Ordinary Meeting No. 4455 - Hunters Hill€¦ · 6 - MANAGE AND PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENT Nil 7 -...

Ordinary Meeting No. 4455

25 February 2019 at 7.30 PM

Hunter 's H i l l Counc i l

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Acknowledgement of Country

Prayer

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

1 Confirmation of Minutes

2 Mayoral Minutes & Reports

Tabling of Petitions

Addresses from the Public

3 Notice of Motions

(including Rescission Motions)

Reports from Staff

4 Maintain Character and Manage Growth

Planning

5 Focus on the Community

6 Manage and Preserve Our Environment

7 Make Getting Around Easier

8 Leadership and Governance

9 Committees

10 Correspondence

11 Delegates Reports

12 General Business

13 Questions With or Without Notice

14 Council in Committee of the Whole

Item

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Meeting 4455 - 25 February 2019

INDEX Contents

1 – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1 Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4454 held 11 February 2019

2 - MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS

Nil

3 - NOTICES OF MOTION INCLUDING RESCISSION MOTIONS

3.1 Footpath - Reiby Road 1

4 - MAINTAIN CHARACTER AND MANAGE GROWTH PLANNING

4.1 Development Applications determined under Delegated Authority February 2019 2 4.2 Development Applications determined by the Local Planning Panel in November

2018 5

5 - FOCUS ON THE COMMUNITY

5.1 Native Title Manager Notification 10

6 - MANAGE AND PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENT

Nil

7 - MAKE GETTING AROUND EASIER

Nil

8 - LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

Nil

9 - COMMITTEES

9.1 Minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee meeting held 28 November 2018 12

10 - CORRESPONDENCE

Nil

11 - DELEGATES REPORTS

11.1 Sydney Planning Summit 26

12 - GENERAL BUSINESS

Nil

Item

13 - QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Meeting 4455 - 25 February 2019

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4454 held on 11 February 2019. This is page 1

Confirmati on of Minutes Minutes of Or dinar y M eeting 11/02/2019

COMMENCEMENT

The meeting opened with Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer at 7.30 PM.

IN ATTENDANCE

The Mayor Councillor Mark Bennett, Deputy Mayor Councillor Ben Collins, Councillors Elizabeth Krassoi, Justine McLaughlin, Zac Miles, Jim Sanderson and Ross Williams.

ALSO PRESENT

The General Manager Lisa Miscamble, the Acting Group Manager Service Delivery Steve Kourepis and Wendy McGuirk (Minutes).

APOLOGIES

No apologies were received.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

001/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Williams, seconded Clr Miles

That the Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No. 4452, held 10 December 2018 be confirmed.


That the Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting No. 4453, held 12 December 2018 be confirmed.

Clr Sanderson requested that the matters referred to in QWN 13.2 confusion over Speed Humps be referred to the Local Area Traffic Committee.

MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS

2.1 MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE - THE LATE MONICA CARROLL

003/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Bennett, seconded Clr Miles

That the Minute be received and noted and a letter of condolence be forwarded to Monica’s family.

2.2 RECEIPT OF GRANT - BORONIA PARK

004/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Bennett, seconded Clr Krassoi

That Council write a letter of thanks to the Hon Anthony Roberts for his work and advocacy in securing the $1m grant for the upgrade of facilities at Boronia Park.



9.3 MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC COMMITTEE HELD

ON 6 DECEMBER 2018

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF

Mr George Antoniou addressed Council on this matter (3.3).


That Mr George Antoniou be granted an extension of time to complete his address to Council

006/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Collins, seconded Clr Krassoi 1. RIVERSIDE GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL - DROP OFF AND PICK UP ZONE

That a plan of the Drop Off and Pick Up Zone be prepared for the next

Hunters Hill Local Area Traffic Committee meeting for consideration.

2. PARKING IN CHURCH STREET That an extra space be created near No.26A Church Street between Mount Street and Moorefield Avenue before or after the mail box in front of 26a Church Street, Hunters Hill.

3. SAFETY ISSUES CORNER OF ALEXANDRA AND FERRY STREET That a review on the safety issues on the corner of Alexandra and Ferry be brought back to the next meeting of the Local Area Traffic Committee. That the report give specific consideration to the installation of bollards and traffic calming devices including speed humps, line marking and other appropriate options.

4. FARNELL STREET - SPEEDING CARS

1. That Council review the previous road counts.

2. That line markings be considered.

3. That Council consult with residents prior to installing line

markings and /or 50km/hr. signs.



NOTICES OF MOTION INCLUDING RESCISSION MOTIONS

3.1 NOTICE OF MOTION OF THANKS TO ANTHONY ROBERTS

007/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins 1. That Council thank the Hon. Anthony Roberts MP, Member for Lane

Cove for securing significant funding of:

$50,000 for dinghy storage racks to be installed at seven locations across Hunters Hill including Betts Park, De Milhau Road, Margaret Street, Wallumatta Bay, Onions Point, Gale Street and Mount Street;

$4,000 to Hunters Hill Club for installation of a shade structure between the two tennis courts; and

$5,000 to Hunters Hill Sailing Club to host the Opti-Chicks Sailing Event at Hunters Hill.

2. That Council write a letter to the Hon. Anthony Roberts MP to express

our thanks.

3.2 NOTICE OF MOTION - COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES


A letter from residents was read.

MOVED on the motion of Clr Williams, seconded Clr Sanderson 1. That Council be provided with a report on how council processes

Complying Development Certificates (‘CDC’) issued by Private Certifiers and what steps are taken to audit or ensure compliance. The report should address: difficulties council staff see in administering this role; the differences between State Government Legislation and Council’s planning instruments and controls; and resourcing implications including whether council can recover any costs for this work or whether this is another example of cost shifting to local government by the State Government.

2. That Council develops for CDCs and Private Certification a policy and protocols to ensure community understanding of Council’s role and obligations in the process and dealing with noncompliance. This should include:

a. A statement of roles and responsibilities of all parties;

b. A process flow chart showing clearly the different roles of

Private Certifiers; Hunter’s Hill Council; the Building Professionals Board and the Department of Planning and Environment;



b. A clear explanation of what the community should expect during the process and where appropriate engage with or object to the application; and

d. Following a report to Council on these matters, publication of this information on Council’s website and in the next newsletter.

3. That Council be provided with a report on Council’s response and action taken in handling concerns raised by residents regarding alleged non-compliances in:

a. Milling Street;

b. Blaxland Street; and

c. Farnell Street.

4. That Council be provided with a briefing on the State Government /

Minister for Planning’s response to Council’s Resolution 396/18 on Complying Development;

5. That Council write to the Premier, Minister of Planning and Leader of the Opposition recommending reform of Complying Development and the role of Private Certifiers, consistently with the recommendations of Michael Lambert’s Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005, including:

a. Legislative amendments to include a consolidated statement of

the role and functions of certifiers;

b. Development of protocols governing the relationship between private certifiers and councils, including roles and responsibilities with respect to compliance and enforcement that will allow councils to intervene promptly as required;

c. Empowering councils to refer CDCs where there are questions

about genuine compliance to a statutory body for prompt reassessment to avoid the cost of litigation in the Land and Environment Court, which under s4.31 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is currently the only means by which a CDC can be declared invalid;

d. Empowering private certifiers to issue Compliance Orders to

allow prompt rectification of non-complying work;

e. Establishing a publicly accessible electronic filing system for all certifiers, holding information on all building projects, including: drawings and other material submitted with an application for a CDC, certificates issued, inspection reports and all supporting material for any assessments to ensure these functions are performed with full transparency;

f. Removing the commercial nexus between developers and

certifiers by introducing a system whereby certifiers are allocated from a register rather directly engaged by the applicant or builder;



g. Providing additional funding to local government that appropriately recognises the compliance and enforcement work it performs.

An AMENDMENT was moved by Clr Miles seconded by Clr Collins that the above

motion be amended as follows: 2 . That Council reaffirm its policy and protocols and that Council develops

for CDCs and Private Certification a policy and protocols to ensure community understanding of Council’s role and obligations in the process and dealing with noncompliance. This should include:



Private Certifiers; Hunter’s Hill Council; the Building

Professionals Board and the Department of Planning and

Environment;

c. A clear explanation of what the community should expect during

the process and where appropriate engage with or object to the

application; and

d. Following a report to Council on these matters, publication of

this information on Council’s website and in the next newsletter.

5. That point 5 be deferred until after the Councillor workshop.

The MOVER of the ORIGINAL MOTION did not accept the AMENDMENT.

The AMENDMENT on being put to the meeting was LOST

008/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Williams, seconded Clr Sanderson

1. That Council be provided with a report on how council processes Complying Development Certificates (‘CDC’) issued by Private Certifiers and what steps are taken to audit or ensure compliance. The report should address: difficulties council staff see in administering this role; the differences between State Government Legislation and Council’s planning instruments and controls; and resourcing implications including whether council can recover any costs for this work or whether this is another example of cost shifting to local government by the State Government.

