RYDE CITY COUNCIL · concerned are members), or (e) by a delegate of the council (which may, for...

CITY OF RYDE

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA NO 2/04 The above Committee will meet on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 in Committee Room No. 2, Fifth Floor, Civic Centre, Ryde at 7.30pm to discuss the following matters. CONTENTS Item Property/Subject CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT ....................................................1 2 LANE COVE TUNNEL PROJECT - Traffic Management INTERVIEW ........................................................................................................2 3 EASTWOOD PLAZA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – Constitution INTERVIEW ........................................................................................................3 4 RALC PERFORMANCE REPORT – July 2003 – March 2004 PRESENTATION ..............................................................................................12 5 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SENIORS LIVING) 2004 ...16 6 SECTION 149 CERTIFICATES ........................................................................26 7 DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO.129 – Urban Housing ...........34 8 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 1 – Development

Standards.........................................................................................................50 9 DWELLING HOUSES AND DUPLEX BUILDINGS – Review of Planning

Controls ...........................................................................................................52 10 MEADOWBANK EMPLOYMENT AREA - Amendments to the Master Plan

Amendment No. 1 and Development Control Plan No 38A .........................60 11 WATER QUALITY MONITORING STEERING COMMITTEE - Terms Of

Reference.........................................................................................................89 12 UNDERGROUNDING OF POWER WITHIN INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE

PROPERTIES ...................................................................................................92 13 MEADOWBANK PARK TENNIS COURTS – Occupancy licence..................95

CITY OF RYDE Committee of the Whole Agenda No. 2/04 Page 1

ITEM 1 CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the report of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole No 1/04 held on 17 February 2004, be confirmed.


ITEM 2 LANE COVE TUNNEL PROJECT - Traffic Management INTERVIEW File No. S9263 The Group Manager – Public Works & Services reports 10 May 2004: Report Summary This report advises Council that the Thiess John Holland Joint Venture is attending the Committee of the Whole to give a Presentation to Ryde Council on the Urban Design aspects of the proposed Tunnel. Report Council, at its meeting on 4 November 2003, resolved that representatives from the R.T.A. be invited to address a Committee Meeting of the Whole on the proposed Lane Cove Tunnel Project. The R.T.A. advised that their Project Manager would not be available to present to the Council on the project until February 2004. The contract was subsequently let to a Joint Venture formed by Thiess John Holland and significant work has been undertaken in development of the project over the last six months. Representatives from the Joint Venture were requested to present to Council details of the Lane Cove Tunnel project. Following this request, the Joint Venture has advised that the following representatives will be available to present details on the Tunnel project. Miguel Wustemann: Urban Design Manager Judy van Gelderen: Urban Design Manager Sue Netterfield: Community Relations Manager Financial Impact There are no financial impacts associated with the recommendations within this report. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the report of the Group Manager – Public Works & Services dated 10 May

2004 on the Lane Cove Tunnel Project be received and noted. (b) That the representatives from the Thiess John Holland Joint Venture be thanked

for their presentation. Tony Reed Warren Latham Group Manager Manager Public Works & Services Access Facilities & Services


ITEM 3 EASTWOOD PLAZA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – Constitution

INTERVIEW File No: S259 - 07 The Chief Executive reports 13 April 2004: Report Summary To inform Council of the operation of the Eastwood Plaza Management Committee and propose a new management structure. Background The Eastwood Plaza Management Committee (EPMC) was formed in August 1983 immediately prior to the official opening of Eastwood Plaza. Its formation appears to have arisen from a desire for the Plaza to be well managed and promoted. At the time of its inception, the EPMC was set up as a semi-autonomous Committee under Section 527 (now Section 355) of the Local Government Act. Section 355 states as follows: 355 How does a council exercise its functions? A function of a council may, subject to this Chapter, be exercised:

(a) by the council by means of the councillors or employees, by its agents or contractors, by financial provision, by the provision of goods, equipment, services, amenities or facilities or by any other means, or

(b) by a committee of the council, or

(c) partly or jointly by the council and another person or persons, or

(d) jointly by the council and another council or councils (including by means of a Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils of which the councils concerned are members), or

(e) by a delegate of the council (which may, for example, be a Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils of which the council is a member).

As a means of setting guidelines for its management, Council adopted a Constitution for the EPMC (ANNEXURE 1). The last revision of this Constitution was signed under Seal of Council in July 2000. Report As indicated in the Constitution, the membership of the EPMC should comprise the Mayor, up to two (2) Councillors, a Council staff member and eight (8) members of the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce. The Constitution also requires annual election of office-bearers. ITEM 3 (continued)


Although set up as a Committee with majority representation from the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce, the involvement of the Chamber has progressively diminished over the years to the extent where it has not even been represented at some meetings. Furthermore, with the exception of Clr Edna Wilde OAM, very few other Councillor delegates have attended past meetings. In a recent letter to Council, (ANNEXURE 2) the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce has indicated that with its new leadership in place, it now has the capacity and enthusiasm to take a lead role in the affairs of the EPMC. Whilst this is a welcome initiative it does actually highlight whether the EPMC still needs to exist as a Section 355 Committee or whether there is an entirely new structure which should be considered. With changes in the Occupational Health & Safety responsibilities, new Risk Management obligations, new GST Tax Accounting and Procurement Policies and ICAC Guidelines, members of a Section 355 Committee are now placed in a far more onerous position than ever before. For example, members of a Section 355 Committee are required to complete pecuniary interest returns (which are public documents) and disclose any interests to the Committee either on a pecuniary or non-pecuniary basis. Because of the increasing legislative and administrative demands, many functions traditionally carried out by volunteers of the EPMC should now be carried out by Council staff. For example, volunteers currently take bookings for the Plaza Kiosk and collect the money. Under taxation law, however, Council is required to remit GST tax receipts for all its income. Perhaps the most important issue to consider is that the EPMC now presides over a substantial amount of public money, being revenues in excess of $40,000 per annum. The majority of this revenue is derived from the licence fees paid by several businesses on the plaza to display merchandise on the footpath in front of their shops. Because this display of merchandise does attract some criticism in the Eastwood community it is very important to ensure there is broad input on how this money is spent. There is certainly a role for a Committee to manage and monitor the presentation of this merchandise on display. For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that the Eastwood Plaza Management Committee cease to formally exist as a Section 355 Committee but retain a similar name and continue as a broader based representative Committee providing direction on how the funds should be spent. The role of the Committee would be to still meet regularly and make recommendations on how the funds are best spent. Its Charter would be based on the following responsibilities –


ITEM 3 (continued) • To promote and sponsor entertainment in the Eastwood Town Centre; • To promote and sponsor new activities/initiatives which enhance the profile of the

Eastwood Town Centre; • To fund or co-fund any capital and maintenance improvements in the Eastwood

Town Centre which may be seen to be over and above the levels of service expected by Council;

• To confine expenditure on its activities to the amount allocated by the Council; • To manage and monitor the presentation of merchandise on display within

Eastwood Plaza, • To consider and make recommendation on any matters which Council may refer

to it; • To provide a status report to Council on an annual basis on its activities, income

and expenditure. The structure suggested is similar to how the Granny Smith Festival Committee and various other Steering Committees now operate. To broaden the input on decision making it is recommended that a new Committee comprise the following members: • The Mayor of the City of Ryde (ex-officio); • Two (2) Councillors; • Two (2) Council officers; • Four (4) members Eastwood Chamber of Commerce; • Two (2) members Korean Chamber of Commerce; • Two (2) members Eastwood Community Association. Financial Impact There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the Eastwood Plaza Management Committee be formally disbanded as a

Section 355 Committee. (b) That an Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee be established with the

following Charter of responsibilities: • To promote and sponsor entertainment in the Eastwood Town Centre; • To promote and sponsor new activities/initiatives which enhance the profile of

the Eastwood Town Centre; • To fund or co-fund any capital and maintenance improvements in the

Eastwood Town Centre which may be seen to be over and above the levels of service expected by Council;

• To manage and monitor the presentation of merchandise on display within Eastwood Plaza;


ITEM 3 (continued)

• To confine expenditure on its activities to the amount allocated by the Council; • To consider and make recommendation on any matters which Council may

refer to it; • To provide a status report to Council on an annual basis on its activities,

income and expenditure. (c) That the Eastwood Events & Promotions Committee comprise the following

members:

• The Mayor of the City of Ryde (ex-officio) • Two (2) Councillors as determined by Council; • Two (2) Council officers as determined by Chief Executive; • Four (4) members Eastwood Chamber of Commerce; • Two (2) members Korean Chamber of Commerce; • Two (2) members Eastwood Community Association.

(d) That Councillors Wilde OAM and Butterworth, who are currently appointed to

the Eastwood Plaza Management Committee be appointed as the Councillor representatives to the Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee.

Michael G McMahon Chief Executive Lydia Scuglia, President, Eastwood Chamber of Commerce and other Chamber representatives have requested to address the Committee of the Whole.


ITEM 3 (continued)

ANNEXURE 1


ITEM 3 (continued)


ITEM 3 (continued)

ANNEXURE 2


ITEM 4 RALC PERFORMANCE REPORT – July 2003 – March 2004 PRESENTATION File No. S7879-02 The Group Manager – Public Works & Services reports 10 May 2004: Report Summary This report advises Council on the current good performance of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre for the period July 2003 to March 2004. In addition, the report also provides a brief history on the acquisition of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and the operation history of the Centre through to 2004. The report indicates that, from an operational performance perspective, the Centre has met Public Health Guidelines and venue availability criteria. The financial performance of the Centre is particularly strong with an operating surplus above budget profile. Background History of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre The plans for the development of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre were seeded by a report on community recreation needs of the City of Ryde in 1991, developed by Consultants – Manidis-Roberts. This report identified the need for a suite a recreational facilities that were lacking in terms of availability in Ryde. In 1997 Council called for community representation, along with user group representation, to participate in a Project Steering Committee to assist in the redevelopment of the Ryde swimming centre complex. Barry Hall & Associates were commissioned to prepare the Master Plan for the redevelopment of the site. Council was subsequently contacted by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) and requested to bid for the development of the water polo venue as part of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. In 1998 Council was successful with its bid and proceeded to work with the State Government in the construction of the facility. The total cost of the development of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre was in excess of $25,000,000. In funding this cost, Council contributed $13,095,000 plus a further $3,000,000 contributed by Next Generation Australia Pty Ltd, with the State Government funding the balance.


