been included as a late item for the Works and Community Committee instead of being rejected by letter dated 26 May. Further, as to the club's request to book grounds, I was previously unaware that the City of Ryde's seasonal hire application form expressly provides that a club can make a booking. It is unfair to exclude Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club's request from booking grounds in its own right. Would you please review the above matters? yours sincerely, Alison Jones Secretary Ryde Hunters Hill Cricket Club Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0410444030 Tel: 98794827

Committee of the Whole Page 151


10 RYDE YOUTH COUNCIL Membership and Terms of Reference

Report prepared by: Community Projects Officer - Young People and Leisure Report dated: 21/06/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/356

Report Summary The report recommends adoption of the draft Terms of Reference (ATTACHED) for Ryde Youth Council Advisory Committee (RYC) and appointment of 18 young people who have expressed their interest (ATTACHED Under Separate Cover) to the membership of the RYC. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the Ryde Youth Council Advisory Committee Terms of Reference as

ATTACHED be adopted. (b) That the eighteen expressions of interest as circulated UNDER SEPARATE

COVER be appointed to the membership of the Ryde Youth Council Advisory Committee and advised of their appointment.

(c) That Council nominate a Councillor and alternative Councillor Delegate to the

Ryde Youth Council. ATTACHMENTS 1 draft Ryde Youth Council - Terms of Reference 2010 10 Pages Report Prepared By: Janice Nicholson Community Projects Officer - Young People and Leisure Report Approved By: Paul Graham Senior Community Planner Baharak Sahebekhtiari Manager - Community and Culture Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life

Committee of the Whole Page 152 ITEM 10 (continued)


Background The first meeting of RYC was held in November 2000. It is an active group who manage events and represent young people and Ryde. At this time the RYC operated under a Terms of Reference; however it was not a formal Committee of Council and did not use Council’s standard ‘Terms of Reference’ template. The RYC has over a number of years been successfully working in the local community to produce a number of events and activities for young people, including Battle of the Bands and The Core, two annual live music events. In 2009 a review of the RYC was held to assist in the development of a model for the Youth Council that facilitated greater opportunities for advocacy and engagement. This review in 2009 included consultation with then members of the RYC and visits were conducted to other local governments with successful youth committees. From this review staff designed a draft for a desired youth advisory committee model making changes to the City of Ryde standard Advisory Committee Terms of Reference template. On 23 March 2010 Council resolved: (a) That Ryde Youth Council becomes a formal Advisory Committee of Council. (b) That expressions of interest for Ryde Youth Council 2010 be advertised. The expression of interest period was open for three weeks, with eighteen applicants responding. A Councillor workshop for the applications and Terms of Reference was held on Tuesday 22 June 2010. Suggested points of change from the Councilors at the workshop are included in this report and updates to the draft Terms of Reference have occurred. Report The report proposes a new direction for the RYC that provides greater opportunities for advocacy and engagement with Council. The new Terms of Reference aim to achieve:

• a more formal meeting structure Councillor participation on the RYC clarified roles and responsibilities for all members a clearer process of reporting to Council

Following the resolution dated 23 March 2010 the Community Project Officer – Young People opened an Expression of Interest period for three weeks. The eighteen Expressions of Interest received will create a committee of young people with a diverse mix of skills, interest and knowledge.



It is a recommendation of this report for Council to accept all eighteen Expressions of Interest for the following reasons: cultural and linguistic diversity age diversity diverse occupations and educational experience residential diversity in the local government area socio-economic diversity diverse interests and hobbies diverse experience in youth /community participation and advocacy

At the Councillor Workshop held 22 June 2010, the draft Terms of Reference were presented to the Councillors along with a list of eighteen young people who nominated in response to Expressions of Interest to join the membership of the RYC. At the workshop, Councillors indicated a number of changes to the draft Terms of References. The first point of change was for an invitation of membership to be extended to the recipient of the Young Citizen of the Year Award each February, following the award presentation, during the two year term of the RYC. Once this member has accepted membership, they will be included in any ongoing training, activities and events of the RYC. The second point of change for the RYC was the insertion of a review clause for the Terms of Reference as a whole. This review will occur each two years following the end of the membership term for RYC members. A specific review of the clause for membership, roles and voting will occur in 2012. The review of this clause will include discussion on the need for members to reside in the local government area as specified with membership of other Council advisory committees. The third point of change will see all future Expression of Interest forms change. The change will require young people to detail through an additional question how they identify with the Ryde local government area. Dependent on other changes to the Terms of Reference young people will also need to specify where and how they live, work, study or recreate in the City of Ryde. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Councillor Workshop, 22 June, 2010. City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable



