ORDINARY MEETING No. 4115€¦ · D1-D3, D5, D12, D16, L6, L13, PE1, PE4, PE5, PE6, PE14, PE17,...

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING No. 4115

10th December, 2001 at 7.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESS PRAYER ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES, DECLARATIONS A. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES CIVIC CEREMONIES B. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS TABLING OF PETITIONS ADDRESSES FROM THE PUBLIC C. NOTICE OF MOTION (INCLUDING RESCISSION

MOTIONS) REPORTS FROM STAFF D. DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT E. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE F. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION G. CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES H. GENERAL MANAGER J. COMMITTEE REPORTS K. CORRESPONDENCE L. DELEGATES REPORTS M GENERAL BUSINESS N. QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE Z. COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4115 – 10th December, 2001

INDEX A – MINUTES

1. Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4114 held on 26th November, 2001 ................ 1

D – DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

1. Review of Development Applications Fees – Amendment to Management Plan . 1 2. Renaming of the Suburb of Tarban ..................................................................... 7 3. DA: 00/1188 161 Victoria Road, Gladesville .....................................................13 4. DA: 00/1208 Hunters Hill Hotel, 64-68 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill .............21 5. DA: 01/1159 83 & 85A Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill ........................................27 6. DA: 01/1092 5 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill ......................................................46 7. DA: 01/1003 57 Huntleys Point Road, Huntleys Point .......................................59 8. Delegated Authority ..........................................................................................64

9. Legal Matters .....................................................................................................68

E – PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Tree Preservation Order – Approvals .................................................................. 1 2. Bushcare Volunteer Management Policy ............................................................ 4

F – FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

1. Summary of Council Investments as at 30th November, 2001 .............................. 1 2. Financial Reports to 30th November, 2001. ......................................................... 3

H – REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER

1. Ward Boundaries ................................................................................................ 1 2. Hunters Hill Hotel – Licence Application ........................................................... 2 3. ICAC Discussion Paper – ‘Taking the Devil out of Development’ ...................... 8 4. Report on Outstanding Matters ..........................................................................10 5. Hunters Hill Filming Policy & Manual ..............................................................11

J – COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Parks & Trees Advisory Committee, Bushland Management Working Group and the Environmental Management

Committee held on 27th November, 2001............................................................. 1 2. Minutes of the General Purposes Committee Meeting held on 3rd December, 20015

K – CORRESPONDENCE

1. Items 1 – 4 of Correspondence ............................................................................ 1

M – GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council ........................................................ 1

A

Minutes

A – Minutes

4116 – 11th February, 2002

Index 1. Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4115 held on 10th December, 2001 1

.................................... Councillor Bruce Lucas

MAYOR

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO. 4115 – 10th December, 2001 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4115 held 10th December, 2001. This is page

COMMENCEMENT TIME The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.38 p.m. IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor, Councillor B. Lucas, Councillors P. Astridge, J. Betar, M. Christie, P. Hart, S. Hoopmann, R. Quinn and J. Scotford and, later, Councillor M. Kapel. ALSO PRESENT The General Manager, Barry Smith, the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure, Don Cottee, the Manager Development & Environment, Joe Vescio, and the Administration Officer, Greg Egan. APOLOGIES There were no apologies received. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 556/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hart, seconded Clr Betar that the Minutes of

Ordinary Meeting No.4114 held on 26th November, 2001 be confirmed. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 557/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hart, seconded Clr Quinn at 7.40pm that Standing

Orders be suspended to bring forward Items D5, D6, J2 and tabled Item E3, the last two to be considered together.

Note: Item D6 was considered first as not all of the parties who were to address

Council regarding Item D5 were present in the Chamber at that time. DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D67) 6. DA NO. 01/1092 – 5 NELSON PARADE, HUNTERS HILL Clr M. Kapel joined the meeting at 8.41pm prior to the following address.

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Ms. Mei Ling McGlynn (Objector) addressed the meeting on this matter.

558/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Astridge that a “Deferred

Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 80(3) of the



Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

SCHEDULE 1 1. A fixed louvre screen is to be provided to the satisfaction of Council’s

Development Control Officer to protect the privacy in the living area of the adjoining neighbour at No. 3 Nelson Parade.

SCHEDULE 2 That Development Application No. 011092, for proposed alterations and additions

at 5 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B2, B14 ($2800), C1-C10, C12, C19, C21, C22, C24, C27, C28, C30, C33, C34, C35, C38, C37-C50, C52, C58, C60, C61-C64, C81-C85, C87, C92, C94, C95, C96, C100 (011092, Frank Cavalier, 5, August 2001), D1-D3, D5, D12, D16, L6, L13, PE1, PE4, PE5, PE6, PE14, PE17, SP1-SP16, SP19, SP21-SP22, SP23-SP24, SP27, SP30, SP31, S1, S4, S10, S14 and the following special conditions:

1. The landscaping is to be carried out in accordance with the plan prepared

by Sally Bourne Landscapes, Drawing Number 60/01, dated 10 June 2001.

2. All works associated with the Willow Gum and Sydney Blue Gum on site

are to be in accordance with the arborist report prepared by Apex Tree and Garden Experts dated 15 October 2001 and specifications dated 30 November 2000 and strictly in accordance with the following specific requirements:

a. Willow Gum (E. scoparia)

Approve the timber deck with the specified piers.

• All piering works shall be in the presence of the arborist, who shall direct protective works to the roots as necessary to ensure the long term health and safety of this tree.

• Carry out improvement and tree protection works as per the specification attached with the arborist’s first report with the original DA, as per the attachment “Protection of Trees on Your Construction Site”.

• Carry out light pruning to remove small dead branches as directed by the arborist on site.

b. Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna)

Approve the removal of this tree subject to the following conditions:



• Submit a Landscape Planting Plan to Council showing screen/amenity replacement planting along this portion of the eastern boundary of the subject site. Plants shall be Super Advanced or Semi Mature in size and specified by their Botanic and Common Names, and the size of containers from which they shall be planted on site.

• All plants selected and proposed shall be with the written approval of the owners/residents of No.3 Nelson Parade. This written approval shall be attached with the Proposed Planting Plan for the eastern boundary line.

• Removal of the existing tree shall be in accordance with best practice standards. The contractor shall have the requisite insurances to cover for accidental damage to property and persons in the two properties and within Nelson Parade.

• Ten (10) days written notice shall be given to Council when the tree removal works are planned.

• In the event that traffic in Nelson Parade is to be disrupted, the contractor shall make suitable arrangements for traffic diversion and control. Council shall be notified of these arrangements not less than 10 days prior to the proposed felling works.

• All cuttings and other parts of the felled tree shall be removed from site and taken to a licensed tip.

3. To address privacy concerns to the adjoining neighbour, the east facing windows from the first floor guest bedroom, ensuite and family room are to contain obscure glazing.

4. The external colours and finishes are to be in accordance with the samples

submitted to Council for assessment on 20 June 2001. 5. The alterations to the access stairs on Council property are to be

undertaken in accordance with the plan prepared by Frank Cavalier, dated August 2001.

6. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas is to be piped either to

Council’s gutter in Nelson Parade or a non-scouring outfall towards the rear cliff. Details are to be provided for comment prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Details are to include a silt arrestor pit before any cliff outfall.

7. Details of any modifications to vehicle access or other works beyond the

boundary are to be submitted for comment prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Any works undertaken beyond the boundary shall be subject to payment of supervision fees and permit charges prior to commencement of works. (Council reserves the right to vary detailing on approved works beyond the boundary).



8. A silt and sediment control plan is to be submitted for comment prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, with reference to Council’s publication “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines”.

9. The existing stone walls located on Council property are not to be

relocated or altered without the prior concurrence of Council. 5. DA NO. 01/1159 – 83 & 85A PITTWATER ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Messrs. Bradley Field, Walter Hutchinson, David Ronning and Raymond Pryde and Ms. Catherine Faulks (Objectors) and Mr. Eugene Sanhueza (Applicant) addressed the meeting on this matter.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 559/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Betar at 8.46pm that Standing

Orders be suspended to allow Councillors sufficient time to read proposed additional consent conditions tabled by the Manager Development and Environment.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 560/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Hart at 8.49pm that Standing

Orders be resumed. ADJOURNMENT OF PROCEEDINGS 561/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Betar at 8.53pm that Council

adjourn proceedings for at least 10 minutes to permit discussion between Councillors, staff, the applicant and neighbours about possible resolution of matters of concern.

RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS 562/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Betar at 9.11pm that

Council resume proceedings. 563/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Hoopmann that a “Deferred

Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

SCHEDULE 1

1. The plans are to be amended as follows:

a) Provision of a recess to the rear elevation of Unit 8 and other

design modifications as contained in the sketch plans prepared



by Koutsoulas & Associates submitted to Council 19th November 2001;

b) Face brickwork shall consist of “Bowral Blue”;

c) The northern projecting frame to the western elevation of Unit 5 shall be reduced to single storey only;

d) Courtyards and internal planter areas shall have a minimum 1 metre soil depth.

e) The landscaping and fencing adjacent to the car park ramp shall be reduced to provide safe sight lines for pedestrians and vehicles exiting the car park.

f) The rear elevation of the first floor of Units 6 and 10 shall be set back in line with the amended setback of Unit 8 i.e. by approximately 2.2 metres.

g) The bathroom to Units 6 and 10 shall be re-orientated to the east

elevation. h) To compensate for the loss of floor space to the rear pavilion, a

loft/attic room shall be provided above Units 11, 12 and 13 in the form of a skillion or curved roof in the area marked in red on the plans held by Council. Such structure is not to increase the overall height of the building by more than 2.4 metres. Fenestration is to be kept to a minimum.

i) The overall height of Units 3, 4 and 5 shall be reduced by a

minimum 500mm.

2. A schedule of external material colours and finishes, including samples, shall be submitted for approval on an A4 sample board.

SCHEDULE 2

That Development Application No. 01 - 1159, for multi unit housing development at 83 & 85A Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (Draft 2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B4, B6, B14 ($5600), C1-C10, C12(a-I), C14-C15, C21, C23(all)(neighbours), C24-C26, C30, C33-C37, C40-C44, C46-C50, C58, C60-C62, C64, C81-C85, C87, C89, C94-C97, C100(011159, …………………………………………), C102-C103, D1-D3, D5-D6, D8-D10, D12-D14, D16, D19, D22, L6-L8, PE1-PE2, PE5-PE8, PE10, PE13-PE15, PE17, PE21, PE24, W2-W3, S1-S2, S5, S10, S14, S15(a.$…………, b. $……………, c.$……….., d.$……….., e.$………., f.$…………………….. ) and the following special conditions:

101. The timber louvre privacy screens are to be angled to prevent down

looking into the rear yards of adjoining properties and are to be permanently fixed to the external walls of the building. At no time in the future are the fixed louvre screens to be removed from the building.



102. Stormwater from roofed and paved areas is to be piped to Council’s gutter in Pittwater Road via an on-site detention tank. A separate pipe to the gutter for pump-out of basement waters would also be required. Their combined discharge at the kerb is limited to 40 litres per second (or less). The design storm for the developed site is to be the 20 year A.R. I. for OSD capacity design purposes.

103. Full design details and associated calculations showing the method of disposal of all sub-surface, surface and roof water, including on-site detention from the site in accordance with Council's On-Site Detention Policy and specification, and the concept plan OODS 018/SW1 and SW2 with the application, shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. A silt arrestor pit shall be incorporated into the design at pit 12.

(Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

104. The storm water drainage from the site shall be collected and conveyed to the street drainage system in Pittwater Road in accordance with Council's specification. In this regard, a plan showing the location, type, size and class of the outlet pipe including a 150 X 75 mm galvanised steel rectangular hollow section at the kerb shall be required to be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

105. Upon completion of Council's pipeline, the applicant is required to submit

to Council's Manager Public Works & Infrastructure plastic reproducible work-as-executed drawing of the constructed drainage system.

(Reason: Public record). 106. For all on-site detention (OSD) systems, including roof guttering and

downpipe systems, a Positive Covenant and Restrictions on Use of Land shall be required to be placed on the Certificate of Title in favour of Council created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for newly created lots or by application to the Land Titles Office using FORM 97-11(R) for existing Titles under S88E of the Conveyancing Act prior to the release of the Linen Plan.

107. The purpose of this is to ensure that the registered proprietor has care,

control and maintenance obligations of the OSD system including the guttering and downpipe systems. A copy of Council's draft terms for the above is available on request. (Reason: Legal requirement)

A plaque measuring no less than 400 mm x 200 mm shall be in some way permanently attached and prominently displayed within the immediate vicinity of the OSD device. This plaque shall advise occupiers of the property of the existence of the OSD device and also that the device is not in any way to be tampered with or changed without prior written consent of Hunter’s Hill Council. (Reason: Legal requirement)



The constructed OSD installation must be appropriately certified by a suitably qualified and experienced consulting engineer (generally CP Eng. qualification) who must state that it complies with Council's OSD policy and all relevant codes and standards and also that it is generally in accordance with the approved plans.

Upon completion of the OSD works, work-as-executed (WAE) plans shall be submitted by the consulting engineer/registered surveyor to verify that the volume of storage has been attained and that critical water and floor levels are in accordance with design requirements. Any changes or variations to the approved plans shall be highlighted in red. Certification on the standard form for On-Site Detention Record of Installation issued by Hunter’s Hill Council and WAE plans shall be submitted together with the Compliance Certificate.

(Reason: Public Record).

108. If portion of the access ramp to the basement car parking area cannot be drained by gravity then disposal of storm water run-off via a pump-out system shall be permitted, subject to compliance with the following requirements: i) The basement car parking area shall be graded to fall to the sump

and pump system.

ii) The contributing catchment area to the pump-out system shall be limited to the basement access ramps only, and subsoil drainage. No more than 50 m2 of access ramp catchment shall be allowed to drain to the sump.

iii) Two (2) submersible type pump units shall be installed, the

capacity of each being calculated to allow for subsoil drainage and any water falling on or draining to access points. Sizing of the pumps shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Chapter 14 AR & R 1987. Storm water runoff drainage to the sump and pump system shall be calculated for a 50 year ARI design storm.

iv) The two (2) pumps shall be designed to work on an alternative

basis to ensure that both pumps received equal usage and neither remains continuously idle.

v) The sump is to be so designed that a minimum volume of water

is retained in the sump for health reasons when the pumps are in the "off" position.

vi) The pump-out system is to be independent of any gravity

drainage lines except at the site boundary inspection pit located fronting Pittwater Road where a grated surface pit is to be constructed, from which a connection shall be permitted to the gravity drainage system.



Full Engineering details, including calculations, shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

109. Structural design details of the OSD Tank from a suitably qualified

structural engineer shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

General 110. Application is to be made to Council's Public Works and Infrastructure

Department for the following approvals and permits as appropriate:

(i) Permit to erect Builder's hoardings where buildings are to be erected or demolished within 3.50m of the street alignment. Applications are to include current fees and are to be received at least 21 days before commencement of the permitted period.

(ii) Permit to stand mobile cranes, pumps and/or other major plant

on public roads. Applications are to include current fees and security deposits and are to be received at least 7 days before the proposed usage. It should be noted that the issue of such permits also involves approval from the Police Department and the R.T.A. of NSW and could involve separate Council approval to work outside normal hours.

(iii) Establishment of Construction Zones on Public Roads adjacent

to the Development may be approved, however applications shall be received by Council at least 21 days prior to the zone being required. The application will then be referred to Council's Local Traffic Committee and the R.T.A. for assessment and approval and to include any special conditions. Council may also insist on the provision of a Construction Zone to minimise disruption to the local area.

(v) Permit to open a public road, including footpaths, for any

purpose whatsoever. Application is to include current fees. (vi) Permit to construct vehicular crossings over Council’s footpath

reserve. Reason: Legal requirement)

111. All weather access to the site is to be provided across Council's footpath together with barricades and hazard warning lights for the safe passage of pedestrians. Council will recover cost from the applicant for works to protect pedestrian safety if safe pedestrian access is compromised.

(Reason: Public safety and erosion control). 112. All spoil loads are to be covered and the wheels of haulage vehicles

washed prior to leaving the site. (Reason: Erosion control).



113. Sweep and clean pavement surface adjacent to the ingress and egress points of earth, mud and other materials at all times and in particular at the end of each working day or as directed by Council's Engineer.

(Reason: Legal requirement) 114. The trimming, topsoiling and turfing of the nature strip in Pittwater Road. (Reason: Public amenity). Driveway and Footpath

115. A longitudinal section of the driveway drawn at 1:20 Natural scale shall

be prepared and designed using Council’s standard vehicle profile and submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The section will show the vehicle path from the centre of the road through the layback/dish drain to the proposed garage, carport and parking place. (Reason: Public access).

116. The removal of all redundant crossing together with any necessary

reinstatement of the footpath and kerb and gutter. Such work shall be carried out in accordance with Council's specification. (Reason: Public amenity).

117. No building materials are to be stored on the nature strip without a written

permit from Council and payment of the fee and the area being fenced off.

Erosion Control And Management Plan

118. Oleander bushes are to be removed from the nature strip for replacement with an advanced indigenous species in consultation with Council’s Parks and Landscape Co-ordinator.

119. Sediment and Erosion Control measures are to be adopted during

construction to prevent building material and loose soil entering Council’s stormwater system during all phases of demolition, excavation and construction.

120. An Erosion Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan

shall be prepared in accordance with the NSW Department of Housing publication “Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction”, and submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

121. The construction of all required footpath, vehicular crossings, internal

driveways, kerb and gutter, drainage system, OSD and road works shall be carried out in accordance with Council policies and specifications under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure prior to the release of the Linen Plan. (

Reason: Protection of public asset). 122. The landscape plan should be amended with advice from a qualified and

experienced Landscape Architect or Horticulturist to reflect the following:



• Re-assess and redesign the treatment of the rear boundary fence.

• Replace the Syzigium “Aussie Compact” with a more suitable variety. Other species of hedging plants may also be considered.

• Replace the Syzigium jambos with a tree of a more suitable size so that the adjoining property to the southeast will not have the winter sunlight obscured.

• Assess a suitable fencing type for this rear boundary.

• Engage the services of a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape Architect or Horticulturist to complete the required landscape treatment.

123. Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate, the owners shall submit a

surrender of existing use rights in accordance with the prescribed form under the regulations.

124. A suitably qualified independent fire engineer shall determine the extent

and adequacy of the required essential services to be employed in the building. The consulting fire engineer shall identify the required essential services to comply with the Building Code of Australia 1996 for a class 2 and class 7 building having a rise in stories of two (2). The report shall be submitted to the Accredited Certifier with an application for a Construction Certificate.

125. Noise emitted from the basement car park exhaust system shall not be

audible from within any adjoining or neighbouring residential property. The stack shall not be located within the rear setback. The stack shall not be located within the front or side setback areas unless suitably screened and attenuated.

126. A 1800mm high treated pine lapped and capped fence is to be provided to

all boundaries of the allotment behind the front building alignment and fencing forward of the building line shall not exceed 1000mm in height. There shall be no fencing provided to the front (street) boundary.

127. The construction of all required footpath, vehicular crossings, internal

driveways, kerb and gutter, drainage system, OSD and road works shall be carried out in accordance with Council policies and specifications under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure prior to the release of the Linen Plan. In this regard, the kerb in Pittwater Road is to be realigned to the RTA approved road-widening design for that road.

(Reason: Protection of public asset) 128. The applicant shall undertake a dilapidation report of the adjoining

northern and southern properties. Such report is to be undertaken by a consulting structural engineer and a copy shall be provided to the adjoining property owners and to Council.



COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J8) 2. MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING HELD ON 3RD DECEMBER, 2001 564/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. Council notes that this matter was incorrectly titled, as it was a Workshop Meeting, and that the title of the Minutes be amended accordingly.

2. The Workshop Resolution on page J7 of the report to Council be re-titled

Workshop Recommendation and the recording of a mover and seconder be deleted.

3. Council notes that Clr Betar had submitted his apology for the meeting

although this is not recorded in the minutes.

4. The amended report be received and noted. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Pages E1 – E4) 3. BORONIA PARK PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Messrs. Michael Spies and Grant Simmons, Ms. Roslyn Pendrith and Ms. Annie Long (Objectors) addressed the meeting on this matter. With the approval of Council, Ms. Bridget Dowsett and Ms. Antoinette Lee, who were present in the gallery, also addressed Council on the matter. A motion was moved by Clr Betar, seconded Clr Hoopmann that Council adopts the Plan of Management for the reserve subject to the following amendments: 1. The land at the northeast corner of the reserve is to be re-categorised from

natural area to parkland (this area is shown as cross hatched on the sketch attached to the report to Council).

2. An area is to be delineated as an off-lead area in Murphy’s Paddock and

that part of Princes Street from the boom gate down to the water. 3. Dogs are to be allowed on lead in all areas of the reserve except:

• The natural area north of Princes Street; • Ovals 1, 2 and 3; • Foreshores to the north of Princes Street; • Within 10m of playgrounds.

4. The future community facility options will be canvassed on the

appropriate location, although the location south of the grandstand is favoured on an area designated as community land.

5. The site for the skateboard facility is to be located to the south of the

existing grandstand on land that is designated as community land and the



skateboard facility shown on the sketch as being on High Street be deleted.

6. Cycle ways are to be implemented as per the Bike Plan.

7. Off-road cycle ways are to be implemented as per the submission from

Bike North.

8. Council provides, or seek from some other source, funding for the off lead areas referred to in 2 above in order to provide at least five (5) dog “poo” bins and bag dispensers located at: (a) the boom gate on Princes Street; (b) the entrance to Murphy’s Paddock on High Street; (c) the off lead areas denoted on the sketch with at least two in each

of these areas. 9. Appropriate signage regarding responsible dog handling/use is to be

displayed at the entrance to Murphy’s Paddock, at the intersection of Park Road and Princes Street and at the intersection of High Street and Park Road.

10. The playground equipment is to be moved along Boronia Avenue to

enable the skateboard facility to be installed on Ryde Road. An amendment was moved by Clr Kapel, seconded Clr Astridge that:

1. consideration of the matter be deferred; 2. an amended draft Plan of Management be prepared, reflecting the

outcomes of the completed consultation process and incorporating the matters included in the motion by Clrs Betar and Hoopmann, and be placed on public exhibition for the required period;

3. a process of community consultation be set up involving focus groups

representing the major stakeholders as described in the draft Plan of Management;

4. this action be completed during the first quarter of 2002.

565/01 The amendment was put to the meeting and was CARRIED. 566/01 The amendment then became the motion and, on being put to the meeting, was

CARRIED. The original motion then LAPSED. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 567/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hart, seconded Clr Astridge that Standing Orders

be resumed.



REPORTS FROM STAFF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D67) 1. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES – AMENDMENT TO

MANAGEMENT PLAN 568/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Hart that the following fees

be advertised for a period of twenty eight (28) days and Council adopts the fees from 1 January 2002:

FEE TYPE NEW FEE AS FROM 1/1/02 EXISTING Development up to $5,000 (erection of a building or other works with an estimated cost up to $5,000)

$110 $170

Dwelling houses with an estimated construction cost up to $100,000

$300 $115

Public buildings (school, hospital building or police station)

Standard DA fee Maximum $115

Development not involving building work, demolition or subdivision (for example, change of use of a building)

$220 $170

Designated development Standard DA fee plus an ‘add-on’ fee of $715 N/A Concurrence – fee to concurrence authority (additional fee payable to each concurrence authority; parallels existing fee payable to an approval body for dealing with an integrated DA)

` $50

Review of determination 50% of the original DA fee $500 Modification of consent (to correct a minor error, mis-description or miscalculation)

$55 If original application was less then $100, 50% of that fee or 50% of the original application fee or $350 whichever is the lesser

Modification of consent (involving minimal environmental impact)

$500 or 50% of the fee for the original DA, whichever is less

If original application was less then $100, 50% of that fee or 50% of the original application fee or $350 which ever is the lesser

Building Certificate (for a dwelling house [Class 1 building] and/or an associated building [Class 10 building]). There will be an increase of the same proportion for Building Certificates for other classes of building, and for part of a building that does not have floor area (for example, an external wall)

$70 $50



2. RENAMING OF SUBURB OF TARBAN 569/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. The Geographical Names Board be advised first that, following community consultation, Council supports the renaming of Tarban to Huntleys Cove.

2. The Geographical Names Board be requested to undertake the renaming process.

3. DA NO. 00/1188 – 161 VICTORIA ROAD, GLADESVILLE 570/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Hart that a “Deferred

Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.

SCHEDULE 1

1. In order to improve the architectural / aesthetic appearance of the building and provide a more contemporary expression, the following amendments are required:

(a) the gabled parapet pediments are to be deleted; (b) the lift motor room roof is to be redesigned as a flat or curved

roof; (c) colourbond roofing is to be in grey/silver colour; (d) the lattice works to the balustrade and infills are to be deleted

and replaced with a more durable contemporary material/design; (e) the street elevation of the stairwell (upper most level) is to be

provided with a minimum three (3) 600mm x 600mm porthole type windows in lieu of the proposed;

(f) the removal of the “portal” to the driveway; (g) reduction in height of the “frame” to the street frontage to the

parapet height of the commercial unit (approximately single storey); and

(h) removal of the detailing proposed – the screen element to read as a simple frame;

(i) The “frame/screen” shall be constructed of “Guernsey Tan” brick with “Bowral Blue” base and the frame shall project a further 600mm southward to create a colonnade.

2. To provide an energy efficient and environmentally friendly building, the

following measures are to be incorporated into the building:

• Units 7, 8 and 9 are to be provided with solar hot water heating; • All other hot water systems and all cooktops shall be gas-

powered;



• The Clipsal “C-Bus” energy management system shall be installed as per the display in the “I Home” located at Jacksons Landing, Pyrmont;

• Stormwater collected via the on-site detention system or via separate water tanks shall be used for on-site irrigation of landscaping;

• A minimum 3 dwellings shall be provided with solar energy powered by a photo voltaic cell system.