ITEM 4 (continued) After the Olympic Games, the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre was operated by Next Generation, who employed the RANS Management Group as the operator. In 2001 Council resolved to renegotiate the lease between Council and Next Generation in order for Council to take over control of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre Stage 1 facility. As part of these negotiations, it was necessary to retain the RANS Management Group as the operator and Council entered into an Operating Agreement with the RANS Management Group. Early in 2002 the RANS Management Group, who operated centres in Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales, experienced financial difficulty and eventually entered into voluntary administration. At this point, Council negotiated a release from the Operating Agreement with the RANS Management Group and undertook the operation of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre, with Council staff. It should be noted that, in the operating year 2001-2002, the total loss to Council for the operation of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre amounted to $787,049. During the year 2002-2003, under Council control, the income performance of the Centre improved dramatically. Unfortunately, significant maintenance outlays were also incurred and the Operating Loss for the year amounted to $452,964. Although a loss, the result was a significant improvement over the previous year. As detailed below, the budgeted surplus for the 2003-2004 financial year is $4,000. The current operating performance of the Centre is positive and this budgeted target is likely to be well exceeded. Again, the operating performance of the Centre reflects a major turnaround from the first two years of its operation. Report Operational Performance: The Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre has continued its strong performance following the Christmas holiday season in 2003-2004. The school carnival program during February / March 2004 was particularly active. The total attendance from July to March 2004 has significantly exceeded expectation and stands at 871,000. February customers alone amounted to 140,000 patrons. The Management Plan target of 550,000 has already been exceeded. The “Tsunami Sunday” event continues to be exceedingly popular with patrons. Numbers attending the event have steadily increased over the last quarter. Venue availability over the last quarter has been exceptional, with no down-time. Monthly independent water testing by the Water Microbiology Laboratory at Lidcombe has shown the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre has complied with the Public Health Guidelines for swimming pools. The competition pool and the leisure pool have been operating with full ozone disinfection.


ITEM 4 (continued) Financial performance: The Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre’s good results in terms of patronage, have been reflected in extremely good results relating to income. With regard to overall performance, the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre has managed to accrue an Operating surplus of $517,000, which is 97% above profile. The profile for the last quarter of this financial year is a loss of $254,000. Council’s budget has targeted an Operating surplus of $4,000 for the 2003-2004 financial year, so the results to date would indicate that the performance of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre should well and truly exceed this target. Areas where performance is below expectation is detailed below: Programs Profit Centre (-$16K, -23%) This area continues to struggle with results no better than the end of the second quarter. Programs income is $12K under budget. Costs, after adjustments, exceed budget by $4K. The main factors in this result include the cancellation of the girl’s junior soccer program and the inability, to date, to attract any new sports to use the venue for this time slot. Aquarobics/Hydro has improved somewhat this quarter by attracting more customers and, as reported last quarter, negotiations with Healthy Lifestyles is continuing with a view to introducing their program effective from 1 July 2004.

Maintenance (+$46K, 14%) and EnviroServe Maintenance (+$17K, 78%) This result is being carefully monitored to ensure that a significant increase in maintenance over the last quarter does not eventuate. It is anticipated that the expenditure in the December 2003 – March 2004 quarter has addressed a number of maintenance issues that will not be repeated in the next quarter. Aquatic Entry Income (-$2K)

Whilst not significant this quarter in the overall budget result, this area deserves acknowledgement due to its continuing improvement. The disappointing result to December (-$43K) has been reversed by third quarter performance, despite a challenging budget target of $310K (40% of the year total). Attendance is now starting to fall as winter approaches, but a more modest budget of $164K has been set for the fourth quarter. The poor performance in the above areas are significantly offset by the strong performance in other areas, as detailed below: Learn To Swim Profit Centre (+$148K, +24%)


ITEM 4 (continued) This continues to grow strongly and contribute well to Centre profits. A record 2,735 people are enrolled for the current term. Revenue to March is $1.145M and has already exceeded the full years budget of $1.02M. It is now expected to slow until the start of the winter term in June. Café/Kiosk Profit Centre (+$44K, 46%) The success of the birthday party initiative is still contributing strongly to income. Sales were assisted by the greater than anticipated attendance for the summer season, which also underpinned aquatic entry revenue. Facility Hire Income (+$106K, +50%) This result is almost entirely due to Water Polo (+$40K) and Schools aquatic hire (+$60K), being well in excess of budgets. The market for promotion of lane hire to schools will continue to be pursued into 2004/05, with higher budget targets set. General Labour Costs (-$20K, -2%) This is labour for administration, aquatic operations and customer service as well as labour overheads. Labour for other profit centres is included in their results. This result is still good, although it has deteriorated from the December quarter result due to the extra cost of the recent agreement with the staff association to pay penalty rates to casuals on weekends. Close management attention will be needed to maintain this good budgetary position. Utilities (-$14K, -5%) The introduction of the Business Management System earlier this year has enabled an improved control of Utility expenditure. This is reflected in the savings been generated from manipulation of energy and water use. Financial Impact: There are no financial impacts relating to the recommendations within this report. RECOMMENDATION: That the report of the Group Manager – Public Works & Services dated 10 May 2004, on the performance of the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre for the period July 2003 - March 2004 be received and noted. Tony Reed Paul Hartmann Group Manager Manager Public Works & Services Ryde Aquatic Leisure


ITEM 5 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SENIORS LIVING) 2004 File No: S9362 The Manager Strategic Planning reports 11 May 2004: Report Summary This report provides an overview of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) gazetted on 31 March 2004. This State Policy repeals State Environmental Policy No. 5 – Housing for Older People and People with Disabilities. This report also provides a broad comparison between the old and new SEPP and Council’s provisions for villas as contained in DCP No. 21 – Urban Housing and Draft Local Environmental Plan 129. A progress report on Council’s application for exemption from SEPP 5 is also addressed within this report. Background In 2003 the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DIPNR) commenced the preparation of a review on housing options for older people and people with a disability, based on factors such as: - • Consideration of market demand projections for housing for older people; • Opportunities for large scale retirement villages; • Appropriate ways to provide for independent living and supported

accommodation; • Consideration of the need for affordable housing. The outcomes of this review were to include changes to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 (SEPP). The review found that the contentious issues associated with SEPP 5 included: - • Concerns that the occupancy requirements were being abused; • Concerns of the impact of infill “denser” housing on low density neighborhoods; • Concerns about the impact of the new denser housing on the character of rural /

non urban areas; and • Perception that there is a competition for support services within existing areas.


ITEM 5 (continued) The review also found that a greater share of housing over the next fifteen years needs to be suitable for an older population (55 years and over) and greater controls need to be introduced to enforce occupancy restrictions It was also found that greater emphasis should be placed on the design process to enable “aging in place” to occur – that is developments include adaptable and accessible housing solutions. The review found that Local Government appreciates the opportunity, through the exemption process, to develop local solutions for housing for older people and people with a disability. The review recommended the need for new regulatory measures to: - 1. To improve compliance and enforcement of occupancy restrictions. 2. To achieve better designs so that developments better fit into existing

neighborhoods The review recommended the preparation of design guidelines for housing for older people and people with a disability and that SEPP No. 5 be replaced by an improved seniors living SEPP. The Senior Livings Policy titled “Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development” and the SEPP (Seniors Living) 2004 came into effect in late March 2004. Report This section of the report provides: 1. An overview of SEPP (Seniors Living) 2004 2. Comparison of the SEPP (Seniors Living), SEPP No. 5 and the Council’s

provision for Urban Housing; 3. An update on the City of Ryde’s request for Exemption from SEPP No. 5. 1. Overview of SEPP (Seniors Living 2004) The SEPP, gazetted on 31 March 2004 relates to a range of housing styles that suit seniors and people with a disability. The housing styles include residential care facilities, hostels and self-contained dwelling. The SEPP applies to all land in the State zoned for urban purposes and land adjoining areas zoned for urban purposes. The policy also applies to land where uses such as dwelling houses, residential flat buildings, hospitals and the like are permitted. The SEPP does not apply to land zoned for industrial purposes, land described as environmentally sensitive (e.g. flooding, critical habitat, wetlands, bushfire hazard), land affected by an Interim Heritage Order and land listed on the State Heritage Register.


ITEM 5 (continued) The occupancy requirements outlined in the SEPP states that the accommodation (constructed in accordance with the SEPP) is for: - • Seniors or people with a disability; • People who live within the same household with seniors or a person with a

disability; • Staff employed to assist in the administration and the provision of services for

seniors or a person with a disability. This restriction is enforced by a condition on consent to a development application. The Policy introduces detailed development provision for the housing styles permitted under the SEPP. A summary of these provisions, which is contained within Chapter 3 of the Policy, is outlined below. Site Related Requirements This Part introduces controls that state that facilities and services such as shops, transport, medical services are to be located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site and the preferred gradient in this area is to be no more than 1:14. A variation on this standard can occur where there is a steeper gradient over a short distance e.g. a gradient of 1:10 is possible for a maximum distance of 5m at a time. This section also introduces provisions for bushfire prone land and for water and sewerage infrastructure. Design Requirements This Part outlines the site analysis requirements and design principles such as neighbourhood amenity and streetscape, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, crime prevention and accessibility that are to be considered by a development and by a consent authority in the assessment process of an application. Development Standards General standards for all development are outlined as: - • Site area – minimum site area of 1000sqm • Site frontage – minimum frontage of 20m • Building height - a maximum height of 8m in zones where residential flat buildings

are not permitted and buildings located in the rear 25% of the site must not exceed one storey in height.


ITEM 5 (continued) Note: Building heights are not identified for development in other residential zones or commercial zones These general requirements do not apply to the Department of Housing or Local Government or Community Housing providers. The remainder of this Part contains detailed development standards relating to access and usability of the 3 housing styles - residential care facilities, hostels and self contained dwellings. The standards relate to elements such as letterboxes, lighting, entryways and bathroom / bedroom design. Development of Land Adjoining Land Zoned Primarily for Urban Purposes This Part outlines the development requirements for development on land adjoining land zoned primarily for urban purposes. This Part is not relevant to the City of Ryde Development for Vertical Villages This Part relates to the range of housing style for seniors and people with a disability in a multi level development in a residential or commercial zone. Within Vertical villages the SEPP allows an increase in the floor space ratio of 0.5:1 where on site support services such as meals, personal care, are provided to residents and at least 10% of all dwellings / accommodation are an “affordable place”. An affordable place is defined by household income measured against the median household income for Sydney. Development Standards that cannot be used as Grounds to Refuse a Consent This Part outlines that development standards such as density, scale, height, landscaped area and parking, where complied with for a development relating to residential care facilities, hostels, self contained dwellings cannot be used by a consent authority for grounds for refusal of a development (assuming the development complies). 2. Comparison of the SEPP (Seniors Living), SEPP No. 5 and the Council’s Provision to Urban Housing The following table provides a broad comparison between the controls contained in SEPP (Seniors Living), SEPP No. 5 and the provisions in DCP 21A – Urban Houses.