External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Comments Following Councillor Workshop held 22 June, 2010 the following changes have been taken into account and added to the now updated draft Terms of Reference:

• Membership invitation to the recipient of the Young Citizen of the Year Award presented each February

• A review of the Terms of Reference and membership, roles and voting clause will occur following the two year term

• Future Expression of Interest forms will include an additional question to determine how young people identify with the City of Ryde.

Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of these recommendations have no financial impacts.The operation of the RYC is provided for in the current budget 2010/2011. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendations. Other Options Councillors have the option to select and appoint the minimum number of fourteen applicants for the membership to the RYC as per the draft Terms of Reference. Conclusion Following the Councillor Workshop several points of change have been made to the draft Terms of Reference. Once the draft Terms of Reference and the eighteen Expressions of Interest have been endorsed by Council, the Community Project Officer – Young People will coordinate for the first Youth Council meeting to be held in September 2010.



RYDE YOUTH COUNCIL TERMS OF REFERENCE

2010

Copyright © 2010 City of Ryde All Rights Reserved No part of the contents of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of City of Ryde



Contents 1. ROLE 2. RESPONSIBILITIES 3. MEMBERSHIP, ROLES AND VOTING

Term of Membership to Committee Roles

Youth Councillor

Councillor

Chairperson

Public Relations Officer

Committee Facilitator

Voting Proxy Quorum

4. MEETINGS Meeting Schedule and Procedures Public Participation

5. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTING

6. CODE OF CONDUCT AND OTHER COUNCIL POLICIES 7. REVIEW



1. ROLE The primary roles of the Ryde Youth Council Advisory Committee are:

• To advocate for the needs of young people and provide a mechanism for their

participation and involvement in decision making on community issues.

• To act in an advisory and consultative capacity to Council and staff on matters

affecting young people in the community.

• To assist young people in developing skills in various areas including,

leadership, communication, advocacy, governance and administration.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES The Ryde Youth Council Advisory Committee is responsible for: Advocating, providing advice, and making recommendations to Council on

matters affecting young people and the community;

• Co-ordinating, planning and implementing community activities and events,

including National Youth Week;

• Identifying and initiating opportunities for participation and involvement of young

people in community activity;

• Promoting community awareness of issues impacting on young people;

• Promoting positive images of young people and their achievements in the

community.

3. MEMBERSHIP, ROLES AND VOTING

Membership of the Ryde Youth Council Advisory Committee comprises:

• No less than one (1) Councillor appointed annually, non voting member;

• One (1) alternate Councillor delegate, non voting member;

• Committee Facilitator;

• Minimum of fourteen (14) Community Representatives aged 12 - 25. Members

must live, work, study or recreate in the City of Ryde.;



• Young people who represent organisations that service young people;

• Young people from diverse socio-economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds;

• Individuals with specialist skills and professional interest in issues affecting

young people will be contracted/ invited as required.

The Committee Facilitator will extend membership to the City of Ryde Young Citizen of

the Year each February following the award being received. Upon accepting

membership this young person will then be included in any activities of the Committee.

Council officers will provide professional advice and administrative support. It should

be noted that employees of the Council are not subject to the direction of the Advisory

Committee or any members thereof.

Term of Membership to Committee Members appointed to the Committee shall be appointed for a two year (or remainder

thereof) term.

A member of the Ryde Youth Council may resign from membership by giving notice of

not less than two (2) weeks in writing to the relevant Council representative.

Membership may be cancelled by failure to attend three (3) consecutive meetings

without sufficient notification to the Council.

Council staff will be appointed and removed by the General Manager.