2. That Council develops for CDCs and Private Certification a policy and protocols to ensure community understanding of Council’s role and obligations in the process and dealing with noncompliance. This should include:



Private Certifiers; Hunter’s Hill Council; the Building Professionals Board and the Department of Planning and Environment;



c. A clear explanation of what the community should expect during the process and where appropriate engage with or object to the application; and

d. Following a report to Council on these matters, publication of this information on Council’s website and in the next newsletter.

3. That Council be provided with a report on Council’s response and action taken in handling concerns raised by residents regarding alleged non-compliances in:

a. Milling Street;

b. Blaxland Street; and

c. Farnell Street.

4. That Council be provided with a briefing on the State Government /

Minister for Planning’s response to Council’s Resolution 396/18 on Complying Development;

5. That Council write to the Premier, Minister of Planning and Leader of the Opposition recommending reform of Complying Development and the role of Private Certifiers, consistently with the recommendations of Michael Lambert’s Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005, including:

a. Legislative amendments to include a consolidated statement of

the role and functions of certifiers;

b. Development of protocols governing the relationship between private certifiers and councils, including roles and responsibilities with respect to compliance and enforcement that will allow councils to intervene promptly as required;

c. Empowering councils to refer CDCs where there are questions

about genuine compliance to a statutory body for prompt reassessment to avoid the cost of litigation in the Land and Environment Court, which under s4.31 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is currently the only means by which a CDC can be declared invalid;

d. Empowering private certifiers to issue Compliance Orders to

allow prompt rectification of non-complying work;

e. Establishing a publicly accessible electronic filing system for all certifiers, holding information on all building projects, including: drawings and other material submitted with an application for a CDC, certificates issued, inspection reports and all supporting material for any assessments to ensure these functions are performed with full transparency;

f. Removing the commercial nexus between developers and

certifiers by introducing a system whereby certifiers are allocated from a register rather directly engaged by the applicant or builder;



g. Providing additional funding to local government that appropriately recognises the compliance and enforcement work it performs.

3.6 NOTICE OF MOTION TO REMOVE RICHARD QUINN AS A COMMUNITY

REPRESENTATIVE ON THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL


Richard Quinn addressed Council on this matter.

009/19

RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sanderson, seconded Clr McLaughlin

That Mr Quinn be granted an extension of time to complete his address to Council

MOVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins That in light of this potential for conflict of interest, Council write to the Department of Planning to confirm the ethical guidelines for community representatives in their duties on the Panel to ensure no real or perceived conflicts of interest arise in the future.

The MOTION on being put to the meeting was LOST

RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against

Clr Ben Collins Clr Mark Bennett

Clr Zac Miles Clr Elizabeth Krassoi

Clr Justine McLaughlin

Clr Jim Sanderson

Clr Ross Williams

3.3 NOTICE OF MOTION TO ADDRESS THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

MOVED on the motion of Clr Collins, seconded Clr Miles

1. That Council adopts a policy of restoring sealed roads, footpaths, kerbs and guttering, and other road assets to the agreed level of service set by council;

2. That Council adopts a policy of budgeting for all required maintenance and restoration costs on infrastructure assets in the annual budget delivered each year;

3. That Council undertakes a review of all infrastructure assets and brings

back a report to Council in March outlining the estimated costs to bring all infrastructure assets to a satisfactory standard.

A MOTION was foreshadowed by Clr Krassoi seconded by Clr McLaughlin:

That this matter be deferred to provide the Asset Engineer time to review Asset Management Plan.



The FORESHADOWED MOTION was WITHDRAWN.

The MOTION on being put to the meeting was LOST.

3.4 NOTICE OF MOTION TO INVESTIGATE CCTV OPTIONS

MOVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins

1. That Council obtain quotes for the installation of CCTV cameras at Woolwich Baths in light of ongoing incidents over the summer period;

2. That Council work with the Hunters Hill Sailing Club to obtain quotes on similar options to install CCTV at the Clubhouse due to antisocial behaviour on their dock, slipway and in the adjoining park;

3. That Council investigate State and Federal funding opportunities for

installation of these cameras; 4. That Council bring back a report to the meeting in March with options

available for Council’s consideration.

An AMENDMENT was moved by Clr Krassoi seconded by Clr that:

That the following areas be added to the motion for quotes for CCTV:

Riverglade Reserve. Boronia Park Ovals, Buffalo Creek Reserve, bottom of Martin St and Joubert St, North end of Boronia Park, the Priory and Bedlam Bay and water frontage of Hunters Hill High School.

The AMENDMENT LAPSED for want of a seconder.

An AMENDMENT was moved by Clr Williams seconded by Clr Krassoi That the motion be deferred until a community safety audit is conducted.

The AMENDMENT on being put to the meeting was passed and became the MOTION

010/19

RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Williams, seconded Clr Krassoi The motion be deferred until a community safety audit is conducted.

3.5 NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONFIRM LABOR'S HOUSING TARGETS POLICY IN

HUNTERS HILL

011/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins 1. That Council expresses its deep concern about statements made by the

leader of the NSW Parliamentary Labor Party, The Hon. Michael Daley MP, about increasing housing supply targets for the Municipality of Hunter’s Hill.



2. That Council write to the Leader of the NSW Parliamentary Labor Party, The Hon. Michael Daley MP, and the Shadow Minister for Housing, Tania Mihailuk MP seeking clarification on their specific increased housing targets in the Hunters Hill LGA, outlining Council’s disappointment in the policy.

3. That the letter recommend that current housing targets remain in place

or be reduced, given the constraints on development in Hunters Hill.

4. That Council include in that letter the reasons why Hunters Hill should not have a large housing target.

5. That Council also write to the Minister for Planning confirming Council’s

position as outlined in point 3.

Item - 3.6 Notice of Motion to Remove Richard Quinn as a Community Representative on the Local Planning Panel - has been moved to another part of the document. Clr Collins left the meeting at 10:48 PM. Clr Collins returned to the meeting at 10:50 PM.

REPORTS FROM STAFF

MAINTAIN CHARACTER AND MANAGE GROWTH PLANNING

4.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY DECEMBER 2018 - JANUARY 2019

012/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Sanderson

That the report be received and noted.

RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against

Clr Mark Bennett

Clr Ben Collins

Clr Elizabeth Krassoi


Clr Zac Miles

Clr Jim Sanderson

Clr Ross Williams



4.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT

CONTROL UNIT IN DECEMBER 2018 & JANUARY 2019

013/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Williams


RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against

Clr Mark Bennett

Clr Ben Collins



Clr Zac Miles

Clr Jim Sanderson

Clr Ross Williams

4.3 REPORT OF LEGAL MATTERS - JANUARY 2019

014/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins


RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against

Clr Mark Bennett

Clr Ben Collins



Clr Zac Miles

Clr Jim Sanderson

Clr Ross Williams

LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

8.1 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 30 NOVEMBER 2018 AND 31 DECEMBER 2018

015/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Collins, seconded Clr Krassoi


8.2 ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS

016/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Williams, seconded Clr McLaughlin

1. That Hunter’s Hill Council (“the Council”) resolves:

i. pursuant to s. 296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (“the Act”) that an election arrangement be entered into by



contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council.

ii. pursuant to s. 296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by

s. 18, that a council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all council polls of the Council.

iii. pursuant to s. 296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by

s. 18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.

2. That Council advise the NSWEC of the above resolution.

8.3 2019 NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT -

ATTENDANCE & CALL FOR MOTIONS

MOVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins

1. That Councillors provide the General Manager with motions for inclusion in the NGA business papers by no later than Monday 18 March 2018.

2. That Council not send a delegate to this conference.

The MOTION on being put to the meeting was LOST

017/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr McLaughlin, seconded Clr Krassoi 1. That Councillors provide the General Manager with motions for inclusion

in the NGA business papers by no later than Monday 18 March 2018.

2. That the Mayor or one Councillor attends the National General Assembly in Canberra from 16-19 June 2019.

RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Against

Clr Mark Bennett Clr Ben Collins

Clr Elizabeth Krassoi Clr Zac Miles


Clr Jim Sanderson

Clr Ross Williams

8.4 MONTHLY REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS





COMMITTEES

9.1 MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL MEETING HELD 21 NOVEMBER 2018


That the Minutes be received and noted.

9.2 MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL MEETING HELD 12

DECEMBER 2018



Item - 9.3 Minutes of the Hunters Hill Local Area Traffic Committee held on 6 December 2018 - has been moved to another part of the document.

9.4 MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL VILLAGE MAINSTREET COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 22 NOVEMBER 2018



9.5 REPORT ON COUNCILLOR BRIEFINGS HELD 10 DECEMBER 2018

022/19 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Miles, seconded Clr Collins


QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

13.1 OVERGROWN VERGE RYDE ROAD/GLADESVILEE ROAD INTERSECTION

Clr Ross Williams asked the following question without notice:

This is outside a development site and is heavily overgrown and obstructing access to the crossing. To improve the amenity of the shopping precinct could this be mown?