ITEM 5 (continued)


ITEM 5 (continued) 3. City of Ryde’s Request for Exemption from SEPP 5 In 2002 a system, for councils to seek exemption from SEPP 5 was introduced in response to concerns expressed by some council regarding the impact of the SEPP, particularly in-fill developments. Councils were required to demonstrated that local controls could provide a sufficient supply of suitable housing for seniors and people with a disability (target group) for a 15 year period based on simple population projections.

Exemptions were not intended to allow councils to avoid providing additional housing opportunities for the target groups. To date 7 councils have been exempted, based on sufficient local opportunities being provided to meet a target amount of housing suitable for older people and people with a disability. These councils are Hurstville, Kogarah, Sutherland, Ashfield, Blue Mountains, North Sydney and Strathfield. Waverley has been offered the opportunity to have future re-zonings assessed on their merits, rather than SEPP 5 automatically apply. Exemption Reports have been received from Rockdale, Ku ring gai, Pittwater, Hornsby, Ryde, Gosford, Baulkham Hills, Bankstown, Canada Bay, Hunters Hill and Wollondilly. The councils that have been granted exemption under SEPP 5 are exempt from the provisions of the SEPP (Seniors Living) 2004 for development undertaken by the non-government sector and the for-profit organisations.

City of Ryde lodged the application for exemption from SEPP No. 5 in December 2002. In early 2003 the Department requested additional information regarding the competition for villa development that may occur between residents over 55 years and residents under 55 years and the implications that this competition would have on the supply of housing for seniors. The Department also raised concerns that the density and linear separation requirements for villa development contained in draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129 may reduce housing yield and housing choice – particularly on sites under 1000m2.

The officers at the Department have the perception that the impact of the controls would affect development opportunities and the supply of appropriate housing for seniors. It is considered that Council officers addressed the Department’s issues in a number of submissions lodged with DIPNR during 2003. In September 2003 the Department’s review of applications for exemption from SEPP 5 ceased as a result of the review of the State Policy.

The Department advised in early May that they were soon to resume the assessment of the applications for exemption and the applications are to be assessed against the provisions of SEPP (Seniors Living) 2004.


ITEM 5 (continued) Financial Implications The issues outlines in this report and the actions arising from the recommendation has no financial implications.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources be requested to expedite its assessment of the City of Ryde’s application for exemption from the State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004. Meryl Bishop Sue Weatherley Manager Group Manager Strategic Planning Environmental Planning


ITEM 6 SECTION 149 CERTIFICATES File No. S1831-04 The Manager Strategic Planning reports 4 May 2004: Report Summary To recommend that information presently being provided by Council in excess of that required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act and Regulations on a 149(2) Certificate be removed from that Certificate and be made available under Section 149(5) of the Act. Background Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, a certificate can be obtained from Council which explains the planning controls and constraints that apply to a specific parcel of land. The Act sets out the form of the certificate, information it contains and the fee. These certificates are usually called “ 149 Certificates” because that is the section of the Act that empowers Council to issue the Certificate. The Manager of Strategic Planning reported to Council on 10 February 2004 of legal concerns relating to information presently being placed by Council on 149(2) Certificates which is in excess of that required by Schedule 4 of the Regulations to the Act and which should only be made available under Section 149(5) of the Act. Under Section 149(2) of the Act a council following the submission of an application must issue a planning certificate containing information on matters relating to the land. The information to be included is specified in Schedule 4 of the Regulations to the Act and relates to issues such as zoning, planning instruments, controls and hazards. Section 149(5) of the Act allows a council to give other information on a planning certificate. This additional information is provided by Council in good faith and therefore the council is not liable for the additional information if it is incorrect. The certificate under section 149(5) must also contain all the information of a certificate under section 149(2) . The Manager of Strategic Planning’s report dated10 February 2004 is ATTACHED Council sought legal advice as to whether a statement could be placed on 149(2) Certificates indicating a 149(5) Certificate can be obtained and may contain information on relevant matters affecting the land. Legal advice was that such a statement could be placed on the 149(2) Certificate and specific wording was provided.


ITEM 6 (continued) Council resolved on the 17 February 2004 to place the following statements on all 149(2) Certificates:-

‘(1) If a request is made to Council pursuant to Section 149(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the appropriate fee paid Council may include advise on such other relevant matters affecting the land of which it may be aware.

(2) That Section149 (5) Certificates must under the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 contain all the information under Section 149(2) as well and as such an application and fee for a combined Section 149 Certificate must be applied for.’ Report Council’s legal advise received on the 21 November 2003 in response to a query relating to the legal implications of placing information in excess of that required by the Regulations on a 149(2) Certificate is as follows:- “Council is acting beyond powers and in principle, action could be taken by an aggrieved party to prevent Council providing such information, or hypothetically, for any damage or loss suffered by the applicant as a result of Council providing such information. Certainly, if the information were inaccurate (eg allegations about alleged contamination on land), Council would be unable to benefit from the “good faith’ defence, as it was acting beyond powers” Schedule 4 of the Regulations to the Act lists eleven separate headings, some of which have sub- headings, which must be addressed in a 149(2) Certificate. The information currently provided on 149 (2) Certificates which is in excess of the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Regulations includes the following; Heritage Interim heritage orders Resolutions of Council relating to the inclusion of properties into a future heritage

LEP National Trust listings Endangered or inadequately conserved vegetation Properties within heritage or character areas under a draft Development Control

Plan (DCP) or an adopted DCP. Properties within 100m of a heritage item Properties within certain physical boundaries referred to within the Ryde Planning

Scheme Ordinance with respect to heritage items Draft Planning Controls Draft Development Control Plans Draft Master Plans and Master Plans


ITEM 6 (continued) Other Planning Controls Information from RTA on changes to road requirements Land and Environment Court Orders Unauthorised activities Demolition requirements for non – heritage items Properties affected by contamination or illegal fill not under the Contamination and

Land Management Act Heritage For information on heritage to be placed on a 149(2) Certificate under the Zoning and Land Use sub heading of Heritage Item (however described) or Conservation Area (however described), it must be included in a local environmental plan (LEP), draft local environmental plan, or deemed planning instrument (DPI) that applies to the land. The Regulations specify that the Certificate must state whether an item of environmental heritage (however described) in a LEP, draft LEP or DPI is situated on the land. Information advising that a subject land parcel is in the vicinity of a heritage item and alerting them to Clauses of the Ordinance relating to development of such land is information in excess of what is required to be provided. Draft Planning Provisions The Regulations specify that the name of each relevant local environmental plan, deemed environmental planning instrument, draft local environmental plan and each development control plan (DCP) applying to the land should be specified. No reference to draft DCPs or Master Plans is made in the Regulations Other Planning Issues There are no provisions within the Regulations to enable the information identified as ‘other planning information’ to be provided on the 149(2) Certificate. All of the information identified as being in excess of the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Regulations has been placed on the 149(2) Certificate rather than the 149(5) Certificate because it was considered necessary and sometimes vital information for the applicant to know when purchasing a property. However, as can be seen from Council’s legal advice, Council is constrained by the Regulations and all such information should be placed on the 149(5) Certificate if Council is to avoid future legal implications. As Council has provided this information on 149(2) Certificates, as a matter of policy or as a direct resolution, it is considered necessary that Council now formally resolve to remove information not required to be provided by the Act and Regulations from the 149(2) Certificate and resolve to place it on the 149(5) Certificate.


ITEM 6 (continued) As a result of Council’s resolution of the 10 February 2004 a statement is placed on all 149(2) Certificates advising that if a request is made to Council pursuant to Section 149(5) Council may provide advice on other relevant matters affecting the land of which it may be aware. Essential Information for Property Owners As stated previously some of the information to be relocated to the 149(5) Certificate is vital to the future development potential of a site. As such it is considered that a specific advice should be provided on 149(2) Certificates for those properties that such information relates to. That advice should state that additional information relating to heritage, vegetation etc and the land exists on a 149(5) Certificate. Council’s solicitors have verbally advised that such a statement on the 149(2) Certificate is acceptable. The information to be relocated to a 149(5) Certificate that is considered vital and should be flagged on the 149(2) Certificate includes the following:- Interim heritage orders Resolutions of Council relating to heritage items Draft DCP’s which are property specific Endangered and Inadequately conserved bushland Draft Master Plans and Master Plans

To advise persons who apply for 149 Certificates of the change to the information being provided on the 149 (2) Certificate, an information sheet will be provided with the application form for the Certificates for a period of 6 months and a letter will be sent to those persons who are presently on Council’s mailing lists for information relating to 149 Certificates. Financial Impact Adoption of the option outlined in this report will have no financial impact. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That information provided on 149(2) Certificates in excess of that required by

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations be removed and such information be placed on the 149(5) Certificate.

(b) That notification be provided on the 149(2) Certificate that Council holds

information on the following planning issues and that information is available on a 149(5) Certificate:-

Interim heritage orders Resolutions of Council relating to heritage items Draft DCP’s which are property specific Endangered and Inadequately conserved bushland Draft Master Plans and Master Plans


ITEM 6 (continued) (c) That an information sheet on the changes to the content of 149(2) Certificates

be provided for a period of 6 months with all certificate application forms and an advise letter be sent to those persons presently on Council’s mailing lists for 149 Certificates.

Susan Wotton Meryl Bishop Information Officer Manager Strategic Planning Strategic Planning


ITEM 6 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT SECTION 149 CERTIFICATES File No: S1831-04 The Manager Strategic Planning reports 10 February 2004: Report Summary To recommend that information that is presently being provided in excess of that required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and Regulations on a Section 149(2) Certificate for a parcel of land, be made available under Section 149(5) of the Act. Background Council is responsible for issuing planning certificates under section 149 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Planning certificates give information on the development potential of a parcel of land including the planning restrictions that apply to the land on the date the certificate is issued. Under Section 149(2) of the Act a council following the submission of an application must issue a planning certificate containing information on matters relating the land. The information to be included is specified in Schedule 4 of the Regulations to the Act and relates to issues such as zoning, planning instruments, controls and hazards. Section 149(5) of the Act allows a council to give other information on a planning certificate including advice on other relevant matters affecting the land. This additional information is provided by Council in good faith and therefore the council is not liable for the additional information if it is incorrect. The certificate under section 149(5) must contain all the information of a certificate under section 149(2) as well. The fees for a planning certificate and for any advice under section 149(5) are $40 and $60 respectively. Council has resolved, in a number of instances, to provide information in addition to that stipulated by the Regulations to the Act on 149(2) Certificates. Similarly staff have requested additional information be provided on the 149(2) Certificate to ensure prospective purchases are fully aware of issues relating to a land parcel. This information has been placed on the 149(2) Certificate rather than the 149(5) because of the concern that if only a Section149 (2) Certificate is applied for, the information will not be made available to the applicant. The types of information over and above that required by the Regulations to the Act that is currently being placed on 149(2) Certificates includes; • Land and Environment Court Orders; • Unauthorised activities; • The suitability of land for certain types of development; • The proximity of land to heritage items;


ITEM 6 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT • County road and road widening that has been abandoned; • Demolition requirements for non – heritage items. In view of the increasing frequency of requests to place such information on 149(2) Certificates and concerns relating to the accuracy of such statements over a period of time, (eg. a Court Order may be lifted but the time delay in relaying such information may result in a Certificate with incorrect information being released), advice from Council’s Solicitors was sought. The advice dated 21 November 2003 can be summarised as follows: • Council in providing information in excess of that required by the Regulations is

acting beyond its powers and in principle, action could be taken by an aggrieved party to prevent Council from providing such information or from any damage or loss suffered by the applicant as a result of Council providing such information. If the information were inaccurate Council would be unable to benefit from the “good faith” defence as it was acting beyond its powers.