Roles All members of the Ryde Youth Council will agree to act within the guidelines of the

Ryde Youth Council as outlined in this Terms of Reference at all times. This is to be

confirmed by signing an agreement form following a briefing session on this Terms of

Reference and received Code of Conduct Training.

Youth Councillor

The role of a Youth Councillor will be to:

Attend meetings

Actively seek views and opinions of young people and relevant issues to be

brought to the notice of the Ryde Youth Council

Contribute items of interest to the meeting agendas, by contacting the

Chairperson between meetings

Actively participate in discussions and decisions that take place at meetings

Actively participate in various working parties and events involving the Ryde

Youth Council

Represent the views and act in the interest of all young people across the Ryde

LGA

Communicate any issues regarding Ryde Youth Council, including absences

from meetings or activities with the Community Project Officer – Young people.

Councillor The role of a Councillor will be to:

Attend meetings

Actively participate in discussions and decisions that take place at meetings

Mentor, liaise and support the Ryde Youth Council and Ryde Youth Council

members



Assist in the communication of ideas of Ryde Youth Council Youth Councillors

to other City of Ryde Councillors.

Communicate any issues regarding Ryde Youth Council, including absences

from meetings or activities with the Community Project Officer – Young People.

Chairperson

The role of the Chairperson will be to:

chair all meetings of the Ryde Youth Council,

establish a purpose and agenda for each meeting,

ensure discussion remains on point and manages time,

encourage discussion and constructive input,

Request agenda items for the next scheduled meeting.

The role of Chairperson shall be elected at the first meeting of the Ryde Youth Council

at the beginning of a new two year term. The role of Chairperson can only be filled by a

Youth Councillor.

In the event that the elected Chairperson is absent, the Ryde Youth Council shall

nominate another member to chair the meeting or the Committee Facilitator will fill the

role.

The Committee Facilitator in the role of Chairperson does not become a formal

member of the Committee by virtue of this position. All staff are representatives of

Council only and not members of the Committee.

Council’s Code of Meeting Practice shall be used as the reference guide for any

matters pertaining to the Committee meetings which are not otherwise outlined in this

Terms of Reference.



Public Relations Officer

The role of the Public Relations Officer will be to:

draft media releases,

develop strategies to promote the Ryde Youth Council,

promote events and activities conducted by the Ryde Youth Council,

Assist in the development of material to be placed on the Ryde Youth Council

webpage.

All media and public relations conducted for the Ryde Youth Council must have prior

approval granted by the Manager, Community Relations and Events and Community

Project Officer – Young People.

Committee Facilitator A Committee Facilitator shall be appointed by the General Manager.

The Facilitator shall be a staff member of Council and is responsible for co-ordinating

the preparation of agendas, invitations and minutes of the Ryde Youth Council.

The Facilitator shall also be responsible for co-ordinating any presentations from guest

speakers and for considering requests from members of the public to address the

Committee.

The Facilitator has the right to refuse a request from a member of the public to address

the Committee if it is deemed more appropriate for that person to address a formal

Council or Committee meeting.



Voting No formal voting rules apply. As the Committee has an advisory role, its

recommendations are made by consensus and no recommendation is deemed to be a

decision of Council unless the matter is referred to Council for determination. If

consensus is not achieved, and if required, the matter shall be referred to Council for

determination.

Proxy No voting by proxy is permitted. Only members in attendance at the meeting shall be

entitled to participate in the decision making process of the Committee. If a member is

unable to attend the meeting but wishes to be in attendance for discussion of a

particular matter, he/she can notify the Chairperson prior to the meeting to request

deferral of the item to a subsequent meeting or to request that the Chairperson

formally indicate the member’s view to the Committee during the discussion on the

matter. The Committee shall decide if a matter is to be deferred to a subsequent

meeting based on the representations made to the Chairperson by the absent

member.

Quorum For a valid meeting to occur, a quorum of ‘50% plus one’ must be in attendance. No

decisions can be made at a meeting with less than this number of members present.

4. MEETINGS Meeting Schedule and Procedures Meetings are to be held bi-monthly from 5:30pm to 7:00pm or as agreed by members.