ANSWER

This work was undertaken and completed on 13 February 2019.



13.2 VERNON STREET WOOLWICH

Clr Zac Miles asked the following question without notice:

Please see the following letter from the residents of Vernon Street Woolwich regarding the vegetation on the road and reserve that they would like cleared or trimmed. Could Council investigate undertaking these works and liaise with the residents to undertake the clearing?

Letter from residents

We the attached undersigned are the Residents of the Independent Section Living of the IRT Retirement Village situated in Gladstone Avenue Woolwich. Much of our building faces North overlooking the road reserve of Vernon Street with the Lane Cove River beyond. Portion of the adjacent IRT Care Centre also faces the reserve.

On or about the end of 2014 Council commenced selective clearing of the reserve. Since then, there has been vigorous regrowth which comprises some indigenous natives plus heavy infestation of noxious weeds including invasive pittosporum undulatum, privet, asparagus fern, lantana, morning glory, madeira vine etc. The whole area which is along the Northern boundary of the IRT site, requires selective clearing and restoration to become a bushland remnant to which indigenous native shrubs should be added. As well, there is dead wood in the under-storey that poses some fire hazard to the windows of the IRT buildings which are close to this fire source feature. In 2017 Council again carried out selective clearing in the area and later in 2018 removed a sizeable angophora which unfortunately was assessed as being unstable.

Certain sections of the vegetation, particularly the privet, causes hay fever and possibly asthma to some of the residents.

The main power supply down into the Eastern Section of Vernon Street traverses through and rubs upon the vegetation near the Western end of the IRT Northern boundary. This is a potential fire source and the vegetation needs to be cleared.

We are pleased that the Council regularly maintains the informal parkland at the end of Gladstone Ave and would request that the Council, as a matter of urgency effectively treats the road reserve removing all of the noxious growth.

ANSWER

Council has investigated this matter and a detailed response letter will be sent to the residents in response to their letter.

13.3 9 RYDE ROAD BUS STOP EAST BOUND

Clr Elizabeth Krassoi asked the following question without notice:

Residents at two previous meetings have asked for this bus stop to be looked at as it is on a steep section of the path/verge with tree roots. Residents have to step forward onto the road to hail the bus to stop short of the stop for better access.

Do we advise residents to pursue this matter with Transport NSW or RMS or is this a Council issue?



ANSWER

The location of Bus Stops is determined by Sydney Buses. It is unlikely that Sydney Buses would agree to move the bus stop in question. There is a substantial tree located on the verge just after the bus stop with some exposed roots. The removal of the tree would not be supported as it provides both shade and amenity to the streetscape.. The Bus Stop is adjacent to two driveways which do not have a steep slope and allow easy access to the bus. Most Sydney buses are accessible to those with limited mobility including the ability to lower the bus to reduce the height of the step into the bus.

13.4 PITTWATER ROAD - DANGEROUS CROSSING/JAY WALKING

Clr Elizabeth Krassoi asked the following question without notice:

Residents have commented to Council and to RMS about risky pedestrian behaviour running between shops and Harris Farm on a major road. On consultation with Council they have been told RMS. In consultation with RMS they are told it is a Council issue either Ryde or Hunters Hill (both say it is the other).

Can we clarify responsibility and advocate for a safer solution e.g. a second crossing, reduced speed, road marking to slow cars?

ANSWER

Council staff have discussed traffic safety in this area with Ryde Council. It has been suggested Ryde Council fund a fence along the median to prevent pedestrians crossing because the major retail developments have recently been developed on the Ryde side of the road and funding may be available from development contributions. RMS is unlikely to support a second crossing due to the close proximity of safe crossings at the intersection of Pittwater Road and Princes Street and Pittwater Road and Ryde Road.

13.5 LEGAL MATTERS: COSTS FOR AMALGAMATION CASES

Clr Jim Sanderson asked the following question without notice:

As there will be no monthly Report of Legal Matters due at OM4455 on 25 February 2019, could Councillors receive an additional update at that meeting regarding negotiations between Council and the Crown Solicitor’s Office concerning the payment of Council’s costs awarded by the NSW Court of Appeal in relation to the amalgamation issue?

ANSWER

Council was advised at its meeting held on 10 December 2018 that the Crown solicitors office had made an offer of 70% of Council’s costs. In making that offer the Crown Solicitors Office raised a number of issues in relation to the costs claimed. These included issues in relation to certain charges which required further detailed analysis of all invoices issued. In light of the detailed analysis, further negotiations have taken place between council’s lawyers and the Crown Solicitors Office and the matter has been settled with the Crown solicitors office where $320,000 has been paid to Council in full and final settlement of cost orders. This is consistent with expectations of costs being awarded within the range of 70-80% and represents 75% of Council’s costs.



CONCLUSION The meeting concluded at 10.59 PM. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No. 4454 held on 11 February 2019.

............................................. ................................... Councillor Mark Bennett Lisa Miscamble MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

NOTICES OF MOTION INCLUDING RESCISSION MOTIONS


Item 3.1 Page 1

Notices of M oti on incl udi ng R escissi on Moti ons 3.1 Footpath - R eiby Road

ITEM NO : 3.1

SUBJECT : FOOTPATH - REIBY ROAD

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : FOOTPATHS ARE ACCESSIBLE, SAFE AND CONNECTED

ACTION : COUNCIL PLANS, DESIGNS, CONSTRUCTS AND MAINTAINS ACCESSIBLE, SAFE, AND HIGH QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE (ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PAMP)

REPORTING OFFICER : BEN COLLINS CLR ZAC MILES

Ref:404155

We the undersigned Councillors wish to move the following Notice of Motion at Ordinary Meeting 4455 on 25 February 2019: Clr Ben Collins

Clr Zac Miles

Recommendati on

NOTICE OF MOTION

1. That a report be provided to Council on the cost of constructing a footpath from the top of Reiby Road (on the side adjacent to Burns Bay Road) to Nemba Street to address the dangerous crossing of the street for students of Hunters Hill High School walking from the overpass to the campus.

2. That this report include details of land ownership (that is, whether it is owned by Hunters Hill Council or the RMS); and possible funding opportunities for the construction of this critical piece of infrastructure.

3. That Council Officers work with relevant State Government agencies, the Hunters

Hill High School P&C and its traffic consultants in preparing this report with options for Council’s consideration.

ATTACHMENTS

There are no attachments to this report.



Item 4.1 Page 2

Maintai n Char acter and M anage Growth Planni ng 4.1 D evel opment Applications deter mined under D eleg ated Authorit y Februar y 2019

ITEM NO : 4.1

SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FEBRUARY 2019

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND AMENITY OF HUNTERS HILL

ACTION : ALL BUILDING WORK COMPLIES WITH COUNCIL REGULATIONS

REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS

Ref:402671

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise of Development Applications determined under delegated authority for the period February 2019. DELEGATED AUTHORITY

In accordance with Section 327 of the Local Government Act 1993, authority is hereby delegated to the Group Manager, Development and Regulatory Control to exercise and perform those powers, duties and functions in line with the authority and limitations of that position. These include approval and refusal of Development Applications as per Section 10 of Hunter's Hill Council Delegations of Authority. REPORT

Development Application DA2017-1051-1 Zone R2

Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes

Applicant Licon Consulting Pty Ltd

Value $1,320,000

Premises No.48 Huntleys Point Road, Huntleys Point

Landscaped Area 54.5%

Classification (BCA) 1a, 10a & 10b Date lodged 28 Aug 2018

Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 29 Jan 2019

Proposal Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling, garage and swimming pool - s4.55 – amendments to building footprint, excavation & elevations

Determination Refused subject to the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section

4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i), (iii), (b)(c)(d) and/ (e).

2. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of section

4.55 of the E.P. & A. Act in that the proposed development will not be substantially the same and the original development approval and, hence, there is no legal basis for a s4.55 modification to the original development consent.



Item 4.1 Page 3

Determination Refusal 3. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section

4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(i), (iii), (b)(c)(d) and/ (e).

4. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of section

4.55 of the E.P. & A .Act in that the proposed development will not be substantially the same and the original development approval and, hence, there is no legal basis for a s4.55 modification to the original development consent.

5. The proposal will create a three storey element within the

building being contrary to the provisions of clause 4.3(1)(b) of LEP 2012 and contrary to that as approved under agreement through the land & Environment Court.

6. The building line / footprint in relation to the Huntleys

Point Road frontage as agreed to in the amending plans before the Court have been severely breached.

7. Excessive areas of glass windows/doors have been

shown on the northern and southern elevations contrary to that as approved under agreement through the Land & Environment Court.