SCHEDULE 2

That Development Application No. 00-1188, for demolition of the existing building and garage and construction of a mixed commercial, retail and residential building with basement car parking at 161 Victoria Road Gladesville being Lot 4 DP 2955, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B2-B4, B14 ($9,000) C1-C10, C12 (a-i), C13, C19, C20, C21, C25, C27-C29, C34-C37, C40, C42, C45-C48, C58, C61-C64, C81-C85, C87-C89, C94-C97, C100 (00-1188) (Leffler Simes Architects) (1860 DA01 Issue C and DA02-04 Issue B) (July 2000), C101, C102, D1-D3, D5, D7-D10, D14, D17, L2, L6, L7, L8, L13, PE5-PE7, PE14, PE16-PE17, PE21, S1, S2, S10, S14, S15 (a - $3600, c - $4185, d - $990, e - $54, f - $1125, h - $7887.40, i - $18), S16 ($15,000), S19, S20, S21(23), W1, W3, W4, W13, W14, W18, W19, W20, W22 and the following special conditions:

98. The commercial/retail car park level shall be accessible at all times during

business hours (7.30am – 6.00pm) and, in this regard, the roller door shall be kept open during these times or alternatively relocated adjacent the ramp to the residential car park level.

99. Notwithstanding DCP 19 (Exempt and Complying Development) and

notations on plan, no signs are to be erected or displayed without the prior development consent of Council.

100. The stormwater drainage from the site shall be collected and conveyed to

the street drainage system in Victoria Road via a RCP in accordance with Council’s specification, and concepts presented on modified DA Plan SkH01A accompanying letter dated 28 September 2000 from the L.H.O. Group, including details noted and faxed by Council on the plan regarding street pits. In this regard, full design and construction details showing the method of disposal of any sub-surface, surface and roof water from the site are to be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

101. The capacity of the existing Council storm water drainage system at the

proposed connection of the outlet shall be hydraulically evaluated using the H.G.L. method to ensure that no storm water will be able to surcharge from Council’s system to the proposed drainage system. Full engineering details of the hydraulic evaluations prepared and signed by a practising civil engineer shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent property damage)



102. If portion of the access ramp to the basement car parking area cannot be drained by gravity then disposal of stormwater runoff via a pump-out system shall be permitted, subject to compliance with the following requirements: i) The basement car parking area shall be graded to fall to the sump

and pump system. ii) The contributing catchment area to the pump-out system shall be

limited to the basement access ramps only, and subsoil drainage. No more than 50 sq. metres of access ramp catchment shall be allowed to drain to the sump.

iii) Two (2) submersible type pump units shall be installed, the capacity of each being calculated to allow for subsoil drainage and any water falling on or draining to access points. Sizing of the pumps shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Chapter 14 AR & R 1987. Stormwater runoff drainage to the sump and pump system shall be calculated for a 50 year ARI design storm.

iv) The two (2) pumps shall be designed to work on an alternative basis to ensure that both pumps receive equal usage and neither remains continuously idle.

v) The sump is to be so designed that a minimum volume of water is retained in the sump for health reasons when the pumps are in the "off" position.

vi) The pump-out system is to be independent of any gravity drainage lines except at the site boundary inspection pit located near the building line where a grated surface pit is to be constructed, from which a connection shall be permitted to the gravity drainage system. Full Engineering details, including calculations, shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding)

103. It is the applicant's responsibility to establish the size and levels of utility services in the field, where they cross proposed pipelines, prior to construction of drainage lines.

Where location of services conflicts with the proposed pipeline, then any

service adjustment shall be at the applicant's expense. Utility services refers to those under the control of the Public Utility

Authorities, Australian Gas And Light, Sydney Water, Energy Australia, Telstra, Optus, Pacific Power and private services, whether the services are located within private property or within Public Roads. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding)

104. Existing drainage lines to the kerb are to be removed and the footpath and

kerb restored under Council supervision .

105. Application is to be made to Council's Public Works and Infrastructure Department for the following approvals and permits as appropriate: a) Permit to erect Builder's hoardings where buildings are to be

erected or demolished within 3.50m of the street alignment.



Applications are to include current fees and are to be received at least 21 days before commencement of the permitted period.

b) Permit to stand mobile cranes, pumps and/or other major plant on public roads. Applications are to include current fees and security deposits and are to be received at least 7 days before the proposed usage. It should be noted that the issue of such permits also involves approval from the Police Department and the R.T.A. of NSW and could involve separate Council approval to work outside normal hours.

c) Establishment of Construction Zones on Public Roads adjacent to the Development may be approved, however applications shall be received by Council at least 21 days prior to the zone being required. The application will then be referred to Council's Local Traffic Committee and the R.T.A. for assessment and approval and to include any special conditions. Council may also insist on the provision of a Construction Zone to minimise disruption to the local area.

d) The applicant is to be responsible for the protection of all No Standing/Parking signs in the street. Any signs removed are to be replaced at full cost to the developer during the extent of the development.

e) Permit to open a public road, including footpaths, for any purpose whatsoever. Application is to include current fees.

f) Permit to construct vehicular crossings over Council’s footpath reserve.

(Reason: Legal requirement)

106. a) All weather access to the site is to be provided across Council's footpath together with barricades and hazard warning lights for the safe passage of pedestrians. Council will recover costs from the applicant for works to protect pedestrian safety if safe pedestrian access is compromised.

(Reason: Public safety and erosion control) b) All spoil loads are to be covered and the wheels of haulage

vehicles washed prior to leaving the site. (Reason: Erosion control) 107. Sweep and clean pavement surface adjacent to the ingress and egress

points of earth, mud and other materials at all times and in particular at the end of each working day or as directed by Council's Engineer.

(Reason: Legal requirement). 108. A full width concrete footpath is to be constructed for the full frontage of

the site in Victoria Road, from building to kerb (alignment) in accordance with Council specification and to the satisfaction of the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure.

(Reason: Public access). 109. For design alignment levels in Victoria Road, use the level and grade of

the back of the existing footpath. The design shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(Reason: Public amenity).



110. (a) A longitudinal section of the driveway drawn at 1:20 Natural scale shall be prepared and designed using Council’s standard vehicle profile and submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(b) The removal of all redundant crossing together with any necessary reinstatement of the footpath and kerb and gutter. Such work shall be carried out in accordance with Council's specification.

(Reason: Public amenity).

111. (a) Sediment and Erosion Control measures are to be adopted during construction to prevent building materials and loose soil entering Council's storm water system, natural watercourses and bushland.

(b) An Erosion Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and Storm Water Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with Council specification prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(Reason: Legal requirement, sediment and erosion control).

112. The applicant shall lodge a Security Deposit in the sum of $5,000 prior to the issue of the Development Consent/ Construction Certificate against possible damage to Council’s property during the course of the building works.

(Reason: Protection of public asset). 113. Compliance Certificates shall be issued and submitted to Council by

Accredited Certifiers certifying that all erosion control measures required have been implemented in accordance with the approved ESCP and Stormwater Management Plan prior to the commencement of any site works.

(Reason: Legal requirement, sediment and erosion control). 114. All erosion control measures required shall be maintained in accordance

with the approved ESCP and Stormwater Management Plan during the course of the construction works.

(Reason: Legal requirement, sediment and erosion control). 115. Separate development applications are to be lodged with Hunter’s Hill

Council for the use and/or fit out of the commercial and retail components of this development.

116. The wine cellar and security store on the basement level are for the

personal use of the resident(s) and are not to be used for a commercial purpose without the prior written consent of Council.

117. Pedestrian access to dwellings from areas likely to be used at night,

including the car park, should be clearly defined and well lit. Details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.



118. To ensure that the development is fully accessible, details of the following (including compliance with AS 1428) are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate: i. retail/commercial area; and ii. an unobstructed accessible path of travel from the residential car

park area to the lift. 119. The building is to be constructed in accordance with the approved

schedule of materials, finishes and colours. 120. Prior to issue of an occupation certificate, a complying certificate shall be

issued by an accredited NatHERS assessor confirming compliance with the energy rating certificates and in particular that all measures have been implemented.

4. DA NO. 00/1208 – SECTION 96 AMENDMENT – HUNTERS HILL HOTEL, 64-68 GLADESVILLE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

571/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Quinn that the Section 96(2)

application to amend Condition Nos. 29, 33 and 34 of the development consent No. 00 1208, for the use of the first floor as a bar, office, lounge/function room at the Hunters Hill Hotel, 64-68 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to the original conditions except for a reworded Condition No.29 and two additional conditions:

29. In order to preserve the adjoining residential amenity, no amplified music

shall be played (other than from the small juke boxes in the lounge and pool rooms, as shown on drawing No. 002/EX04 by Michael Hilliard), nor shall the premises be used for any use that will give rise to noise nuisances as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

37. Given the current exhibition of draft amendments to Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan No.1, Draft Master Plan and Development Control Plan for Hunters Hill Village, a period of 12 months is available to comply with the requirements of Condition Nos. 33 and 34 of development consent No.001208.

38. Given the owners’ requirement to delay the need to install disabled access

to the first floor, the owner shall provide Council with an undertaking stating that the Hunters Hill Hotel owners accept all responsibility and any costs or fines for any legal proceedings brought against the Hunters Hill Hotel or Council under the provisions of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1992.

5. DA NO. 01/1159 – 83 & 85A PITTWATER ROAD, HUNTERS HILL This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting (see Resolution 563/01 on page A4). 6. DA NO. 01/1092 – 5 NELSON PARADE, HUNTERS HILL This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting (see Resolution 558/01 on page

A1).



7. DA NO. 01/1003 – SECTION 96 AMENDMENT – 57 HUNTLEYS POINT ROAD, HUNTLEYS POINT

572/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Quinn that the Section 96

application to delete Conditions 1(a) (b) and 2(i) listed under Schedule 1 of the Deferred Commencement consent dated 19th July 2001 be approved.

8. DELEGATED AUTHORITY 573/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Hart that the report be

received and noted. 9. LEGAL MATTERS 574/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Betar that the report be

received and noted. PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Pages E1 – E4) 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - APPROVALS 575/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Hoopmann that the report

be received and noted. 2. BUSHCARE VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT POLICY 576/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Betar that this matter be

deferred to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council. 3. BORONIA PARK PLAN OF MANAGEMENT This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting (see Resolutions 565/01 and 566/01

on page A12). FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION (Pages F1 – F3) 1. COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 30TH NOVEMBER, 2001 577/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Hart that the report be

received and noted. 2. FINANCIAL REPORTS TO 30TH NOVEMBER, 2001 578/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Hart that the report be

received and noted and the proposed variations be adopted. GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H12) 1. WARD BOUNDARIES

A motion was moved by Clr Hoopmann, seconded Clr Quinn that:



1. Council maintains three wards, as outlined on the map attached to the report, applicable from the next quadrennial election in September 2003.

2. Each ward consists of two Councillors.

3. Council advises the Department of Local Government and the Electoral Commission of this proposal and seeks their concurrence.

EXTENSION OF TIME 579/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Hoopmann at 10.58pm that

the meeting be extended beyond the normal closing time to 11.30pm in accordance with Clause 17.0 of the Code of Meeting Practice.

An amendment was moved by Clr Christie, seconded Clr Astridge that the matter

be deferred to allow the General Manager to investigate possible legislative changes regarding the various methods of voting to apply in future Council elections.

580/01 The amendment was put to the meeting and was CARRIED. 581/01 The amendment then became the motion and, on being put to the meeting, was

CARRIED. The original motion then LAPSED. 2. HUNTERS HILL HOTEL – LICENCE APPLICATION 582/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Christie, seconded Clr Hoopmann that Council

receive and note the report and continue to oppose the application for an extension of the trading hours.

3. ICAC DISCUSSION PAPER “TAKING THE DEVIL OUT OF

DEVELOPMENT” 583/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Astridge that:

1. Councillors forward individual comments on the discussion paper to the General Manager for inclusion in a Council submission by no later than 16th January 2002.

2. The discussion paper is publicly advertised for comment and submissions to ICAC.

4. REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS 584/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be

received and noted.



5. DRAFT HUNTERS HILL FILMING POLICY AND MANUAL 585/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Hoopmann that the matter be

deferred to the first Ordinary Meeting in 2002 to allow additional time for receipt of comments.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J8) 1. MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PARKS AND TREES

ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE BUSHLAND MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD ON 27TH NOVEMBER, 2001

586/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Hart that a species list for

street trees be developed by Council staff, together with the consultant, and be presented to another joint meeting of the committees in February for finalisation, so that implementation of the project can be included in the 2002/2003 budget.

2. MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING HELD ON 3RD DECEMBER, 2001 This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting (refer to Resolution 564/01 on page

A11). 3. REPORT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE SITE INSPECTIONS

HELD ON 10TH DECEMBER, 2001 587/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be

received and noted. CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Pages K1 – K7) 1. CORRESPONDENCE 588/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Hart that the

correspondence be received and noted. GENERAL BUSINESS (Pages M1-M2) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 589/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hart, seconded Clr Quinn that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted subject to amendment of the time for the meeting of the Parks and Trees Advisory Committee on 11th December to 7.45am.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

No. Author Date Question Answer 172/01 Clr Scotford 10/12/00 Every Monday morning

regularly, a heavy garbage truck drives from Mount Street

Council has written to the contractor instructing that safe practices be observed.

D

Development And Environment

D – Development And Environment

4115 – 10th December 2001

Index 1. Review of Development Application Fees – Amendment to Management Plan 1 2. Renaming of Suburb of Tarban 7 3. DA00/1188 - 161 Victoria Road, Gladesville 13 4. DA00/1208 - Hunters Hill Hotel 64-68 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill 21 5. DA01/1159 - 83 & 85A Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill 27 6. DA01/1092 - 5 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill 45 7. DA01/1003 - 57 Huntleys Point Road, Huntleys Point 58 8. Delegated Authority 63 9. Legal Matters 67

............................. Joe Vescio

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

Meeting 4115 – 10th December 2001 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4115 held on 10th December 2001. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES -

AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT PLAN BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : JOE VESCIO

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

FILE : 200/14 SUMMARY

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has advised Council that a limited number of new fees relating to Development Applications will take effect as from 1st January 2002. Although these fees are part of the regulated fee schedule, Council must still undertake the relevant advertising procedure. In the case of each new fee type that has been gazetted, the maximum fee value has been utilised. It should be noted that these new fees relate to only a small percentage of the overall income earned by Council’s Development and Environment Department.

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2001 was gazetted on 21 September 2001.

The amending Regulation makes a number of changes to the regulated development fees from 1 January 2002 with two further changes from 1 July 2002.

The new fees will better reflect the costs of development control services. The changes follow a major review of development control fees by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), and follow-up consultation by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (the Department).

WHAT ARE THE CHANGES?

The amending Regulation:

• Increases a number of DA fees, the fee for Building Certificates and the fee for a development consent modification to correct a mistake;

• Introduces an additional fee for development that requires concurrence;

• Changes the fee for a review of a determination of a DA;

• Identifies the services that a DA fee covers;




• Clarifies how construction and demolition costs are to be estimated by the consent authority in determining a DA fee;

• Clarifies how the DA fee is to be calculated for a land subdivision.

WHAT FEES CHANGE ON 1 JANUARY 2001?

Development up to $5,000

A new maximum fee of $110 will apply for the erection of building or other works with an estimated cost up to $5,000. Minor home renovations will especially benefit from this fee change. Under the amending Regulation, the maximum fee for a $5,000 development falls from $185 to $110.

Dwelling Houses with an Estimated Construction Cost up to $100,000

The DA fee for this type of development rises to $300 to allow better recovery of assessment costs. The new maximum fee is within the range of what it currently costs to process a DA for single residential development, based on a sample study of Councils carried out for IPART.

Public Buildings

The standard DA fee, based on the estimated cost of development (Clause 246 of the EP&A Regulation), will apply to the erection of a school, hospital building or police station by a public authority. This is because the assessment costs for such proposals are comparable to the assessment costs for similar buildings proposed by the private sector.

A consent authority can discount fees for development that benefit the community but should first have a clear and publicly accessible policy on this, developed in consultation with the community.

Development Not Involving Building Work, Demolition or Subdivision

The fee for this type of development (which includes a change of building use with no building work) increases to $220. The increase recognizes that there are likely to be fire protection and structural capacity considerations for these DAs.

Designated Development

Designated development is identified in the EP&A Regulation and in some state, regional or local plans. It includes major development such as underground coalmines and large chemical facilities.

Under the amending Regulation, the fee for designated development will be the standard DA fee based on the estimated cost of development, plus an “add-on” fee of up to $715. This replaces a minimum fee/standard DA approach to designated development.

Designated development typically requires more assessment work than other development. For example, an environmental impact statement must be lodged and assessed, and the consent authority must notify the public, seek submissions and consider public comments on the proposal.

Concurrence – Fee to Concurrence Authority

An additional fee of $250 will be payable to each concurrence authority for a DA that requires concurrence under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) or an




environmental planning instrument. This fee parallels the existing fee payable to an approval body for dealing with an integrated DA.

The additional fee is to cover the costs that a concurrence authority incurs in assessing whether to grant concurrence and in advising the consent authority of its decision. The concurrence authority may also incur costs when requesting additional information and liaising with the consent authority on proposed conditions of consent. The consent authority will forward $250 to each concurrence authority with a copy of the DA.

The fee of $250 is not payable to any concurrence authority whose concurrence may be assumed under Clause 64 of the EP&A Act, as the consent authority would not send the DA to the concurrence authority in this case.

Review of a Determination

After receiving notice of a Council’s determination of a DA, the applicant is allowed 28 days to request a review of the decision. (Note: This right does not apply to integrated or designated development or to a decision on a Complying Development Certificate application.)

Review of a determination and modification of consent are similar processes, and are likely to involve similar levels of assessment. The new maximum fee for reviewing a determination recognizes this by bringing the two fees more into line.

The amending Regulation sets the maximum fee for a review of a determination at 50% of the fee for the original DA. This will enable consent authorities to better recover their assessment costs for reviewing complex DAs for large developments, particularly if the application is re-notified.

If a consent authority was to find that the assessment costs for reviewing determinations tend to be less than 50% of the original DA fee, it could consult the community on whether to adopt a policy of:

• Charging a lower fee, or

• Refunding any unspent proportion of the prescribed fee.

Modification of Consent

Where a modification of consent is requested to correct a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation (Section 96(1) of the EP&A Act), the maximum fee will be $55.

This is a decrease on the former fee and recognizes that once a minor mistake has been identified, little assessment work should be involved in making the correction to the consent. A consent authority could decide not to charge a fee if it made the mistake.

For a modification involving minimal environmental impact (Section 96(1) of the EP&A Act), the maximum fee will be $500 or 50% of the fee for the original DA, whichever is less. This increase will improve costs recovery for the consent authority.

The fee for other modifications (Section 96(1) of the EP&A Act) remains unchanged.




Building Certificates

A Council can issue a Building Certificate to certify that it will not make certain orders or take action in relation to a building. The certificate offers the building owner some protection that the Council will not order demolition or a requirement to upgrade the building.

Under the amending Regulation, the fee for a Building Certificate for a dwelling house (class 1 building) and /or an associated building (class 10 building) increases from $50 to $70.

There will be an increase of the same proportion for Building Certificates for other classes of building and for part of a building that does not have a floor area, for example, an external wall.

The change in the fee was recommended by IPART and recognizes that the former fees for Building Certificate applications were not covering Councils’ processing costs, which include, for example, labour, travel to inspect sites and computer-related costs.

Councils may continue to charge an additional fee of up to $25 for a Building Certificate if it needs to carry out more than one inspection of the building before issuing the certificate (see Clause 260(2) of the EP&A Regulation).

WHAT FEES CHANGE ON 1 JULY 2002?

Starting on 1 July 2002, an additional fee of $110 will be payable to the consent authority on DAs lodged on or after that date for:

• Integrated development;

• Development that requires concurrence (other than assumed concurrence).

These fees are “one-off” rather than per referral, and are additional to the fees payable to the approval bodies or concurrence authorities (see above).

Delaying the start of these fees will allow the Department to carry out a review of integrated development with the aim of removing some minor types of development from that category.

The $110 ‘add-on’ fee will help consent authorities meet the costs of referring and liaising on integrated and concurrence DAs, and requesting additional information from the applicant (on behalf of an approval body or concurrence authority).

If concurrence may be assumed (see Clause 64 of the EP&A Regulation) for each of the concurrences required for the DA to be determined, the $110 ‘add-on’ fee will not apply.

OTHER MATTERS

The amending Regulation does not introduce previously proposed fees for the registration of Part 4A certificates (that is, construction, compliance, occupation and subdivision certificates) and complying development certificates, or for auditing accredited certifiers.

The Department has received advice that the EP&A Act does not give regulation-making power to set fees for these purposes. We are exploring options to fund the auditing of certifiers, and will look further at the issue of fee setting for the registration of certificates.




FURTHER WORK ON DEVELOPMENT FEES

The Department proposes to form a committee with a range of interested parties (including Councils, agencies, industry groups and development control customers) to investigate and develop proposals for:

• Fees for pre-lodgement and mediation services;

• Decentralized fee setting by qualifying consent authorities.

In the work on decentralized fees, the committee will look at:

• Standards for tracking and reporting on costs and revenue;

• Monitoring of consent authorities’ fees procedures;

• Measuring consumer satisfaction;

• Producing guidelines for fee setting;

• Options for complaint handling.

The committee will also investigate how DA fees are handled in other states and territories and develop a proposal for a pilot program for decentralized fees.

The Department will advise on formation of the fees committee in the future.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The amendments are not expected to have a significant impact on Council’s prepared budget of estimates.

RECOMMENDATION

That the following fees be advertised for a period of twenty eight (28) days and Council adopts the fees as from 1 January 2001.

FEE TYPE NEW FEE AS FROM 1/1/02 EXISTING Development up to $5,000 (erection of a building or other works with an estimated cost up to $5,000)

$110 $170

Dwelling houses with an estimated construction cost up to $100,000

$300 $115

Public buildings (school, hospital building or police station)

Standard DA fee Maximum $115

Development not involving building work, demolition or subdivision (for example, change of use of a building)

$220 $170

Designated development Standard DA fee plus an ‘add-on’ fee of $715 N/A




FEE TYPE NEW FEE AS FROM 1/1/02 EXISTING Concurrence – fee to concurrence authority (additional fee payable to each concurrence authority; parallels existing fee payable to an approval body for dealing with an integrated DA)

$250 $50

Review of determination 50% of the original DA fee $500 Modification of consent (to correct a minor error, mis-description or miscalculation)

$55 If original application was less then $100, 50% of that fee or 50% of the original application fee or $350 whichever is the lesser

Modification of consent (involving minimal environmental impact)

$500 or 50% of the fee for the original DA, whichever is less

If original application was less then $100, 50% of that fee or 50% of the original application fee or $350 which ever is the lesser

Building Certificate (for a dwelling house [Class 1 building] and/or an associated building [Class 10 building]). There will be an increase of the same proportion for Building Certificates for other classes of building, and for part of a building that does not have floor area (for example, an external wall)

$70 $50




ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : RENAMING OF SUBURB OF TARBAN BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY SMITH

GENERAL MANAGER FILE : 100/04 DETAILS

Council has received several verbal representations from residents of the Tarban residential estate raising concerns about the naming of the suburb, which was assigned by the Geographical Names Board (GNB) on 17 May 1991. There was a benefit in resolving the issue early in the rezoning stage but, as the estate was still vacant at the time, unfortunately the relevant affected residents were obviously not given the opportunity to comment or make suggestions on an appropriate name for their suburb. An extract from the GNB register is attached, which provides a description and the origin of its name. As the suburb has not yet been fully developed and occupied, it is appropriate for Council to consider a proposal to the GNB for the renaming of the suburb.

The proposal was reported to the Local Place Names Committee who have endorsed the proposed renaming in accordance with the process outlined below.

PROCESS

The following is a brief summary of the process involved in changing a suburb’s name:

• Proposals for the name of a suburb should be submitted to the Geographical Names Board with a map detailing the area of the new suburb. Proposals not submitted by the local Council should include evidence that the local Council concurs with the proposed name and boundaries before the Board will consider the application.

• The Geographical Names Board will consider the proposal and, if it is acceptable, will approve the proposal on principle.

• The Board then readvertises the proposal in local newspapers and in the Government Gazette. Maps are prepared by the Board and are also exhibited in places nominated by the Council. This process enables local residents to comment on the proposal and helps the Board to assess the local acceptance of the proposal.




• After one month, if no objections are received by the Board, the name is formalised by notification in the Government Gazette. Contentious proposals are referred to Council for an opinion before being reconsidered by the Board.

• Once the name is assigned, it can be shown on maps and used as a legitimate address. It will also be given a postcode by Australia Post.

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines were endorsed by the Geographical Names Board on 17 October, 1996: • A name suggested for any place that owes its origins to the peculiarity of the topographic

feature designated, such as shape, vegetation, animal life, etc., may be accepted but, in doing so, care should be exercised in avoiding duplication of names already used for other features.

The Geographical Names Board prefers to avoid the repetition of commonly used names.

Sugar Loaf, Sandy, Back, Bald, Deep, Long, Kangaroo, Reedy, Rocky, Spring and Stony are examples of such names.

• Easily pronounced names should, as far as possible, be used.

• Names of Aboriginal origin or with a historical background are preferred.

• Names acknowledging the multicultural nature of our society are encouraged.

• The changing of long established place names is generally not preferred, except where necessary to avoid ambiguity or duplication.

• If considered appropriate, place names may perpetuate the names of eminent persons, particularly those of early explorers, settlers and naturalists.

• Names of persons should normally only be given posthumously but the Board, at its discretion, may approve a feature name that honours a living person. Such a person’s contribution to the local community should have been of outstanding benefit to the community. Ownership of the land is not sufficient reason for the application of the owner’s name for a geographical feature. The Board will not approve the naming of a feature after a person still holding public office.