The Agenda & meeting papers shall be circulated to members at least 3 days prior to

meeting.

Each meeting shall be properly recorded by the taking of minutes.

Public Participation All meetings of the Committee are public meetings. Members of the public and media

can attend meetings as observers, however, they cannot speak at a meeting unless

prior arrangements are made through the Committee Facilitator.

Presentations shall be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes.

5. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTING

The agendas and minutes of the Committee shall be stored as a permanent record of

Council, as determined by the General Manager.

The minutes of each meeting shall be circulated to all members as soon as

practicable. Any questions by members regarding the minutes are to be referred

immediately to the Committee Facilitator and if any error in the minutes is confirmed,

the Committee Facilitator shall arrange to make the appropriate changes.

Minutes will be completed within 2 weeks of the Committee meeting and then reported

in the Councillor’s Information Bulletin.

All agendas shall be published on Council’s website within 5 days of completion.

All minutes shall be published on Council’s website within 5 days of adoption by

Council.



Minutes may be referred or a report may be prepared for Council’s consideration

where the Committee suggests an action (or actions) which staff cannot carry out

within existing delegations.

The minutes will be reported directly to the following City of Ryde staff:

• Manager – Community + Culture

• Senior Community Planner

Members of the Committee are not permitted to speak to the media as representatives

of the Committee unless approved by Council.

6. CODE OF CONDUCT AND OTHER COUNCIL POLICIES

Each Committee member who is not otherwise a Councillor or staff member shall be

provided with a copy of Council’s Code of Conduct and other related policies that may

be applicable to the operation of the Committee.

The conduct of each Committee member is expected to be consistent with the

principles outlined in these Council publications.

7. REVIEW

A review of the Advisory Committee and Terms of Reference will occur following the

end of the two year term.



11 CALL FOR TWO (2) COUNCILLORS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE CHALLENGE COMMITTEE FOR THE BEST VALUE REVIEW OF SPORTS ALLOCATION AND GROUND MAINTENANCE PROCESS

Report prepared by: Recreation Co-ordinator Report dated: 7/07/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/372

Report Summary In accordance with the 2010/11 Management Plan, Council will be undertaking a Best Value Review of its Sports Allocations and Ground Maintenance process which service organised and active recreation for the City of Ryde. Two (2) Councillors are requested to be part of the Challenge Committee to challenge and review all aspects of the project as it progresses to ensure a quality outcome. RECOMMENDATION: That two (2) Councillors are nominated to be members of the Challenge Committee to challenge and review the “Best Value Review” of Sports Allocations and Ground Maintenance process. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Peter Montague Recreation Co-ordinator Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background The areas where changes to the service are appropriate in order to provide “Best Value” to the community are to be identified through the application of the following principles;

• The service demonstrates “Best Practice” in the delivery of service; • The service delivers best value for money for the community; • The service is clear with regard to cost; • The service is responsive to community need; • The service is accessible; • The service is continuously improving; • The service is engaged in regular consultation with its community.

The following issues are to be included in the Review;

• A review of trends in climate, Sport and Recreation at the community level and the adequacy of existing facilities to meet that need.

• The role of Sports Allocations and the coordination of grounds allocations between User Groups, be it by Association or by Club.

• Opportunities for “on-line” bookings of facilities for seasonal and casual use.

• The location of any “Service Level Agreement” between the Sports Allocation Group and the Maintenance Group.

• A comparison of the unit costs of providing and allocating playing fields in the City of Ryde with other NSROC Councils.

• The standard of grounds maintenance and facilities provision to be provided to deliver a ‘basic standard’.

• The allocation of costing to provide services and facilities that are above that required for “community level” sport.

• The cost of providing the service attributable to the general community and the level of subsidy from Council that is appropriate and sustainable.

• The appropriateness of the continued free hire of Council facilities for schools within the City of Ryde.

• Benchmarking of the services with other providers in the NSROC group of Councils, Sutherland and Canada Bay.

• The cost and appropriate level of availability of facilities to Users; (a) outside of the City of Ryde, and (b) outside of NSROC.

• The level of statistical and individual data required to determine if an organisation or club is a local one, contributing to the facilities in the City through rates or other monetary contribution.