8. Inadequate details have been provided in relation to the

colours, finishes and front and rear fencing. 9. Excessive excavation will be provided for the site being

contrary to the provisions of clause 6.2 of LEP 2012. 10. The proposal does not conform to the general provisions

of DCP 2013. 11. The proposal would create an undesirable precedent for

Council. 12. The proposal would not be in the public interest.

Development Application No. DA2017-1176-1 Zone B4


Applicant Milestone Pty Ltd Value $26,082

Premises 241 Victoria Road, Gladesville

Landscaped Area N/A

Classification (BCA) 10 Date lodged 10 Oct 2018

Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 29 Jan 2019

Proposal New business identification signage and shop front alterations – s4.55 Modifications – Deletion of the proposed awning and deletion of Deferred Commencement Condition No.3 of Schedule No.1, Deletion of Condition No.1, modification of Condition No.2 of Schedule No.2

Determination Compliant with LEP & DCP - Deferred Commencement Approval



Item 4.1 Page 4

Development Application No. DA2018-1058 Zone R2


Applicant Natalie Richter Planning Value $550,000

Premises 27 Martin Street, Hunters Hill

Landscaped Area 55%

Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 29 June 2018

Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 30 Jan 2019

Proposal Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new carport and landscaping

Determination Compliant with LEP & DCP - Approval

Development Application No. DA 2018-1107 Zone R2


Applicant Alicia Spencer Value N/A

Premises 7 Toocooya Road Hunters Hill

Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) N/A Date lodged 30 Nov 2018

Assessing Officer Anna Hopwood Martin Peacock

Determination Date 6 Feb 2019

Proposal Removal of ten (10) trees (hedge) – all Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leyland Cypress)

Determination Compliant with LEP & DCP - Approve removal of ten (10) trees - Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leyland Cypress) with ten (10) Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lillypilly) replacement trees to be planted

Development Application No. DA2018-1087 Zone R2


Applicant Design Studio 407 P/L Value $12,000

Premises 4 Campbell Street Hunters Hill


Classification (BCA) 10a Date lodged 19 Sept 2018

Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 6 Feb 2019

Proposal Construction light weight metal framed retractable awning to rear verandah

Determination Compliant with LEP & DCP - Approval

Development Application DA2018-1093 Zone Res R2


Applicant ARC Architects Value $196,513

Premises 2 Vernon Street, Hunters Hill

Landscaped Area 52%

Classification (BCA) 1a , 10a & 10b Date lodged 5 Oct 2018

Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 6 Feb 2019

Proposal Alterations and additions including garage and new swimming pool

Determination Compliant with LEP & DCP - Approval Recommendati on

RECOMMENDATION


ATTACHMENTS

There were no attachments to this report.



Item 4.2 Page 5

4.2 D evel opment Applications deter mined by the Local Pl anni ng Panel i n N ovember 2018

ITEM NO : 4.2

SUBJECT : DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL IN NOVEMBER 2018

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND AMENITY OF HUNTERS HILL

ACTION : ALL BUILDING WORK COMPLIES WITH COUNCIL REGULATIONS

REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS

Ref:403714

PURPOSE

This report provides the outcome of determinations of Development Applications referred to the Local Planning Panel (LPP) in November 2018. The role of the Local Planning Panel is to determine Development Applications where submissions (10 and over) have been received and/or a Clause 4.6 (variation to Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012) has been received. All reports presented to the LPP as shown below are available on the Council’s website http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/lpp . REPORT OF MEETING HELD 15 NOVEMBER 2018

The table below sets out a summary of the determinations:

Development Application No. 2018-1057 Zone R3


Applicant Angus Gordon Value $2,364,501

Premises 49 Woolwich Road, Woolwich


Classification (BCA) N/A Date lodged 28 June 2018

Assessing Officer Shahram Mehdizadgan Determination Date 15 Nov 2018

Proposal Alterations and additions including upgrade to front fence wall and western return to residence fence, new paving, draining, retaining wall and replacement of steps, seating and planting

Determination A. That the Local Planning Panel, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection lodged under clause 4.6 of LEP 2012 to vary the landscaped area development standard of clause 6.9 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B That Development Application No.2018-1057 for

alterations and additions including upgrade to front stone wall and western return to residence fence, new paving, drainage, retaining wall and replacement of steps, seating and planting at No.89 Woolwich Road, Woolwich, be approved, subject to the standard conditions.

http://www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au/lpp



Item 4.2 Page 6

Development Application No. 2017-1153 Zone R2


Applicant V M & K T P Nguyen Value $2,364,501

Premises 5 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill

Landscaped Area N/A

Classification (BCA) N/A Date lodged 25 Sept 2017

Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 15 Nov 2018

Proposal Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including a new wing, new verandah and landscaping

Determination A. That the Local Planning Panel, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection lodged under clause 4.6 of LEP 2012 to vary the height development standard of clause 4.3 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B. That Development Application No.2017-1153 for the

carrying out of alterations & additions to existing dwelling including a new wing, new verandah and landscaping at No.5 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions and standards conditions:

1. The balustrading facing the River being altered to

BCA compliant flat bar verticals in a dark, earthy, recessive colour or, alternatively, horizontal, stainless steel wire rope to comply with the provisions of REP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

2. The applicant to consult with the owners of No.3 Wybalena Road regarding the proposed pruning of T10 – T14 Cupressocyparis (Cypress). If the owners are in support of the proposed pruning of T10 – T14 Cupressocyparis (Cypress) a tree permit application is required to be submitted to Council for processing. The tree permit must include written authorization from the tree owner.

3. That the landscape plan be amended showing the deletion of the bamboo along the boundary alignment and replacement of appropriate screen planting to be no more than 3metres and nominating the appropriate species and type including the litreage with the intent of retaining views to the water from the adjoining property. The Lemon Scented Myrtle planting along the eastern end of the site being deleted from the landscaping plan.

4. Works to the existing boatshed be strictly limited to maintenance only and no rebuilding is to be permitted as part of this application.



Item 4.2 Page 7

5. Fixed or restricted adjustment external privacy screens or, alternatively, windows featuring obscure glazing being provided for Window Nos.W23 and W29 of the hopper type with the bottom pane being fixed and the upper pane to open no more than 45 degrees on the north western elevation of the ground floor. Such detailed information being provided on architectural plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans.

6. Fixed or restricted adjustment external privacy

screens or, alternatively, windows featuring obscure glazing being provided for Window Nos.W09 and W11 of the hopper type to open no more than 45 degrees on the north western elevation of the ground floor. Such detailed information being provided on architectural plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans.

7. Fixed or restricted adjustment external privacy screen

to be provided on the south eastern side of the north eastern elevation of the first floor shielding windows WO1, WO2, WO3, WO4, WO6 and WO8 for the new bedroom. Such detailed information being provided on architectural plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans.

8. The home theatre at the lower ground floor level

complying with the provisions of Part 3.8.4 and 3.8.5 of the NCC/BCA. Such detailed information being provided on architectural plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans

9. Pool perimeter fencing complying with the provisions

of AS 1926. Such detailed information being provided on architectural plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans.

10. The stairwell shown on the north eastern elevation

being suitably treated by way of fixed (or adjustable slats or alternatively glass treatment to reduce the amount of light to emanate from night lighting of such stairwell. Alternatively, such lighting being angled so that it will not be directed to the adjoining premises No.7 Wybalena Road. Such information being provided on architectural plans to be submitted to Council prior to the release of any stamped approved plans.

Proposal Report of Delegations

Introduction

Report

This report relates to development applications decided by the Local Planning Panel that are appealed to the Land and Environment Court. This report further clarifies the matter and delegates function to the General Manager. Attention is drawn to s8.15 of the Environmental Planning and



Item 4.2 Page 8

Resolved

Assessment Act, which relates to appeals to the Land and Environment Court. In particular, s8.15(4) states: “If the determination or decision appealed against under this Division was made by a Sydney district or regional planning panel or a local planning panel, the council for the area concerned is to be the respondent to the appeal but is subject to the control and direction of the panel in connection with the conduct of the appeal. The council is to give notice of the appeal to the panel.” The problem which arises is that the court imposes tight timeframes once an appeal is lodged. Decisions have to be made regarding the preparation and filing of statements of facts and contentions, the selection of expert witnesses, determining whether to engage counsel, and the conduct of good faith negotiations during s34/34AA conferences, often on an urgent basis. It will be difficult for the panel itself to determine such matters in a timely manner, even electronically. On 23rd May I attended a roundtable conference of the various Chairs of local planning panels with representatives of the Department of Planning (Marcus Ray, Steve Murray, Cassandra Cosgrove and Stuart Withington), at which this matter was discussed. It was agreed that it is not inappropriate for a panel to delegate the conduct of such matters, as permitted by s2.20(8) of the Act. Some panels have already delegated this function. Delegations have variously been made to the general manager, to the council’s in-house solicitor, or to the panel chair. Any delegation must have the approval of the council and the general manager: s381(3) Local Government Act 1993. In the present case it would be appropriate to delegate this function to the General Manager. The following form of delegation would be appropriate and which I recommend that the panel adopt, by resolution, at its next meeting. “Subject to the approval of Hunter’s Hill Council and the General Manager thereof, the panel individually delegates to the General Manager the functions of the panel under section 8.15(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1970.” Adjunct Professor David Lloyd QC Chair, Hunter’s Hill Local Planning Panel 5 September 2018

The panel individually delegates to the General Manager the functions of the panel under section 8.15(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1970.