• The Board may approve a first or given name as part of a geographical name only where it is necessary or appropriate.

• The Board may approve a first or given name as part of a geographical name only where it is necessary to appropriately honour the person referred to or where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity

SURVEY

A survey was sent to all existing residents of Tarban and purchasers under contract, giving them the option of retaining the existing suburb known as Tarban along with four (4) alternate suburb options, namely:

• Tarban Bay • Tarban Cove • Huntleys Cove




0102030405060708090

For Against

Retaining of existing suburb name

Order of Preference

10

23

35

1010

39

25

4

63

411

20

93

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1st Preference 2nd Preference 3rd Preference 4th Preference

No.

or R

eplie

s

Tarban Bay Tarban Cove Huntleys Cove Riverglade

• Riverglade.

Respondents were asked to indicate in order of preference by placing a number beside the proposed name with 1 being most preferred and 4 being least preferred.

A total of 103 responses was received by Council and a summary of these results is tabled and graphed below:

Tarban Bay Tarban Cove Huntleys Cove Riverglade

1. 12.5% 1. 12.5% 1. 78.75% 1. 0%

2. 29.75% 2. 48.75% 2. 5% 2. 11.25%

3. 43.75% 3. 31.25% 3. 13.75% 3. 3.75%

4. 12.5% 4. 5% 4. 2.5% 4. 81.25%




The general consensus based on the information above would indicate that approximately 78% of the residents would like to rename Tarban, with Huntleys Cove being the preferred name at 78.75% and Riverglade being the least preferred option.

General Comments From Respondents

1. The suburb name ‘Tarban’ does not suit the area it is situated in. When asked where my property was purchased, the response I receive from Tarban is usually “is that in Sydney?” or “is that inland?”. It sounds very much like a rural area. It needs to incorporate ‘Bay’ or ‘Cove’ as you have done in your options.

2. Huntleys Cove is the estate we bought into thinking we were on Huntleys Point. Huntleys

Cove associates well with Huntleys Point and the cove Tarban Creek. Tarban on its own is a very harsh sounding name that no one has heard of and it would sound much better as Tarban Bay or Tarban Cove.

3. Naming after a mental asylum is displeasing. Public can identify/locate area due to

relationship with Huntleys Point. 4. It would have been useful to have knowledge of the historical significance of ‘Huntley’. 5. We would very much appreciate Council’s approval of a name change and own postcode

that is recognised by authorities eg. RTA etc. 6. If we are forced to have a name change, we select Tarban Cove as a second choice. 7. ‘Riverglade’ sounds like an American town/suburb, not unlike ‘Liberty Grove’. Please

don’t go down that track. 8. Tarban Bay or Tarban Cove would only seem applicable if Tarban Creek was renamed

accordingly. 9. When purchasing our property, we understood that our suburb would be Huntleys Cove. It

was very disturbing to find out we would be living in Tarban. We have not got over our disappointment.

10. I believe Huntleys Point should also be considered as the previous roadmaps etc included

‘Tarban’ under this classification and, given the small size of both suburbs, would be useful in establishing a name/profile for selling purposes (particularly for classified advertising). The area has too many very small suburbs eg. Huntleys Point, Tarban, Henley etc. To create a recognisable identity, many residents would also use Huntleys Point as the suburb name avoiding Tarban (which has no wider recognition).

11. When I purchased my townhouse, I bought thinking the suburb was Huntleys Cove.

Huntleys Cove also relates to Hunters Hill and, as it is part of Hunters Hill Council, the name also sounds as though it would be a nice suburb to live in. Tarban sounds like those flats on Victoria Road, Gladesville - ‘Blandesville’.

12. It was always Huntleys Point. The RTA 2 years ago refused the name Tarban and on my

driver’s licence it states Huntleys Point.




13. The name Tarban is a dreadful sounding name. My friends want to know if we are trying to stop smoking.

14. Our only reason for a name change is there is already a Tarban in central NSW. Change the

postcode to 2110. 15. Nobody knows where Tarban is. I always have to tell them either Huntleys Cove or

Gladesville. 16. Good friends of mine are descendents of the original Huntley. I have a sentimental

attachment to identify with Huntley. ‘Tarban’ makes me think of a Turk’s headress. 17. I feel a more appropriate name to be “Huntleys Point” as our suburb is immediately adjacent

to Huntleys Point and sits on the same ‘point’ of land. 18. Tarban has been in existence for a number of years and is on street directories. It is also

associated with Tarban Bridge and Creek. To change would only be another setback to recognition. If it is changed, retain ‘Tarban’ in the name.

19. Riverglade is not acceptable. 20. We prefer to stick with the name ‘Tarban’ but, on its own, it is harsh and doesn’t reflect the

beauty of the area, therefore ‘cove’ or ‘bay’ would be more acceptable. 21. I would be interested in where ‘optional’ names came from! 22. Tarban has been used in all the street directories since 2000. I can’t see the point in

changing it now that the residents have registered it as their address with friends, family, companies and utilities etc.

23. To change now would be a waste of time and money. For all, the name Tarban is good. 24. To change would create problems in having to change the address with all the service areas

and financial companies that are now getting to know the area. 25. As we have been residents of Tarban for almost 3 years, we would like this name retained.

Street directories and maps and all services know where the suburb Tarban is and there is only Tarban Creek, not Tarban Bay or Tarban Cove.

26. Riverglade would easily be confused with Riverwood. 27. If there is a change, we would prefer Tarban Bay or Tarban Cove. 28. Why not leave it as it was ie Huntleys Point? Tarban has proved impossible to explain and

at least Huntleys Point is a known geographic area. Thanks for giving us the opportunity. 29. Riverglade sounds like a brand of toilet spray. 30. When I purchased, I was informed the suburb was named Huntleys Point, so Huntleys Cove

is preferred.




31. Australand developed and marketed this development as Huntleys Cove. Given its proximity to Huntleys Point, most people (like me) purchased their property with this in mind.

32. Please do not change the name as it will create lots of problems for bureaucracy and others – thanks.

33. We have never liked the name Tarban. We have used Huntleys Cove since moving here. 34. I thank you for addressing this problem. Whilst I have no real objection to the name Tarban,

because there has been no postcode allocation and reference on the street directory, it has caused a problem for myself in regard to mail and also initially it was difficult on Data Base equipment to be recognised. I believe there may be another Tarban near Singleton NSW?

35. Could you provide details of Mortimer Lewis? 36. If sufficient people wish the name to be changed, I would like to indicate that my preference

would be for Tarban Cove. 37. We feel that the suburb should remain as Tarban. We have been here 12 months and do not

want a name change. 38. Huntleys Cove should not be selected because it is the name of one of two developments in

Tarban (the other being Botanic Cove). The postcode should remain the same.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Geographical Names Board be advised first that, following community consultation, Council supports the renaming of Tarban to Huntleys Cove.

2. That the Geographical Names Board be requested to undertake the renaming process.




ITEM NO : 3 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 00/1188

PROPERTY: 161 VICTORIA ROAD, GLADESVILLE OWNER: MR D R & MRS L E COLQUITT APPLICANT: LEFFLER SIMES PTY LTD PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MIXED COMMERCIAL, RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LODGED: 15.09.2000

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

HERITAGE & CONSVERATION REPORTING OFFICER : JOE VESCIO


FILE : 1720/161

INTRODUCTION

At it’s Ordinary Meeting on 24th September 2001, Council considered a report in respect of a Development Application for the demolition of an existing building and garage and construction of a new mixed commercial, retail and residential development with basement car parking at 161 Victoria Road, Gladesville. A copy of the report is attached.

Council resolved as follows:

1. The application be deferred and a copy of the Heritage Impact Statement be provided to Councillors for consideration.

2. The application be referred back to the applicant for redesign following review and advice from a suitably qualified urban designer/architect on issues of impact on the adjoining heritage item, the streetscape and façade, so as to provide a building of high architectural merit.

The proposal was accordingly referred to Mr Vince Squillace of Squillace Architects to review the proposal and provide advice on the design.

A meeting was also held with Mr Squillace, Mr Greg Patch, Heritage Advisor, Joe Vescio, Manager, Development and Environment, Mr Steven Camillo, Architect, and the owner, Mr Dennis Colquitt. The applicants were invited to furnish 3 design alternatives in response to the initial advice provided by Mr Squillace.




The applicant submitted 3 alternatives (copies attached) as follows:

1. A modest cottage style building to the front as originally submitted by the applicant but discounted by Council Officers as being inappropriate.

2. The proposal considered by Council at it’s Ordinary Meeting on 24th September 2001.

3. A simpler minimalist type contemporary style building as advocated by Mr Squillace.

Whilst the three alternatives were not three fresh approaches, Council has been limited in terms of it’s opportunity to consider appropriate design solutions for the site. Notwithstanding this, as requested by the applicant due consideration has been given to these options. The proposals were also referred to the Conservation Advisory Panel and an extract of the draft minutes is noted as follows:

The meeting was addressed by the owners, Mr & Mrs Colquitt, and the Architect, Stephen J Camillo, of Leffler Simes Architects. The Panel was requested to consider three alternative approaches to the presentation of the proposal to Victoria Rd, in terms of visual impacts on the adjoining heritage item, No 163 Victoria Rd, and the streetscape generally. Three street elevations/pictorial sketches were presented. These were: 1. The “cottage”-like treatment 2. The screen/ frame approach that is currently presented to Council. 3. A “Modernist”, two storey façade/ building at the street frontage. There was a lengthy discussion had with regard to the relative merits of the three approaches, with a diversity of opinion amongst the Panel members. It was concluded that a lower-scale approach - a modified version of the approach currently before Council - would be the most appropriate. The modifications recommended were: • The removal of the “portal” to the driveway.

• Reduction in height of the “frame” to the street frontage to the parapet height of the

commercial unit (approximately single storey).

• Removal of the detailing proposed- the screen element to read as a simple frame. The architect and owners advised the Panel that their preference was for the “cottage”-like proposal. The Panel considered this proposal to be somewhat pastiche- inspired, and expressed little support for such an approach, which was seen as the least desirable of the three alternatives. Mr Squillace’s comments in relation to the options were as follows:




The single storey building is styled in a modest cottage style that would be reminiscent of the type of cottages that would have existed along that street prior to two storey developments. This design approach is one of two approaches that would be appropriate when designing directly adjacent to a heritage item. That is, to either design a building that is sympathetic to the style, scale and general appearance of the heritage item, or to design a modern building that contrasts with it.

The solution proposed in this alternative is a more desirable outcome to the previous development. The applicant has produced a scheme which is sympathetic and does not detract or compete with the heritage item.

There are, however, a few further changes that I would recommend to the scheme. These changes include the following:

• To extend the awning at the street elevation, so that it is flush with the southeastern wall.

• I recommend that, in light of the fact that the approach taken is to design a building with a style that is compatible to the heritage item, I believe a smooth sandstone cladding or a liver colour smooth face brick work would be the suitable wall finish for the cottage portion of the building, both on the north west and south west elevations.

• That the applicant submits a schedule of colours to the Council.

• That the “single storey retail with residential terrace over” portion of the building be detailed, so that the wall is articulated in such a way that this part appears to be a “link” between the two storey residential part of the building and the single storey cottage. This could be achieved by a small step, variation in colour and texture, or any other means that are suitable in performing this function.

• That the Colourbond corrugated roofing to the lift tower be amended to a flat roof so as not compete with the roof of the cottage.

Based on the somewhat conflicting opinions of “experts” ranging from preference for either of the options, it appears that the preferences nominated are certainly qualified with some reservation, and it would appear that certainly the three options put to Council are far from an optimum design solution. Given the site’s location on the fringe of the commercial area and it’s context within a more fragmented street scape, which is interspersed with various scales, forms and styles of buildings, then it would appear that Council could accept either of the options subject to some design refinement.

It is therefore the opinion of the Manager Development and Environment that the Conservation Advisory Panel’s preference be adopted, subject to minor conditions.

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That a “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council.




SCHEDULE 1 1. In order to improve the architectural / aesthetic appearance of the building and provide a more

contemporary expression, the following amendments are required:

(a) the gabled parapet pediments are to be deleted; (b) the lift motor room roof is to be redesigned as a flat or curved roof; (c) colourbond roofing is to be in grey/silver colour; (d) the lattice works to the balustrade and infills are to be deleted and replaced with a

more durable contemporary material/design; (e) the street elevation of the stairwell (upper most level) is to be provided with a

minimum three (3) 600mm x 600mm porthole type windows in lieu of the proposed; (f) the removal of the “portal” to the driveway; (g) reduction in height of the “frame” to the street frontage to the parapet height of the

commercial unit (approximately single storey); and (h) removal of the detailing proposed – the screen element to read as a simple frame; (i) The “frame/screen” shall be constructed of “Guernsey Tan” brick with “Bowral Blue”

base and the frame shall project a further 600mm southward to create a colonnade.

2. To provide an energy efficient and environmentally friendly building, the following measures are to be incorporated into the building:

• Units 7, 8 and 9 are to be provided with solar hot water heating; • All other hot water systems and all cooktops shall be gas-powered; • The Clipsal “C-Bus” energy management system shall be installed as per the display

in the “I Home” located at Jacksons Landing, Pyrmont; • Stormwater collected via the on-site detention system or via separate water tanks shall

be used for on-site irrigation of landscaping; • A minimum 3 dwellings shall be provided with solar energy powered by a photo

voltaic cell system. SCHEDULE 2 That Development Application No. 00-1188, for demolition of the existing building and garage and construction of a mixed commercial, retail and residential building with basement car parking at 161 Victoria Road Gladesville being Lot 4 DP 2955, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B2-B4, B14 ($9,000) C1-C10, C12 (a-i), C13, C19, C20, C21, C25, C27-C29, C34-C37, C40, C42, C45-C48, C58, C61-C64, C81-C85, C87-C89, C94-C97, C100 (00-1188) (Leffler Simes Architects) (1860 DA01 Issue C and DA02-04 Issue B) (July 2000), C101, C102, D1-D3, D5, D7-D10, D14, D17, L2, L6, L7, L8, L13, PE5-PE7, PE14, PE16-PE17, PE21, S1, S2, S10, S14, S15 (a - $3600, c - $4185, d - $990, e - $54, f - $1125, h - $7887.40, i - $18), S16 ($15,000), S19, S20, S21(23), W1, W3, W4, W13, W14, W18, W19, W20, W22 and the following special conditions: 98. The commercial/retail car park level shall be accessible at all times during business hours

(7.30am – 6.00pm) and, in this regard, the roller door shall be kept open during these times or alternatively relocated adjacent the ramp to the residential car park level.




99. Notwithstanding DCP 19 (Exempt and Complying Development) and notations on plan, no signs are to be erected or displayed without the prior development consent of Council.

100. The stormwater drainage from the site shall be collected and conveyed to the street drainage

system in Victoria Road via a RCP in accordance with Council’s specification, and concepts presented on modified DA Plan SkH01A accompanying letter dated 28 September 2000 from the L.H.O. Group, including details noted and faxed by Council on the plan regarding street pits. In this regard, full design and construction details showing the method of disposal of any sub-surface, surface and roof water from the site are to be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

101. The capacity of the existing Council storm water drainage system at the proposed connection

of the outlet shall be hydraulically evaluated using the H.G.L. method to ensure that no storm water will be able to surcharge from Council’s system to the proposed drainage system. Full engineering details of the hydraulic evaluations prepared and signed by a practising civil engineer shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent property damage)

102. If portion of the access ramp to the basement car parking area cannot be drained by gravity

then disposal of stormwater runoff via a pump-out system shall be permitted, subject to compliance with the following requirements: i) The basement car parking area shall be graded to fall to the sump and pump system. ii) The contributing catchment area to the pump-out system shall be limited to the

basement access ramps only, and subsoil drainage. No more than 50 sq. metres of access ramp catchment shall be allowed to drain to the sump.

iii) Two (2) submersible type pump units shall be installed, the capacity of each being calculated to allow for subsoil drainage and any water falling on or draining to access points. Sizing of the pumps shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Chapter 14 AR & R 1987. Stormwater runoff drainage to the sump and pump system shall be calculated for a 50 year ARI design storm.

iv) The two (2) pumps shall be designed to work on an alternative basis to ensure that both pumps receive equal usage and neither remains continuously idle.

v) The sump is to be so designed that a minimum volume of water is retained in the sump for health reasons when the pumps are in the "off" position.

vi) The pump-out system is to be independent of any gravity drainage lines except at the site boundary inspection pit located near the building line where a grated surface pit is to be constructed, from which a connection shall be permitted to the gravity drainage system. Full Engineering details, including calculations, shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding) 103. It is the applicant's responsibility to establish the size and levels of utility services in the field,

where they cross proposed pipelines, prior to construction of drainage lines. Where location of services conflicts with the proposed pipeline, then any service adjustment

shall be at the applicant's expense.




Utility services refers to those under the control of the Public Utility Authorities, Australian Gas And Light, Sydney Water, Energy Australia, Telstra, Optus, Pacific Power and private services, whether the services are located within private property or within Public Roads. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding)

104. Existing drainage lines to the kerb are to be removed and the footpath and kerb restored under

Council supervision . 105. Application is to be made to Council's Public Works and Infrastructure Department for the

following approvals and permits as appropriate:

a) Permit to erect Builder's hoardings where buildings are to be erected or demolished within 3.50m of the street alignment. Applications are to include current fees and are to be received at least 21 days before commencement of the permitted period.

b) Permit to stand mobile cranes, pumps and/or other major plant on public roads. Applications are to include current fees and security deposits and are to be received at least 7 days before the proposed usage. It should be noted that the issue of such permits also involves approval from the Police Department and the R.T.A. of NSW and could involve separate Council approval to work outside normal hours.

c) Establishment of Construction Zones on Public Roads adjacent to the Development may be approved, however applications shall be received by Council at least 21 days prior to the zone being required. The application will then be referred to Council's Local Traffic Committee and the R.T.A. for assessment and approval and to include any special conditions. Council may also insist on the provision of a Construction Zone to minimise disruption to the local area.

d) The applicant is to be responsible for the protection of all No Standing/Parking signs in the street. Any signs removed are to be replaced at full cost to the developer during the extent of the development.

e) Permit to open a public road, including footpaths, for any purpose whatsoever. Application is to include current fees.

f) Permit to construct vehicular crossings over Council’s footpath reserve. (Reason: Legal requirement) 106. a) All weather access to the site is to be provided across Council's footpath together with

barricades and hazard warning lights for the safe passage of pedestrians. Council will recover costs from the applicant for works to protect pedestrian safety if safe pedestrian access is compromised.

(Reason: Public safety and erosion control) b) All spoil loads are to be covered and the wheels of haulage vehicles washed prior to

leaving the site. (Reason: Erosion control) 107. Sweep and clean pavement surface adjacent to the ingress and egress points of earth, mud and

other materials at all times and in particular at the end of each working day or as directed by Council's Engineer.

(Reason: Legal requirement). 108. A full width concrete footpath is to be constructed for the full frontage of the site in Victoria

Road, from building to kerb (alignment) in accordance with Council specification and to the satisfaction of the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure.




(Reason: Public access).

109. For design alignment levels in Victoria Road, use the level and grade of the back of the existing footpath. The design shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Public amenity).

110. (a) A longitudinal section of the driveway drawn at 1:20 Natural scale shall be prepared and designed using Council’s standard vehicle profile and submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(b) The removal of all redundant crossing together with any necessary reinstatement of the footpath and kerb and gutter. Such work shall be carried out in accordance with Council's specification.

(Reason: Public amenity). 111. (a) Sediment and Erosion Control measures are to be adopted during construction to prevent

building materials and loose soil entering Council's stormwater system, natural watercourses and bushland.

(b) An Erosion Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with Council specification prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(Reason: Legal requirement, sediment and erosion control).

112. The applicant shall lodge a Security Deposit in the sum of $5,000 prior to the issue of the Development Consent/ Construction Certificate against possible damage to Council’s property during the course of the building works. (Reason: Protection of public asset).

113. Compliance Certificates shall be issued and submitted to Council by Accredited Certifiers

certifying that all erosion control measures required have been implemented in accordance with the approved ESCP and Stormwater Management Plan prior to the commencement of any site works. (Reason: Legal requirement, sediment and erosion control).

114. All erosion control measures required shall be maintained in accordance with the approved

ESCP and Stormwater Management Plan during the course of the construction works. (Reason: Legal requirement, sediment and erosion control). 115. Separate development applications are to be lodged with Hunter’s Hill Council for the use

and/or fit out of the commercial and retail components of this development. 116. The wine cellar and security store on the basement level are for the personal use of the

resident(s) and are not to be used for a commercial purpose without the prior written consent of Council.

117. Pedestrian access to dwellings from areas likely to be used at night, including the car park,

should be clearly defined and well lit. Details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.




118. To ensure that the development is fully accessible, details of the following (including compliance with AS 1428) are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate: i. an accessible path of travel from the Victoria Road footpath to the retail/commercial

area; and ii. an unobstructed accessible path of travel from the residential car park area to the lift.

119. The building is to be constructed in accordance with the approved schedule of materials,

finishes and colours. 120 Prior to issue of an occupation certificate, a complying certificate shall be issued by an

accredited NatHERS assessor confirming compliance with the energy rating certificates and in particular that all measures have been implemented.




ITEM NO : 4 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.: 00-1208

SECTION 96 AMENDMENT PROPERTY: HUNTERS HILL HOTEL 64-68 GLADESVILLE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL OWNER: TERASTAR PTY LTD APPLICANT: DESIGN COLLABORATIVE PROPOSAL: USE OF FIRST FLOOR AS OFFICE, BAR, LOUNG AND FUNCTION AREA

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : ANDREW MARTIN

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FILE : 1285/64-68 DETAILS

A Development Application was approved on the 4th April 2001 for the use of the first floor bedrooms as offices, bar, lounge and function rooms. An application is now made pursuant to the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend three conditions of consent as follows: 29. In order to preserve the adjoining residential amenity, no amplified music shall be played,

nor shall the premises be used for any use that will give rise to noise nuisance as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997.

33. In order to satisfy the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992, disabled access

facilities shall be provided to ensure access to all areas of the first floor bar, lounge and function rooms.

A detail of the proposed method shall be submitted to Council or the Accredited Certifier prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

34. In order to ensure adequate disabled facilities are provided, disabled sanitary facilities shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia 1996 and Australian Standard AS1428.1.

It is forwarded that the proposed amendments as suggested by the applicant are in principle supported but not in the exact terms proposed by the applicant. The proposed amendments to the above conditions are described in the planning submission prepared by George Smith of the Design Collaborative.




A revision to the above conditions is supported in the terms below. The applicant has been advised of the revised conditions and the additional condition and, as such, has no objection to the conditions as detailed in this report. The resultant development is one that is considered to be substantially the same as the original development and therefore satisfies the criteria specified under Section 96 of the Act having considered the relevant objectives of the Act. In particular, the modification to the disabled access requirements is considered prudent given the recent Draft Hunters Hill Village Master Plan and Draft Hunters Hill Village Development Control Plan. SITE AND ENVIRONS The subject site is known as the Hunters Hill Hotel and is identified by the Australian Institute of Architects as having architectural heritage significance. The site is located on the northern side of Gladesville Road adjacent to the gateway to Hunters Hill. The site is zoned Business Special 3(b) and 5(a) Special Uses Car Park under Local Environmental Plan No.1 whereby hotels are a prohibited use. Notwithstanding this, a hotel has existed on the site since at least 1886 when the ‘Figtree Inn’ occupied the site. The building was demolished to make way for the existing building in the 1930s. The use is therefore a non-conforming one, which exhibits existing use rights. As such, the proposed use is consistent with the current use, which has been lawfully created. RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS Zone: LEP No.1 (as amended 2-39) Business Special 3(b) and

5(a) Special Uses Parking Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Heritage Listed: No PLANNING ASSESSMENT In determining the Section 96 application, Council shall consider the underlying objectives of the local plan. The relevant clauses, and those sections within each clause, are identified for the purposes of this report and assessment. Clause 2 of LEP No.1 states that: “The aims of this plan are to conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hunters Hill, Council as established by its heritage, character, topography and residential amenity, by-

(a) conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, the townscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of the use and development of land, buildings and structure;

(b) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the environmental heritage of the municipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage;




(b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and development control processes;

(b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the conservation of the area’s environmental heritage;

(b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and their settings, as well as the streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this land applies…….”

The information provided in support of the original and amended application demonstrates that the proposed change of use satisfies the underlying aims and objectives of the local plan. The proposed use is consistent with the current use, which has operated since the 1930’s. Under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan No. 14, the premises is located within the Conservation Area and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as discussed below.

A property located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area shall satisfy the following objectives prescribed under Clause 18A of LEP No.1 which states: “The Council shall not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown on the map marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 – Heritage Conservation”, unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the waterway;

(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within zone No. 6(a) or 6(b)”

There are no external alterations or additions to the building and therefore the proposed development satisfies the above objectives. The outdoor al-fresco dining area was approved under a previous development application. The use of the al-fresco dining area is governed by conditions that limit the hours of operation, which are 8am-10pm Monday to Sunday with alcohol only being served in conjunction with a meal. Conditions of consent (refer to the attached consent) require certain external works to be done in order to improve the appearance of the building externally (refer to Condition 31 of the attached consent). Given that the building is located within the Conservation Area, Council must have regard to Clause 19A of LEP No.1 which states: “19A (2) The Council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development on land

within a conservation area unless it has made an assessment of the extent to which the carrying out of the development in accordance with the consent would affect the heritage significance of the conservation area.

(3) The Council shall not grant consent to such an application, being an application to erect a

new building or to alter the exterior of an existing building, unless the Council has made an assessment of -




(a) the pitch and form of the roof; (b) the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows and doors; and (c) whether the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used on the

exterior of the building are compatible with the materials used in the existing buildings in the conservation area.