• The defined duration of Winter and Summer seasons for the purposes of allocation, ground maintenance and change of season works.

• Provision of processes for; Allocation and booking of grounds for competition and for training Maintenance programs to meet safety and sustainability factors Capital improvements and identification of funding sources (eg Waste

levy)



Maintenance requests Wet weather information and grounds closures Regulation of unapproved use of the facilities Fees and Charges adjustment

The outcome of the Review will provide Council with a number of options together with the resources required to make them operable. Report Part of the Best Value Review process is the formation of a Challenge Committee to;

1. Review and challenge the Project brief; 2. Review and challenge the service provider with regard to;

a. The proposed methodology b. Proposed policy and process outcomes c. Proposed recommendations d. Proposed implementation plan;

3. Exercise independent judgment to ensure that the project meets its agreed outcomes.

The Challenge Committee will comprise:

O 2 Councillors O 2 members of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee O One independent O General Manager O Group Manager Community Life

A call for Expressions of Interest has been sent to all members of sports organisations on the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee and the purpose of this report is to identify two (2) Councillors to be part of this Committee. It is estimated that there will be 6 meetings of about 1.5 hrs each over the course of the next year as the review is developed. In addition to this there would be an expectation of reading and preparation prior to the meetings.

Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable



Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: • A key role of the Challenge Committee is to challenge the brief for the Best

Value Review. For the Review to be completed within the intended 12 months it is anticipated that the initial meeting of the Committee will need to take place before the end of August 2010.

Financial Impact It is estimated that the total cost of the Best Value Review is $60,000. This project is provided for in the 2010/11 Parks budget. There will be no on-going costs of maintaining this project. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through the adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Councillors can opt not to be represented on the Challenge Committee for the Best Value Review. Conclusion Two (2) Councillors are requested to be part of the Challenge Committee being formed to challenge and review all aspects of the “Best Value Review” of Sports Allocations and Ground Maintenance process as it progresses to ensure a quality outcome.



12 REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM ROUND 3 - Project Nomination

Report prepared by: Business Support Coordinator - Public Works Report dated: 12/07/2010 File No.: GRP/10/1/001/3 - BP10/377

Report Summary This report provides information to Council on the recently announced third round of the Federal Government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) and seeks Council determination on the project for funding application. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt Option (choose one project) for application under the Federal Government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, Round 3. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Joe So Business Support Coordinator - Public Works Report Approved By: Kim Woodbury Group Manager - Public Works



Background At the Australian Council of Local Government meeting on 18 June 2010, the Prime Minister, Hon Kevin Rudd MP announced additional funding of $100 million for the allocated component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) Round 3.

The $100 million injection into the RLCIP will be delivered as an allocation to all 566 of Australia's councils (565 councils plus the ACT) consistent with the funding model used for Round 2.

This funding will assist councils to build and modernise community facilities, including town halls, libraries, community centres, sports grounds and environmental infrastructure and is intended to support local jobs and provide long-term benefits to communities by renewing and upgrading local infrastructure. The RLCIP will provide funding to local governments for community infrastructure including new construction and major renovations or refurbishments of assets such as: • social and cultural infrastructure (e.g. art spaces, gardens); • recreational facilities (e.g. swimming pools, sports stadiums); • tourism infrastructure (e.g. walkways, tourism information centres); • children, youth and seniors facilities (e.g. playgroup centres, senior citizens’

centres); • access facilities (e.g. boat ramps, footbridges); and • environmental initiatives (e.g. drain and sewerage upgrades, recycling plants). Report Council received notification on 28 June 2010 from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, on its eligibility to receive $147,000 under Round 3 of the RLCIP. Council has until 30 July 2010 to submit a project proposal for funding. The following projects are identified by Council staff as suitable for grant funding application given the criteria set by the Federal Government.



Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program Round 3 ($147,000 allocation to City of Ryde)

Option Project Est. Total Cost

RLCIP Funding

Council Funding

Other Funding Sources

A All Abilities Playground at Yamble Reserve $1,000,000 $147,000 $853,000+ -

B Wilga Reserve Safety Improvements – Lighting & Vegetation Management and Gateway

$250,000 $147,000 $103,000# -

C Ryde River Walk (Morrison Bay Park to Bill Mitchell Park) $347,000 $147,000 $100,000# $100,000

D Amenity/Toilet Block Upgrade – Meadowbank Tennis & Tuckwell Park $160,000 $147,000 $13,000## -

E New Amenity/Toilet Block – Santa Rosa Park $150,000 $147,000 $3,000## -

+ New project is subject to additional funding approval by Council. # RLCIP funding will be applied to new additional work to existing approved project under the 2010/11 Capital Works Program. ## RLCIP funding will be applied to bring forward existing approved projects under the 2011/12 Capital Works Program. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Public Works group • Community Life group Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Comments All projects identified by Council staff as suitable for grant funding application given the criteria set by the Federal Government are included in this report for consideration by Council.



Critical Dates Council has until 30 July 2010 to submit project proposals for the $147,000 funding under the RLCIP Round 3 allocation. Council will be required to enter into an agreement prior to receipt of the payment. Funding must be expended by 31 December 2011. Financial Impact Additional Council funding approval of $853,000 is required for OPTION A. The 2011/12 Capital Works Program would need to be amended in the next Management Plan. No additional Council funding approval is required for OPTION B and OPTION C. RLCIP funding will be applied to new additional work to existing approved project under the 2010/11 Capital Works Program. No additional Council funding approval is required for OPTION D and OPTION E. RLCIP funding will be applied to bring forward existing approved projects under the 2011/12 Capital Works Program. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Council could choose one of the five (5) options for consideration. Alternatively, Council could choose another project not on the list. Conclusion Council has the opportunity to apply for $147,000 in grant funding under Round 3 of the Federal Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Projects identified by Council staff as suitable for application are summarised in this report for consideration by Council.



13 NSW COMMUNITY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP 2010 PROGRAM - Project Nomination

Report prepared by: Business Support Coordinator - Public Works Report dated: 12/07/2010 File No.: GRP/10/1/001/3 - BP10/379

Report Summary This report provides information to Council on the recently announced the NSW Community Building Partnership (CBP) 2010 program and seeks Council determination on projects for application. RECOMMENDATION: That Council nominate project (choose from list) for application under the NSW Community Building Partnership 2010 program. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Joe So Business Support Coordinator - Public Works Report Approved By: Kim Woodbury Group Manager - Public Works



Background The NSW Government announced a $35 million Community Building Partnership (CBP) 2010 program to provide funding for local community projects across NSW. Community groups and local councils are eligible to submit applications for funding that will help support local infrastructure and jobs. Last year 1,180 grants were approved for community groups and local councils to build or upgrade local facilities. The CBP will invest $300,000 into building local community projects in every electoral district – with an additional $100,000 to be invested in electoral districts with higher unemployment. Under the partnership, the NSW Government will contribute to the cost of building important community projects and stimulating local economies. Application will need to demonstrate how the nominated projects will deliver positive results for their community, through job creation and community, social, recreational or environmental outcomes. Report Grants are open to local councils and incorporated not-for-profit bodies such as charities, sporting, social and environmental groups (with Council approval if on Council land). Proposals by non-profit organisations, which have been made with the support of local councils, are not treated as a submission by a local council. Applications should demonstrate how the projects will deliver positive results for communities, especially employment and community social, recreational or environmental outcomes. The projects should generate employment through:

1. construction of new capital works; 2. refurbishment, repairs and maintenance to existing capital facilities; or 3. the purchase of capital equipment that enables the delivery of a new or enhanced employment generating service.

Generally only one project proposal for each local council will be considered within the area of that council in an electorate. Councils may submit project proposals for a location in each electorate within their area. Councils must provide 50:50 funding for the nominated project, not-for-profit organisations do not need to match funding but priority will be given to part funded projects. Over the past month, State Members of Parliament have invited applications from local councils and community groups within their electoral districts. The Members have also provided comments and recommendations on the suitability and priority of eligible proposals. Grant submissions will be prioritised by the State Member within their electoral districts for the Premier’s consideration. The Department of Premier and Cabinet will make recommendations to the Premier based on the assessment criteria and information provided by Members of Parliament.