Recommendati on



Item 4.2 Page 9

RECOMMENDATION


ATTACHMENTS


FOCUS ON THE COMMUNITY Meeting 4455 - 25 February 2019

Item 5.1 Page 10

Focus on the Community 5.1 N ati ve Titl e Manager N otificati on

ITEM NO : 5.1

SUBJECT : NATIVE TITLE MANAGER NOTIFICATION

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : PLANS OF MANAGEMENT REFLECT COMMUNITY NEED

ACTION : BORONIA PARK (REVIEW)

REPORTING OFFICER : JACQUI VOLLMER

Ref:403893

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the need to appoint a Native Title Manager as required under section 8.8(1) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016. REPORT

Councils that have care control and management of Crown Lands are now required to engage a qualified native title manager to oversee and approve dealings and actions that may affect native title. Native title managers must have training or qualifications that have been approved by the Minister. Councils’ must obtain the written advice of at least one native title manager where it grants certain interests in the land, including leases, licences, easements, mortgages, covenants and other restrictions on use. This requirement does not apply to ‘excluded land’, which includes:

land subject to a determination under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that native title rights and interests have been extinguished or do not exist

land where the native title rights and interests have been compulsorily acquired

land for which a ‘native title certificate’ is in effect. A native title certificate can be issued by the Minister for Lands and Forestry where there is adequate evidence to show that native title rights and interest for the land have been extinguished or do not exist. The issue of a native title certificate does not affect rights under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). It is proposed to engage Lands Advisory Services Pty Ltd, who are a suitably qualified legal firm that has been approved under Local Government Procurements (LGP), to supply advice on Native Title advice on Councils Crown Land. Under Section 8.8 of the Crown Lands Management Act, Council is required to give notice via resolution to the Minister for Lands and Forestry as to who has been engaged as Native Title Manager. The recommendation contained in this report advises that Lands Advisory Services Pty Ltd has been engaged as Native Title Manager for Hunters Hill Council. A Council as a Crown Land Manager cannot approve (adopt) a Plan of Management (POM) until they have obtained written advice from a Native Title Manager that the approval (or submission for approval) of the POM complies with any applicable provision of Commonwealth Native Title legislation.

FOCUS ON THE COMMUNITY Meeting 4455 - 25 February 2019

Item 5.1 Page 11

Native Title Manager engagement and Native Title consideration needs to start early in the development of a POM, even though the written advice is not formally required until the POM is ready for adoption. The adoption process brings forward the requirement to obtain Native Title Manager advice to the draft POM referral stage to ensure Council’s seek the advice early. NSW Department of Industry will not process a draft POM received from a Council unless the Council attests that it has considered Native Title Manager advice. FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

There will be financial implications associated with the seeking of this advice. This is yet to be scoped however will be in line with Local Government Procurement (LGP) rates. Recommendati on

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to Section 8.8(1) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016, Hunter’s Hill Council in its role as responsible person for the purposes of Part 8 of that Act, give notice to the Minister for Lands and Forestry that Lands Advisory Services Pty Ltd will be engaged as the Native Title Manager.

ATTACHMENTS


COMMITTEES Meeting 4455 - 25 February 2019

Item 9.1 Page 12

Committees 9.1 Minutes of the Audi t Risk and Improvement Committee meeting hel d 28 November 2018

ITEM NO : 9.1

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE AUDIT RISK AND IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 28 NOVEMBER 2018

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : COUNCIL IS FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE

ACTION : PROVIDE TIMELY FINANCIAL INFORMATION, ADVICE AND REPORTS TO COUNCIL, THE COMMUNITY AND STAFF INCLUDING THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN

REPORTING OFFICER : MAY VILAYTHONG

Ref:404144

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the Minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement for November 2018 The purpose of the Audit Risk and Improvement is to provide independent assurance and advise Council on risk management, internal control, governance and external accountability. Attached are the Minutes of the meeting held 28 November 2018. Recommendati on

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Minutes be received and noted. 2. That Council receive and adopt the Internal Audit Charter

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes of the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 28 November 2018 ⇩

2. Internal Audit Charter ⇩


Item 9.1 Attachment 1 Page 13

Minutes of the Audi t Risk and Improvement Committee M eeting held on 28 N ovember 2018



Internal Audit C harter

DELEGATES REPORTS Meeting 4455 - 25 February 2019

Item 11.1 Page 26

Delegates Reports 11.1 Sydney Pl anning Summi t

ITEM NO : 11.1

SUBJECT : SYDNEY PLANNING SUMMIT

STRATEGIC OUTCOME : COUNCILLORS ARE SUPPORTED WITHIN A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

ACTION : PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR COUNCILLORS

REPORTING OFFICER : JIM SANDERSON

Ref:404131

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide a report to Councillors on the Sydney Planning Summit attended by Clr Jim Sanderson and Clr Ross Williams. REPORT

The Sydney Planning Summit was held in Sydney on 28 and 29 November 2018 to present insights into planning issues in Greater Sydney including transport, smart cities and urban development over the next 20 years. The Summit was attended by representatives of over 40 Greater Sydney councils, including Hunter’s Hill Council staff and Clrs Ross Williams and Jim Sanderson. Sydney received a month’s rainfall in about two hours on the opening morning, highlighting one of the themes Summit: Resilience. Another recurring theme was: There at last appears to be a realisation that increased population density makes the provision of public open space and a restoration of tree canopy even more vital. Brief commentary on some of the presentations at the Summit follows although some presentations that were less relevant to our region have not been covered. PRESENTATIONS Carolyn McNally – Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment An opening address by Carolyn McNally, on Looking to the Future of Sydney, noted that Indigenous peoples were the first planners of Sydney as many of their tracks became Sydney’s arterial roads. Planning became more haphazard with European settlement – for example Busby’s Bore took the route of soft rock. The Secretary:

Emphasised the contribution of Sydney to the national economy and hence the importance of planning in Greater Sydney – citing Ken Henry, when Treasury Secretary, who spoke of being kept awake at night by the thought that Sydney might cease to function;


Item 11.1 Page 27

Suggested that while the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 had its roots in the Green Bans, the function of planning was to protect people by having an orderly approach to development;

Noted that reduced housing affordability is seeing a move away from owner occupation, noting however that in 1911 about two thirds of Sydney dwellings were rented, although different lifestyle expectations now means that home ownership is reducing as a priority for younger generations;

Like many presenters recognised the need for planning to provide open space to encourage active lifestyles; and

Touched on smarter resource use, noting that Barangaroo is a water positive area. Lucy Hughes Turnbull – Chair, Greater Sydney Commission Lucy Turnbull AO spoke on A Metropolis of Three Cities: A Vision for the Future, including place based planning and the proximity of services, with an aim to reduce the travel between the triangle of home, work and other activities to 30 minutes – the core mantra being to distribute jobs and facilities. However it is of concern that planning for the metropolis of three cities predicts the Eastern Harbour City will experience the greatest growth, with a population increase of 900,000 people between 2016 and 2036, compared with 400,000 in the Central River City and 360,000 in the Western Parkland City. Points made by the Chief Commissioner included:

Walkability will be essential however heat islands currently impede this so restoration of the tree canopy and water recycling to support this will be critical in making the metropolis liveable.

Infrastructure and in particular transport infrastructure must be delivered along with growth. Transport infrastructure has traditionally run east-west – now there is a need for north-south transport and collaboration between land use and transport.

There are challenges in best managing industrial and urban services lands in Greater Sydney as only 8% of land is zoned for non-residential uses such as industrial land. This makes Collaboration Areas such as Greater Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) vital for the distribution of jobs and facilities.

The Chief Commissioner also mentioned amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act including:

Day-to-day local plan-making responsibilities transferred to Department of Planning and Environment;

Commission will continue to work with councils to review LEPs and will endorse local strategic planning statements;

Commission to be consulted on State Environmental Planning Policies;

Minister to refer major planning proposals to GSC; and

Region Plan review in 2023.


Item 11.1 Page 28

There are also amendments to the Greater Sydney Commission Act including:

New advice and assurance functions;

Requests to State agencies for information; and

Flexibility in Commission membership.