At this stage, the owners have removed part of the front façade, however further works are required in order to improve the appearance of the hotel even in the interim period. These requirements are covered by conditions of consent under the subject development application (refer to Conditions 30 and 31). The original requirement to provide disabled access to the first floor area was based on the intensification of use, and therefore it is considered reasonable to require the applicant to provide disabled access to the first floor area. The owners of the building are aware that the public nature of the proposed use requires upgrading, especially given the recent Court decisions based on the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. Given the public nature of the building and the intensification of use from the resultant improvements since 1993, the requirement to provide disabled access is not considered to burden the owners with unjustifiable hardship. The applicant’s request at this stage under the subject Section 96 application is not to delete the condition but to delay compliance with this requirement for a period of 12 months, which will provide the owners with an option depending on the outcomes of the Draft DCP and Master Plan which are currently on exhibition. This request is seen to be reasonable in the circumstances provided the owners of the hotel provide written confirmation that they accept all responsibility in the event of future legal action with regard to the Disability and Discrimination Act 1992. Given the above, it is forwarded that an additional condition be imposed referring to Conditions 33 and 34 which will provide a period of 12 months for compliance with the conditions (refer to condition No. 37 under Recommendations). Furthermore, a Construction Certificate is required to be approved by either Council or an Accredited Private Certifier prior to commencement of work. The condition relating to the amplified music is to be reworded so as to only allow the use of jukeboxes. Even though jukeboxes play amplified music, it is considered reasonable to allow their use, as the capacity to generate loud music audible outside the building is limited. In any event, the use of the property is governed by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The proposed reworded condition No. 29 is as follows: “In order to preserve the adjoining residential amenity, no amplified music shall be played (other than from the small juke boxes in the lounges and pool rooms, as shown on drawing No. 002/EX04 by Michael Hilliard), nor shall the premises be used for any use that will give rise to noise nuisances as defined under the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997” SECTION 79C OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 Section 79C of the EP& A Act 1979 lists the matters the Council shall take into consideration as are of relevance in determining a development application and are relevant matters for consideration under any Section 96(2) application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the relevant matters as detailed below:




(1)(a)(i) – the provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) is the applicable planning policy. All relevant matters have been identified in the report. (1)(a)(ii) – any Draft Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority There is currently on exhibition a Draft Local Environmental Plan No.44. The Section 96 approval does not contradict this draft plan. The proposed use does not conflict with the outcomes identified in the Hunters Hill Village Urban Design Study. (1)(a)(iii) – any development control plan

DCP 21– Commercial Development In essence, DCP 21 provides a guideline only given that the subject property enjoys existing use rights. The main consideration is parking and, in this regard, the total floor area is in the order of 1,322m² with 1 car space required per 25m² of floor area. This equates to 53 spaces, with the existing car park accommodating 55 spaces. (1)(b) and (c) - the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. suitability of the site for the development.

The impacts on the natural and built environments are of a level considered acceptable for the proposed use of the first floor in the terms provided by the original and amended consents. In this instance, the level of impact is not to the extent that would require refusal or modification of the proposal. Given the above and discussion of matters within the report, the proposed amendments to the three conditions are supported. (d) – any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations

The proposed development was notified to the adjoining neighbours and submissions were received which are attached to this report. (e) - the public interest

Given that the appropriate assessment procedure has occurred, the proposed development does not have an adverse impact on the public interest in the circumstance of the case. CONCLUSION The Section 96(2) application been assessed having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 79C and 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Hunters Hill LEP No. 1 (as amended). For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered satisfactory and, accordingly, is recommended for approval subject to the original and additional conditions as detailed in the recommendation.




FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION That the Section 96(2) application to amend Condition Nos. 29, 33 and 34 of the development consent No. 00 1208, for the use of the first floor as a bar, office, lounge/function room at the Hunters Hill Hotel, 64-68 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to the original conditions except for a reworded Condition No.29 and two additional conditions: 29. In order to preserve the adjoining residential amenity, no amplified music shall be played

(other than from the small juke boxes in the lounge and pool rooms, as shown on drawing No. 002/EX04 by Michael Hilliard), nor shall the premises be used for any use that will give rise to noise nuisances as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

37. Given the current exhibition of draft amendments to Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan

No.1, Draft Master Plan and Development Control Plan for Hunters Hill Village, a period of 12 months is available to comply with the requirements of Condition Nos. 33 and 34 of development consent No.001208.

38. Given the owners’ requirement to delay the need to install disabled access to the first floor,

the owner shall provide Council with an undertaking stating that the Hunters Hill Hotel owners accept all responsibility and any costs or fines for any legal proceedings brought against the Hunters Hill Hotel or Council under the provisions of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1992.




ITEM NO : 5 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-1159

PROPERTY: 83 & 85A PITTWATER ROAD, HUNTERS HILL OWNER/APPLICANT: BARUA PTY LTD PROPOSAL: LOW RISE MULTI UNIT HOUSING APPLICATION LODGED: 16.08.2001

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : JOE VESCIO


FILE : 1575/83 & 85A DETAILS Council is in receipt of a Development Application for multi unit housing at 83 and 85A Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill comprising 8 x 1 bedroom and 7 x 2 bedroom townhouses, with basement parking for 30 vehicles. The application involves the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house, meat wholesale premises and associated structures. Each of the proposed townhouses is two storey and contains a kitchen and combined living and dining room at ground level. Units 1-5, 8, 12 and 14 have one bedroom and a bathroom at first floor level. All other units contain two bedrooms, bathroom and en-suite at first floor level. The townhouses are grouped into five pavilions on the site. The application has been notified to adjoining owners and a total of twenty (20) submissions have been received, including thirteen (13) pro-forma letters. The issues of concern include loss of privacy, overshadowing, traffic impacts and non-compliance with Council requirements. The application is referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received. An assessment has been undertaken in accordance with Council’s relevant planning policies. The proposal does not comply with the density requirement of Hunters Hill LEP No. 1 and, accordingly, a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged seeking a variation of this development standard. The requirement for the SEPP is dubious, given that the site of the meat works enjoys existing use rights. In this regard, legally any development standard or provision of an environmental planning instrument cannot derogate those rights. The proposal is therefore to be considered on its merits, with regard to the underlying objective and provisions as a circumstance of the case in the assessment under s79C of the Act.




The current proposal has evolved following numerous exhaustive consultations between the applicants and Council’s Development Control Unit, Heritage Adviser and planning officers, both pre and post lodgment of the Development Application. Following submission, further concerns were raised by Council in respect of streetscape, internal solar access and amenity, and bulk/visual impact when viewed from the property to the rear. The applicant has taken the issues on board and responded as follows: �� The rear row of the building has been modified by breaking up the mass and expanse of the

rear elevation, by providing a recess in the rear elevation of the central unit (unit No. 8), which now reads as two separate smaller buildings;

�� The rear buildings have been reduced by 450mm in height;

�� Shadow diagrams and sectional shadow projections have been provided to demonstrate that

most units receive adequate sunlight to courtyards or living areas at differing periods of the year;

�� A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect has been submitted addressing the

deficiencies identified by Council’s consultant landscape architect;

�� Redesign and removal of the built form within the front building line area to reduce the impact on the streetscape.

Having regard for all relevant matters, the application is considered to be worthy of support subject to some minor design changes. SITE AND ENVIRONS The subject site comprises Lot C DP 321023 and Lot B DP 414818 and is known as 83 and 85A Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill. The site is located on the eastern side of Pittwater Road, between Ryde Road and Princes Street. It has a total area of 1, 652.6m² and a street frontage of 30.48 metres. Situated on the site at 83 Pittwater Road is a single storey 1930s detached dwelling. At 85A Pittwater Road there is a recently disused meat works comprising a two storey 1950s building. There has been some discussion as to the relative heritage significance of the inter-war dwelling and two heritage impact statements have been submitted in support of the application. This issue is discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Development immediately to the rear of the subject site fronts Earl Street and comprises a mix of single storey and two-storey detached dwellings. The site immediately to the north, at 85 Pittwater Road, has a recent approval for multi-unit housing (DA 01-1039). Further to the north at 89 Pittwater Road, a multi unit housing development has recently been constructed. There are also large three storey 1960s and 70s Department of Housing developments in the vicinity. RELEVANT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Planning Instruments: LEP No 1 (as amended) Draft Planning Instruments: Draft LEP 41 Zone: Residential 2(c)




Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: No Development Control Plan: DCP 15 - Residential Development State Environmental Policies: No Regional Environmental Plans: No Listed Heritage Item: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No Contributory Building: No NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED Yes NUMBER NOTIFIED 20 NAME & ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Raymond & Jennifer Pryde 81A Pittwater Rd, Hunters Hill

• Shadow cast over backyard and living area of 81A Pittwater Road during winter not acceptable.

• Lack of privacy. • Impact of increased traffic requiring

ingress/egress on pedestrian safety. • Noise of additional garbage collection

in early hours of the morning. • Potential impact of development on

structural soundness of 81A & 81B. • Non-compliance with LEP criteria.

Wal Hutchinson 81b Pittwater Rd, Hunters Hill

• Tree planting should use semi-mature specimens, especially on southern and eastern boundary.

• 2 metre high fence should be continued along southern boundary.

• Any impact on structural soundness of 81B to be repaired by developer.

James & Rosemary Brook 1 Earl St, Hunters Hill

• Invasion of privacy through overlooking – opportunities to alter eastern elevation to improve privacy and reduce volume.

• Overshadowing. • Noise problems. • Inadequate provision of open space. • Impact of vehicles on Pittwater Road.

Bonnie & Anthony Cohen 2 Earl St, Hunters Hill

Generally supportive, however: • Buildings adjacent rear boundary

should be single storey; • Rear building alignment should not be

reduced; • 2 metre high fence should be erected

along rear boundary. Cathy and Ross Faulks 4A Earl Street, Hunters Hill

• Impact of construction noise. • Rear units should be reduced in




number and only single storey to reduce overshadowing and overlooking.

• Proposal is overdevelopment. • Non-compliance with open space

requirements. • Unbroken two storey wall across two

residential blocks. • Hotch-potch of finishes. • Privacy will be compromised by two

storey building close to the boundary. • Front courtyards of some units have no

sunlight in December. • Increased traffic and traffic hazard. • Increased hazard due to waste disposal.

Bradley Field 6 Earl Street, Hunters Hill

• Rear building should be single storey. • Concern about general traffic

problems. • Traffic impacts from garbage

collection. • Increased neighbourhood traffic. • Non-compliance with number of

bedrooms permissible. • Non-compliance with open space

requirements. • Windows on northern, southern, and

eastern elevations should be high/obscure glass or small windows with fixed louvres.

• Car park vent should be at Pittwater Road end of site.

Jo-Anna Field 6 Earl Street, Hunters Hill

• Non-compliance with number of bedrooms permissible.

• Non-compliance with open space requirements.

• Location of car park exhaust vent not defined.

• A traffic survey is required. • Concern about safety of vehicles

entering/exiting the site. • Inadequate sunlight to some villas. • Rear units should be family type

dwellings reflecting adjoining 2(a) zoning, reducing overshadowing, privacy and noise problems.

Roy Gledhill 3 Earl St, Hunters Hill

Pro-forma letter: • Building at #83 has strong heritage

values and should be preserved.




David & Robynne Ronning 4 Earl St, Hunters Hill Heather & Ken McDowell 10 Earl St, Hunters Hill Allan & Paula Southcombe 11 Earl St, Hunters Hill Jon & Jo-anne Woodward 12 Earl St, Hunters Hill Catherine Gallo 15 Earl St, Hunters Hill Sue Whitnall 20 Earl St, Hunters Hill Robin Jackson 21 Earl St, Hunters Hill Tom & Ruth Walker 22 Earl St, Hunters Hill Tony & Tanya Ikonomov 49 Earl St, Hunters Hill Charles & Shirley Millard 36 Princes St, Hunters Hill Anne Anderson 41 Blaxland St, Hunters Hill

Gughiehno & Giovanna Maceiola 141 Ryde Rd, Hunters Hill

• Not in keeping with Boronia Park area, with no yard for children to play.

• Loss of privacy from second storey windows on eastern and southern sides.

• Permanent overshadowing. • Non-compliance with number of

bedrooms permissible – 22 bedrooms proposed not 18.

• Traffic impacts on Ryde and Pittwater Roads, other local roads and local parking.

• A number of design recommendations proposed.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ASSESSMENT CONTROL (Refer Part B, DCP 15)

REQUIRED/ PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

DENSITY 90m² per bedroom – max 18 bedrooms

22 bedrooms No - SEPP 1 Objection

lodged GARDEN AREA 40% of site 49% Yes SIDE BOUNDARY SETBACKS

Minimum 1.5m

>3 metres either side; 6m at rear

Yes

STOREYS 2 2 Yes HEIGHT - to uppermost ceiling

7.2m

5.1m to ceiling

Yes




6.3m to parapet PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 40m² per unit -

20m² adjacent to living room with minimum

width of 3 metres

Varies between 18-50m² per

unit

No

CAR PARKING 1 space per dwelling (15) plus 1 visitor for every 3 dwgs (5) = 20

30 spaces including 5

visitors

Yes

PLANNING CONSIDERATION Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 lists matters the Council shall take into consideration when determining an application. The assessment process has taken into consideration these matters as detailed below. (1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmental planning instrument Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 The subject site is zoned Residential 2(c) under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 (HHLEP) and the proposed multi-unit development is permissible with consent. The meat works at 85A Pittwater Road is a non-conforming use with existing use rights. The proposed building results in a non-compliance with the provisions of Clause 13 of the LEP in respect of density (number of bedrooms) on the meat works site alone. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection for caution only, notwithstanding that legally it is forwarded that this not strictly required. The SEPP 1 objection is considered well founded, on the grounds that strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable for the reasons outlined in the submission of City Plan Services and this report.

Subsection 108(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act states that an environmental planning instrument (an LEP) may contain provisions extending, expanding or supplementing the provisions of Part 5 of the Regulation (including Clause 39(1)), but not derogate, or have the effect of derogating from, the provisions contained in Part 5. In other words, in assessing an existing use, the terms of an LEP cannot be applied in a manner that would derogate from the ability of the purchasers to perform any of the functions listed at Clause 39 of the Regulation (for example, to enlarge, alter or change the current existing use). This conclusion was confirmed in Carden v Willoughby Council (1985) 56 LGRA 366 and in Russo v Kogarah Council (Unreported 10296/94), and several subsequent cases. In Mobil Oil Australia v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council, Stein J was called upon to determine the proper approach to assessments of applications for change from an existing use to another non-conforming use. He said:

“In my opinion, existing uses were not intended to be penalised because they became non-conforming. Rather, applications to rebuilt or change the use should be assessed in the ordinary fashion by the application of the s90 heads of consideration, (including s90 (1)(a)).”




In comparison to the existing building, which is visually prominent and conflicts with surrounding development, the proposed development is more harmonious to its likely future setting by virtue of its lower scale, residential character and use and potential noise and traffic conflicts/impacts. It will, within time, sit comfortably within its landscaped and built environment, however, it cannot be disputed that the proposed development (as does the existing) will result in a short term foreign element in its context and all reasonable attempts have been made to ensure that the building integrates successfully. Clauses 13 and 15 of HHLEP contain development standards that are relevant to the proposed multi unit housing development. Clause 13 of HHLEP states that Council shall not consent to the erection of low-rise multi-unit housing, unless it complies with the following table:

Column I Column II Column III

Zone No.

Minimum site area per bedroom (in square

metres)

Minimum proportion of site area used as garden

area 2(b) 100 45% 2(c) 90 40%

The proposal does not comply with the minimum site area per bedroom as specified in column II. In this case, 18 bedrooms would be permissible, while 22 are proposed. This equates to an area of 75m² rather than 90m². The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection (copy attached) stating that the requirements are unreasonable and unnecessary, in summary for the following reasons: • The proposal is consistent with other amenity standards; • The proposal provides a variety of dwelling types to encourage greater diversity and family

types in the locality; • The proposal is consistent with the general objectives for urban consolidation and new housing

opportunity within a medium density residential zoning; • The proposal removes a non-conforming use that has received much reported and documented

objection and complaint from neighbouring premises over many years and casts additional shadow over neighbouring properties than the new proposal; and

• The proposal will provide a well considered and attractive development, which will be beneficial to the streetscape.

Whilst the points raised by the applicant in support of the SEPP 1 Objection are generally accepted, they do not address the fundamental purpose of density controls, that is, to protect internal and external amenity. A number of the matters raised in submissions, such as loss of privacy and overshadowing, could potentially be mitigated if the development complied with this development standard. However, as previously stated, compliance with numerical standards cannot be enforced and therefore having regard to the merit assessment, the applicant was required to: • reduce the visual bulk of the rear building; • reduce the potential overlooking experienced by the adjoining properties in Earl Street; and • provide greater scope for the provision of open space.




The proposal complies with Clause 15 of HHLEP, which states: 15. (1) In this clause “ground level”, in relation to the carrying out of development on a site,

means the level of the site immediately before the development is carried out. (2) A person shall not erect a building on a site within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b),

2(c), or 5(a): a) containing more than 2 storeys; or b) having a height greater than 7.2 metres measured vertically from ground level to

the uppermost ceiling, or both.

(1)(a)(ii) – any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority

Draft Local Environmental Plan No. 41. Draft LEP No. 41 was formulated to provide interim heritage provisions to ensure an assessment of any building over the age of 60 years is undertaken prior to Council granting consent for major alterations or demolition of a building. The Draft Plan was referred to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning for comment and Council is currently in discussion with them. Notwithstanding these discussions, the plan is in draft form and has been notified in accordance with the Act and Regulations. Under Section 79C, Council is required to consider any draft plan when assessing a development application. The existing 1930s single storey inter-war dwelling at 83 Pittwater Road is in excess of 60 years old and Draft LEP41 therefore applies. Accordingly, two separate Heritage Impact Statements (HIS) have been prepared and submitted to support the development application. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and concludes:

Given the status of the property, it would be difficult to oppose its removal. It is a relatively intact example of an “Interwar Bungalow” and has been seemingly well maintained. It is regrettable that an example of this type of building, in its condition and presentation is to be removed to make way for the proposed development. However, I can see no scope to resist its removal and would therefore reluctantly accede to the proposal in this respect.

It is noted that the property is not listed as an item of environmental heritage by Hunters Hill Council (either as a Schedule 6 or Schedule 7- “Contributory Item”) or by any other body. (1)(a)(iii) – any development control plan

Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Development

DCP 15 contains objectives, which relate to all residential development within the Municipality of Hunters Hill. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with these objectives.




Part B of DCP 15 relates specifically to medium density development within Hunters Hill. The objectives relating to housing density are outlined under Section B2.2 and are as follows:

2.2.1 To ensure that the new dwelling, whether attached or detached, sits comfortably in its own garden setting without crowding the site with buildings or motor vehicles facilities.

2.2.2 To ensure the residential and garden amenity of occupiers of new housing. 2.2.3 To ensure that the existing allotment is not overcrowded with people or motor cars to the

detriment of the residents of the locality in particular those on adjacent allotments. 2.2.4 To reduce adverse visual impact of new medium density housing development on the

streetscape, riverscape and amenity of the locality. 2.2.5 To provide for a variety of housing choice within appropriate areas within the municipality. 2.2.6 To allow for the provision of granny flats, house keepers rooms and guest accommodation etc

under certain circumstances. Objectives 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4.and 2.2.5 are relevant to this application. The proposal as amended is considered to satisfy these objectives although at a minimum. Section B2.3 relates to site considerations, building setbacks and design considerations for medium density housing in general. The relevant provisions of this section include the following:

2.3.1 Building walls shall be sited and be of length and height to ensure amenity to adjacent dwellings, private open space or streetscape.

2.3.2 For Integrated Housing developments, and low-rise multi-unit housing developments, the

distance between any part of the building and the side boundaries of the site shall not be less than one third of the maximum height of the adjacent external wall, but in any case no closer than 1.5 metres to that boundary.

2.3.4 To avoid “gun barrel” buildings, staggered facades are preferred and averaging setback

provisions may be applied.

The appearance of the rear elevation, spanning two residential blocks, would be quite dominating, and therefore the introduction of a recess in the centre, together with a reduction in height, has significantly reduced the perceived bulk, scale and massing of the development when viewed from the rear properties in Earl Street. The proposed development complies with the setback provisions contained in 2.3.2 above. It is noted that the rear setback of 6 metres is consistent with that recently approved on the adjoining site at 85 Pittwater Road. This setback, together with the vegetation both on the adjoining properties and as proposed, will ensure that the impact on amenity is minimised to an acceptable degree. Section B2.6 of DCP 15 outlines the objectives and design requirements relating to private open space. The relevant design requirements for multi unit housing developments include:

2.6.9 Low-rise Multi-unit Housing within the required garden area there shall be a private open space for each dwelling having a minimum area of 40 square metres, of which at least 20




square metres shall be situated adjacent to the living room and have a minimum width dimension of 3.0 metres.

2.6.11 Hard paved areas shall be minimised to avoid collection and diversion of surface water into the drainage system. Where hard paving is necessary (for driveways, paths, terraces and the like), materials such as dry jointed paving which allows water to permeate to the subsoil are preferred.

2.6.12 The residential amenity of private open space shall be maintained by ensuring that it is readily

accessible to occupants, by having at least 4 hours of sunlight between 9am and 4pm on 22nd June, and by being predominantly planted with lawns, plants, shrubs and trees.

2.6.13 Private Open Space should not be located within the front yard area if required screen facing is

likely to detract from the streetscape.

The proposal includes 18-50m² of open space per unit, which does not comply with the minimum requirement. However, it is generally accepted that support can be given to a proposal that does not comply with a numerical requirement of a DCP, provided the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives.

The applicant has argued that the proposal will maintain an acceptable amount of open space area for each unit based on the anticipated low occupancy rate. The townhouses are one and two bedroom, which usually cater for singles or couples at a maximum. Furthermore, the private courtyard areas are adjacent to the living areas of all townhouses. It is also noted that, had the design of the proposal been modified to comply with the definition of a Residential Flat Building, the application would more than comply with the 10m² open space requirement.

A variation to the amount of open space associated with some of the town houses is considered acceptable.

(1)(b)(c) – the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. Suitability of the site for the development.

The subject site is considered to be suitable for the type of development proposed having regard to its size, location and physical characteristics.

The site is located close to public transport and is on a road that is classified as a Regional Road with a sub-arterial function by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). The site is also within a short walking distance to a supermarket and assorted shops and there is a number of existing unit developments within the immediate vicinity.

The construction of multi unit housing will improve the diversity of housing choice within the Municipality of Hunters Hill. The proposed development is consistent with both the zoning of the site and current State policies, which encourage urban consolidation. The proposed development is generally consistent with the type of surrounding development and is consistent with the objectives under DCP 15, which also promote a diversity of housing choice within the municipality.

As noted previously, there is no objection from Council staff to the demolition of the current structures on the subject site, particularly the meatworks, and the bungalow with reluctance, given the lack of statutory power to so.




(1)(d) – any submission made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The application was notified to surrounding properties on 21 August 2001. Following this notification period, seven (7) individual submissions were received along with thirteen (13) copies of a pro forma objection.

It is noted that the objectors share concerns about the same issues and, accordingly, the planning response will be addressed on an issue by issue basis.

��Loss of Privacy/Overlooking

Loss of privacy has been raised as a concern, predominantly in relation to overlooking of the Earl Street residences from second storey windows. It is acknowledged that some overlooking could occur, however loss of privacy would be negligible having regard to the following matters:

• there are only 4 bedroom windows at second storey level on the eastern (rear) elevation; • these windows are associated with bedrooms, which are predominantly used at night when

curtains/blinds are drawn; • there is significant spatial separation between the proposed development and the Earl Street

residences; • mature landscape planting would considerably block direct views and prevent overlooking; • Fixed external timber screens are provided to further ameliorate any perceived concerns about

loss of privacy from these upper level bedrooms. ��Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant demonstrate overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the south (81 & 81A Pittwater Road). Overshadowing is restricted to the winter months, and particularly in the morning. Some overshadowing of the rear portion of the rear yards of 4 & 4A Earl Street will also occur on winter afternoons, however, as the shadow diagrams demonstrate, this on balance is either equivalent to or less than that created by the existing fences and meat works building.

Whilst it is unfortunate, the extent of the proposed overshadowing does not warrant refusal of the application. It is noted that the existing two storey meat works building would cast similar or more extensive shadows over the property at 4A Earl Street than the proposed development due to its proximity to the boundary.

Overshadowing of the development’s own courtyards has been raised and will have a detrimental impact on the amenity enjoyed by future residents.

��Traffic Concerns

The objectors have outlined concerns regarding the increase in traffic associated with this development on Pittwater Road and also surrounding local roads.

Pittwater Road is classified as a Regional Road performing a sub-arterial road function. The section of Pittwater Road along the frontage of the proposed development has a carriageway 12.7 metres wide capable of accommodating four traffic lanes, although in practice 2 kerbside lanes are used for parking.




As requested, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact report from Traffic Planning & Engineering Associates (copy attached), which concludes:

1. The proposed development satisfies the related geometric design specifications contained in the Australian Standards for off–street parking and vehicular access provided a grade transition is provided at the top of the ramp.

2. The off-street parking provided in the proposed development satisfies the requirements specified by Hunter’s Hill Council Development Control Plan and the Roads and Traffic Authority’s Guidelines.

3. The access driveway proposed to serve the development is suitably located and will provide satisfactory sight distance.

4. The intersection of Pittwater Road and the proposed driveway will provide a good level of service and right turning vehicles into the subject site raise no undue concerns.

5. The incremental effect of higher density in the immediate vicinity of the subject site will have a negligible effect upon Pittwater Road.

Council’s Public Works and Infrastructure Department have not raised concerns about the proposed access or driveway arrangements. The traffic calming devices in Earl Street, coupled with the 50kph speed limit, are likely to discourage any short cut.

In regard to traffic safety, an assessment of the appropriate sight distances for entry and exit maneouvres from driveways was undertaken for the adjoining site and they were considered to be more than adequate. This finding is considered to be equally applicable to the current proposal.