• A general statement could be placed on the 149(2) Certificate indicating a 149(5) Certificate can be obtained and may contain information on relevant matters affecting the land. Suggested wording has been provided.

Financial Impact Adoption of the option outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Conclusion In view of the legal advice received it is considered that information over and above that required by the Regulations to the Act should be removed from the 149(2) Certificate and placed on the 149(5) Certificate. This would reduce Council’s liability with respect to any inaccurate information that may be given in ‘good faith’ by Council and from any damage or loss perceived to be suffered by the applicant as a result of such information having been provided. It is also considered that a statement should be placed on all 149(2) Certificates making applicants aware that a Section 149(5) Certificate is available and may contain information on additional relevant matters relating to the property. If an applicant has already obtained a 149(2) Certificate then wishes to obtain a 149(5) Certificate they would have to purchase a combined Certificate at a cost of $100 as under the Act 149(5) Certificates must contain all the information under Section 149(2) . RECOMMENDATION: That the following statements be placed on the Section 149(2) Planning Certificates: (i) That if a request is made to Council pursuant to Section 149(5) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the appropriate fee paid, Council may include advice on such other relevant matters affecting the land of which it may be aware.


ITEM 6 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT (ii) That Section149 (5) Certificates, under the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979, contain all the information under Section 149(2) and as such an application and fee for a combined Section 149 Certificate must be applied for.

Meryl Bishop Susan Wotton Manager Information Officer/Strategic Planner Strategic Planning


ITEM 7 DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO.129 – Urban Housing File No. S8346-02 The Manager Strategic Planning reports 20 April 2004: Report Summary To provide Council with a progress report on Draft Local Environmental Plan No.129 – Urban Housing. To recommend the following changes to the draft Plan:- the removal of linear separation, the redrafting Clause 56A, if necessary, to ensure that the Clause is a

development standard that State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards can be applied to and

the redrafting of the definition of urban house. To recommend the re – exhibition of draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129. To recommend a review of linear separation controls within Development Control Plan (DCP)No. 17 A – Dwelling house and Duplex buildings and DCP 21 A – Urban Housing. Background In 1983 the City of Ryde adopted the Villa Homes Code and LEP 11 was gazetted which amended the Ryde Planning Scheme. This made villa homes a use that Council could permit in the Residential ‘A’ zone . Through the community consultation process, one of the key issues that emerged was the concern that whole areas could redevelop for villas. To prevent this the Code included 3 key features:- (a) a maximum of 15 villas for any one development; (b) a “ street block density” control; and (c) “linear separation “, which required developments to be separated by twice the

frontage of the proposed development or twice the frontage of the nearest villa development.

In 1996 through the preparation of the Residential Development Strategy the “street block density “ provision was removed . This was done to off set a loss of development potential as Council changed the provisions for duplexes , prohibiting their subdivision. The 2001- 2002 Review In September 1999 Council adopted the Villa Homes Development Control Plan ( DCP No. 21). This replaced the 1983 Code. It was essentially a conversion of the Code into a DCP, not a major review.


ITEM 7 (continued) In 2001 and 2002 a more extensive review of the Villa Homes DCP was undertaken. A key issue in this review was legal advice Council had received about the statutory strength of the “linear separation” control. The Land and Environment Court had approved a villa development in Vimiera Road, Eastwood which did not comply with linear separation . Council’s solicitors advised at that time that “linear separation” would have more statutory weight if it was placed in a local environmental plan (LEP). The Group Manager of Environmental Planning then discussed with the Regional Director of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) whether DUAP would oppose inclusion of “liner separation “in an LEP. Her advice was that as the City of Ryde had consistently applied linear separation she could see no problem. The review of the Villa homes provisions then continued , including the intent to place “linear separation” in an LEP. Council resolved on the 30 April 2002 to prepare a draft local environmental plan to implement design changes and definitions for urban house development that were identified within Development Control Plan No. 21A – Urban Housing. The specific provisions contained in the draft Plan include the following:- Amended definitions or new definitions for height, natural ground level, storey and

urban house Density requirements per dwelling for urban house developments

- 300m2 per 2 bedroom dwelling - 330m2 per 3 bedroom dwelling - 365m2 per 4 bedroom dwelling

Linear Separation for urban house and duplex developments.

The draft Plan was exhibited and Council resolved on the 1 April 2003 to refer the Plan to the Minister for gazettal. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) advised Council in July 2003 that they had a number of concerns regarding the draft Plan. Council addressed these concerns in a submission that was lodged with the Department in October 2003. At a meeting in November the Department stated that two issues were still of concern. These issues were;

linear separation for 2 dwelling urban house developments if more than a 20% reduction in development potential of such sites throughout the City occurred as a result of the control and

the increased density requirements for 3 bedroom dwellings.

It should be noted that no objection was raised to the principle of “linear separation”.


ITEM 7 (continued) The Department stated they would not support the Plan as presently drafted. A report was prepared for Council listing 4 options for the future direction for the draft Plan and was presented to Council on the 9 December 2003 . That report is ATTACHED. Council resolved on the 9 December 2003 that the draft Plan be amended in accordance with Option 3 . That option recommended that the density provisions for 3 bedroom dwellings be reduced to 300m2 per site area and that linear separation requirements be retained for developments of 2 or more dwellings as it was possible to demonstrate that the proposed control did not have a substantial affect on the development potential of 2 dwelling urban house sites within the City. The Department was advised of Council’s resolution on the 16 December 2003 and at the same time was asked to amend the draft Plan with respect to the density requirements for 3 bedroom dwellings and to refer the Plan to the Minister for gazettal. The Department in a letter of the 6 February 2004 stated they welcomed the decision to reduce the density requirements for 3 bedroom dwellings and concurred that the proposed linear separation controls will not cause a substantial reduction in the amount of lots that can be developed. The Department agreed to support the draft Plan, however they recommended that the density requirements for 4 bedroom dwellings also be changed from 365m2 to 300m2 per dwelling. Council by letter dated 17 February 2004 asked the Department for clarification of this new issue. The Department by e-mail dated the 22 March 2004 requested a meeting with Council and stated they had re – examined the draft Plan and found new issues of concern relating to: the wording of the draft Plan which they believe introduces prohibitions rather than

development standards and the impact of linear separation on dwelling yields.

Following a meeting held between Council staff and the Department in April a letter was received from the Department dated 19 April 2004 in which they state; linear separation type controls are not supported in local planning instruments.

linear separation controls will result in a substantial reduction of allotments

available for urban house development and the controls will adversely effect Council’s Residential Development Strategy

commitments .


ITEM 7 (continued) The Department states that although Council has consistently applied linear separation and these policies have worked effectively over the years without significant legal challenge it would prefer that linear separation controls remain in DCP 21 A- Urban Housing. They state that this approach is consistent with planning system reforms currently being investigated, which indicate a move towards the placement of all specific development controls within DCPs. Council should note that this statement appears to be contrary to the Departments attitude to its own policy statements such as State Environmental Planning Policy ( Seniors Living ) 2004 where excessively detailed development standards have been included. The Department further states that the other controls, which comprise the draft Plan should be re- drafted to read as development standards to allow State Environmental Plan Policy No 1- Development Standards to apply. The Department believes that Clause 56A as presently drafted introduces new prohibitions rather than development standards to the Ordinance.

Report Linear Separation Provisions It is obvious from the Department’s letter of the 19 April 2004 that for draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129 to progress to gazettal the provisions within the draft Plan relating to linear separation for urban house developments and duplex buildings will be required to be removed . The Villa Homes Code introduced the concept of linear separation for villa homes in November 1983 . Linear Separation as a control for duplex buildings was introduced in Development Control Plan (DCP)No. 17 – Dwelling house and Duplex Buildings in 1998. Linear separation has been consistently applied to both villa and duplex buildings during this time and Council has only been challenged once in the Land and Environment Court on this issue. Linear separation controls for duplex buildings and urban house developments are presently contained within DCP 17A – Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings and DCP 21A – Urban Houses respectively. A local environmental plan (LEP) has considerably more legal status under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act than a development control plan. Unlike local environmental plans a development control plan is not legally binding. The provisions within a development control plan are factors to be taken into account when assessing a development application. A DCP is recognised as the more flexible of the two documents. As Council has successfully and consistently applied linear separation as a control for villa homes and duplex buildings it was considered desirable to legitimise the control further by placing it within an LEP so giving it greater legal status.


ITEM 7 (continued) However as a result of the Department’s views on such controls within LEPs, it is considered that the linear separation control should be removed from draft LEP 129 so as to allow the other Clauses and definitions within the draft Plan to progress to gazettal. It should be noted that the removal of the control from the LEP is not supported by Council officers but this approach appears to be the only way in which draft LEP 129 will be able to be supported by DIPNR and passed on to the Minister with a recommendation for gazettal. Despite the linear separation controls being removed from the draft LEP, the controls will still apply to both urban house developments and duplex buildings as a result of their inclusion in DCP 17A – Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings and DCP 21A- Urban Houses. It is considered desirable to review both DCPs to ensure that the linear separation control is presented consistently within both documents and is in line with the intent of the control as worded in DLEP 129. Development Standard vs Development Prohibition Another issue introduced by the Department in its letter of the 19 April 2004 relates to the drafting of the Plan. The Department states that controls within the draft Plan should be worded so as to allow State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards to apply. They believe the present drafting of the Plan results in prohibitions rather than development standards being introduced. The wording used in the draft Plan is in accordance with the phrasing in which the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance was originally written . The type of language used in the Ordinance has been maintained in all other amending local environmental plans that have been gazetted . This has been done to ensure consistency of language throughout the Ordinance. In the ‘Aims of Plan’ section of the draft Plan (as exhibited) it states the following ‘4. To replace the development standards for villa homes within the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance with those for urban housing so ensuring the dispersal of urban housing throughout the City of Ryde and density controls which will ensure the highest aesthetic developments possible’ The draft Plan was reviewed by Council’s solicitors in September 2002 and was sent to Parliamentary Counsel in January 2003 (over 12 months ago). No comment regarding the language of the clauses ie the wording used, creating a prohibition and not a development standard was raised. If the language created a prohibition it would be expected that Council would have been advised that a conflict existed between the Clauses of the draft Plan and the aims of the Plan. This did not occur. Legal advice has been sought from Council’s Solicitors regarding the Department’s concern over the language used in the draft Plan and whether this has implications for other Clauses within the Ordinance.