Fiona Morrison – Commissioner Open Space and Parklands Fiona Morrison spoke on Greener Places and Open Space Planning, and started by asking: Where do we fit trees? The Commissioner continued making the points including:

Lot sizes are shrinking. Houses are bigger and we are living vertically. Increasing diversity of housing means many are living in medium and high density development. Setbacks have gone and street trees are limited by services in verges.

Backyard outdoor living space has gone and children are losing connection with nature so there is increasing demand for public open space.

The Commissioner also looked at the type of recreational activity the population demanded to consider the type of public open space that should be provided and the need for outdoor space near all dwellings. These and many other factors led to the initiative to plant five million trees in Greater Sydney by 2030 to grow Sydney’s tree canopy from 16.8% to 40%. Despite the shrinking size of backyards, to achieve this significant plantings are required on private land. Advice as well as funding for tree planting is available from the Office of Open Space and Parklands. Peter Poulet – Central City District Commissioner, Greater Sydney Commission Peter Poulet, a former NSW Government Architect, spoke on Quality Outcomes and Better Places: Delivering Liveable Communities, setting out the elements of a well-designed built environment as:

Healthy: promoting physical activity, social cohesion, & community safety & security supporting people’s wellbeing. Responsive: to the needs and aspirations of local people, inviting use, interaction, productivity & enjoyment. Integrated: drawing together relationships, parts & elements; considering interfaces at multiple scales & working to shared aspirations. Equitable: presenting opportunities for all; providing all with easy access to public domain, infrastructure, open space & buildings. Resilient: capacity to adapt, change & evolve while retaining essential qualities and values.


Item 11.1 Page 29

The District Commissioner also spoke about the evolving Government Greener Places policy:

‘to guide the planning, design and delivery of Green Infrastructure in urban areas across NSW. It aims to create a healthier, more liveable and sustainable urban environment by improving community access to recreation and exercise, supporting walking and cycling connections, and improving the resilience of urban areas.’1

Dr Alison Taylor – Research Analyst, City Analytics Lab, UNSW Dr Taylor spoke on Demographics and Planning: Using the Latest Data to Make Better Plans. Observations to come from Dr Taylor’s presentation include:

Faster growth could see the population of Greater Sydney reach 8 million by 2042, with slower growth this may not occur until 2057.

With a medium fertility rate of 1.8, medium life expectancy, medium net interstate migration flows and medium net overseas migration, the population of Greater Sydney is projected to reach 8 million by 2047.

How realistic these predictions are needs to be questioned:

o Will social change see the fertility rate fall further?

o Will people live increasingly long lives – or will ‘lifestyle’ diseases catch up

with us?

o With high housing costs, increasing congestion and a continuing

infrastructure backlog, will more people leave Sydney?

o Will future Commonwealth Governments lower caps on migration?

The average (to 2028) annual population change of Greater Sydney is made up of:

o Natural increase (more births than deaths) = gain of 48,600;

o Net interstate migration = loss of 19,500;

o Net overseas migration = gain of 76,000.

o In the next 25 years, the largest population growth is projected to be for

people aged 40-50 years.

Over the next decade, largest growth is projected to be among people aged 33-43 years. In more detail there is predicted to be:

o 25,000 more 85+

o Healthy retirees (70-84) up 150,000

1 Government Architect New South Wales, Greener Places: Establishing an Urban Green Infrastructure Policy

for New South Wales (October 2017) 10 <https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/resources/ga/media/files/ga/discussion-papers/greener-places-discussion-draft-2017-11.pdf>.

https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/resources/ga/media/files/ga/discussion-papers/greener-places-discussion-draft-2017-11.pdf

https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/resources/ga/media/files/ga/discussion-papers/greener-places-discussion-draft-2017-11.pdf


Item 11.1 Page 30

o Older workers (56-69) up 100,000

o Nesting (31-55) up 390,000

o Young workers (22-30) up 95,000

o Uni students (18-21) up 32,000

o School age (5-17) up 157,000

o Pre-school (3-4) up 32,000

o Babies (0-2) up 52,000

Demographic change is one of many issues to be considered in the context of land use planning and reviewing LEPs.2

In addition to large growth in the population of people aged 33-43, the number of people aged from 79 to 82 is projected to grow by more than 50% in next 10 years and should there be less overseas migration older people will make up an even larger part of the population.

Planning for an ageing population will need consideration of:

o What role will older people have in our communities?

o Income and housing security for older people

o Jobs for older people

o Health in older age

o Caring for older people in the community

o Transport and mobility for older people

o Ageing and environmental change

o Human rights for older people

o Combatting loneliness and isolation

Panel: Aligning Population Growth, Housing and Infrastructure Chris Johnson – CEO, Urban Taskforce Australia Chris Johnson made a presentation at the commencement of this panel discussion, claiming that:

2 Greater Sydney Commission, LEP Roadmap: Guidelines for Updating Local Environmental Plans to Give

Effect to the District Plans in the Greater Sydney Region (May 2018) 17 <https://lep-update.planning.nsw.gov.au//sites/default/files/2018-06/LEP%20Roadmap%20May%202018.pdf>.

https://lep-update.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-06/LEP%20Roadmap%20May%202018.pdf

https://lep-update.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-06/LEP%20Roadmap%20May%202018.pdf


Item 11.1 Page 31

Sydney will need to double the number of homes from the existing 1,660,000 over the next 50 years.

In attempting to answer where these homes would go, Johnson posited three scenarios:

Double the footprint of Greater Sydney; Double the density across all of the existing footprint; or Locate growth in centres or corridors.

Although a simplistic analysis, Johnson pointed out:

The reinforcement of centres where public transport is located helps minimise car use and gets people living closer to work.

As early as the 2011 census, 25.8% of Sydney homes were apartments. Johnson claims ‘most of these are located in centres and transport corridors.’ Johnson suggested ‘Three Steps towards housing Sydney’s growth along infrastructure projects’. The first step being a ‘continuous metro circle line around Sydney [to] reinforce the centrality of Parramatta, connect the two airports, strengthen the economic performance of major metro cities …’ Johnson’s second proposed step is to add a ‘network of metro loops [to] radiate out from major centres [to] act as feeders to the commercial centres on the metro line.’ Johnson’s third proposed step is to ‘add housing density’ with the ‘major centres on the metro lines [having] significant numbers of tall towers of around 20 stories [with] a mixture of residential and commercial with retail incorporated. Along the light rail loops a lower built form of 6 to 8 stories will provide residential apartments and a mixture of retail and commercial space. Simon Kuestenmacher – Director of Research, The Demographics Group Simon Kuestenmacher also made a presentation at the commencement of the panel discussion, cautioning of three risks inherent in Sydney’s rapid growth. The first risk being sub-standard housing stock – there has been a clear failure to build high quality housing to preserve intergenerational wealth. The second risk being that high-paying jobs are unlikely to be spread across the three Central Business Districts. The third risk being the future of social cohesion. As Sydney continues to grow, new infrastructure is going to be built, suburbs are being densified, advances in artificial intelligence and automation will transform the workforce, while migration continues at a high rate. Kuestenmacher argues that in light of these disruptive trends Sydney’s biggest challenge in the next decades will be social cohesion. Michelle Lee – Associate Director, Estate Master Planning and Strategy, Western Sydney University Michelle Lee gave a presentation at the commencement of the panel discussion, which saw education as delivering population growth in western Sydney and this being key to next phase of growth of Sydney.


Item 11.1 Page 32

Ms Lee saw the role of universities in city shaping as providing: access to education; education and research partnerships; and entrepreneurship and employment. Lynn Sorrell – Director, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, GHDWoodhead Lynn Sorrell gave a brief presentation at the commencement of the panel discussion where she spoke of outcomes that would measure the success of development. For people, Sorrell posited that the success of population grow would be measured by the diversity of cultures and incomes (the shift of good jobs), the location of housing and employment but the key was ease of movement. For places, Sorrell posited that liveability would be measured by transit oriented development, the diversity of land use and value capture. Peter Holt – Special Counsel, Holding Redlich Peter Holt spoke about Recent Changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: What Does This Mean for Sydney Councils and Planners? Holt’s presentation covered the introduction of Local Planning Panels that Council should be familiar with and future changes, including the following taken from Holt’s Presentation: The Introduction of Community Participation Plans (from 1 December 2019):

The aim is to enhance community participation in the planning system.

Under the new provisions every planning authority will need to prepare a community participation plan (CPP).

Set out a clear explanation of how and when the community can participate in the planning system.

The CPP must meet the minimum requirements in Schedule 1 to the EP&A Act.

Designed to increase community involvement in planning decisions.

In conjunction with the CPPs, public notification of reasons for all decisions regarding development approval is required.

All councils will be required to prepare CPPs.

CPP is to apply to their determination roles undertaken by the Sydney planning panel and local planning panels.

Councils do not need a CPP if they satisfy the requirements if they have a community strategic plan under section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993.

In practice requires an update of the existing community engagement strategy to address the principles, exhibit for 28 days and incorporate provisions from existing development control plans.