The disruption to traffic and safety of motorists on a Friday morning during the rubbish collection was raised in a number of submissions. The concern is that an increase in the number of bins to be serviced will extend the delays experienced by south-bound vehicles and motorists will attempt to pass the truck to avoid being held up. However, it is Council’s experience that the collection of waste and recyclables in the Municipality is generally accepted and has not been a source of complaint. If problems arise, opportunities for re-scheduling the garbage truck out of peak hours could be pursued.

��Non-compliance with Statutory Controls

Non-compliance with the statutory controls for density and garden area was raised in many submissions. A detailed discussion of this matter has been included in a previous section of this report.

��Other Design Matters

Semi-mature planting and 2 metre high boundary fencing are suggested in a number of the submissions. These suggestions are supported and could be included as conditions of consent if the application is approved.

The pro-forma letter stated that the dwelling at 83 Pittwater Road has strong heritage values and should be preserved. This matter has been discussed in a previous section of this report and it is noted that Council’s Heritage Advisor found no grounds to resist the removal of the dwelling.




Concerns about construction noise and potential damage as a result of excavation can be addressed by Council’s standard conditions of consent if the application is approved.

(1)(e) – the public interest

Notwithstanding the objections received regarding this application, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the wider public interest. The site is located on a regional road and it has been demonstrated that there will not be a substantial increase in traffic associated with this development. The proposal is consistent with DUAP’s planning strategies for the Sydney region and is consistent with the objectives relating to multi-unit housing within HHLEP and DCP 15. LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT’S COMMENTS This report addresses an amended landscape plan for the proposed residential development.

It would appear that the landscape plan was prepared by person(s) who are not landscape architects or qualified and experienced horticulturists, as the proposed plan still lacks an understanding of the design recommendations made in the report of 29/05/01. This being the case, the landscape plan does not comply with the requirements of Council’s “Landscape Conditions” and DCP No. 15 (Section 7).

The existing Cocos Palm trees (Arecastrum romanzoffianum) (not Coconut Palms as erroneously marked on the plan) along the rear eastern boundary have been retained in toto, notwithstanding that the earlier report recommended selective thinning, as these palms are planted too thinly for their long term good health.

The amended plan has located a number of Syzigium var. Aussie Compact (Lilly Pilly) plants to establish a hedge along this boundary line, also as recommended in the report of 29/05/01. This cultivar is considered unsuitable as it grows as it will only attain a height of approximately 1.5 metres as hedge. There are more suitable species of Lilly Pilly to achieve a hedge of approximately 3 metres. Further Lilly Pilly plants will require additional soil and space to establish as an effective hedge. The manner in which the plan shows this detail is considered unviable. Having regard to visual impact to the adjoining neighbour and the balance between privacy and sunlight, the proposed landscape treatment of this boundary may seek to remove alternate and weak Cocos Palms and to plant the hedge plants in the locations as shown.

In this regard, the height of the Rose Apple (Syzigium jambos) is considered to attain a height which would eventually blot out the winter sunlight from the adjoining neighbour to the southeast. This species of Syzigium is also a tropical species. There are climatically more suitable species which may be used including Small Leafed Syzigium (Syzigium leuhmanni ) This tree grows to approximately 6 to 8metres in a cultivated situation.

This landscape plan is still considered to be of poor to minimal standard, as the numbers and mix of plants remain horticulturally questionable. It would benefit considerably from input from a person with the requisite experience in these matters, and in accordance with Council’s ‘Landscape Conditions’

The landscape plan should be amended with advice from a qualified and experienced Landscape Architect or Horticulturist to reflect the following:






• Replace the Syzigium jambos with a tree of a more suitable size so that the adjoining property to the south-east will not have the winter sunlight obscured.



MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTS There are no objections subject to conditions. FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That a “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planing and Assessment Act 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council. SCHEDULE 1 1. The plans are to be amended as follows:

a) Provision of a recess to the rear elevation of Unit 8 and other design modifications as contained in the sketch plans prepared by Koutsoulas & Associates submitted to Council 19th November 2001;

b) Face brickwork shall consist of “Bowral Blue”;

c) The northern projecting frame to the western elevation of Unit 5 shall be reduced to single storey only;

d) Courtyards and internal planter areas shall have a minimum 1 metre soil depth.

2. A schedule of external material colours and finishes, including samples, shall be submitted for approval on an A4 sample board.

SCHEDULE 2 That Development Application No. 01 - 1159, for multi unit housing development at 83 & 85A Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (Draft 2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B4, B6, B14 ($5600), C1-C10, C12(a-I), C14-C15, C21, C23(all)(neighbours), C24-C26, C30, C33-C37, C40-C44, C46-C50, C58, C60-C62, C64, C81-C85, C87, C89, C94-C97, C100(011159, …………………………………………), C102-C103, D1-D3, D5-D6, D8-D10, D12-




D14, D16, D19, D22, L6-L8, PE1-PE2, PE5-PE8, PE10, PE13-PE15, PE17, PE21, PE24, W2-W3, S1-S2, S5, S10, S14, S15(a.$…………, b. $……………, c.$……….., d.$……….., e.$………., f.$…………………….. ) and the following special conditions:

101. The timber louvre privacy screens are to be angled to prevent down looking into the rear

yards of adjoining properties and are to be permanently fixed to the external walls of the building. At no time in the future are the fixed louvre screens to be removed from the building.

102. Stormwater from roofed and paved areas is to be piped to Council’s gutter in Pittwater Road

via an on-site detention tank. A separate pipe to the gutter for pump-out of basement waters would also be required. Their combined discharge at the kerb is limited to 40 litres per second (or less). The design storm for the developed site is to be the 20 year A.R. I. for OSD capacity design purposes.

103. Full design details and associated calculations showing the method of disposal of all sub-surface, surface and roofwater, including on-site detention from the site in accordance with Council's On-Site Detention Policy and specification, and the concept plan OODS 018/SW1 and SW2 with the application, shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. A silt arrestor pit shall be incorporated into the design at pit 12. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

104. The stormwater drainage from the site shall be collected and conveyed to the street drainage system in Pittwater Road in accordance with Council's specification. In this regard, a plan showing the location, type, size and class of the outlet pipe including a 150 X 75 mm galvanised steel rectangular hollow section at the kerb shall be required to be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

105. Upon completion of Council's pipeline, the applicant is required to submit to Council's

Manager Public Works & Infrastructure plastic reproducible work-as-executed drawing of the constructed drainage system. (Reason: Public record).

106. For all on-site detention (OSD) systems, including roof guttering and downpipe systems, a

Positive Covenant and Restrictions on Use of Land shall be required to be placed on the Certificate of Title in favour of Council created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for newly created lots or by application to the Land Titles Office using FORM 97-11(R) for existing Titles under S88E of the Conveyancing Act prior to the release of the Linen Plan.

107. The purpose of this is to ensure that the registered proprietor has care, control and

maintenance obligations of the OSD system including the guttering and downpipe systems. A copy of Council's draft terms for the above is available on request. (Reason: Legal requirement)

A plaque measuring no less than 400 mm x 200 mm shall be in some way permanently attached and prominently displayed within the immediate vicinity of the OSD device. This plaque shall advise occupiers of the property of the existence of the OSD device and also that




the device is not in any way to be tampered with or changed without prior written consent of Hunter’s Hill Council. (Reason: Legal requirement).

The constructed OSD installation must be appropriately certified by a suitably qualified and experienced consulting engineer (generally CP Eng. qualification) who must state that it complies with Council's OSD policy and all relevant codes and standards and also that it is generally in accordance with the approved plans.

Upon completion of the OSD works, work-as-executed (WAE) plans shall be submitted by the consulting engineer/registered surveyor to verify that the volume of storage has been attained and that critical water and floor levels are in accordance with design requirements. Any changes or variations to the approved plans shall be highlighted in red.

Certification on the standard form for On-Site Detention Record of Installation issued by Hunter’s Hill Council and WAE plans shall be submitted together with the Compliance Certificate. (Reason: Public Record).

108. If portion of the access ramp to the basement car parking area cannot be drained by gravity

then disposal of stormwater runoff via a pump-out system shall be permitted, subject to compliance with the following requirements:

i) The basement car parking area shall be graded to fall to the sump and pump system. ii) The contributing catchment area to the pump-out system shall be limited to the

basement access ramps only, and subsoil drainage. No more than 50 m2 of access ramp catchment shall be allowed to drain to the sump.

iii) Two (2) submersible type pump units shall be installed, the capacity of each being

calculated to allow for subsoil drainage and any water falling on or draining to access points. Sizing of the pumps shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Chapter 14 AR & R 1987. Storm water runoff drainage to the sump and pump system shall be calculated for a 50 year ARI design storm.

v) The two (2) pumps shall be designed to work on an alternative basis to ensure that

both pumps received equal usage and neither remains continuously idle. v) The sump is to be so designed that a minimum volume of water is retained in the sump

for health reasons when the pumps are in the "off" position. vi) The pump-out system is to be independent of any gravity drainage lines except at the

site boundary inspection pit located fronting Pittwater Road where a grated surface pit is to be constructed, from which a connection shall be permitted to the gravity drainage system.

Full Engineering details, including calculation, shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).




109. Structural design details of the OSD Tank from a suitably qualified structural engineer shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. (Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

General 110. Application is to be made to Council's Public Works and Infrastructure Department for the

following approvals and permits as appropriate:

(i) Permit to erect Builder's hoardings where buildings are to be erected or demolished within 3.50m of the street alignment. Applications are to include current fees and are to be received at least 21 days before commencement of the permitted period.

(ii) Permit to stand mobile cranes, pumps and/or other major plant on public roads.

Applications are to include current fees and security deposits and are to be received at least 7 days before the proposed usage. It should be noted that the issue of such permits also involves approval from the Police Department and the R.T.A. of NSW and could involve separate Council approval to work outside normal hours.

(iii) Establishment of Construction Zones on Public Roads adjacent to the Development

may be approved, however applications shall be received by Council at least 21 days prior to the zone being required. The application will then be referred to Council's Local Traffic Committee and the R.T.A. for assessment and approval and to include any special conditions. Council may also insist on the provision of a Construction Zone to minimise disruption to the local area.

(v) Permit to open a public road, including footpaths, for any purpose whatsoever.

Application is to include current fees.

(vi) Permit to construct vehicular crossings over Council’s footpath reserve. Reason: Legal requirement)

111. All weather access to the site is to be provided across Council's footpath together with

barricades and hazard warning lights for the safe passage of pedestrians. Council will recover cost from the applicant for works to protect pedestrian safety if safe pedestrian access is compromised.

(Reason: Public safety and erosion control). 112. All spoil loads are to be covered and the wheels of haulage vehicles washed prior to

leaving the site. (Reason: Erosion control). 113. Sweep and clean pavement surface adjacent to the ingress and egress points of earth, mud and

other materials at all times and in particular at the end of each working day or as directed by Council's Engineer.

(Reason: Legal requirement) 114 . The trimming, topsoiling and turfing of the nature strip in Pittwater Road. (Reason: Public amenity).




Driveway and Footpath 115. A longitudinal section of the driveway drawn at 1:20 Natural scale shall be prepared and

designed using Council’s standard vehicle profile and submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The section will show the vehicle path from the centre of the road through the layback/dish drain to the proposed garage, carport and parking place. (Reason: Public access).

116. The removal of all redundant crossing together with any necessary reinstatement of the

footpath and kerb and gutter. Such work shall be carried out in accordance with Council's specification. (Reason: Public amenity).

117. No building materials are to be stored on the nature strip without a written permit from

Council and payment of the fee and the area being fenced off. Erosion Control And Management Plan 118. Oleander bushes are to be removed from the nature strip for replacement with an advanced

indigenous species in consultation with Council’s Parks and Landscape Co-ordinator. 119. Sediment and Erosion Control measures are to be adopted during construction to prevent

building material and loose soil entering Council’s stormwater system during all phases of demolition, excavation and construction.

120. An Erosion Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared in

accordance with the NSW Department of Housing publication “Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction”, and submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

121. The construction of all required footpath, vehicular crossings, internal driveways, kerb and

gutter, drainage system, OSD and road works shall be carried out in accordance with Council policies and specifications under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the Manager Public Works & Infrastructure prior to the release of the Linen Plan. (Reason: Protection of public asset).

122. The landscape plan should be amended with advice from a qualified and experienced

Landscape Architect or Horticulturist to reflect the following:



• Replace the Syzigium jambos with a tree of a more suitable size so that the adjoining property to the south-east will not have the winter sunlight obscured.



123. Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate, the owners shall submit a surrender of existing use

rights in accordance with the prescribed form under the regulations.




ITEM NO : 6 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 01-1092

PROPERTY: 5 NELSON PARADE, HUNTERS HILL OWNER: MR E & MRS G HUR APPLICANT: FRANK CAVALIER PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS APPLICATION LODGED: 18.05.2001

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

HERITAGE CONSERVATION REPORTING OFFICER : SALLY FLANNERY

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL OFFICER FILE : 1530/5 DETAILS

Council is in receipt of an application to carry out alterations and additions to the existing property at No. 5 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill. The proposal comprises the following: Ground Floor: Rumpus Room, Bathroom, 3 x Bedroom, 2 x Ensuite, Laundry, Dressing Room,

Laundry, Swimming Pool. First Floor: Family Room, Living and Dining Room, Guest Bedroom, Kitchen, Ensuite, WC,

Timber Entrance Deck. The subject site is located on the southern side of Nelson Parade. It contains a 15.86 metre frontage to the Parramatta River, and has an area of 1012 m². Located on site at present is a two storey garage on the Nelson Parade frontage, and a part one and two storey sandstone clad dwelling. The application is referred to Council for determination as it is the subject of three objections from surrounding neighbours. Council, under delegated authority of the Manager Development Environment, refused an application for similar works in February 2001. The current application has been subject to a lengthy assessment period during which time numerous amendments have been sought. The final set of amended plans was lodged with Council on 24 August 2001, and additional information was submitted in September. The amended plans have substantially addressed the issues raised by Council and, on balance, the application is considered to be worthy of approval. RELEVANT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

LEP No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2)




Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: No. 15 - Residential Dwelling Houses State Environmental Policies: SEPP 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores & Tributaries Regional Environmental Plans: SREP 22 – Parramatta River Listed Heritage Item: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No Contributory Building: No DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ASSESSMENT CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2m

7.2m

Yes

HABITABLE FLOORS 2 2 Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Side (east) Side (west – carport) Rear

1.5m 1.5m 6m

1.75m (min) 1.5m 22m

Yes Yes Yes

GARDEN AREA 60% 60% Yes FORESHORE BUILDING LINE

15m 22m Yes

NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED Yes NUMBER NOTIFIED 8 NAME & ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS

Lorraine Kongrats 11 Nelson Parade Hunters Hill

• Loss of vegetation • Loss of water views from the street • Access to No. 3 Nelson Parade

Peter and Vicki Ho 8 Nelson Parade Hunters Hill

• View loss • Concerns for colour of roof • Width of entry

S and M.L McGlynn 3 Nelson Parade Hunters Hill

• Relocation of steps • Loss of vegetation • Over-development of site – Garden

Area • Overshadowing • Width of driveway • Visual bulk of addition • Loss of privacy.




PLANNING CONSIDERATION Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 lists matters the Council shall take into consideration when determining an application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the matters as detailed below. (1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environmental planning instrument Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a2) under LEP No. 1. The proposed development is permissible within the Residential 2(a2) zone subject to Council consent. The proposal is for alterations and additions and, as such, Clause 12 does not technically apply. The proposed development is subject to assessment under Clause 15 of LEP No. 1, which states: 15. (1) In this clause “ground level” , in relation to the carrying out of development on a site,

means the level of the site immediately before the development is carried out.

(2) A person shall not erect a building on a site within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b), 2(c), or 5(a): (a) containing more than 2 storeys; or (b) having a height greater than 7.2 metres measured vertically from ground level

to the uppermost ceiling, or both.

Following amendments to the proposed plans, the application complies with Clause 15 as outlined above. The proposal has a maximum height of 7.2 metres to the ceiling and contains a maximum of 2 storeys. The proposal also complies with the minimum garden area component outlined under Clause 16A of LEP No. 1. Clause 16A states: 16A. (1) In this clause, "garden area" means any area within an allotment of land which has

not been built on and which, in the opinion of the council, is designed, constructed or adapted for outdoor living or outdoor recreation, but does not include decks, balconies or swimming pools (other than swimming pools with a water surface area of less than 40 square metres and which don't project more than 150 mm above ground level), driveways, parking areas, drying yards or other service areas.

(2) The council shall not grant consent to the erection or use of a building on an allotment

of land within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2) or 2(a3) unless the allotment has a garden area equal to or greater than 50% of the area of the allotment.

(3) Notwithstanding subclause (2), the council shall not grant consent to the erection or use of a building on an allotment of land within a zone referred to in that subclause which has a frontage to the Lane Cove River or the Parramatta Rivers unless the allotment has a garden area equal to or greater than 60% of the area of the allotment.




The subject site is located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of LEP No. 1. Clause 18A states: 18A. The council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out

development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked "Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation", unless it has made an assessment of: (a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the

waterway; and (b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public

roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b). The subject site is highly visible from the water, and amendments have been made to address Council’s concern regarding the level of glazing on the southern elevation. The changes sought involved minor amendment to the southern facing elevation, to increase the solid proportioning between the glazing. The subject site is located within the Conservation Area and, as such, is subject to assessment under Clause 19A of LEP No. 1, which states: 19A. (1) A person shall not, in respect of a conservation area -

(a) demolish or alter a building or work within the area; (b) damage or move a relic within the area;

(c) excavate for the purpose of exposing a relic within the area; (d) damage or despoil a place within the area; or

(e) erect a building on or subdivide land within the area, except with the consent of Council.

(2) The Council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development on land


(3) The Council shall not grant consent to such an application, being an application to

erect a new building or to alter the exterior of an existing building, unless the Council has made an assessment of - (a) the pitch and form of the roof; (b) the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows and doors;

and (c) whether the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be

used on the exterior of the building are compatible with the materials used in the existing buildings in the conservation area.

The proposal has been amended in line with the comments made by Council’s Heritage Advisor, and the application is considered to be acceptable having regard to its siting within the Conservation Area.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No. 22 – Parramatta River The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP 22. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows:




(e) to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, cultural and heritage qualities of the land to which this plan applies in future planning and development control;

The SREP No. 22 also contains specific aims relating to the visual environment. The aims identified in relation to this are:

(i) To protect and enhance the landscape and special scenic qualities of the Parramatta River; and (ii) To ensure that adequate consideration is given to the visual impact of development; and (iii) To preserve the natural foreshores of the Parramatta River and to ensure development does not

detract from their natural character. Furthermore, Clause 20 of SREP No. 22 lists matters of consideration by Council when determining an application.. It further states that Council shall not grant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the SREP. The following matters for consideration are relevant to this application: (a) the appearance of the development from the waterway and the foreshores; (b) whether the development will cause pollution or siltation of the waterway to an extent that will

jeopardise any existing or potential uses of the waterway; (c) whether the development will have an adverse effect on wetlands or flora or fauna habitats; (d) whether the development will have an adverse effect on drainage patterns or cause shoreline

erosion; (m) any other plan of management, urban design or other development control guidelines that apply

to the Parramatta River and its foreshores and which have been notified and provided to the consent authority by a public authority;

(n) the effect of that development on the heritage significance of a heritage item, its site, its vicinity or on a conservation area;

(s) any development control plan prepared in respect of this plan. The majority of the additions on site will not visible from the Parramatta River and those which are, are deemed to be appropriate. The natural features of the site will be retained under this application with minimal disturbance within the foreshore building line proposed. Following amendments to the proposal, the application is considered to be consistent with the above matters for consideration. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 56 – Sydney Harbour It is noted that the subject site also falls within the area covered by SEPP 56. This policy also contains a number of objectives relating to foreshore development and the use of the Harbour and its tributaries. The following are the most relevant guiding principles identified under SEPP 56 as matters for consideration by a consent authority: (e) the suitability of the site or part of the site for significant open space that will enhance the open

space network existing along the harbour foreshore; (g) protection and improvement of the unique visual qualities of the harbour, its foreshore and

tributaries; (i) the conservation of items of heritage significance identified in an environmental planning

instrument or subject to an order under the Heritage Act 1977; (j) scale and character of any development derived from an analysis of the context of the site; (k) character of any development as viewed from the water and its compatibility and sympathy with

the character of the surrounding foreshores.




The above matters have been considered in the assessment of this application and the amended proposal is considered to be consistent with the principles outlined.

(1)(a)(ii) – any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to this application. (1)(a)(iii) – any development control plan

Development Control Plan for Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 22 – Parramatta River and Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours.

The DCP for SREP Nos. 22 and 23 provides more specific development criteria for SREP 22. All of the areas contained with this DCP have been identified as belonging to a certain Landscape Character. The subject site has been identified as belonging to Landscape Character No. 9, which mostly contains natural foreshores interspersed with more developed area.

The DCP also outlines a set of performance criteria, which development within this area should satisfy. The criteria state:

• It is sited so remaining rock outcrops, cliff lines or vegetated shorelines are protected and not obscured.

• It is sited to ensure that the continuous line of any natural feature is preserved and remains the dominant feature in the landscape.

• It is sited and designed to maintain the vegetation cover on the upper slopes and ridgelines.

• Major points and entrances to the bays are preserved in their natural state;

• Existing character, natural character and heritage features of the islands are retained.

• Colours should match native vegetation as closely as possible with trim colors drawn from natural elements such as tree trunks and stone.

The dwelling has been sited to ensure that the southern portion of the site has been retained in its natural state, with the retention of natural rock features and native vegetation. The proposed external colour scheme has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Adviser and is considered to be suitably recessive. Following the amendments adopted by the applicant, the proposal is considered consistent with the above performance criteria.

It is the opinion of the assessing officer that the proposed development will not ‘substantially impact’ on the landscape qualities of the foreshore. The development has largely been contained within the existing built upon area on site, with most existing natural features, inclusive of rock outcrops and mature vegetation, being retained. There will be minimal disturbance south of the building with a swimming pool being proposed in the same location as that which currently exists.

Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Development




DCP 15 contains objectives that relate to all residential development within the Municipality of Hunters Hill. The objectives of DCP 15 state:

a. Development should be compatible with the landscape character of the area. Generally the landscape character of Hunters Hill is encapsulated in the “tree” whether indigenous, native or exotic. Hunter’s Hill Council is committed to protecting and enhancing the area’s landscape character and natural environment.

b. Development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public place, should be

compatible with the character and scale of any existing building to be retained on the site and residential development in the immediate vicinity.

c. Development, particularly when viewed from public reserves, National Parks, waterways or

across valleys, should not be obtrusive in or upon the natural landscape. d. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity, additions and new

development should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.

For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal is considered consistent with objectives (a), (b), (c) and (d) outlined above.

The objectives outlined in DCP 15 relating to development within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area are as follows:

a. To encourage residential development that ensures dwelling form, including alterations and additions, that does not degrade the amenity of the surrounding residents or the visual quality of Hunter’s Hill particularly when viewed from the waterway;

b. To minimise the visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land, public

reserves and waterways; c. To ensure that dwellings be designed with regard to the site conditions, to minimise the impact

on the landform and visual amenity; d. To ensure that dwellings blend into the natural surroundings and are consistent with the

aesthetic quality of surrounding developments; e. To ensure that dwelling designs having regard to preserving existing views towards the

waterway from public roads, public reserves and adjoining properties;

The proposed development has responded to the natural topography of the site, in that it attempts to step down with the land. Following amendments to the plans, the proposed development is considered consistent with objectives (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) outlined above.

The subject site is considered to be visually prominent and, as such, assessment in regard to the following objectives is required.

a. To encourage residential development that ensures dwelling form, including alterations and additions, that does not degrade the amenity of the surrounding residents or the aesthetic quality of Hunter’s Hill;




b. To minimise the visual impact of development when viewed from adjacent land, public reserves and waterways;

c. To ensure that dwellings be designed with regard to the site conditions, to minimise the impact

on the landform and visual amenity; d. To ensure that dwellings blend into the natural surroundings; e. To ensure that dwelling designs having regard to preserving existing views.

For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with all the above objectives.

The proposed development complies with all relevant development standards as outlined in the above table. The applicant has stated that the proposal complies with the required garden area of 60%. The subject block contains numerous natural rock features forward of the building line, all of which will be retained under this application. The existing swimming pool located within this area is proposed to be removed and replaced with a pool in the same location. The proposed pool contains an area of less than 40m² and will be no more than 150mm above natural ground level.

(1)(b)(c) – the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. Suitability of the site for the development.

The existing levels on site are substantially being retained under this application. The main addition is occurring in the middle of the site between the existing garage and the existing two-storey portion of the building. The single storey link is being converted to two stories, the existing balcony is being extended forward and the roof line is being lowered by approximately 350mm, as a result of a decreased pitch. The height of the center ridge has been lowered by 400mm and the bulk has been broken up by a skillion linking structure. These amendments have been undertaken in response to the concerns of the adjoining neighbour at 3 Nelson Parade regarding overshadowing and visual bulk of the proposal.

The amended proposal is a significant improvement on the original plans submitted for this application and those plans previously refused by Council. The building is reasonably well articulated and its roof form and massing is consistent with the character of development within the Conservation Area. It is the opinion of the assessing officer that, on balance, this proposal is considered to be worthy of support.

(1)(d) – any submission made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The proposal was notified to all surrounding neighbours for a period of 10 days. A total of three objections were received following this notification period. The following is a response to the issues identified by the three objectors.