Nominated projects must be completed before the 31 December 2011. If planning approval is required, it must be obtained by 1 May 2011. Applications for the CBP program close on 23 July 2010. The following projects are identified by Council staff as suitable for grant funding application given the criteria set by the State Government.

Project Est. Total Cost

Grant Funding

Requested

Ryde Electorate

All Abilities Playground – Yamble Reserve+ $1,000,000 $75,000

Community Nursery $70,000 $70,000

Country Women’s Association, Eastwood – Building Refurbishment & Upgrades $45,000 $45,000

Eastwood Kindergarten – Building Refurbishment & Upgrades $40,000 $40,000

Installation of a new Community Garden at Woolway Reserve, Meadowbank $30,000 $30,000

Installation of a new Community Garden at Macquarie Hospital# $30,000 $30,000

New Sports Lighting – Eastwood Croquet Club, Eastwood $70,000 $25,000

New Sports Lighting – Brush Farm Park, Eastwood## $140,000 $45,000

Lane Cove Electorate

Field of Mars Visitor Centre – Building Refurbishment & Upgrades $50,000 $50,000

New Sports Lighting – Bill Mitchell Park, Gladesville $140,000 $45,000

New Sports Lighting – Magdala Park, North Ryde $140,000 $45,000

Epping Electorate

New Sports Lighting – Marsfield Park, Marsfield $140,000 $45,000

New Sports Lighting – Waterloo Park, Marsfield $140,000 $45,000

Terry’s Creek Trail (Lane Cove River to Epping Road) $100,000 $50,000



This project would require additional funding approval by Council in 2011/12, however, based on a similar project recently undertaken by Canada Bay Council at Five Dock, Council could expect contributions from the private and non-for-profit sectors of between $300,000 to $500,000 in cash or in-kind. # Consent from Macquarie Hospital required for works to be carried out. ## The Plan of Management for Brush Farm Park stipulates no intensification of playing field usage. It is intended that generally the grant applications would be submitted by the relevant community / sporting group. Council staff will provide support as required in the meeting documentation requirements. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Community Life group • Public Works group Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Local State members for Lane Cove, Ryde, and Epping. • Sporting & Community groups Comments Responses from State members, sporting & community groups have been taken into consideration in the formulation of the nominations list. Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: • Applications for the CBP program close on 23 July 2010. • Successful projects must be completed before 31 December 2011. • If planning approval is required, it must be obtained by 1 May 2011. Financial Impact Additional Council funding of $925,000 (excluding any Federal grant) is required for “All Abilities Playground” project. This project would require additional funding approval by Council in 2011/12, however, based on a similar project recently undertaken by Canada Bay Council at Five Dock, Council could expect contributions from the private and non-for-profit sectors of between $300,000 to $500,000 in cash or in-kind.



Other projects may be funded from existing allocations in the 2010/11 and 2011/12 Capital Works Programs with reprioritisation of the Parks capital works budget. Private and/or community sponsorship may be available for some projects. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Council could choose one of the listed projects in each State electorate for consideration. Alternatively, Council could choose another project not on the list. Conclusion Council has the opportunity to apply for funding under the NSW Community Building Partnership 2010 program. Projects identifies by Council staff as suitable for application are summarised in this report for consideration by Council.



CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

14 LGFS PROCEEDINGS - Funding Agreement

Confidential This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (d) (i) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND (g) advice concerning litigation, or advice as comprises a discussion of this matter, that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. This matter is classified confidential because it contains advice concerning legal matters that are:- (a) substantial issues relating to a matter to which the Council is involved. (b) clearly identified in the advice, and (c) fully discussed in that advice. It is not in the public interest to reveal all details of this matter as it would prejudice Council's position in any court proceedings. Report prepared by: General Counsel Report dated: 8/07/2010

Committee of the Whole - City of Ryde · 2016. 1. 12. · Committee of the Whole Page 2 Agenda of...

Documents

Transcript of Committee of the Whole - City of Ryde · 2016. 1. 12. · Committee of the Whole Page 2 Agenda of...