The Introduction of Local Strategic Planning Statements


Item 11.1 Page 33

Each council will prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

Will describe the 20-year vision for land-use in the local area, the special characteristics and shared community values that are to be maintained and enhanced and how change will be managed into the future.

LSPS must identify basis for strategic planning, planning priorities, actions, and monitoring and reporting.

Influences the respective local environmental plan.

A more narrowed focus on land use compared to the broader community strategic plans as part of the Local Government Act 1993.

LSPS may be divided by ward particularly for recently amalgamated councils.

Guidelines released to assist development of LSPS in June 2018.

The aim is that the LSPS will be reviewed every 7 years. With the aim is that LEPs will be regularly reviewed every 5 years.

Commencement: Greater Sydney councils required to exhibit draft LSPS by 1 July 2019. Final version for Greater Sydney councils 1 December 2019 Holt also spoke about: reforms to concurrence and referrals; changes around complying development; and a renewed focus on clause 4.6 including information about which development standards were most often varied. Holt concluded with the summary below: What 2019 holds for Sydney Councils

Expect to see the some trouble shooting around LPPs in response to the quarterly data and the outcomes of the Kaldas review (November 2018).

Health check for local environmental plans (January-March).

State election (March).

Exhibition of a draft Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation for public comment (June?).

Exhibiting draft local strategic planning statements and community participation plans (June).

Expansion of the Medium Density Housing Code from July (other than Ryde).

Introduction of electronic concurrences and referrals (July).

New building and subdivision provisions (September).

Finalising local strategic planning statements and community participation plans (December).


Item 11.1 Page 34

Start preparing planning proposals to give effect to the outcome of the local strategic planning statements (December).

Hon Clover Moore – Lord Mayor, City of Sydney The Hon Clover Moore spoke about City of Sydney's Vision for the Future presenting a series of images of the City of Sydney including artist’s impressions of development currently in progress, with discussion about aspects of various projects. The City’s long term plan, Sustainable Sydney 2030, the plan includes ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse emissions. The City has delivered facilities, ‘protecting open space, promoting design excellence, delivering new transport options, championing sustainability and initiating progressive solutions to complex city social problems.’ Hon Wendy Waller – Mayor, City of Liverpool The Hon Wendy Waller spoke on Re-Zoning and Re-Invigorating Liverpool's City Centre as Liverpool embraces its heritage as the fourth oldest township in Australia and being a ‘vibrant multicultural city which is now home to more than 150 nationalities … as the city moves towards becoming the third major CBD in NSW. Professor Chris Pettit – Director, City Analytics Lab, UNSW Professor Pettit spoke on Collaborating and Designing the Future with Virtual and Augmented Reality. Prof Pettit touched the gig economy noting that the three key drivers were technology, globalization and demography. However, the principal topic was dynamic three dimensional models of cities including Singapore and Helsinki, where they were moving toward having a ‘digital twin’ of these cities. This technology will be applied to:

Virtual experimentation and test bedding;

Planning and decision-making;

Research and Development;

Energy and climate atlases; and

Economic development atlases. Jim Betts – CEO, Infrastructure NSW Jim Betts spoke provocatively about Building Momentum: State Infrastructure Strategy 2018-2038. Infrastructure NSW develops a five year strategy from a forty year vision and deals with projects over $10 million in value. Betts spoke of a ‘plan rich environment’, where it was important to get the plans right from the start – projects, like the light rail to Randwick and Kingsford, that go wrong, go wrong from their beginning.


Item 11.1 Page 35

Betts said he was suspicious of ideology and regretted that politics had not been taken out of infrastructure. He also expresses frustration that it was necessary to force government departments to talk to each other. Betts spoke of the integration of infrastructure with land use planning as unfinished business. There were constraints:

No more assets to sell and both NSW and Victorian Governments were reluctant to borrow even at low interest rates out of concern for their AAA credit ratings; Availability of land; and It is not possible to build out of congestion.

Betts spoke of ‘asset recycling’ as a vacuous Federal Government cliché. Betts sees the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall as important to buy more time for evacuation in the event of a 100 year flood. However, 60 to 70% of capital spent on transport infrastructure. Betts advocates strategies to allow spending across the spectrum. Betts suggests it is acceptable to borrow for long term quality assets that will deliver dividends to communities. Intergenerational equity demands that assets should not be sold to fund short term projects. Eamon Waterford – Acting CEO, The Committee for Sydney Eamon Waterford’s presentation, Thinking Big: The Mega-Region of the Future, took a different approach by looking beyond Sydney to include the Central Coast, Newcastle and Wollongong in a Mega-Region of the Future, which is predicted to have a population of 10 million by 2050. Waterford sees: ‘an opportunity to capitalise on the strengths of the region’s six cities, and support greater employment and housing opportunities for inhabitants.’ A Committee for Sydney report of June 2018, The Sandstone Mega-Region: Uniting Newcastle – The Central Coast – Sydney – Wollongong, found:

Currently there is little integration between the six cities with most people living and working in their respective city.

This finding is particularly strong outside of the Greater Sydney; there is a high level of containment and the vast majority of people seek employment locally.3

Most travel is by car, particularly outside of Eastern and Central Sydney where car travel represents over 90% of internal work trips.4

The Committee for Sydney asked: How far can people currently commute?

3 The Committee for Sydney, The Sandstone Mega-Region: Uniting Newcastle – The Central Coast – Sydney –

Wollongong (June 2018) 2 <http://www.sydney.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The_Sandstone_Mega-region_Final_Web.pdf >.

4 Ibid 8.

http://www.sydney.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The_Sandstone_Mega-region_Final_Web.pdf

http://www.sydney.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The_Sandstone_Mega-region_Final_Web.pdf


Item 11.1 Page 36

When it comes to traveling for work, many people have a travel budget of 30-minutes one way, pushing up to 60 minutes.

Currently Wollongong and the Central Coast can only access the edge of Sydney within an hour.

The only areas accessible to Newcastle commuters within an hour are in the Hunter region.5

After considering successful overseas mega-regions, the Committee for Sydney concluded ‘Mega-regions have two fundamental catalysts … A network of 1-hour or less heavy rail connections [and] A coherent economic strategy’.6 Waterford spoke of using mid-20th century rail technology for ‘a moderately fast rail network that reaches speeds of 200 km/h [to] connect Newcastle, the Central Coast and Wollongong with Sydney in 60 minutes or less.’7 The Committee for Sydney predicts within 15 years of the rail service improvements there would be the following employment and housing impacts:

40,500 dwellings added to locations outside of metropolitan Sydney.

Housing prices in Greater Sydney would rise by $40,500 less than expected.8

12,000 additional jobs in Wollongong, the Central Coast and Newcastle because of improved rail access to Sydney.

Waterford claims sharing the growth burden and providing better transport infrastructure would benefit both Sydneysiders and others however 40,500 dwellings over 15 years is small by comparison with predictions for Sydney’s growth. Charles Casuscelli – CEO, Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Charles Casuscelli gave a presentation on The Impact of Technology Disruption on Sydney Planning, suggesting that ‘The real threat from technology disruption is the nonsense being promoted under the guise of innovation, it distracts attention, distorts priorities and wastes limited resources.’ Casuscelli concluded that:

The governance of contemporary regions and cities is now so complex that traditional structures are failing – digital capabilities offer potential solutions.

Smart Cities of the future will have a ubiquitous digital signature.

Combinations of new city/region sub-systems will be complex, predicting how they will best operate is impossible.

The link between operations and planning will become more important

5 Ibid 10. 6 Ibid 12-13. 7 Ibid 2. 8 Ibid 21-22.


Item 11.1 Page 37

Regardless of complexity a baseline architecture is needed - open and digital, this becomes the “platform” some refer to this as a digital twin.

The “platform” requires a “framework”.

The framework must focus on people … crowds and communities.

Ideas and products will “emerge” from the crowds and communities.

Clare Gardiner-Barnes – Deputy Secretary, Freight Strategy and Planning, Transport for NSW Clare Gardiner-Barnes spoke on Transport for NSW – Future Transport Strategy 2056 - Vision and Implementation. Future Transport Strategy 2056 replaced the Masterplan of 2012. Gardiner-Barnes’ critique made the following points:

RMS cannot speak for clusters; Transport for NSW is too centralised; Bus timetables don’t reflect family demand; Transport staff should not think they are the ‘brains trust’; The Metro Project claims to be energy neutral – this is important as transport consumes 40% of energy; Government is nervous about engagement and risk taking – it needs to realise that it must engage upfront with decisions based on public engagement and evidence; Cultural change won’t happen overnight as it is about giving up power;

Local government has a role to play as it is closest to the people who must have a say in transport because ease of movement will be vital for good places for people. Evan Walker – Executive Director, Smart Innovation Centre, Transport for NSW Evan Walker spoke on the Future of Mobility, including the use of small smart shuttle busses – these use a safe distance approach limiting their speed to 40 kph where there is high pedestrian activity – e scooters are not a good fit in this environment. Rita Excell – Executive Director, Australia New Zealand Driverless Vehicles Initiative Rita Excell presented on The Role of Cities in the Driverless Technology Future, in which she considered possible future scenarios. It was necessary to move to her third scenario of driverless taxies reducing vehicle population by 43% before there were considerable benefits for cities although the analysis predicted benefits in terms of reduced accidents a lower cost of mobility. Any benefits would come at the cost of major change and investment in cities. The analysis predicts it would be necessary to also move to car sharing before there was a reduction in emissions.