ITEM 7 (continued) It is considered that the relevant Clauses within the draft Plan should be amended ,if necessary so as to be acceptable to DIPNR, to read as a development standards upon which State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 can be applied .That is, the clause would read as a development standard and not as a development prohibition. Definition of Urban House Urban house in the draft Plan is defined as a building containing 2 or more dwellings in which: (a) any dwelling with a frontage to a street or road is not more than 2 storeys in

height and all other dwellings are not more than 1 storey in height, and (b) each dwelling has attached private open space and separate access from an

unbuilt upon portion of the site. The intent of the definition is to allow an urban house development to contain a single 2 storey dwelling fronting the street or two 2 storey dwellings fronting the street where these two dwellings are not attached to each other ie the dwellings are separated by a driveway, car parking spaces and landscaping etc . All other dwellings in such developments are to be single storey. A 2 storey element to urban house development was considered desirable to enable the development to be in keeping with existing streetscapes. Council has identified through responding to enquiries about the draft Plan, that the definition could allow two, 2 storey, attached dwellings, being a duplex, to be built facing a street. This is not the intent of the definition and would create issues relating to bulk of design, streetscape appearance and conflict with setback controls with DCP 21A – Urban housing . It is considered that the definition for urban house should be reviewed with the intent of prohibiting duplex type development within an urban house development . Proposed amendments to Draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129- Urban housing and re- exhibition Based on the issues outlined in this report the proposed amendments are summarised as follows:- reference to linear separation is removed from the draft plan ( this results in an

amendment to the Aims of the Plan and the deletion of Clauses 56A (2) and (3) and 56E (5)and (6).

Clause 56A relating to density requirements being amended, if necessary to

satisfy DIPNR, so as to read as a development standard not as a development prohibition.

The review of the definition urban house with the intent of prohibiting duplex type

development within urban house developments.


ITEM 7 (continued) Council should note that the linear separation controls for urban house development and the other proposed amendments to the draft LEP will require the draft plan to be re- exhibited . The exhibition period will be a minimum of 28 days and undertaken in accordance with the Regulations. Financial Impact It is estimated that the total cost to exhibit the draft LEP No. 129 is approximately $500. This amount is provided for in the current budget. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129 – Urban Housing be amended by

deleting the provisions relating to linear separation, the redrafting of Clause 56A, if considered necessary by DIPNR, to create a development standard and the redrafting of the definition of urban house to prohibit duplex type within urban house developments.

(b) That draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129, as amended, be re-exhibited for a

period of 28 days. (c) That DCP No. 17A – Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings and DCP 21A –

Urban Housing be reviewed to ensure that linear separation control is presented consistently within both documents and is in line with the intent of the control as previously worded in draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129.

(d) That the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources be

advised of Council’s decision. Susan Wotton Meryl Bishop Information Officer Manager Strategic Planning Strategic Planning


ITEM 7 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT 5 Draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129

Urban Housing Purpose To provide an overview of the issues raised by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources regarding draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129 – the draft plan prepared to implement the provisions of Development Control Plan No. 21A – Urban Housing. To identify four options for Council to consider in order to determine the future direction of the draft LEP. To provide an update on the status of Council’s submission to the Department seeking exemption from State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 -Housing for Older People or People with a Disability. Report Background Council, on 30 April 2002 resolved to prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan to amend the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance – in order to implement design changes and definitions for urban house development that were identified within Development Control Plan No. 21A – Urban Housing. The specific provisions contained in the draft LEP are outlined as follows: • Definitions – height, natural ground level, storey, urban house; • Density site area requirements per dwelling

– 300m2 per 2 bedroom dwelling, – 330m2 per 3 bedroom dwelling and – 365 m2 per 4 bedroom dwelling;

• Linear separation for urban house and duplex developments. The draft LEP, which was exhibited in mid 2002 and re-exhibited in early 2003 as a result of legal advice with respect to definitions, was adopted by Council on 1 April 2003. Draft LEP 129 was sent to the Department in late April, requesting the making of the plan. During June/July 2003 discussions were had between Council and the Department regarding the provisions in draft LEP 129 and the implications the provisions would have on urban development in Ryde. The Department’s concerns were that the cumulative impact of the controls would result in: -

• the loss of development in the City; and • the loss of housing choice and housing styles


ITEM 7 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT The Department indicated that the information required to address these concerns should include: - • the identification of the number of lots in the City with an area of between 600 and

659m2 ; • the number of development applications for villa homes received in the 12 months

prior and following the introduction of DCP No. 21A – Urban Housing in October 2002;

• maps illustrating the constraints that affect the land that is available for urban housing development.

Council addressed these concerns in a submission that was lodged with the Department in late October 2003. An overview of the main elements and conclusions of Council’s submission to the Department are summarised in the following points:- • Density

Council calculated that there are 884 lots that have an area between 600 – 659m2

. Of these lots 521 are capable of being developed once the environmental attributes such as slope, inundation, vegetation, instability, heritage that impact the development potential of land are taken into account. On the 521 lots the same number of dwellings can be constructed under both the existing controls and the draft density controls.

• Linear Separation Linear separation was introduced in 1983 as a mechanism to control the dispersal of villa homes within the Residential A zones. The provision allowed 1 villa house development on every 3 allotments where a uniform subdivision pattern exists. Council in 1996 adopted a Residential Development Strategy (RDS) titled Improving Housing Choice and Housing Opportunities. The strategy addressed the State Government’s urban consolidation requirements and resulted in Council receiving exemption from State Environmental Planning Policy No. 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development. The Strategy applied the linear separation control to villa developments of 3 or more dwellings and duplex buildings.

The linear separation control was reviewed and strengthened as part of the review of DCP No. 21A – Urban Housing. The review resulted in the control being re- applied to urban housing development comprising 2 or more dwellings and the provisions being incorporated into the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance.


ITEM 7 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT • Over the last 20 years Council has allowed a variety of housing forms including

villas, duplexes, small allotment development, housing for older people within the Residential A zones. As a result of the success of this policy position the number of sites that can be easily developed for multi unit housing such as duplexes and villas has considerably reduced.

• Market demand (determined through consideration of development applications)

indicates that the development sector is choosing to construct both 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom dwelling urban housing developments.

• Survey responses undertaken as part of the City Vision project found that “too

much development” and “less high density houses in the Residential A zoned area” were issues for the residents of Ryde

• Council, through its policies such as the Urban Village Program, allowing

residential flat buildings with business zones and allowing a variety of housing forms within the Residential A zone has adequately addressed the State Government’s urban consolidation objectives and Council’s intentions as documented in Ryde’s RDS.

The Department considered Council’s submission however the officers continue to have concerns that the draft density controls and the draft linear separation requirement for developments of 2 or more dwellings would result in a loss of housing choice and housing yield. The officers stated that the density requirement of 330 m2 of site area per 3 bedroom dwelling would result in a potential loss of 829 three bedroom dwellings on small allotments that have an area of between 600 and 659m2. The officers considered that such a loss of housing yield is highly significant, not acceptable and cannot be discounted regardless of other housing options having been provided in much greater numbers in other areas of the City, such as within the Meadowbank Urban Village. It should be noted that an equivalent number of 2 bedroom dwellings could be erected under DLEP No.129 on such allotments The officers also stated that applying the linear separation control to 2 dwelling developments would further substantially reduce the number of sites available for development, thus further reducing the number of dwellings capable of being constructed. In particular 3 bedroom dwellings, which they have asserted are community’s preferred choice. The Department suggested the issue of housing choice on smaller blocks may be resolved by replacing the bedroom based density control with a requirement that stipulates a maximum dwelling size. This issue is discussed below within option 4.


ITEM 7 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT Options for the Future Direction of Draft LEP No. 129 The officers at the Department have stated that they will not support the DLEP No. 129 in its current form. Therefore it is necessary for Council to determine a future direction for the draft plan. Four options are outlined below, which could form the basis of Council’s discussion. Each of the four options addresses the following three elements: - i. The proposed direction ii. The impact of the direction on development outcomes and the environment. iii. The consequences of the direction on the provisions and controls within DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A – Urban Housing.

Option 1 (i) Direction

To proceed with DLEP No. 129 in its current form. (ii) Impact on development outcomes and the environment.

The draft density controls and the linear separation controls relating to a development of 2 or more dwellings results in achieving Council’s objectives for urban housing in the Residential A zones. These provisions assist in creating development outcomes that achieve the following: • A balanced relationship between the site area, dwelling size and

residential population living on the site. • The promotion of environmentally sustainable development. • The preservation of the dominant dwelling house streetscape for

neighbourhoods. • Design standards and environmental outcomes to ensure an

“openness” is achieved within a neighbourhood by controlling the level of the built form.

• An appropriate dispersal of urban housing development throughout the City.

(iii) Consequences on DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A The Department has indicated that they would refer the draft LEP to Residential

Strategy Review Panel with a recommendation that the draft plan not be supported as the controls in the plan are considered contrary to the City of Ryde’s 1996 Residential Development Strategy. The Department’s rejections of the draft plan would result in the provisions in DCP No. 21A being in conflict with the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance (RPSO). The DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A were prepared as a package. Therefore, if the LEP is not finalised this would require the DCP to be substantially amended to ensure its provisions comply with the RSPO and to ensure


ITEM 7 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT

workable development outcomes that address environmental and design outcomes and community expectations. Council should note that a number of applicants have withheld lodging their development applications as they are awaiting the introduction of the new provisions through the gazettal of the DLEP.

Option 2 (i) Direction

To amend the provisions in the DLEP by: - • Decreasing the density requirement for a 3 bedroom dwelling – the

amended provision would read 300m2 of site per 3 bedroom dwelling. • applying the linear separation control to developments of 3 or more

dwellings.