Loss of Vegetation

The retention and health of the two large Gum trees located within the front yard of the subject site have been of paramount concern to Council in the assessment of this application. The applicant has consistently argued that there will be no impact on the health of the trees during and following the construction of the proposal. Council’s landscape consultant has reviewed the plans and




specifications for the two trees and a number of concerns were identified. In response to these concerns, the applicant amended the plans to replace the proposed concrete deck with an open timber structure with a 1500mm diameter hole cut to allow for movement of the Willow Gum tree. Furthermore, the additions were sited further away from the base of the Sydney Blue Gum tree (a minimum setback of 1900mm). Whilst it is acknowledged that both these amendments will help minimize the impact on the trees, Council’s landscape consultant has provided the following final comments:

Following the Landscape report of 24/09/01 at which time the applicant was advised to submit a renewed report by the Arborist in regard to the retention of the two Eucalyptus trees as affected by the proposed development in the 2nd DA lodged for this site.

Tree No. 1 Willow Gum (E. scoparia) The Arborists report cites that the 1.5 metre diameter circular hole in the “arrival deck” will “provide adequate clearance for the movement of the trunk at that level.

Provided that the foundations are piered near to this tree there should be little root damage to the tree and it is likely to continue more or less in its current sate of health. The health could be improved slightly by carrying out tree protection and soil remediation works as detailed in the ‘protection of trees on your construction site’ document in my previous report”

With this recommendation I am satisfied that the measures shown in the Architects drawings and specifications and backed by the improvement works as attached and specified in the Arborist’s first report shall be acceptable to Council.

Tree No.2 Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna) This tree continues to be a source of concern to this DA. The Arborists report cites that there is a major branch which overhangs the adjoining property (roof) No. 3 Nelson Parade. The structure of the junction of this branch is weak and “………is likely to fail with time. Complete removal of this branch would remove approximately 1/3 of the already thin canopy ”

Having regard to the long-term health and safety of this tree, together with the safety of property and persons within both properties, Nos. 3 and 5, and notwithstanding the amenity of this tree especially to No.3, it is considered expedient to remove this tree. In so doing it shall be conditioned that the proposed building works shall provide appropriate replacement planting to provide long term privacy and amenity along the common boundary of Nos. 3 and 5 Nelson Parade. Further, the proposed replacement species shall be to the approval of the residents/owners of No.3 and to Council.

The recommendations of Council’s landscape consultant will be included as conditions of consent, and are deemed to be appropriate in terms of addressing the concerns of the objectors.

Relocation of Stairs/Entry Width

The design of the access stairs to the natural ground level of the subject site and to the neighbours has been seriously considered by Council’s Public Works and Infrastructure Department and has been deemed acceptable having regard to the issues identified by the objectors. The stairs are on Council land and do not belong to either the subject site or the neighbour. In terms of providing adequate access to No. 3 Nelson Parade, they are deemed acceptable, notwithstanding the concerns raised.




The width of the stair is not changing under the amended proposal, and the extended landing should not significantly impact on the access arrangements to No. 3.

The width of the existing driveway is not changing under this application. The width of the pedestrian access way has been reduced to 2800mm which, although generous, is not considered to be of such concern to warrant further modification. The main concern with the entrance way was the impact on the Sydney Gum tree located in the centre of the proposed deck. This issue has now been addressed and the visual impact on the decking has been reduced by the choice of materials.

View Loss

The concern for view loss following this development is noted, however it is not considered to be sufficient justification for refusal of the application. The water views between the subject site and No. 3 should not be adversely affected following this development, as the proposed development does not extend further to the east than what currently exists. The removal of the Willow Gum will improve the view corridor in the short term, however the replacement planting will eliminate any permanent view improvements. The objector at No. 8 Nelson Parade is at a substantially higher level than the subject site and, following the reduction in ridge heights as proposed on the amended plans, the view loss is not considered significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

Overshadowing and Visual Bulk

The concerns for overshadowing and visual bulk from the neighbour at No. 3 Nelson Parade have been clearly identified to the applicant through the assessment of this and the previous application. Following considerable discussion, amended plans were received which attempted to address both of these concerns. The neighbour at No. 3 is at a lower level and currently enjoys filtered light to the western rooms. This light was going to be largely eliminated by the proposal for a two-storey addition between the existing garage and house on site, however, the amended plans have attempted to reduce this impact by an increased setback from the eastern boundary and broken up roof form. Furthermore, the lowered roof pitch over the front of the dwelling will largely eliminate the increased shadow to the pool area of the adjoining neighbour. It is acknowledged that there will be some loss of sunlight to the neighbour following this development, however the level is within the permissible limits of DCP 15 and is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

Privacy

The concerns for privacy have been identified from the study, family room and living room. The amended plans have removed the study from the proposal and replaced it with a guest room. Notwithstanding this change, it is assumed that the concerns expressed would remain. It is not considered to be unreasonable to require that the windows from the guest bedroom, ensuite and family room be obscured to ensure the privacy of the neighbour’s entrance and bedrooms. The issue of obscuring the windows from the living room is one that needs to be considered having regard to the perceived loss of privacy to the neighbour’s swimming pool and the obstruction of views to the southeast. The neighbour’s site contains a gazebo structure adjoining the common boundary between the subject site and the pool. It is the opinion of the assessing officer that the impact on privacy should be minimal due to the distance of the proposed development from the boundary coupled with the visual obstruction associated with the gazebo. The windows contain a sill height of 800mm, and are 1400mm high. Should Council be concerned with this privacy issue, it would be possible to require that either the sill height be increased to minimise any casual observation of the neighbour’s site or, to maintain the preferred design of the applicant, the windows could be obscured to a height of 1500mm above floor level.




(1)(e) – the public interest

The application has been assessed having regard to the public interest and following the amendments made to the plans, coupled with the recommended conditions of consent, the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard. CONCLUSION The application has been considered under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and is considered satisfactory, and is accordingly recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No. 011092, for proposed alterations and additions at 5 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill, be approved subject to standard conditions (2001 version) Nos. A1-A4, B1-B2, B14 ($2800), C1-C10, C12, C19, C21, C22, C24, C27, C28, C30, C33, C34, C35, C38, C37-C50, C52, C58, C60, C61-C64, C81-C85, C87, C92, C94, C95, C96, C100 (011092, Frank Cavalier, 5, August 2001), D1-D3, D5, D12, D16, L6, L13, PE1, PE4, PE5, PE6, PE14, PE17, SP1-SP16, SP19, SP21-SP22, SP23-SP24, SP27, SP30, SP31, S1, S4, S10, S14 and the following special condition: 1. The landscaping is to be carried out in accordance with the plan prepared by Sally Bourne

Landscapes, Drawing Number 60/01, dated 10 June 2001.

2. All works associated with the Willow Gum and Sydney Blue Gum on site are to be in accordance with the arborist report prepared by Apex Tree and Garden Experts dated 15 October 2001 and specifications dated 30 November 2000 and strictly in accordance with the following specific requirements:

a. Willow Gum (E. scoparia)

Approve the timber deck with the specified piers.

• All piering works shall be in the presence of the arborist, who shall direct protective works to the roots as necessary to ensure the long-term health and safety of this tree.

• Carry out improvement and tree protection works as per the specification attached with the arborist’s first report with the original DA, as per the attachment “Protection of Trees on Your Construction Site”.

• Carry out light pruning to remove small dead branches as directed by the arborist on site.

b. Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna)

Approve the removal of this tree subject to the following conditions:




• Submit a Landscape Planting Plan to Council showing screen/amenity replacement planting along this portion of the eastern boundary of the subject site. Plants shall be Super Advanced or Semi Mature in size and specified by their Botanic and Common Names, and the size of containers from which they shall be planted on site.

• All plants selected and proposed shall be with the written approval of the owners/residents of No.3 Nelson Parade. This written approval shall be attached with the Proposed Planting Plan for the eastern boundary line.

• Removal of the existing tree shall be in accordance with best practice standards. The contractor shall have the requisite insurances to cover for accidental damage to property and persons in the two properties and within Nelson Parade.

• Ten (10) days written notice shall be given to Council when the tree removal works are planned.

• In the event that traffic in Nelson Parade is to be disrupted, the contractor shall make suitable arrangements for traffic diversion and control. Council shall be notified of these arrangements not less than 10 days prior to the proposed felling works.

• All cuttings and other parts of the felled tree shall be removed from site and taken to a licensed tip.

3. To address privacy concerns to the adjoining neighbour, the east facing windows from the first floor guest bedroom, ensuite and family room are to contain obscure glazing.

4. The external colours and finishes are to be in accordance with the samples submitted to

Council for assessment on 20 June 2001.

5. The alterations to the access stairs on Council property are to be undertaken in accordance with the plan prepared by Frank Cavalier, dated August 2001.

6. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas is to be piped either to Council’s gutter in

Nelson Parade or a non-scouring outfall towards the rear cliff. Details are to be provided for comment prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Details are to include a silt arrestor pit before any cliff outfall.

7. Details of any modifications to vehicle access or other works beyond the boundary are to be

submitted for comment prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Any works undertaken beyond the boundary shall be subject to payment of supervision fees and permit charges prior to commencement of works. (Council reserves the right to vary detailing on approved works beyond the boundary).

8. A silt and sediment control plan is to be submitted for comment prior to issue of the

Construction Certificate, with reference to Council’s publication “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines”.




9. The existing stone walls located on Council property are not to be relocated or altered without the prior concurrence of Council.




ITEM NO : 7 SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-1003

SECTION 96 AMENDMENT PROPERTY: 57 HUNTLEYS POINT ROAD, HUNTLEYS POINT OWNER/APPLICANT: JOHN & JANN ANSCHAU PROPOSAL: MAJOR ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS APPLICATION LODGED: 3.01.2001

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : ANDREW MARTIN

SENIOR DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FILE : 1335/57 DETAILS A Deferred Commencement consent determined under delegated authority was issued on the 19th July 2001 for the part demolition of a dwelling and construction of major alterations and additions. An application is now made pursuant to the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to delete a number of the deferred commencement conditions in Schedule 1 (refer to the attached deferred commencement consent) which are listed as follows: 1. To reduce the excessive bulk and scale of the roof form and to minimise the impact on the

streetscape, riverscape and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, the plans are to be amended by: (a) redesigning the main roof by creating two (2) separate pavilions linked by a flat roof

(or similar) section over the foyer, stairs and void area; (b) provision of a flat roof over the master bedroom ensuite; (c) reduction in the amount of glazing tho the northern (river) elevation as noted in red

on the attached plans;

2. In order to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development and preserve public views the plans shall be amended as follows prior to issue of a Construction Certificate:

i) the roof of the projecting bay in the eastern elevation shall be flat; ii) the iron infill panels to the carport shall have a maximum height of 1800mm; iii) the carport roof shall be flat and the parapet deleted; iv) the maximum height of windows above finished floor level shall be 2100mm; v) additional solid masonry shall be provided in lieu of windows in the northern

elevation as detailed in Red on the approved plans.




The applicant has agreed to comply with 1(c) and 2 (ii)(iii)(iv) and (v), however they have lodged the subject Section 96 application to delete the requirements of the remaining conditions as detailed above. Justification for the deletion of the specified conditions is contained in the applicant’s submission and consulting architect’s report attached to this report. It is forwarded that the proposed amendments as suggested by the applicant are in principle supported. Notwithstanding this, it is forwarded that the application as modified by the subject Section 96 application is just acceptable in that a report could be easily prepared in favour of the original application. The applicant engaged an independent architect to review Council’s requirements (report attached) and it is the assessing officer’s opinion that the conclusions reached on page 7 of the report are very generous. The resultant development is one that is considered to be substantially the same as the original development and therefore satisfies the criteria specified under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, having considered the relevant objectives. A copy of the delegated authority report is attached which provides the reasoning behind the original conditions of the deferred commencement consent that the applicant, in part, requests be deleted. PLANNING ASSESSMENT In determining the Section 96 application, Council shall consider the underlying objectives of the local plan. The relevant clauses, and those sections within each clause, are identified for the purposes of this report and assessment. Clause 2 of LEP No.1 states that: “The aims of this plan are to conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hunters Hill, Council as established by its heritage, character, topography and residential amenity, by- (a) conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, the

townscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of the use and development of land, buildings and structure;

(b) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the environmental heritage of the municipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage;

(b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and development control processes;

(b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the conservation of the area’s environmental heritage;

(b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and their settings, as well as the streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this land applies…….”

The information provided in support of the amended application demonstrates that the proposed development satisfies the underlying aims and objectives of the local plan. The proposed development will read as a two storey dwelling and it is fair to say that the modifications to the windows, balustrades and carport roof present a development which is significantly better than the




original plans submitted to Council. The lowering of the roof pitch is offered as a compromise to the requirement of two separate pavilions. It is forwarded that the two pavilions will significantly reduce the bulk of the building, however, as a compromise, the roof pitch is reduced to 25 degrees in lieu of 30 degrees. This will be sufficient to improve the appearance of the building, particularly with the other changes made to the fenestration in the north elevation facing the river. Under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan No. 14, the site is located within the Conservation Area and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as discussed below.

A property located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area shall satisfy the following objectives prescribed under Clause 18A of LEP No.1 which states: “The Council shall not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown on the map marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 – Heritage Conservation”, unless it has made an assessment of : (a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the

waterway; (b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads

and from public reserves or from land within zone No. 6(a) or 6(b)” An assessment has been made of the external appearance of the dwelling as viewed from the street and from the Parramatta River. The building will make a neutral contribution to the landscape setting. The bulk, scale and expression of the building are seen to be satisfactory. The applicant under the revised proposal has agreed to lower the roof pitch, which will result in a ridge level of RL18.90 which is 880mm lower than the original approval. Given that the building is located within the Conservation Area, Council must have regard to Clause 19A of LEP No.1 which states: “19A (2) The Council shall not grant consent to an application to carry out development on land


(3) The Council shall not grant consent to such an application, being an application to

erect a new building or to alter the exterior of an existing building, unless the Council has made an assessment of - (a) the pitch and form of the roof;

(b) the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows and doors; and

(c) whether the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used on the exterior of the building are compatible with the materials used in the existing buildings in the conservation area.

As stated in the applicant submission attached to this report, an agreement has been reached with regard to improvements to the northern elevation and, in this regard, Council’s officers support the application having considered the above criteria.




Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 79C of the EP& A Act 1979 lists the matters the Council shall take into consideration as are of relevance in determining a development application and are relevant matters for consideration under any Section 96(2) application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the relevant matters as detailed below: (1)(a)(i) – the provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) is the applicable planning policy. All relevant matters have been identified in the report. (1)(a)(ii) – any Draft Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority There are no draft plans which apply to this site. (1)(a)(iii) – any development control plan

DCP15 - Residential Development

The Section 96 application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the DCP and the proposed development complies with the objectives and numerical standards.

(1)(b) and (c) - the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. Suitability of the site for the development.

The impacts on the natural and built environments are of a level considered acceptable for the proposed development. There is no apparent reason why the subject site is not suitable for the proposed development. (d) – any submissions made in accordance with this act or the regulations

The proposed development was notified to the adjoining neighbours and no objections have been received. (e) - the public interest

Given that the appropriate assessment procedure has occurred, the proposed development does not have an adverse impact on the public interest in the circumstance of the case. CONCLUSION The Section 96(2) application been assessed having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Sections 79C and 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Hunters Hill LEP No. 1 (as amended). For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered satisfactory and, accordingly, is recommended for approval subject to the original conditions as modified by the Section 96 approval.




FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION That the Section 96(2) application to delete conditions 1(a) (b) and 2 (i) listed under Schedule 1 of the Deferred Commencement consent dated 19th July 2001 be approved.




ITEM NO : 8 SUBJECT : DELEGATED AUTHORITY BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : JOE VESCIO


FILE : 200/10 Development Application No. 01-1234 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant B.S. Maiorana Value $5,000.00 Premises 9 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill Garden Area Existing Classification (BCA) Class 10b Date Lodged 19.11.01 Assessing Officer Joe Vescio Determination Date 26.11.01 Proposal Timber deck Determination Approved subject to conditions Development Application No. 011155 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. 017138 (pool only) Notification No objectionApplicant Phillip Radburn Value $230,000 Premises 36 Prince Edward Street, G’ville Garden Area 50% Classification (BCA) Class 1a, 10a Date Lodged 03.08.01 Assessing Officer Sally Flannery Determination Date 24.11.01 Proposal Alterations and additions Determination Approved subject to conditions Development Application No. 01 1057 Zone 2(a2) Construction Certificate No. No Application Notification No objectionApplicant Anne and Charles Amos Value $250 000 Premises 4A Alfred Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 50% Classification (BCA) Class 1a and 10b Date Lodged 21.3.2001 Assessing Officer Andrew Martin Determination Date 26.11.2001 Proposal Alterations and additions Determination Approved subject to standard conditions Development Application No. 01-1192 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. 01/7160 Notification No objectionApplicant Ian Cubitt’s Home Improvements PValue $36,670 Premises 16 Rocher Avenue, Hunters Hill Garden Area No change Classification (BCA) Class 1a Date Lodged 27/09/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 26/11/2001 Proposal Dwelling addition – sunroom Determination Approved subject to conditions




Development Application No. 01-1243 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant Leenane P/L Value $15,000 Premises 10 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill Garden Area N/A Classification (BCA) Class 6 Date Lodged 22-11-01 Assessing Officer Joe Vescio Determination Date 27-11-01 Proposal Demolition of existing structure Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1148 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant Mr Marco Rec Value $10,000 Premises 101 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill Garden Area 50% Classification (BCA) Class 1a & 10b Date Lodged 31/07/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 27/11/2001 Proposal Front fence and deck Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1224 Zone 5(a) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant Superstructure Systems Australia

Ltd Value $4,922

Premises Hunters Hill Congregational Church, 1 Ferdinand Street, HH

Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) Class 10b Date Lodged 8/11/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 27/11/2001 Proposal Signs (3) Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1215 Zone 2(c) Construction Certificate No. 01-7181 Notification Not notified Applicant Vergola (NSW) Pty. Ltd. Value $10, 654 Premises 17 Mortimer Lewis Drive, Tarban Garden Area Existing Classification (BCA) Class 10a Date Lodged 25/10/01 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 27/11/2001 Proposal Awning Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1193 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant Steven & Rosanne Clough Value $9,000 Premises 17 Martin Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area Classification (BCA) Class 10a Date Lodged 28/09/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 27/11/2001 Proposal Carport Determination Approved subject to conditions




Development Application No. 01-1189 Zone 2(a2) Construction Certificate No. 01-7159 Notification No objectionApplicant Elizabeth Steinbeck Value $20 000 Premises 6 Nemba Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 50% Classification (BCA) Class 1a Date Lodged 24/09/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 13/11/2001 Proposal Decking Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1188 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant A. Anderson C/- Meriba Pty Ltd Value $60,000 Premises 41 Blaxland Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 66% Classification (BCA) Class 1a Date Lodged 24/09/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 27/11/2001 Proposal Alterations and additions Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 011210 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. No application Notification No objectionApplicant Mr and Mrs Funnell Value $10,000 Premises 12 Huntleys Point Road, HP Garden Area No change Classification (BCA) Class 10b Date Lodged 22.10.01 Assessing Officer Sally Flannery Determination Date 28.11.01 Proposal Retaining wall, paving to patio Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 011139 Zone 5(a) Construction Certificate No. No application Notification No objectionApplicant Robert Ottignon Value $700,000 Premises “Farm Attendants Cottage”

99 Victoria Road, Gladesville Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) Class 1a Date Lodged 23.07.01 Assessing Officer Sally Flannery Determination Date 25.11.01 Proposal Major alterations and additions. Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 001132B Zone 2(a3) Construction Certificate No. No application Notification No submissioApplicant Arc Architects Value N/A Premises 24 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill Garden Area 56% Classification (BCA) Class 10b Date Lodged 09.10.01 Assessing Officer Sally Flannery Determination Date 30.11.01 Proposal Gazebo Determination Approved subject to conditions




Development Application No. 001132C Zone 2(a3) Construction Certificate No. No application Notification No submissioApplicant Arc Architects Value N/A Premises 24 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill Garden Area 56% Classification (BCA) No class Date Lodged 09.10.01 Assessing Officer Sally Flannery Determination Date 30.11.01 Proposal Driveway Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1186 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant John Paul Homsey Value $60 000 Premises 23 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill Garden Area 48% Classification (BCA) Class 1a Date Lodged 18/09/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 03/12/2001 Proposal Dwelling additions Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. 01-1228 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification No objectionApplicant Ben Madigan Value $5,000 Premises 30 Milling Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 64% Classification (BCA) Class 1a Date Lodged 13/11/2001 Assessing Officer Katrena Fuller Determination Date 04/12/2001 Proposal Deck Determination Approved subject to conditions

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.




ITEM NO : 9 SUBJECT : LEGAL MATTERS BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTING OFFICER : JOE VESCIO

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT FILE : 505/01 APPEALS Status reports in relation to recent or pending appeals are attached. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted.

E

Public Works & Infrastructure

E – Public Works & Infrastructure

4115 – 10th December, 2001

Index 1. Tree Preservation Order – Approvals 1 2. Bushcare Volunteer Management Policy 4 3. Minutes of the General Purposes Committee Meeting Held on 3rd December, 2001 5

.................................... Don Cottee

MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 E1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4115 held on 10th December, 2001. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT – LOCAL

AMENITY REPORTING OFFICER : DON COTTEE

MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE FILE : 785/03 APPLICANT DATE RECEIVED WORK REQUESTED & REASON GIVEN

Mr Mark Abourizk 67 Blaxland Street Boronia Park (1080/67)

5 November, 2001 Permission is given to remove the following trees under the condition that DA 01/1216 is approved: 2 x Cocos Palms (back garden):- Weed species in this location. 1 x Bangalow Palm (back garden):- Smaller specimen of little consequences. 1 x Umbrella tree (western side):- Root system causing damage. 1 x Pencil Cypress (western side):- Poor specimen. 1 x Norfolk Island Pine (front garden):- Species grows too large for this location. APPROVED:- 22 November, 2001.

Mrs Lynn McNally 7 Campbell Street Hunters Hill (1105/7)

9 November, 2001 1 x Willow:- Tree has extensive decay and is structurally unsound. Primary branch failure has occurred. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 22 November, 2001.

Miss Olga Pendel 1/3 Avenue Road Hunters Hill (1060/3)

13 November, 2001 1 x Cypress (located in the front garden):- Specimen in poor condition due to previous incorrect lopping. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 30 November, 2001.

Mr Chris Yates 31 Auburn Street Hunters Hill (1050/31)

14 November, 2001 1 x Eucalyptus nicholii (located in the front garden):- Overmature specimen in decline. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 29 November, 2001.




APPLICANT DATE RECEIVED WORK REQUESTED & REASON GIVEN

Ms Virginia Wise 2 Joly Parade Hunters Hill (1370/2)

15 November, 2001 1 x Phoenix Palm (located at the front of dwelling):- Unsuitable species for this location due to risk of injury from spikes. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 29 November, 2001.

Mr W & Mrs K Every-Burns 7A Fern Road Hunters Hill (1225/17A)

15 November, 2001 1 x Cypress (located at the side of dwelling):- Poor specimen. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 29 November, 2001.

Mrs T McGroder 37 Abigail Street Hunters Hill (1010/37)

21 November, 2001 2 x Cocos Palms:- Site is overplanted and removal of these Palms will be of benefit. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 22 November, 2001.

Mr R Bates 47 Pittwater Road Hunters Hill (1575/47)

22 November, 2001 1 x Robinia (located in the front garden):- Badly disfigured due to previous incorrect lopping. Application for removal is approved. 1 x Pin Oak (located in the front garden):- Small specimen located too close to retaining wall. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 22 November, 2001.

Mrs A Strokon 34 Woolwich Road Hunters Hill (1760/34)

22 November, 2001 1 x Apple Tree (located on verge):- Unsuitable for this location. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 29 November, 2001.

Ms R Anscomb 16 Avenue Road Hunters Hill (1060/16)

23 November, 2001 1 x Box Elder (located at the side of dwelling):- Tree is of poor form and hitting neighbour’s roof. Application for removal is approved. 1 x Loquat (located at the side of dwelling):- Loquat is a weed species. Application for removal is approved. 1 x Palm (located at the side of dwelling):- Located too close to dwelling. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 23 November, 2001.

Mr A Bencsik 14 Gale Street Woolwich (1265/14)

28 November, 2001 1 x Camphorlaurel (located in the front garden):- Tree is damaging heritage wall. Application for removal is approved. APPROVED:- 28 November, 2001.




FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION





ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : BUSHCARE VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT POLICY BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENT REPORTING OFFICER : DIANA KUREEN FILE : 580/19

Hunter’s Hill Council is fortunate to have the input of Bushcare Volunteers to help protect, maintain and enhance the natural environment of the Municipality. Council now has approximately one hundred volunteers on its database. Not all of these volunteers are active all of the time, while others work in the bushland on a monthly, weekly and, in some cases, almost daily basis.

The work of the volunteers is guided by the Bushland Plan of Management. This document also has an appendix setting out some guidelines for the management of bushcare volunteers.

The Hunter’s Hill Council Policy for the Management of the Bushcare Volunteers seeks to replace that appendix, having been prepared to take into account new legislation that sets out Council’s “duty of care” towards its staff and bushcare volunteers. The Policy outlines the steps that Council will take to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm to its bushcare volunteers, including OH & S issues, training, the provision of tools etc.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Council needs to allocate adequate funding in its strategic management plan for the ongoing administration of bushcare volunteer programs.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the Bushcare Volunteer Management Policy.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE



ITEM NO : 3 SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2001 BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT – RESERVES

MANAGEMENT REPORTING OFFICER : DON COTTEE

MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE FILE : 1804 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The Draft Plan of Management for Boronia Park was placed on exhibition. 34 Submissions were received and the writers were invited to address a General Purposes Committee meeting of Council on 28th November, 2001.

A further General Purposes Committee meeting was held on 3rd December, 2001 to discuss the implementation of the Plan.

Rationale

Plans of Management are a requirement under the Local Government Act, 1993. The Local Government Amendment (Community Land Management) Act 1998 reiterated Councils’ responsibilities to actively manage public lands and to involve the community in the management and strategic development of public lands.