Item 11.1 Page 38

Patrick Fensham – Principal and Partner, SGS Economics and Planning Patrick Fensham spoke on A New Urban Renewal Community Compact for Liveability in Sydney. Strategies to support development near public transport creates infill housing which can challenge liveability. For example, urban renewal along the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor is likely to result in an additional 46,000 dwellings by 2036 or about 100,000 additional residents.9 Fensham advocates Urban Renewal Community Compacts involving:

developing outcomes and indicators for ‘liveability’ in precincts

undertaking baseline measurements for each of the indicators

making a commitment to the community that outcomes against these indicators post development will be measurably maintained or enhanced

developing a robust funding and implementation framework.

Fensham attempts to broadly define liveability as:

The well-being of a community and represents the characteristics that make a place where people want to live now and in the future. It is the sum of the aspects that add up to the quality of life of a place, including its economy, amenity, accessibility, environmental sustainability, health and wellbeing, equity, education and learning, and leadership.

Fensham suggests an Urban Renewal Community Compact might ultimately include commitments to:

Increasing the area / quality / accessibility of active open space assets

increasing the ratio of accessible community / cultural facilities with capacity

Increasing the length of dedicated bike paths and safe and ‘off-road’ pedestrian paths

Increasing the ratio of accessible public education places to primary school age children

Housing diversity to respond to the changing composition of households

Increasing the share of social and affordable dwellings

Increasing the share of accessible metropolitan jobs through local transport infrastructure improvements linked to metropolitan networks

Reducing car dependence

Improving the environmental performance of the precinct in terms of:

o Energy usage,

9 Patrick Fensham, SGS Occasional Paper, Ensuring a Liveability Dividend from Growth: A New Urban Renewal

Community Compact (June 2017) 2 <https://www.sgsep.com.au/application/files/2415/0050/4239/SGS_renewal_compact.pdf>.


Item 11.1 Page 39

o CO2 emissions

o Water consumption

o runoff

o waste

o heat stress

o biodiversity.

Beck Dawson – Chief Resilience Officer, City of Sydney Beck Dawson presented on Resilient Sydney Strategy, defining Urban Resilience as:

The capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and thrive no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience.

Dawson asked: what makes Sydney vulnerable? Answering:

Growing inequity and differential opportunity across the city Lack of action adapting to heat and climate Declining social cohesion Community understanding & preparedness for emergencies Disjointed governance and distrust

With respect to growing inequity and differential opportunity across the city, Dawson answered: people-centred cities will include communities in decision making for growth and equity. With respect to lack of action adapting to heat and climate, Dawson answered: Live with our climate by adapting to sustain our quality of life and our environment, illustrating this point with a slide Dawson showing an area of large detached dwellings on small lots with about few trees and one solar panel in sight. Local government can take action including: Enabling affordable access to resilient energy, Stormwater harvesting and I would have thought through tree plantings. With respect to declining social cohesion, Dawson advocates Local Government can take action by prioritising connections: examples include: Fairfield’s Multicultural Advisory Committee; Campbelltown’s welcome program for newly arrived migrants; NAIDOC In the City; and Canterbury Bankstown’s Interfaith program. Dawson gave examples of policy/ program areas that support resilience:

Energy Minister: New legislation for ability to declare an electricity emergency – ‘Electricity Supply Amendment (Emergency Management) Act 2017 No 59’

NSW State Infrastructure Strategy (INSW, 2018) – Strategic direction 4: “Ensure NSW’s existing and future infrastructure is resilient to natural hazards and human-related threats”

Greater Sydney Region Plan (GSC, 2018) – Direction 10: ‘A resilient city’ with targets and actions for city resilience


Item 11.1 Page 40

NSW Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy (OEM, 2018): first one for NSW

OEH, Climate Change Fund (2018): adaptation, energy efficiency projects: LED streetlights

Multicultural NSW COMPACT program – ‘A whole-of-society resilience based model for social cohesion risk management’

Cyber Safety: Small Business Commissioner toolkits, new cyber commissioner

Dr Stephen Bygrave – Strategic Delivery Manager, Climate Change, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Dr Bygrave spoke on NSW Government Approach to Climate Resilience giving the cost of impacts:

The total economic cost of natural disasters in NSW over the past decade averaged $3.2 billion per year

Storms accounted for 49% of natural disasters with flood events accounting for 23%

This cost is expected to rise to $10.6 billion a year by 2050 if we do not improve the resilience of our existing and planned assets

State government agencies are developing climate change risk assessments and adaptation strategies. Dr Bygrave listed funding granted in this area and concluded noting:

Resilience is what we need to put in place to prepare for climate impacts we know are coming and are already here

Remembering:

Our connection to nature and each other, of our vulnerability, of our strengths.

Jorge Chapa – Head of Market Transformation, Green Building Council of Australia Jorge Chapa spoke on Factoring Climate Change into Planning and Infrastructure Decisions. From the World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2017–2018, the greatest risks to buildings in terms of likelihood are: extreme weather events; natural disasters; and failure of climate-change mitigation and adaption. In terms of impact the greatest risks are: extreme weather events; natural disasters; failure of climate-change mitigation and adaption; water crises; food crises; biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. Chapa quoted the following costs:

Currently, direct recovery spending by governments after natural disasters is around $2.75 billion per year. Direct spending 100 is around by governments on resilience measures is around $100 million per year.


Item 11.1 Page 41

It is anticipated this direct recovery spending by government could rise to $3.8 billion per year. Of this, an estimated $1.6 billion per year would be borne by state and territory governments. This direct recovery spending does not include emergency response costs or indirect costs to government after a natural disaster. For example, governments may face increased outlays on health and social services after a disaster …

Since 2015, the Green Building Council of Australia have been active in decarbonising the built environment. Considerations and measures used in resilient building design include: allowance for future sea level rise; thermal comfort through shading and high performance glazing; network redundancy; sea water cooling; outdoor comfort through shading and light coloured materials to reduce urban heat island effect; saline tolerance; stormwater diversion; reduced potable water demand through harbour heat regeneration removing the need for potable water in cooling towers; salt spray protection; indirect evaporative cooling heat recovery; renewable energy through photovoltaic panels; basement design for disaster recovery; road heights to reduce stormwater ingress; and elevated walkways in case of localised flooding. Associate Professor Ron Cox – Water Research Laboratory, UNSW Associate Professor Ron Cox spoke on Factoring Climate Change into Planning and Infrastructure Decisions, summarising the key expected impacts as:

Gradual changes: sea level rise, increased average temperatures, seasonal and annual rainfalls

Extreme events: more frequent and more intense:

o – Summer heatwaves

o – Storm events (wind, rain, hail, lightening)

o – Flooding

o – Bushfire

Infrastructure is most vulnerable to combined events

Drought + bushfire + extreme temperature Sea level rise + extreme rainfall event + storm surge

Cox elaborated on the complexity of risk assessment given that the greatest risk occurred with a combination of events likely to occur at different frequencies. Community tolerance of service disruption also needed to be factored in but emergency management is not an alternative to poor design/planning.


Item 11.1 Page 42

Cox was also critical of traditional investment decisions based on net present value evaluation of benefits and costs as high discount rates and short payback periods are detrimental to public investment in long term infrastructure and adaptive planning. CONCLUSION

The Sydney Planning Summit brought to light many planning issues in Greater Sydney. While some presenters challenged aspects the current development of Sydney, there was a sense in terms of issues like urban density, open spaces and restoration of the tree canopy, that these issues should have been addressed far earlier in this phase of Greater Sydney’s development. The presenter’s slides can be viewed at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/21j80pfr32lgqrr/AABoL9pD1dTW-Y7GbGALqfcHa?dl=0 Lessons that might be taken from the Summit are that we must do all that is possible to prevent loss of outdoor space and to preserve and restore our tree canopy and to consider resilience of our infrastructure. Recommendati on

RECOMMENDATION


ATTACHMENTS


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/21j80pfr32lgqrr/AABoL9pD1dTW-Y7GbGALqfcHa?dl=0

Ordinary Meeting No. 4455 - Hunters Hill€¦ · 6 - MANAGE AND PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENT Nil 7 -...

Documents

Transcript of Ordinary Meeting No. 4455 - Hunters Hill€¦ · 6 - MANAGE AND PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENT Nil 7 -...