(ii) Impact on development outcomes and the environment The proposed amendments outlined in this option are the development standards that were generally applied to villa/urban housing development prior to the introduction of DCP No. 21A in October 2002. As part of the preparation of DCP No 21A and the review of the design standards for urban housing development, it was identified by Council that a “reduction in site density with a site density dependent upon the number and size of villas” was a key change to be addressed in the review process. The rationale to explore this area of change was to ensure that there was an appropriate balance between site area, dwelling size, residential population living on the site and environmental/design standards such as percentage of unbuilt upon areas, landscaped area and others.

The review of DCP No. 21A also resulted in the re-introduction of linear separation for developments of 2 or more dwellings. The reasoning behind this action relates to the need to protect the amenity and streetscape of the Residential A zones and achieve an appropriate dispersal of urban house developments and duplexes throughout the City. Under this option - Council officers consider that the environmental and design implications that may occur as a result of increasing the density requirements from 330 m2 to 300 m2 could be managed through the appropriate amendments to DCP No. 21A.

Council should note that this amendment has the potential to increase the supply of 3 bedroom dwellings within urban housing developments – particularly on lots under 660 m2 .



The impact of an amendment of the linear separation controls to apply to developments of 3 or more dwellings will result in a level of “overdevelopment” within the Residential A zones. This impact will be most evident on lots under 660m2, which can be developed for only 2 urban house dwellings. An illustration of this impact is evident in consideration of the 521 lots (with an area between 600 – 659m2) analysed in Council’s submission to the Department. Under the current linear separation controls 104 of the 521 lots would not be able to be developed for urban housing. Under the linear separation control relating to a development of 3 or more dwellings – the development outcome could be 4 to 8 adjoining lots being capable of being developed for urban housing in particular streets in West Ryde and North Ryde.

(iii) Consequences for DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A.

Council officers consider that the Department would support this option and they would recommend that the Plan be forwarded to the Minister to be made. The amendments to the density and linear separation provisions in the DLEP would require aspects of DCP No. 21A to be reworked to ensure development outcomes that meet Council’s design and environmental standards.

Option 3

(i) Direction

To amend the density provisions for 3 bedroom dwellings to read 300m2 of site area per 3 bedroom dwelling and maintain the linear separation control for developments of 2 or more dwellings.

(ii) Impact on development outcomes and the environment

The amendment of the density requirements for 3 bedroom dwellings has the potential to increase the supply of 3 bedroom dwellings within urban housing developments – particularly on lots under 660 m2. Council officers consider that the environmental and design implications that may occur as a result of increasing the density requirements from 330 m2 to 300 m2 could be managed through the appropriate amendments to DCP No. 21A. The proposal to maintain the linear separation controls for developments of 2 or more dwellings will assist in preserving the character, streetscape and amenity of the Residential A zones.


ITEM 7 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT (iii) Consequences on DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A.

During discussions on DLEP No. 129 the Department indicates that they would support the linear separation control for developments with 2 or more dwellings if it could be demonstrated that development opportunities on lots with an area between 600 – 659m2 would not be substantially reduced. The phrase “substantially reduced” is defined as the loss of developable sites, not exceeding 20% of the total 521 lots. Council’s calculations indicate that 104 lots or 20% are not capable of development under the linear separation requirements for 2 or more dwellings. Council has demonstrated the implications of the current linear separation control does not substantially reduce the number of lots capable of being developed in the 600 – 659m2 range, therefore the Department should support the making of the plan. Council officers consider that the Department would not object to reducing the site area requirements for 3 bedroom dwellings to 300m2 per dwelling as this density provision is currently in place. A DLEP amendment to address the density requirements for 3 bedroom dwellings within urban housing development would require aspects of the DCP No. 21A to be reworked to ensure workable development outcomes that address Council’s design and environmental standards.

Option 4

(i) Direction To amend the mechanism to calculate the density requirements from: -

- site area per dwelling size determined by bedrooms, to - site area per dwelling size determined by a maximum dwelling size. Note: This option was recommended by the Department.

(ii) Impact on development outcomes and the environment. The identification of a maximum dwelling size to determine the site density requirements

for urban housing developments requires further consideration to ensure that development outcomes would meet the Council’s standards, community expectations and that the dwellings create appropriate living environments. Based on recent urban housing development proposals the following dwelling sizes could be used as a guide to determine density :-



- 1 bedroom dwelling - 80 m2 - 2 bedroom dwelling - 100 m2 - 3 bedroom dwelling - 130 m2

(iii) Consequences for DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A.

The DLEP No. 129 and DCP No. 21A have been prepared as a package – with the DLEP providing the legal framework for the DCP. Therefore, an amendment to the density provisions to determine development outcomes based on dwelling size would require a review of the DCP to ensure the provisions and controls created to achieve developments that met Council’s environmental and design requirements.

SEPP No. 5 - Exemption from the State Policy Council’s application for exemption from SEPP 5 Exemption was sent to the Department on the 10 December 2002. In January 2003, Department officers requested additional information on the number of villa and SEPP 5 dwellings that have been approved in Ryde. They expressed a concern regarding the competition for villas from both the over and the under 55 year age groups. The Department also wanted to know if Council had considered the use of incentives eg additional FSR to encourager residential care facilities, and how this would compare with the SEPP 5 density provisions. Following the State Government elections a review was undertaken on the SEPP 5 provisions and the assessment of Council’s submission was put on hold pending the outcome of that review. The Department has indicated that the issues relating to the density and linear separation provisions within draft LEP No. 129 has an impact on their consideration and assessment of Council’s request for exemption under SEPP No. 5. The officers have indicated that the potential loss of housing choice and yield caused by the LEP and an ‘overachieving’ DCP due to its strict development standards will substantially affect development opportunities and the supply of appropriate housing for older people. The Department has indicated that they will re-examine Council’s request for exemption from the SEPP once the issues surrounding the LEP have been resolved.

Conclusion Council’s determination on the future direction of the DLEP is required as a result of DIPNR’s position that the provisions in the draft plan, in particular the density provisions for 3 bedroom dwellings and the linear separation requirements for 2 or more dwellings would result in a loss of housing choice and housing yield.



This report outlines 4 options regarding the future direction of DLEP No. 129. Each option provides a direction and outlines the impacts of that direction on development/ environmental outcomes and the finalising of the plan. The 4 options could form the basis of Council’s discussion on the future direction of the draft plan. While all options are not desirable, it appears that option 3 provides a compromise that will enable the plan to go forward. For this reason option 3 is recommended as the preferred direction for Council to pursue.

Recommendation: (a) That in draft Local Environmental Plan No. 129 be amended in accordance with option 3 and the draft plan be forwarded to the Minister requesting that the plan be made.

(b) That the Local State Member of Parliament be briefed on

the status of Council’s request for exemption of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 -Housing for Older People or People with a Disability


ITEM 8 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 1 – Development Standards File No. S2562-05 The Group Manager Environmental Planning reports 11 May 2004: Report Summary This report considers the draft State Environmental Planning Policy to replace SEPP 1 which allows Council’s to vary development standards in the approval of development applications. It is recommended that the Council make a submission generally in support of the draft SEPP. Background Under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (Development Standards) an applicant may seek Council approval to vary a development standard contained in an Environmental Planning Instrument in the approval of any development application. Under the current provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) Council can vary a development standard where it is satisfied that compliance with this standard is unreasonable. Not surprisingly SEPP 1 has had considerable criticism over the years. There are no limits that apply to SEPP 1 and in theory under the provisions of SEPP 1 an applicant could seek to have height limits of say two storeys varied to ten or twelve storeys. Report The draft SEPP, which is now on exhibition until 18 June 2004, changes the tests for when a development standard may be varied. It applies two tests:-

• the applicant must demonstrate that variation to the standard will still mean that the intent of the development standard and the purpose of the zone will be met; and

• that a better environmental outcome will be achieved. A copy of the draft SEPP is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. There are two other significant improvements. This includes the removal of the requirement for Council to seek concurrence from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) and a four year sunset provision for the SEPP. The sunset provision is to encourage Councils to introduce local environmental plans that have more flexible development standards.


ITEM 8 (continued) Officer Comments I believe the new SEPP is a significant improvement on the current SEPP 1. However, the provisions to define whether it is a better environmental planning outcome lack certainty. For example, a better environmental planning outcome includes consideration of “unusual site characteristics” which is defined by the guidelines as “out of the norm”. But, as the SEPP will only last for 4 years this is probably not a significant concern. I therefore recommend that Council make a submission to DIPNR supporting the changes proposed by the draft SEPP and make the SEPP available for review by the community on Council’s web site. Financial Implications The actions arising from the recommendation have no financial implications on Council. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR)

be advised that Council generally supports the draft SEPP to replace SEPP 1 however it believes that the provisions relating to the definition of a better environmental outcome requires some review.

(b) That the draft SEPP be placed on Council’s web site to enable the community to

make comments. Sue Weatherley Group Manager Environmental Planning


ITEM 9 DWELLING HOUSES AND DUPLEX BUILDINGS – Review of Planning Controls File No: 7805–02 The Manager Strategic Planning reports dated 11 May 2004: Report Summary This report provides an outline of issues associated with the implementation of Development Control Plan (DCP) No. 17A – Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings. The report also discusses a number of Notices of Motion, which were adopted by Council during 2003, that relate to dwelling houses / duplex buildings and the provisions of DCP No. 17A. The report outlines a number of stages that would be followed for the review of DCP No. 17 A. Background The Dwelling House Code was implemented in 1993 to introduce the development standards to control floor space, height and building setbacks. The Code was reviewed in 1998 to introduce additional development standards relating to elements such as over shadowing and streetscape. This review process also considered the outcomes of 1996 Ryde Residential Development strategy titled “Improving Housing Choice and Housing Opportunity” and the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which resulted in any development activity to a dwelling house requiring the lodgment of a development application. Development Control Plan No. 17 Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings became effective on 22 October 1998 The DCP applied to all development associated with a dwelling house or a duplex building including garages, carports, garden structures and other outbuildings. The plan applied both numerical and performance based standards. DCP No. 17 was reviewed in 2000 to: - • Incorporate controls for swimming pool and outbuildings; • Review the setback requirements for a 2 storey dwelling; • Clarify the definition of height by incorporating the term “ground level”; • Delete the reference to Local Approvals Policy No. 1 and incorporate provisions

for the “Special Development area” (which were previously addressed in the Local Policy).


ITEM 9 (continued) The amendments to the DCP were incorporated into DCP No. 17A, which came into effect on 13 December 2000. A summary of the key development provisions in DCP No. 17A are outlined in the following table.

DESIGN ELEMENT

CONTROL

Density / Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

Height

• Overall height of the building not to exceed

9m. • Height of the building (natural ground level to

the ceiling of the top most floors) must not exceed 7m.