This Plan of Management has been prepared according to the guidelines outlined by the Department of Local Government Practice Note 1 developed to assist local Councils in the management of public lands (Department of Local Government, 2000).

Land Classification

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Plans of Management for Council areas need to classify the land to which they refer. The study area within Boronia Park Reserve can be classified as follows:

“A modified area of public open space which is in parts degraded and in need of rehabilitation and management to realise its full recreational and environmental potential”

and which has the following characteristics:

�� Stream and adjacent floodplain (largely stable though polluted and with some weed infestation);

�� Remnant bushland which is undergoing regeneration and which is important from a regional biodiversity perspective;




�� Cultural heritage which needs protection and interpretation (Sherry 1989);

�� Passive recreational potential that needs to be enhanced;

�� Recreational playing fields and infrastructure for other recreational activities such as children’s play areas.

Note: Other recreational features exist such as the Great North Walk which establishes Boronia Park Reserve as a linking corridor between Sydney Harbour and Lane Cove National Park.

The whole Reserve is zoned “6a Open Space” according to Hunter’s Hill Council’s Local Environment Plan (1992) (Figure 2).

Categorisation of the Community Land

Land categorisation is an effective way in which to focus on the essential aspects of each area of land. Public land broadly falls into five categories according to the guidelines in the Act (LGA 1993) and its regulations (LGGR 1999). The categorisations for Boronia Park Reserve are outlined in Figure 3 (map of the area and its categories) and described below, and details for each category are outlined in Appendix A.

Natural Areas Areas in Boronia Park Reserve defined as natural areas (as defined in the LGA Act 1993, Section 36) include:

��Bushlands – on the northern side of Princes Street and between Princes Street and Boronia Avenue in the south of the Park; some isolated pockets near the roundabout on Princes and Park Streets (see also Appendix B1, Boronia Park Reserve Draft Bushland Plan of Management);

��Wetlands – on the foreshores and in the newly created Brickmaker’s Creek Melaleuca wetland;

��Watercourses – Brickmakers Creek and the tributary to Brickmakers Creek running from the corner of Park and High Streets; and

��Foreshores – All the foreshore of the Lane Cove River which border the Reserve up to the high water mark.

Sports Grounds Areas in Boronia Park Reserve defined as sports grounds are the three ovals in the south of the Reserve. The sportsground category adjoins the bushland category in the south of the park near Boronia Avenue. In other areas, the sports ground category is surrounded by either parkland or general community use areas. The sports ground category also contains the culturally significant ‘Grandstand’ building beside Oval No.1.

Parkland Parkland areas generally include those areas surrounding the sports grounds, areas where existing children’s play facilities are in place, and areas where there other existing facilities such as picnic areas, amenities blocks or gardens. There is a small portion of the northern section of the Reserve allocated as parkland where existing play facilities and amenities are in place.




Areas/Items of Cultural Significance The whole area is considered culturally significant as the whole reserve is listed in the NSW Heritage Register. There are specific structures that are of cultural and historic significance, including the Grandstand at the main oval, and the horse trough on the nature strip at Park Road. The Brickmakers Creek wetland site includes heritage brick/rockwork and hand-hewn sandstone, which has historical significance as characteristic of construction and masonry undertaken more than a century ago. There are also remnants of aboriginal middens at the foreshore (Hunters Hill Council 1988). General Community Use All other areas are areas categorised for general community use, and include the nature strip surrounds of the Reserve, main thoroughfares (such as Princes Street up to the gate) and parking areas (existing and proposed). The design criteria for the provision of off-lead dog exercise areas needs to incorporate basic risk management principles viz. 1. The owner of a dog needs to be in line of sight of the dog at all times for proper control of the animal. 2. The facility needs to be open for safety reasons for surveillance and monitoring. 3. The facility needs to be fenced if in an open area or if located adjacent to a high value eco-system. In providing a facility, Council needs to comply with good practice for risk minimisation and insurance purposes.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The establishment of the off-lead dog area would cost $20,000. No budget provision has been made in the Strategic Management Plan for the works.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the Plan of Management for the reserve subject to the following amendments:

1. That the re-categorisation of the land at the north-east corner of the reserve from natural area to parkland (this area is shown cross hatched on the sketch attached).

2. That an area be delineated as an off-lead area in the northern part of Boronia Park comprising part of the area between the remnant bushland on the east and Park Road on the west (see sketch).

3. That dogs are allowed on lead in all areas of the reserves except:

��The natural areas north of Princes Street; ��Ovals 1, 2, and 3; ��Foreshores to the north of Princes Street; ��Within 10m of playgrounds.




4. That the future community facility options would be canvassed on the appropriate location, although the location south of the grandstand is favoured on an area designated as community land.

5. That the site for the skateboard facility is to be located to the south of the existing grandstand on land that is designated as community land.

6. That cycle ways be implemented as per the Bike Plan

7. That off-road cycle ways be implemented as per the submission from Bike North.

F

Finance & Administration

F – Finance & Administration

4115 – 10th December, 2001

Index 1. Summary of Council Investments as at 30th November, 2001 1 2. Financial Reports to 30th November, 2001 3

............................. Debra McFadyen

MANAGER FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

REPORT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 F1


ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : SUMMARY OF COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 30TH

NOVEMBER 2001 BUSINESS PROGRAM : FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORTING OFFICER : DEBRA MCFADYEN

MANAGER FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

FILE : 330/06

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INVESTMENTS AS AT 30TH OF NOVEMBER 2001 (330/06) Institution Reference Principal Lodged Term Matures Rate CBA Bank Bill $ 436,069 20/11/2001 1 mth 18/12/2001 4.39%CBA Bank Bill $ 474,135 14/11/2001 1 mth 13/12/2001 4.43%CBA Bank Bill $ 505,953 26/11/2001 1 mth 21/12/2001 4.40%LGIS Term Deposit $ 326,554 20/11/2001 1 mth 20/12/2001 4.50%LGIS Term Deposit $ 466,482 7/11/2001 1 mth 7/12/2001 4.48%Suncorp/Metway Term Deposit $ 348,240 5/11/2001 1 mth 5/12/2001 4.46%IMB Term Deposit $ 1,483,769 30/11/2001 1 mth 4/01/2002 4.62%CBA 24 HR Call $ 204,260 24 HR Call 3.65% $ 4,245,463 CBA General $ 805,701 30/11/2001 Bank Account Balance $ 5,051,164

The above Investments include the following Restrictions Town Hall $69,400 Office Equipment $14,100 Plant $220,044 ELE $146,445 S94 $463,345 Trust Deposits $1,212,753 Trust Depot $64,945 Trust Community Services $20,000

Capital Works $1,200,841 $3,411,873



Portfolio 90 Day BB $ % Rate % Rate Total Investment as at: 31.12.00 5023865 6.24 6.18 31.01.01 4853756 6.20 5.93 28.02.01 4878045 5.77 5.60 31.03.01 4905182 5.42 5.14 30.4.01 4328717 4.94 4.86 31.5.01 4358272 5.06 4.90 30.6.01 4358266 5.04 4.97 31.7.01 3779217 5.07 5.04 31.8.01 4191409 5.02 4.95 30.9.01 4708632 4.74 4.56 31.10.01 4229447 4.49 4.29 30.11.01 4245463 4.49 4.28 Average Rate 5.21 5.06

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

31.12.00 31.01.01 28.02.01 31.03.01 30.4.01 31.5.01 30.6.01 31.7.01 31.8.01 30.9.01 31.10.01 30.11.01 AverageRate

Portfolio % Rate90 Day BB % Rate

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That this report be received and noted.



ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : FINANCIAL REPORTS TO 30TH NOVEMBER, 2001 BUSINESS PROGRAM : FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORTING OFFICER : DEBRA MCFADYEN FILE : 330/06 The November 2001 report indicates no change to the estimated deficit of $37,700.

Attached are:

1. Explanation Notes to the November, 2001 Financial Report.

2. The November 2001 Financial Report – this report has been produced manually in the Management Plan format.

3. An Operating Statement for the year to month-end of November, 2001 – the Operating Statement is the same as the first 5 pages of Attachment 2 and is produced direct from our computer system.

4. An Account Management Report to end of November, which is also produced direct from Council’s computer system and reflects pages 6 to 27 of Attachment 2.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The net result of the attached variances is to maintain the deficit at $37,700.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted and the proposed variations be adopted.

H

General Manager

H – General Manager

4115 – 10th December, 2001

Index 1. Ward Boundaries 1 2. Hunters Hill Hotel – Licence Application 2 3. ICAC Discussion Paper – ‘Taking the Devil out of Development” 8 4. Report on Outstanding Matters 10 5. Hunters Hill Filming Policy & Manual 11

...................................... Barry Smith

GENERAL MANAGER

REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER Meeting 4115 – 10th December 2001 H1


ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : WARD BOUNDARIES BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY SMITH FILE : 100/02 Council considered the following report at the Ordinary Meeting held on 10th September 2001 and resolved as follows:

410/01 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Betar, seconded Clr Scotford that the matter is referred to a Councillors Workshop at 6.30pm on 19th November 2001 for discussion.

REPORT TO MEETING NO. 4108

In conjunction with the 1999 Quadrennial election, Council also polled residents to seek their views on reducing the number of wards from 3 to 2 as the number of Councillors is being reduced from 9 to 6. Council considered the results of the poll at the Ordinary Meeting held on 11th October 1999 and resolved as follows: “587/99 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Hart, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. The information be received and noted. 2. A further report on ward boundaries is brought forward prior to the next

election”. As the attached table shows, there was no absolute view indicated by the residents. The results are evenly distributed in total and across the current wards.

East and Central Wards slightly favour a reduction, West Ward slightly favours no change while overall the poll slightly favours a reduction to two wards.

The relevant legislation applicable to consideration of this matter is listed below.

Division of Areas into Wards 210 (1) The council may divide its area into divisions, called "wards". (2) The council may abolish all wards.

(3) The council may alter ward boundaries. (4) The council may name or rename a ward. (5) A council must not divide an area into wards or abolish all wards unless it has

obtained approval to do so at a constitutional referendum.



Constitutional Referenda A constitutional referendum is a poll initiated by a Council in order to give effect to a number of matters referred to in s.18 of the Act, including the division of its area into wards or the abolition of all wards in its area. The decision made at a constitutional referendum binds the Council until changed by a subsequent constitutional referendum: s.17. Alteration to Ward Boundaries Although a Council may alter its ward boundaries without the necessity of approval at a constitutional referendum, it must submit any proposed changes to its wards to the Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Statistician before the end of the third year of each term of office: s.211. Furthermore, any boundary change must not result in a variation of more than 10 per cent between the number of electors in each ward in the area: s.211 (4). Ward Boundaries 211 (1) The council of an area divided into wards must keep the ward boundaries under

review. (2) Before the end of the third year of each term of office, a council must submit details

of: The boundaries of the wards into which it proposes to divide its area, or Any changes to the boundaries of its existing wards which it proposes to make, to the Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Statistician for their information.

(3) The council must consult the Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Statistician to ensure that, as far as practicable, the proposed boundaries of its wards correspond to the boundaries of appropriate subdivisions (within the meaning of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912) and census districts, and to ensure that the proposed boundaries comply with subsection (4).

(4) The division of a council's area into wards, or a change to the boundaries of a ward, must not result in a variation of more than 10 per cent between the numbers of electors in each ward in the area.

In summary, this means that the Council is able to reduce the number of wards from 3 to 2 and has conducted a poll that supports this contention. If the Council were of a mind to have no wards then a constitutional referendum would need to be undertaken to facilitate this decision.

The cost of undertaking a constitutional referendum, other than in conjunction with a quadrennial election, is fairly prohibitive.

Methods of Voting

Another factor to consider when determining ward boundaries is the method of voting.

For the 2003 Election, the following systems may apply in accordance with the relevant legislation:

Voting System for Election of the Mayor by All the Electors of the Area



284 The voting system in a contested election of the mayor by all the electors of the area is to be optional preferential.

Voting System for Election of Councillors 285 The voting system in a contested election of a councillor or councillors is to be:

(a) Optional preferential, if the number of councillors to be elected is 1 or 2; or (b) Proportional, if the number of Councillors to be elected is 3 or more.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the above information, the following scenarios are now before Council for discussion:

1. Retain Three Wards

• Two Councillors for each ward and optional preferential method of voting.

2. Reduction to Two Wards

• Three Councillors for each ward and proportional method of voting.

3. No Wards

• A constitutional referendum is required before this option may be considered. If the referendum is in the affirmative then it must be implemented.

Based on the poll results, the Council could reduce the number of wards to two and undertake a constitutional referendum, in conjunction with the 2003 Council elections, to remove all ward boundaries.

FINANCIAL IMPACT The financial impact of conducting a constitutional referendum, other than in conjunction with a quadrennial election, is estimated at between $20,000 and $30,000. If undertaken in conjunction with the 2003 Council elections the cost is minimal and estimated at less than $5,000. No funds have been provided in the current year’s budget for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION That this matter is referred to a Councillors’ Workshop for discussion.

WORKSHOP REPORT

No formal recommendations were brought forward from the workshop, however there was general discussion about the concept of creating two wards consisting of three Councillors in each ward. A map showing the possible boundaries of a proposed ‘North Ward’ and ‘South Ward’ is attached to this report.

The question of placing a constitutional referendum question to abolish wards was only briefly discussed.



A question was posed in respect of any changes to Census Collector Districts (CCDs).

This is a decision made by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the next review of CCDs is due in 2003.

It is likely that the CCD currently known as 1381603 at ‘Riverglade’ will be split into two, with the new CCD having Victoria Road as its common boundary.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact resulting from consideration of this matter.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council adopts two wards – North Ward and South Ward - as outlined on the

attached map, applicable from the next quadrennial election in September 2003.

2. That each ward consists of three Councillors.

3. That Council advises the Department of Local Government and the Electoral Commission of this proposal and seeks their concurrence.

4. That the question of having an undivided Council area (i.e. no wards) is put as a referendum question at the 2003 elections.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 1999 COUNCIL POLL RESULTS ON THE NUMBER OF WARDS

2. PROPOSED REVISED WARD BOUNDARIES



1999 COUNCIL POLL RESULTS ON THE NUMBER OF WARDS

“Question 1

As Council has resolved to seek to reduce the number of Councillors through a referendum, do you favour a reduction in the number of Council wards from 3 to 2 for the next following term of Council commencing in 2003?”

Polling Places Response Eligible Voters as at

30.06.01 Yes No Total % CCD Voters Average

EAST 1381604 423 Hunters Hill 724 574 1381605 335 Woolwich 239 310 1381606 383 Postal 23 15 1381607 504 Pre-Poll 38 64 1381608 577 1024 963 1987 34.04 1381609 433 51.53 48.47 1381610 295 2950 421.43

CENTRAL Henley 139 140 1381503 517 Hunters Hill 154 86 1381504 337 Hunters Hill Central 419 438 1381511 233 Hunters Hill West 125 111 1381601 307 Postal 35 64 1381602 206 Pre-Poll 63 59 1381603 611 Declared Institutions 40 18 1381611 559 Silent Votes 4 2 2770 395.71 979 918 1897 32.49 51.61 48.39

WEST Community Aid 467 444 1381501 273 Hunters Hill West 335 408 1381502 576 Hunters Hill 98 58 1381505 443 Postal 18 31 1381506 493 Pre-Poll 54 41 1381507 232 972 982 1954 33.47 1381508 242 49.74 50.26 1381509 234 1381510 289 1024 963 2782 347.75 979 918 2950 34.70 972 982 2770 32.58

TOTAL 2975 2863 5838 100.00 2782 32.72 50.96 49.04 TOTAL 8502 100.00



ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : HUNTERS HILL HOTEL – LICENCE APPLICATION BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY SMITH FILE : 1285/64-68 Council is aware that the owners of the Hunters Hill Hotel lodged an application in the Licensing Court in 1999 seeking a 24-hour trading licence.

The matter has been subject to a number of adjournments at the request of the applicant, but was finally set down for hearing on 4th, 5th and 6th December 2001.

The application has subsequently been varied to a request for an extension of hours to allow a 3.00am closing with no new patrons to be admitted after midnight, the area subject to the application is the ground floor gaming and bar areas only and the extended hours not to commence prior to Council dealing with the current application before it. This is largely in line with the Development Application lodged with Council on 30th October 2001 that has yet to be dealt with, and will not be dealt with prior to the Ordinary Meeting scheduled for 11th February 2002.

Council appeared at the Licensing Court, together with a number of local residents as witnesses, on 4th December 2001.

In reviewing this matter, the Magistrate identified that the Registrar had not notified a number of persons who had made direct submissions to the Court in respect of the application. The Magistrate adjourned the matter to the 5thDecember 2001, and directed that efforts be made to contact those persons and ascertain if they wished to appear before the Court and, if so, could they attend on 5th December 2001.

Council’s Solicitor and Council staff facilitated these contacts, whereupon three persons advised the Court that they wished to appear but, unfortunately, as they were not aware that the matter was proceeding and due to their circumstances, they could not appear on 5th December 2001.

The Magistrate then ruled that, due to the Registrar not having notified properly of the proceedings, those persons should not be disadvantaged by being denied an opportunity to appear before the Court and adjourned the matter to 5th, 6th and 7th February 2002.

It is common in matters of this type, particularly since the reduction in proposed trading hours, for the Court to order that a trial of the proposal, for a six-month period, subject to agreed conditions, be undertaken. It also appeared from suggestions being made by the Magistrate to the applicant about providing a draft of possible conditions to Council and residents prior to the next Court date, that this is potentially a likely outcome as it is seen by this Court to be a fair and reasonable approach.

If the hotel is the subject of a substantial number of complaints during the trial period, the Court has the power to cancel the trial at any time.



Council is yet to be provided with a ‘draft’ of any proposed conditions that would apply to a trial period, but it would be administratively and financially prudent to proactively pursue this option rather than perhaps accept a Court agreed trial.

Council’s Senior Development Officer has prepared a set of ‘draft’ conditions in conjunction with our consultant town planner and barrister and these are attached to this report for Councillors’ information.

Pursuing this course of action in no way prejudices consideration of the Development Application, as it would only apply after consideration of the application, as already proposed by the applicant.

FINANCIAL IMPACT The costs of appearing for another three days in Court would be for a barrister, solicitor, consultants and staff. This would be in the order of $10,000.

RECOMMENDATION Council authorises the Mayor and General Manager, on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, to proactively pursue a resolution to this matter in line with the ‘draft’ conditions attached to this report and an extension of trading hours to 2.00am only for any trial period.



ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : ICAC DISCUSSION PAPER – ‘TAKING THE DEVIL OUT OF DEVELOPMENT’

BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY SMITH

FILE : 370/22 ‘Taking the devil out of development - Exploring corruption risks in administration of development applications by local councils’

This discussion paper is the second in the ICAC’s local government strategy.

The aim of this strategy is to help build the best, most corruption resistant State and Local Government sectors. In this discussion paper, the ICAC is aiming to identify ways in which Councils can build systems for administering Development Applications that are resistant to corruption and that are reliable, transparent, efficient and effective - systems which will increase the confidence of all parties that development assessment outcomes are arrived at in a consistent, independent and objective manner.

The ICAC advises that the value of property development and construction in NSW is significantly above $10 billion annually and, each year, 172 Councils deal with over 120,000 Development Applications. A great many applications, however, do not fall into this category and give rise to concerns and complaints. In this discussion paper, the ICAC is focussing on the processes leading up to a Council determination on a Development Application.

Since inception, of the complaints received by the ICAC alleging corrupt activity in Local Councils, about 26% (1638 of 6298) have concerned Development Applications and related matters.

Apart from complaints, the ICAC has also identified some key risk areas in local government’s administration of Development Applications from a number of other sources, including:

• A recent research study conducted into corruption risks in local government

• Preliminary consultation with local Councils and government agencies about development application administration practices and procedures

• Investigations undertaken by the Commission in the past.

It is ICAC’s belief that weaknesses in the development assessment system have permitted corruption to flourish in some Councils and that emotions can become inflamed when issues such an improved quality of life, a new business, an improved income or a significant profit are at stake.



The ICAC has called for submissions on the discussion paper with a closing date of 1st February 2002. All submissions should be addressed to: Mr Grant Poulton Executive Director, Corruption Prevention, Education and Research ICAC GPO Box 500 Sydney NSW 2001 or DX557 Sydney

Telephone:(02) 93185999, Facsimile:(02) 9699 8067

Further information can be obtained by contacting Peter Stathis on (02) 9318 5976 or by email on [email protected].

To enable a broadly based submission to be made, it would advantageous if Councillors could forward individual comments to the General Manager for inclusion in a Council submission or, alternatively, make an individual submission.

At ICAC’s request, the discussion paper should also be publicly advertised for comment and submissions.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact resulting from consideration of this matter

RECOMMENDATION

1. Councillors forward individual comments on the discussion paper to the General Manager for inclusion in a Council submission by no later than 16th January 2002.

2. The discussion paper is publicly advertised for comment and submissions to ICAC.



ITEM NO : 4 SUBJECT : REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : ADMINISTRATION OFFICER FILE : 210/01 Attached is the updated Monthly Report on Outstanding Matters, which lists all matters considered by Council that require provision of a further report or for which it is considered appropriate to provide further information to Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.

RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted.



ITEM NO : 5 SUBJECT : DRAFT HUNTERS HILL FILMING POLICY & MANUAL BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : IDA OZOUX-BLESSING FILE : 515/03 The following report was before Council at Ordinary Meeting 4114 with a recommendation that “further enquiries and questions on the Draft Filming Policy and Manual be brought to the attention of the General Manager by no later than 4th December, 2001 and that the report be resubmitted for consideration by Council at the Ordinary Meeting scheduled to be held 10th December, 2001.”

The Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Harry Woods, officially launched the Local Government Filming Protocol in March this year.

The Local Government Amendment (Filming) Act 2000 was introduced to streamline the approval process for commercial filming projects on Council controlled land. This legislative change is the first of its kind in Australia and represents the culmination of many years work aimed at improving the local production environment. The Protocol, produced in partnership with local government and filmmakers, was introduced as part of the Act, to enable all Councils and film productions to follow a set of simple guidelines when undergoing the approval process.

The Film and Television Office (FTO) worked with individual Councils to encourage adoption of the protocol. The co-operation of the production sector is important in the implementation of these changes.

The general production outlook has seasonal highs and lows and, although it has been reasonably quiet over the last two months, the industry has begun to gain momentum and, with the nature of the industry being such that applications to film require immediate attention, is it necessary for Council to update its currently policy to incorporate the changes of the Act. Council’s current filming policy does not meet all the requirements outlined in the new legislation and a new policy, incorporating the necessary requirements of the Act, is therefore attached.

This proposed Manual provides information for commercial film-makers and photographers wishing to work in areas managed by the Council. The parks, nature reserves, regional parks and historic sites managed by Council include some of the most breathtaking locations in New South Wales. These locations provide wonderful opportunities for commercial filming and photography.

The film industry frequently require guidance/education regarding the need for Council to impose fees, and restrictions such as times of filming, locations, traffic, restriction of hours, damage to parks, roads and footpaths and protection of the environment. On occasions, Council has had to take action to recover costs from damage caused to footpaths or reserves. An application to film diverts considerable administrative hours away from other projects and this in itself is a cost that Council should seek to recover.



The proposed policy on commercial filming and photography provides clear and consistent guidelines for commercial film-makers and photographers, ensures that commercial filming and photography are carried out in a manner that does not compromise the conservation objectives of the Council and encourages a responsible and co-operative working relationship between commercial film-makers/photographers and the Council. Council deals with an average of 40-50 applications per year and all film-makers and photographers need to apply to the Council to film within the Municipality. The attached policy provides for appropriate and equitable access and a range of fees for various commercial filming and photographic activities. The Manual provides a summary of the policy, information on activities that may be undertaken, application forms, fee structure and contact details. FINANCIAL IMPACT The fees outlined in the new policy are designed to enable cost recovery to be achieved from filming interests, yet maintain the spirit of the Protocol.

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the attached Hunters Hill Filming Policy and Manuel.

J

Committees

J – Committees

4115 – 10th December, 2001

Index 1. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Parks & Trees Advisory Committee, Bushland Management Working Group and the Environmental Management Committee held on 27th November, 2001 1 2. Minutes of the General Purposes Committee Meeting held on 3rd December, 2001 5 3. Report of General Purpose Committee Inspections held on 10th December, 2001 9

.................................... D. Cottee

MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

Councillor Bruce Lucas MAYOR

REPORT OF COMMITTEES Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 J1


ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PARKS &

TREES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUSHLAND MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD ON 27TH NOVEMBER 2001

BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORTING OFFICER : DIANA KUREEN FILE : 205/11, 205/33 & 580/19 ATTENDANCE Clr. Bruce Lucas Mayor/Chair Clr. Sue Hoopmann Clr. Miriam Kapel Clr. Margaret Christie Clr. Philip Hart Clr. Justin Betar Ross Williams Leona Hole Andrew Atkin Sally Gaunt Yvonne Dornan Nan Barbour Brigid Dowsett Liz Hinton Bob Ratcliffe Maree Ellis Consultant Philip Sutton Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator Diana Kureen Bushland Environment Officer APOLOGIES Allan Coles Sandra Tracy Margot Child Peter Trives Rae Mashford Gil Wahlquist



Leonie Parker Cathy Merchant Don Cottee Manager, Public Works & Infrastructure INTRODUCTION This was a joint meeting of the above three committees to workshop a planting guide and implementation plan for the streets and parks of Hunter’s Hill. Maree Ellis, Council’s consultant, opened the meeting with a presentation on the requirements of trees and best practice for street tree plantings. Background – What Trees Require �� Feeder roots beyond canopy drip line – top of soil 200mm, as opposed to tap roots. Therefore,

front gardens play an important role for street tree roots. Problems: �� Compaction in root area of tree, causing a reduction in gaseous exchange, water infiltration,

drainage. �� Trees require good drainage. �� Soil profile and volume (depth, texture and profile layers and shape of planting hole). �� Prevent mechanical injury to roots and trunk. Integrated Approach to Street Planting �� Design �� Contract preparation (if necessary) �� Site preparation �� Tree supply �� Planting �� Establishment – water, weeding etc. �� Maintenance �� Monitoring – street tree data base. �� Cost-benefit analysis �� Successful establishment of trees demands, planning and long-range perspective. Council Brief: �� Vision – Street Tree Planting for the Municipality �� Objections – street tree planting for particular streets �� Budget �� Database – survey results �� Overall for Municipality �� Survey results – particular streets �� Updated data base – process �� Prioritise streets for planting – process �� Site analysis – site constraints: space, drainage, aspect, usage, services, views, etc. �� Species short list.