Site Coverage and the Established Building Zone

• The front and rear setbacks of a dwelling are

defined by the building footprint of the dwellings on surrounding properties.

Front or Street Setbacks

• Buildings setbacks should be the same

distance as one of the adjoining dwellings, if the difference between the setbacks of the two adjoining building is less than or equal to 2m.

• Where the distance between the setbacks of

the two adjoining dwellings is greater than 2m -the average of the setbacks of the adjoining buildings is used to define the front setback of the dwelling.

• The minimum setback for new dwellings is

7.5m. • Dwellings constructed on a corner lot must

have a 2m setback from the secondary street. • One storey dwelling

- 900mm from a building wall to the boundary

- 675mm from guttering and eaves to the boundary


ITEM 9 (continued)

DESIGN ELEMENT

CONTROL

• Two storey dwelling or first floor addition - 1500mm from the building wall to the

boundary - 1275mm from the guttering and eaves to

the boundary Carparking

• Two vehicles per dwelling - located behind the

front building line. • Tandem parking maybe provided for duplex

buildings Landscaping and Open Space

• No minimum open space or landscaped

requirements • Detailed landscaped plan is required for a

duplex building. The plan is to be prepared by a qualified landscape professional

Duplex Buildings Minimum Lot Size Linear Separation

• 580sqm • Linear Separation generally requires a duplex

or villa development to be separated from another duplex or villa developments by twice the frontage of the proposed development or twice the frontage of the nearest duplex or villa development.

Outbuildings

• Area – Maximum 50sqm • Height – one storey and 4m overall height

DCP No. 17A has been in place since late 2000. It is considered timely to review the DCP to: • Ensure the provisions continue to reflect current community expectations • Reassess the elements of streetscape in the low scale residential neighbourhood

ie carparking, landscaping, heights, treatment of the front setback • Manage the increasing trend of demolition and construction of a new dwelling. • Review the controls to improve interpretation and implementation.


ITEM 9 (continued) Report This section of the report includes: 1. Notices of Motion adopted by Council during 2003. 2. Issues identified by Council officers on DCP No. 17A 3. Review process for DCP No. 17A. 1. Notices of Motion

Two Notices of Motion relating to the provisions of the DCP No. 17A were considered and adopted by Council during 2003. Details and discussions on these Motions are outlined as follows:

i Min No. 99 – Council Meeting 10 June 2003 That the Chief Executive prepare a report to Council that reviews the impact of Council’s Dwelling House DCP allowing basement car parks for dwelling houses and duplex buildings. This report should explain how the provisions of the DCP are applied and give examples of the outcome of the application of that provision.

Comment

DCP No. 17 A requires that dwelling house and duplex buildings do not exceed 2 storeys in height and have an overall building height of 9m. A storey is defined as a floor other than:

- A floor used principally for storage; or - A floor used wholly or partly for parking.

Council is receiving applications for dwelling houses and duplex buildings that have the following scenarios: - • The overall building height is 9m • The building has the appearance of a 3 storey building as the garage is

located partly below and partly above the natural ground level. Note: The building complies with the development standards but is contrary to

the intent of the control, which limits the number of storeys to 2. Examples where this scenario has occurred as detailed as below:


ITEM 9 (continued)

• 107 Princes Street Putney An application was lodged with Council for a new dwelling that had a 3-storey appearance to Princes Street. The building exceeded the height limit. The ground floor of the building was to be used as storage, plant room and the entry to the building.

The applicant was required to amend the design of the building in order to reduce the bulk and height of the dwelling. The amendment stepped the building on the site and deleted the storage and plant room from the ground floor. The proposed dwelling was approved as a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling however the amendments resulted in the dwelling not appearing as a 3 storey dwelling from the street. The application was approved in April 2004

• 20 Regent Street Putney

The original plans lodged with the application proposed a 3 storey building, which exceeded the FSR. The ground floor area contained the garage, store, rumpus room and garden store. The ground floor was to be achieved through extensive excavation of the site. The applicant was requested to remove the rumpus room and garden store from the ground floor. This floor area was defined as a sub-floor area. Therefore this area was not calculated as floor space and the ground floor was not considered as storey. The building while technically complying with the number of storeys and floor space ratio had a bulk and scale that was considered excessive in comparison with the adjoining buildings. However the proposed dwelling was considered to be consistent with the scale and design of new dwellings being constructed with vicinity of the site. The application was approved in April 2004

As part of the review of DCP No. 17 A consideration will be given to amending the definition of storeys to ensure that only 2 storey dwellings are permitted in the residential areas. The provisions should also indicate that any garaging or storage area that is built above the natural ground level should be defined as a storey. This amendment should result in reducing the amount of excavation on a site that often occurs for the garage and driveway. A definition of storey, which addresses these issues, is included within the provisions of DLEP 129. The definition within the draft plan reads: - Storey means that part of the a building from and including one floor level to the floor level next above or, if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above, but does not include a part of a building that does not extend more than 1.2mabove the natural ground level.


ITEM 9 (continued) ii Min No. 170 - Council Meeting 29 September 2003

That the Chief Executive report to Council on changes that could be made to DCP 17A – Dwelling Houses to provide development standards for light weight shade structures.

Comment

The development standards relating to the height, size and materials of shade structures will be addressed as part of the review of DCP No. 17A and re-consideration of the provisions of draft DCP No. 34 – Exempt and Complying Development. The development standards for a shade structure may include the following: - • Size – a maximum area of 20sqm and height of 2.7m • Siting – in line with or behind the front building line • Setback – located 900mm from a property boundary • Materials- canvass or similar material

Once the development standards have been established, it may be appropriate to categorise the structure as exempt or complying development.

2. Issues – DCP 17A and Controls for Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings Development applications for dwelling houses and duplex buildings comprise approximately 75% of development applications received and determined by Council. The officers involved in assessing these applications and dealing with enquiries from applicants and residents have identified issues and points that should be considered as part of a review of DCP No. 17A. These issues and points are identified as follows:- • Update references to other documents or controls such a S94 to ensure

they are consistent and relevant. • Clarification of controls is required to improve interpretation and

implementation. Some of the development standards requiring clarification include:-

- Streetscape - measuring the changing nature of a streetscape, - Building setbacks - in relation to side boundary setbacks,

- Car parking structure – in regards to size and relationship to the design

and scale of the dwelling.


ITEM 9 (continued)

- Building height and number of storeys - for example the DCP permits a 2 storey dwelling with a maximum height control of 9m. The DCP defines a storey as a floor other than a floor used for storage or a floor used wholly or partly for parking. Council is receiving applications for 3 storey buildings within the 9m height control. The 3rd storey is achieved through a basement area being used for garaging or storage that is located partly below natural ground level. It is suggested that garages should be included as a storey if they are greater than 1.2m in height above natural ground level.

• Specific controls should be introduced for small sized allotments

(allotments less than 450sqm) as the current controls allow for a two storey dwellings regardless of lot size. Two storey dwellings on smaller lots can have a significant impact on adjoining properties with over shadowing and on the rhythm of an existing streetscape.

• The definition of floor space ratio excludes any enclosed area for

garaging vehicles. This provision can result in excess of floor space being allocated to car parking. This floor space can substantially add to the bulk and scale of the building. The “general rule of thumb” is that floor space allocated to car parking in excess of 35sqm should be calculated as floor space.

• Provisions relating to landscape design and ensuring planting’s are in

scale with development should be introduced within the streetscape section of the DCP.

• A comprehensive review of the section on Open Space and

Landscaping should include elements such as: - minimum landscaped area (35% landscape area comprising 20%

consolidated landscape and 15% passive recreational areas by swimming pools, driveways patios)

- planting of street trees - incorporating provisions to retain existing mature trees – eg through

the requirement of an aborist report submitted for trees over 5m with all development applications.

• Introduction of provisions within the streetscape section to control the

amount or percentage of hard paving permitted within the front setback area of a dwelling or duplex building.

• The introduction of site coverage control and a minimum landscape

area to promote appropriate onsite detention of stormwater.


ITEM 9 (continued) 3. Review Process for DCP No. 17A

The review process of DCP 17A shall include: • A workshop with the Councillors on the issues surrounding dwelling

houses and duplex developments. • The DCP is revised to incorporate the amendments identified by

Councillors and Council officers. • A number of workshops are held with Council Officers and the

Councillors to review the proposed draft amendment to the DCP. • The proposed draft amendments to the DCP are presented to Council

for consideration with a recommendation that the draft plan be placed on public exhibition

• Exhibition Process for a minimum of 28 days • Draft DCP is presented to Council for consideration following the

exhibition of the draft plan.

During the exhibition period it is anticipated that community consultation will occur with the residents, representatives from the housing industry and local builders / developers. The details of the consultation process will be finalised and presented to Council prior to the exhibition of the draft plan. Financial Implications The issues outlined in this report and the actions arising from the recommendation have no financial implications. RECOMMENDATION: That the review process of Development Control Plan No. 17A – Dwelling House and Duplex Buildings as outlined in the report of the Manager Strategic Planning dated 11 May 2004 be approved. Meryl Bishop Sue Weatherley Manager Group Manager Environmental Planning Environmental Planning


ITEM 10 MEADOWBANK EMPLOYMENT AREA - Amendments to the Master Plan Amendment No. 1 and Development Control Plan No 38A FILE NO. S871-06, S9119 and S8068 The Manager Strategic Planning reports 21 April 2004: Report Summary Draft amendments to the Meadowbank Employment Area (MEA) planning documents - the Master Plan Amendment No. 1 and to the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) No. 38A, were placed on public exhibition from 10 December 2003 to 6 February 2004. This report summarises public submissions received on the planning documents during the exhibition and recommends additional changes, based on issues raised in the submissions. Background In 1998 SEPP 56 (Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries) was gazetted. Amongst other matters, the SEPP identified the Meadowbank area between the two bridges as an area where development could not be approved until the Council adopted a Master Plan for the area. As the area was listed in Schedule 2 of the SEPP, Council was the consent authority. In addition, before granting consent for development, the views of the Director-General needed to be sought. The Meadowbank Employment Area (MEA) planning controls, comprising the Master Plan and the development Control Plan No. 38 came into force on 17 June 2002, the date the Local Environmental Plan No. 120 was gazetted. The LEP No. 120 also required a master plan for the Faraday Park site, located on the Parramatta River foreshore, adjacent to the railway line. This is not a master plan under the SEPP. A site-specific master plan for Faraday Park was prepared by the developer and was adopted by Council 9 July 2002. In September 2002 a report to Council outlined serious concerns about the quality of development proposals being submitted. In early 2003, concerns regarding development outcomes for Faraday Park were again raised. The need for a review of the controls was conveyed to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) who concurred. Concerns centred on building height and form, access and site permeability at Faraday Park. Throughout 2002 – 2003, due to implementation of the planning controls on a number of MEA sites, it became evident that the controls relating to building height and bulk required clarification to ensure the intention of the controls was reflected in the building design.