Implementation: �� Design options – tree protection, pit size, paving, no stakes or ties, soil mix. �� Community consultation



�� Accept plan – liaise with engineers, time chart etc. �� Finalise species list �� Stock specifications �� Soil preparation specifications. Depth of drained soil is critical, analyse disturbed soils.

11.Planting guidelines �� Irrigation �� Establishment - water, prevent mechanical damage

- reduce weed competition, prevent herbicide spray – trunks �� Maintenance: - inspect for 2 years, mulch etc. - formative prune �� Removal and replacement �� Quality amenity, sustainable future. �� Valuation - proportion of value should go into maintenance. Diana Kureen then outlined some of the issues that should be addressed in the planning process: policies such as Green Web, to plan for natural corridors through the Municipality, and the draft Landscape Development Control Plan (DCP), which is an overall planning instrument for landscapes for the whole of Sydney that will also be reflected in Hunter’s Hill Council’s DCP 15; whether trees always need to be in pavements or whether trees planted in streets might sometimes provide a better alternative. The meeting was then thrown open for general discussion and comment. There was a general request that the Street Tree database be put on Council’s web site and include a key to the common names of plants. The information on the database can be used to gauge useful life expectancy of street trees. Miriam Kapel: On-road planting may be good, as some people do not want trees directly in front of their house because of leaf fall etc. Phil Sutton: Need resident support to put a tree outside their house for it to survive. Diana Kureen: Residents to notify Council by letter if they do not want a tree outside their house. Bruce Lucas: Re underground cabling down centre of street. Phil Sutton: New contractor is to start in January – pruning of trees under electricity lines. Will obtain costs of ABC cabling and also costs of underboring. Avenue planting – keep species choice limited. Street planting – Ku-ring-gai Council has a particular species for each street. General agreement: Streets near bushland to have indigenous trees e.g. High Street. Alexandra Street: Brushbox will continue to be planted. Ross Williams: Plan where corridors need to be; also corridors from public into private areas e.g. Mary Street. Miriam Kapel: Use precincts to plan planting – overall view; species x precinct or street x street. Bruce Lucas: Use of database – street x street; poor species; also consider physical characteristics and character of area.



Justin Betar: Pockets of heritage areas; also suggested that a group of people with tree species experience develop a species list. Yvonne Dornan: Important that non-indigenous species be on short-list. Miriam Kapel: Suggested photos of trees be included on short-list. Phil Sutton: List to be very short and indicate advantages of trees selected e.g. to give an avenue effect. Bruce Lucas: Finalise for March and in time for next year’s budget. Porous paving used around trees. Trees good in road area for traffic calming. Miriam Kapel: Trees used in road area to define parking spots. Sally Gaunt: Has compiled a list of trees from Lane Cove/Hunters Hill indigenous trees list that may be suitable for street trees. Copies of the “Guidelines, Recommendations and Policy for Hunters Hill Trees and Vegetation” are to be distributed to the Environmental Management Committee. References for Maree Ellis’s presentation: �� Harris RW, Clark JR, Mathery NP, 1999, Arboricultural Integrated Management of Landscape

Trees, Shrubs & Vines, Prentice Hall, Hew Jersey. �� Bradshaw, Anthony, Hunt, B & Walmsley, T, 1995, Trees in the Urban Landscape: Principles

& Practice, E & F N Son. London. �� Survey of Hill Street Trees, carried out by Maree Ellis, 1999. FINANCIAL IMPACT

The preparation of a strategy for the February joint meeting has no financial impact.

RECOMMENDATION That a species list for street trees be developed by Council staff, together with the consultant, and be presented to another joint meeting of the committees in February for finalisation, so that implementation of the project can be included in the 2002/2003 budget.



ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2001 BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT – RESERVES

MANAGEMENT REPORTING OFFICER : DON COTTEE

MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE FILE : 1804 ATTENDANCE

Clr. B. Lucas - Mayor Clr. S. Hoopmann Clr. P. Hart Clr. M. Kapel Clr. M. Christie Yianni Mentis - Storm Consulting D. Kureen - Bushland Environmental Officer D. Cottee - Manager Public Works & Infrastructure

APOLOGIES

Clr. R. Quinn

Rationale

Plans of Management are a requirement under the Local Government Act, 1993. The Local Government Amendment (Community Land Management) Act 1998 reiterated Councils’ responsibilities to actively manage public lands and to involve the community in the management and strategic development of public lands.

This Plan of Management has been prepared according to the guidelines outlined by the Department of Local Government Practice Note 1 developed to assist local Councils in the management of public lands (Department of Local Government, 2000).

Land Classification

Under the Local Government Act 1993, Plans of Management for Council areas need to classify the land to which they refer. The study area within Boronia Park Reserve can be classified as follows:

“A modified area of public open space which is in parts degraded and in need of rehabilitation and management to realise its full recreational and environmental potential”



and has the following characteristics:

�� Stream and adjacent floodplain (largely stable though polluted and with some weed infestation);

�� Remnant bushland which is undergoing regeneration and which is important from a regional biodiversity perspective;

�� Cultural heritage which needs protection and interpretation (Sherry 1989);

�� Passive recreational potential that needs to be enhanced;

�� Recreational playing fields and infrastructure for other recreational activities such as children’s play areas.

Note: Other recreational features exist such as the Great North Walk which establishes Boronia Park Reserve as a linking corridor between Sydney Harbour and Lane Cove National Park.

The whole Reserve is zoned “6a Open Space” according to Hunter’s Hill Council’s Local Environment Plan (1992) (Figure 2).

Categorisation of the Community Land

Land categorisation is an effective way in which to focus on the essential aspects of each area of land. Public land broadly falls into five categories according to the guidelines in the Act (LGA 1993) and its regulations (LGGR 1999). The categorisations for Boronia Park Reserve are outlined in Figure 3 (map of the area and its categories) and described below, and details for each category are outlined in Appendix A.

Natural Areas Areas in Boronia Park Reserve defined as natural areas (as defined in the LGA Act 1993, Section 36) include:

�� Bushlands – on the northern side of Princes Street and between Princes Street and Boronia Avenue in the south of the Park; some isolated pockets near the roundabout on Princes and Park Streets (see also Appendix B1, Boronia Park Reserve Draft Bushland Plan of Management);

�� Wetlands – on the foreshores and in the newly created Brickmaker’s Creek Melaleuca wetland;

�� Watercourses – Brickmakers Creek and the tributary to Brickmakers Creek running from the corner of Park and High Streets; and

�� Foreshores – All the foreshore of the Lane Cove River which border the Reserve up to the high water mark.

Sports Grounds Areas in Boronia Park Reserve defined as sports grounds are the three ovals in the south of the Reserve. The sportsground category adjoins the bushland category in the south of the park near Boronia Avenue. In other areas, the sports ground category is surrounded by either parkland or general community use areas. The sports ground category also contains the culturally significant ‘Grandstand’ building beside Oval No.1.



Parkland Parkland areas generally include those areas surrounding the sports grounds, areas where existing children’s play facilities are in place, and areas where there other existing facilities such as picnic areas, amenities blocks or gardens. There is a small portion of the northern section of the Reserve allocated as parkland where existing play facilities and amenities are in place.

Areas/Items of Cultural Significance The whole area is considered culturally significant as the whole reserve is listed in the NSW Heritage Register. There are specific structures that are of cultural and historic significance, including the Grandstand at the main oval, and the horse trough on the nature strip at Park Road. The Brickmakers Creek wetland site includes heritage brick/rockwork and hand-hewn sandstone, which has historical significance as characteristic of construction and masonry undertaken more than a century ago. There are also remnants of aboriginal middens at the foreshore (Hunters Hill Council 1988). General Community Use All other areas are areas categorised for general community use, and include the nature strip surrounds of the Reserve, main thoroughfares (such as Princes Street up to the gate) and parking areas (existing and proposed). The design criteria for the provision of off-lead dog exercise areas needs to incorporate basic risk management principles viz. 1. The owner of a dog needs to be in line of sight of the dog at all times for proper control of the animal. 2. The facility needs to be open for safety reasons for surveillance and monitoring. 3. The facility needs to be fenced if in an open area or if located adjacent to a high value eco-system. In providing a facility, Council needs to comply with good practice for risk minimisation and insurance purposes. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION The Committee resolved, on the motion of Clr. Hoopmann, seconded by Clr Kapel, that an area be delineated as an off-lead area in the northern part of Boronia Park comprising part of the area between the remnant bushland on the east and Park Road on the west.

Dogs are allowed on lead in all parts of the reserve except (see map):

�� Ovals 1, 2 and 3. �� Nature area north of Princes Street. �� Foreshores to the north of Princes Street to High Street. �� 10 metres of playgrounds. The future community facility options would be canvassed on the appropriate location although the location south of the grandstand is favoured on an area designated as community land.

The site for the skateboard facility is to be located to the south of the existing grandstand on land that is designated as community land.



Cycleways

1. Implementation as per Bike Plan.

2. Implementation of proposals in submission by Bike North.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The establishment of the off-lead dog area would cost $20,000. No budget provision has been made in the Strategic Management Plan for the works.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council adopts the recommendations detailed in the report.

2. That the provision of an off-lead dog area be listed for consideration when preparing future works programs.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF COMMITTEES

Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 J9


ITEM NO : 3 SUBJECT : REPORT OF GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE

INSPECTIONS HELD 10TH DECEMBER, 2001 BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLOR BRUCE LUCAS FILE : 205/03 The General Purpose Committee met at 5.30pm on Monday 10th December, 2001 to conduct site inspections of matters referred to the Committee by Council.

PRESENT

Clr Peter Astridge Clr Justin Betar Clr Margaret Christie Clr Phillip Hart Clr Susan Hoopmann - Mayor Clr Miriam Kapel Clr Bruce Lucas Clr Richard Quinn – Deputy Mayor Clr Jenni Scotford APOLOGIES

There were no apologies received. The Committee undertook site inspections of: 1. 161 Victoria Road, Gladesville 2. 57 Huntley’s Point Road, Huntleys Point 3. 83 & 85 Pittwater Road, Hunters Hill 4. 5 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact as a result of consideration of this report.

RECOMMENDATION


K

Correspondence

K – Correspondence

4115 – 10th December, 2001

Index 1. Items 1 – 4 of Correspondence 1

...................................... Barry Smith

GENERAL MANAGER

REPORT OF CORRESPONDENCE Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 K1


ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : CORRESPONDENCE BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : GENERAL MANAGER FILE : 200/02 1. COUNCILLOR JACKIE GREENOW, SECRETARY, AUSTRALIAN LOCAL

GOVERNMENT WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH, writes to invite Councillors and staff to attend the ALGWA Annual Conference in Parkes on 21-24 March 2002 (500/08).

2. LGSA WEEKLY CIRCULAR No. 46/01 dated 16th November, 2001

ITEM 2, EXHIBITING ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER FLAGS - Councils are encouraged to display the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags as endorsed by member Councils at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Local Government Association. At the LGA conference in October, it was resolved: “That the Local Government Association calls on all Councils to display the Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander flags as appropriate in conjunction with the Australian flag in all State and Local Government places where flags are exhibited and that the State Government introduce a protocol to facilitate this process.” In a gesture of reconciliation and in recognition of the historical significance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the LGA continues to actively encourage Local Government to take the lead in exhibiting these flags in Local Government places. The LGA is making representations to the State Government regarding the suggested protocol covered in the second part of the resolution. ITEM 4, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - The NSW Government has announced that a Bill to implement changes to workers’ compensation will be presented to the Parliament in late November following a judicial inquiry into workers’ compensation. The Government has flagged two clear objectives in the changes. The first is to reduce the workers’ compensation scheme’s deficit of $2.78 billion. The second is to ensure immediate medical attention, expert rehabilitation and fair compensation. The “no fault” scheme, which covers more than 98 per cent of injuries, will continue regardless of who caused the injury. The proposed increased benefits in the “no fault” scheme have the objective of making the “no fault” scheme more appropriate as the choice of remedy rather than the common law alternative.



Some key features of the changes are as follows: • The “no fault” scheme is to provide alteration to maximum benefits e.g. the maximum

benefit for a permanent impairment /pain and suffering will increase from $171,000 to $250,000.

• The “no fault” scheme is to recognise permanent psychological and psychiatric impairment.

• Family members who provide home care assistance to injured workers are to receive payments.

• Access to common law is to be limited to cases where there is at least 20 per cent whole of person impairment.

• Common law remedies are to be established for injured workers whose employer is uninsured.

• Access to commutations is to be removed and provision made for review of alternatives. • Delays are to be minimised through a pre court claim procedure and mediation in the

Workers’ Compensation Commission. • Access to the “no fault” scheme is to benefit injured workers pursuing common law

claims. ITEM 5, PROPOSED ABOLITION OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES - Councils are urged to make immediate representations to the Premier, the Minister for Police, the Minister for Local Government and local Members of Parliament for special constable powers to remain available to Local Government. In Weekly Circular 4/01 dated 25 January 2001, Councils were requested to provide comments to assist the Minister for Local Government respond to the proposal before the State Government to repeal the Police (Special Provisions) Act 1901 and abolish the office of special constable as it currently exists. The Minister had noted that appropriately authorised Council officers already have specific enforcement and compliance powers under the Local Government Act 1993, but sought specific advice of any problems which may be encountered by Councils should the proposal to abolish special constables come to fruition. The Minister indicated that he would expect to be provided with evidence that Councils would experience real difficulties in performing their functions before he would support any amendments to the Local Government Act. A number of responses were received and a submission from the LGSA was forwarded to the Minister. The Police Legislation Amendment (Special Constables) Bill 2001 has passed through the Legislative Assembly and the second reading was given in the Legislative Council on 25 September 2001. The Bill ignores the use of special constables in Local Government, and is directed largely to the needs of the NSW Police Service.

It is understood that the Bill will be laid aside for about two weeks, to allow a number of Parliamentary groups to assess desirable amendments. The LGSA are endeavouring to arrange a meeting with cross bench members of the Upper House as part of this process.

All Councils who have particular need for continuation of the current legislation are urged to make an immediate submission to the Premier, the Minister for Police, the Minister for Local



Government and their local members. Copies of these submissions should be provided to the LGSA. ITEM 10, ELECTRONIC PARKING INFRINGEMENT WORKING PARTY - In August 2001, the LGSA formed a working party consisting of staff from representative Councils, the NSW Police Service and the LGSA. The purpose of the working party is to: • review options available on the Australian market in hand-held computer technology and

support systems for law enforcement officers; • receive input from the Infringement Processing Bureau to ensure that proposed Council

electronic systems are compatible with the IPB’s proposed electronic systems; • prepare a report of the findings of the committee, for the benefit of Council; • if required, assist negotiations with suppliers for the best deals for uniformity across

Councils. Presentations have been received from four integrated providers of hardware/ software. A recent call for expressions of interest resulted in responses from 17 organisations and a selection of these will be requested to provide further information. Indicative prices received to date suggest that pricing for quantity provides a better unit rate, and the LGSA proposes to recommend a small number of integrated suppliers and call for tenders for access through the Associations by all Councils. A survey of Councils will be undertaken soon by the Local Government Financial Services (LGFS) Commercial Supply Services Manager to assess the viability of a tender. A copy of the Index for Weekly Circular No. 46/01 is attached.

3. LGSA WEEKLY CIRCULAR No. 47/01 dated 23rd November, 2001

ITEM 1, OUTCOMES OF MEETING OF MAYORS ON 21 NOVEMBER, 2001 – The LGA President, Clr Peter Woods OAM, chaired a meeting on 21 November of more than 60 Mayors, Councillors and senior staff representing Local Government across NSW. The matters discussed included the following: Unfunded Public Liabilities Due to Collapse of HIH Insurance An indication was given that, following a meeting with Minister for Local Government, a decision on funding of liabilities is anticipated by the end of the year. Details will be announced in the Weekly Circular as soon as details are finalised. Transfer of Street Parking Enforcement to Local Government A meeting of Mayors on 31 January 2001 challenged Treasury and Police officials about the basis for the Government’s proposal to retain a share of revenues from Councils taking over parking enforcement. A package was developed detailing conditions under which Local Government would agree to offer employment to all Parking Patrol Officers (PPO). The only item continuing to be rejected by Government is that revenue sharing agreements for North Sydney and South Sydney Councils be limited to five years.



A subsequent meeting of Mayors unanimously endorsed the limitation of revenue sharing agreements to five years and on 17 September agreed to stand united and not accept individual approaches from the Government. The Treasurer recently wrote to all Councils confirming that amending legislation will proceed and clarifying that the legislation will require revenue sharing agreements only from North Sydney, Sydney and South Sydney Councils, in perpetuity. The meeting unanimously resolved to reaffirm previous unanimous decisions to endorse the limitation of revenue sharing agreements for North Sydney and South Sydney City Councils for a period of five years only, and again agreed to stand united and support these Councils.

Section 611 Telecommunication Charges - Federal Court Action by Telstra and Optus Clr Woods presented a summary of the case where Telstra and Optus commenced action in the Federal Court challenging the right of some 15 Sydney metropolitan Councils to levy charges under Section 611 of the Local Government Act 1993 on the companies’ telecommunications infrastructure rolled out in public streets. Action was also taken against four Melbourne Councils, which had rated that infrastructure in accordance with the Victorian Local Government Act. The LGSA held a meeting of all metropolitan Councils prior to taking any action on behalf of Local Government. At the unanimous request of that meeting, the LGSA coordinated the case on behalf of Councils and incurred costs with their knowledge through the continued briefing of counsel. The cases were heard in the Federal Court in April and May 2000 and a judgment dismissing both cases with costs was handed down in December 2000. An appeal was lodged to the Full Bench of the Federal Court and the appeal was heard in May 2001. Judgement has not yet been handed down. Most of the metropolitan Councils have now paid their agreed contribution of $3850 in respect of the first action and many Councils, including country Councils, made a contribution under the legal assistance scheme. Cr Woods indicated that letters setting out this information would be sent to metropolitan Councils in the next few days, detailing in fuller terms the current position.

Recycling and Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) A position paper was circulated and discussed in the context of the growing gap between recycling costs paid by Councils and income received from the disposal of recycled products. The meeting noted that many Councils across the State are currently reconsidering the merit of renewing or commencing recycling and drop-off centre contracts because of the escalating non- viability of kerbside or drop-off centre recycling services. This could lead to the total collapse of recycling unless the packaging industry is forced to take their just responsibility of recycling alternatives such as CDL. The meeting agreed that: 1. The LGSA and all Councils call on the Premier to release the independent report into

CDL, so there may be a full and informed public debate.



2. The LGSA, in consultation with Councils, initiate a minor funded media campaign (by providing Councils with materials for local publication) to highlight the real situation regarding recycling and the need for greater industry responsibility through measures such as CDL.

3. The LGSA reassert their policy that recycling services conducted by Councils should at

least be cost neutral, and this policy be strongly communicated to Councils to assist their decision making regarding the initiation or renewal of recycling systems.

4. The Minister be advised of the LGSA policy, and assured that Council kerbside and drop-

off services will be gradually “scaled down” and ceased as contracts expire, unless assurances are given that industry will be forced to ensure the financial viability of recycling.

Rate Pegging Task Force The Chair of the Rate Pegging Task Force, Clr John Tate, Lord Mayor of Newcastle, announced that the Minister for Local Government appeared enthusiastic about the approach being developed by the task force through two tiers of determining factors that would permit the Minister to take a wider range of factors into account when determining future rate pegging limits.

ITEM 10, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS - The Roads and Traffic Authority has written to all Councils clarifying matters arising from applying the Traffic Management for Special Events manual. Several Councils recently have raised issues concerning the application of this RTA manual. In particular, Councils have been concerned about the categorisation of events and the various advertising and traffic control requirements which flow from these categories and their costs. The manual was first issued in March 1999 and was produced by the RTA in cooperation with a range of stakeholders including the LGSA. The RTA advises that the manual has been adopted by most Councils to process special event applications and is available on the RTA’s Web site www.rta.nsw.gov.au. Councils seeking clarification on any matters arising from the application of the manual should contact the RTA. A copy of the Index for Weekly Circular No. 47/01 is attached.

4. LGSA WEEKLY CIRCULAR No. 48/01 dated 30th November, 2001

ITEM 4, HOME BUILDING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 2001 - In July 2001, Parliament passed reforms for the home building industry. The amendments apply to the Home Building Regulation 1997 and Fair Trading Tribunal Regulation 1999. Reforms to take effect from 30th November, 2001 include: • fees to be prescribed for assessors • enforcement of tribunal orders • developers’ obligations with respect to insurance certificates • insurance cover required for work worth more than $5000 to the common property of an

existing residential flat building



• exemption from insurance requirements for developers selling “off the plan” if building work has not commenced

• developers will continue to be able to apply for an exemption from insurance requirements if special circumstances exist

• Insurance Form 1 has been amended. The remaining amendments will come into effect in early 2002. ITEM 5, ZONING OF LAND UNDER THE ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS ACT - A motion from the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (ALC) was resolved at the 2001 Annual Local Government Association Conference that, when considering the zoning of land which was previously vacant Crown land but has now been granted to a local ALC under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, Councils give consideration to the fact that the land is now Aboriginal land. Further, the conference resolved that local Aboriginal communities should be consulted about their wishes regarding the use of the land before any decision is made to restrict its use under a local planning scheme. Accordingly, Councils are asked to consult Aboriginal communities when considering land use issues. ITEM 6, LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXCELLENCE IN ENVIRONMENT AWARD WINNERS - The LGSA Local Government Excellence in the Environment Awards were presented on 29 November 2001 at Taronga Zoo. The Master of Ceremonies was Robyn Williams from ABC Radio National’s The Science Show. The Minister assisting the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt MLC, introduced the awards. Following is an extract from the list of awards: Stormwater Management Award – sponsored by NSW Stormwater Trust Joint Division A Winners (population less than 20,000) – Hunters Hill Council: ‘Brickmakers Creek Melaleuca Wetland Rehabilitation’ and Maclean Shire Council: ‘Maclean Shire Stormwater Awareness’. ITEM 8, CLEAN UP AUSTRALIA DAY, 3MARCH 2002 - Clean Up Australia has approached Councils, encouraging them to become involved in Clean Up Australia Day (CUAD), 3 March 2002. The support provided by Local Government ensures the ongoing success of the campaign. Clean Up Australia, in association with Councils, has been conducting this annual event since 1989. There are many options for Council involvement: • coordinate the clean up in the Council area; • identify appropriate sites for site organisers; • provide rubbish and recycling support for sites; • distribute, or act as a pick up point for site coordinators to collect, CUAD kits; • provide a ‘trouble shooter’ on the day;



• assist schools with Friday Schools Clean Up Day – Friday, 1 March 2002; • assist businesses with Business Clean Up Day – Tuesday, 26 February 2002; • provide promotional opportunities for Clean Up Australia Day in Council’s district; • other forms of support. Councils are encouraged to register with Clean Up Australia, irrespective of what level of support they are able to offer. A copy of the Index for Weekly Circular No. 48/01 is attached.

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That the correspondence be received and noted.

M

General Business

M – General Business

4115 – 10th December, 2001

Index 1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council 1

...................................... Barry Smith

GENERAL MANAGER

REPORT OF GENERAL BUSINESS Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 M1


ITEM NO : 1 SUBJECT : MEETINGS - VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT REPORTING OFFICER : GENERAL MANAGER FILE : 205/01 PURPOSE DATE TIME LOCATION Ordinary Meeting of Council 10/12/01 7.30pm Council Chamber Parks & Trees Advisory Committee 11/12/01 7.45am Council Chamber Access Advisory Committee 13/12/01 12.30pm Council Chamber Conservation Advisory Panel 19/12/01 6.30pm Council Chamber Hunters Hill Senior Support Group 21/01/02 10.00am 44 Gladesville Road

Art & Craft Advisory Committee 05/02/02 5.45pm Small Hall Domestic Animal Working Group 05/02/02 7.30pm Council Chamber Ordinary Meeting of Council 11/02/02 7.30pm Council Chamber Hunters Hill - Le Vésinet Friendship Committee 20/02/02 7.30pm Small Hall Occupational Health & Safety Workplace Committee

21/02/02 3.00pm Council Chamber

Ordinary Meeting of Council 25/02/02 7.30pm Council Chamber

School Principals Liaison Committee 06/03/01 12.30pm Small Hall Children’s Services Committee 12/03/02 7.30pm Council Chamber Gladesville Road Community Centre Management Committee

28/03/02 2.00pm Gladesville Road Community Centre

Bushland Management Working Group TBA Cowell Street Joint Development Working Party TBA Environmental Management Committee TBA Hunters Hill Traffic Committee TBA Local Place Name Committee TBA Moocooboola Festival Committee TBA Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee TBA Young in Art Working Party TBA Note: Details relating to Working Parties will be included as the meetings are arranged.

REPORT OF GENERAL BUSINESS Meeting 4115 – 10th December, 2001 M2


FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION


ORDINARY MEETING No. 4115€¦ · D1-D3, D5, D12, D16, L6, L13, PE1, PE4, PE5, PE6, PE14, PE17,...

Documents

Transcript of ORDINARY MEETING No. 4115€¦ · D1-D3, D5, D12, D16, L6, L13, PE1, PE4, PE5, PE6, PE14, PE17,...