ITEM 10 (continued) A proposal to incorporate a revised Faraday Park Master Plan as an Appendix in the MEA Master Plan and to review the controls relating to height and bulk were adopted by Council on 18 November 2003. This approach was followed in order to incorporate the Faraday Park controls into the broader MEA vision and development controls, thereby to ensure the intention of the controls were reflected in development outcomes. This would also ensure that the Council controlled the process of preparing the Master Plan for Faraday Park. At this meeting Council resolved that the draft changes to the MEA Master Plan and to DCP No. 38 be placed on public exhibition. The report of the Manager Strategic Planning dated 3 November 2003 considered by the Committee of the Whole at its meeting on 18 November 2003, including details of the proposed amendments is ATTACHED. The Exhibited Amendments to the MEA Master Plan and DCP No. 38A An overview of the draft amendments to the Proposed Planning Framework as identified in the previous report to Council are as follows: Land Use The following provisions have been included in Urban Form – Approach:

Precinct 3 (Commercial/industrial) includes a portion of land (approx. 3 700sqm) on the Eastern side of Belmore Street. It is under single ownership. The property is adjacent to Precinct 4 (Foreshore Activity Precinct) which includes residential uses and Precinct 9 (Special Uses). It was recommended that this property, 90 Belmore Street and 2 – 4 Porter Street, be located in Precinct 4 due to its geographical location. Redevelopment of this site was recommended as 50% residential and 50% commercial/retail, due to DIPNR’s concern to retain commercial activity in MEA.

Urban Form The following provisions have been included within the Urban Form – Approach:

Building Height Building heights will be determined by the number of storeys and the recommended

maximum RL, whichever results in a lower building with less impact on the tree lined ridge.

Building Bulk

Buildings are to be articulated vertically and horizontally and that materials and building setback on the upper storeys are be used to reduce the perceived bulk of buildings.


ITEM 10 (continued) Appendix B - Faraday Park Master Plan The following is a summary of the reasons for and provisions in the Appendix B in the MEA Master Plan Amendment No. 1:

The MEA Master Plan adopted by Council on 27 November 2001 and the gazetted LEP No. 120, required a site specific master plan for Faraday Park. The Faraday Park Master Plan was adopted by Council on 9 July 2002. However, DIPNR and Council were concerned that proposed development, as indicated in the Development Application for stages 2-5 would result in over development of the site. Consequently a revised Faraday Park Master Plan was drafted. It retains the principles as set out in the adopted MEA Master Plan but clarifies built form, land use and access to ensure the principles are achieved on this site. In case of a discrepancy between building heights as specified in the MEA Master Plan or its Appendix B, those in Appendix B will supersede height controls in any other Master Plan for the site.

Submissions Seventeen submissions were received including four from government agencies and two from the Meadowbank West Ryde Progress Association. The majority of submissions were lodged in favour of increasing development potential on a particular site, either in terms of increasing residential usage or building height or both. The submissions relating to increases in building height and density were received from land owners with property in the Meadowbank Employment Area. A summary of the issues raised in the submissions is out lined as follows:

• Residential land use should be increased in the MEA through increasing the residential component on a mixed use site and/or replacing commercial/light industrial uses with a residential land use;

• Building heights for specific sites, (eg Church Street and Constitution Road) should be increased;

• Planning controls relating to setbacks and landscape permeability should be ‘relaxed’;

• Planning controls relating to issues such as the use of incentives allowing additional storeys, the definition of home offices as commercial floor space, building bulk and setbacks and heritage buildings should be clarified;

• Building heights in the MEA should be maintained; • Design and building height requirements for Faraday Park should be

reconsidered in order to protect the treed ridgeline and pedestrian and neighbourhood amenity;


ITEM 10 (continued)

• The cumulative impact of traffic on the key intersections concerned the RTA and traffic calming measure should be introduced to control increased local traffic flows;

• Planning controls should remove reference to industrial land use. APPENDIX A INCLUDES DETAILS OF SUBMISSIONS AND COUNCIL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Comments and Recommendations on Main Issues raised in the Submissions Land Uses The Ryde Urban Villages Study, adopted by the City of Ryde in 1995, outlined the rationale for creating a set of urban villages, and sought to capitalize on areas with an existing mix of employment and transport facilities. Meadowbank was identified as Employment Area because of its existing employment component, including industrial and educational facilities, and because of the range of public transport options. The goal of the urban villages in general and of the Employment Area in particular was to build on these strengths by maintaining employment and adding a residential component. This is a policy endorsed by DIPNR. Land use changes to increase residential land use within the MEA have not been supported because of issues raised by DIPNR regarding the potential loss of employment opportunities through an increase in the residential component. Council should note that any decision to make changes to residential land use needs to be based on an informed study which identifies issues such as the amount of commercial land available in the region, the impact of removing commercial land and its employment potential from MEA. The impact of additional residential uses also needs to be investigated in terms of its social, recreational and traffic implications. Building/Urban Form The aim of the amendments to the Meadowbank Master Plan and DCP was to ensure development complied with the planning principles and objectives as expressed in SEPP 56 and in the MEA Master Plan, especially those relating to building height, bulk and employment opportunities. The Sydney Harbour Design Review Panel previously expressed concerns over excessive building bulk and visual impact of buildings viewed from the Parramatta River. Consequently increases in building height have not been supported and recommendations have been included in the MEA Master Plan Appendix B (Faraday Park Master Plan) to reduce building height on the Faraday Park site. Additional Recommended Amendments Recommended changes in addition to those identified in the previous report are outlined as follows:


ITEM 10 (continued) Land use The following changes are recommended to the land use provisions:

• Include 1 000sqm of retail on the JTec site (37 Nancarrow Street, DP 122205 and DP 19585) to provide for a local, boutique supermarket (Master Plan Proposed Planning Framework Precinct 3 page 14 and DCP Precinct 3 Principles page 64 and Figure 3);

• Remove “home offices” as a commercial floor space option unless the space is specifically designed as a commercial premises, eg shop front (Master Plan Proposed Planning Framework pages 13 and 15 and DCP Mixed-use Development Provisions page 17 and Precinct 2 – Faraday Park Principles page 62).

Architectural Characteristics The following changes are recommended to architectural provisions:

• Remove the words “A superior architectural and urban design that exceeds the height limits will be considered’ from the DCP (Height Variations page 28) to discourage additional building height in MEA. Incentives will remain for adaptable reuse.

Building Articulation The following changes are recommended to the building articulation provisions:

• Set penthouses a minimum of four (4) metres from any building façade (DCP Building Articulation Provisions page 33).

MEA Master Plan Appendix B- Faraday Park Master Plan The following detailed changes are recommended to the Faraday Park Master Plan provisions to minimise negative impacts from development:

• Reduce the relative level (RL) of the buildings in order to reduce their visual impact.

Appendix B includes the revised building envelope and separation plan indicative cross sections. Previously specified drawings are included in the ATTACHED report of the Manager Strategic Planning dated 3 November 2003, considered by the Committee of the Whole at its meeting of 18 November 2003. Conclusions Recommendations for amendments to the MEA controls have taken into consideration the goals for the area as specified in both SEPP 56 Guiding Principles and in the MEA Master Plan Objectives. Each recommended change has reflected the interests of the wider community. The recommendations itemized above reflect these Principles and Objectives. Financial Impact In order for the MEA Master Plan Amendment No. 1 and DCP No. 38A to become effective, the Council resolution must be advertised in the local newspaper. The total cost is approximately $500.


ITEM 10 (continued) There will be no on-going costs associated with Council’s adoption of these planning documents. RECOMMENDATION: That the amended Meadowbank Employment Area Master Plan and Development Control Plan No. 38A as amended by the issues outlined in the report of the Manager Strategic Planning dated 21 April 2004 be adopted. Peta G Lilburne Meryl Bishop Senior Strategic Planner Manager Strategic Planning


ITEM 10 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT MEADOWBANK EMPLOYMENT AREA – Amendment to the Master Plan and Development Control Plan No. 38 FILE NO: S871-06 The Manager - Strategic Planning reports 3 November 2003: Objective of the Report To inform Council of recent discussions with the Department of Infrastructure and Natural Resources regarding changes to the planning controls within the Meadowbank Employment Area; To recommend that Council amend the MEA Master Plan (including the amended Faraday Park Master Plan) and Development Control Plan No. 38 to better manage building height, bulk and development outcomes and to place the amendments to the Plans on public exhibition. Background Meadowbank Employment Area (MEA) planning documents came into force on 17 June 2002, the date Local Environmental Plan No. 120 was gazetted. In February 2003, the Department requested revisions to the MEA controls as a result of concerns over the design of the development being lodged for Faraday Park. As stated in a letter dated 26 March 2003 the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resource (DIPNR) was concerned about: • ensuring sufficient control to manage building heights and built form; • reducing parking on the foreshore adjacent to the ferry to provide more parkland. A letter was sent to the Meadowbank property holders on 13 March 2003 notifying them of potential changes to building height and bulk, particularly at Faraday Park, and to landscaped setbacks. The goals and objectives for the area would not change. As a result of the letter, representation was received from Mr. B Hayes regarding property at 2-4 Porter Street, with frontage on Belmore Street. He requested his property be included in MEA Precinct No. 4 – Foreshore Activity rather than remain in Precinct No. 3 – Bay Commercial/industrial. Foreshore Parking In the letter to MEA property holders Council made a commitment to consider the advantages/ disadvantages of removing parking on the foreshore. Three phone calls from the wider community were received regarding removal of this parking – all of them against any loss of parking.


ITEM 10 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT At present there are approx. 65 car parking spaces near the ferry wharf. Removing 20 parking spaces immediately next to the foreshore would provide an additional six metres for recreation next to the River. This space would benefit the community, especially as this foreshore has one of the few local sandy beaches. However, for the convenience and safety, especially at night, of ferry and bus users, some parking should remain. The handicap spaces should remain where they are. The lost parking spaces could be relocated on adjacent roads. Replacement parking next to the headland park in Faraday Park would have the added benefit of being available for park users, particularly on weekend. Proposed Changes to the MEA Master Plan The following changes to the MEA planning instruments are proposed as a result of discussions with the community, council officers and DIPNR who requested clarification of the controls to manage building height and bulk. Building Height It is proposed that the Master Plan and DCP controls read: Building heights to be determined by the number of storeys and the

recommended maximum RL, whichever results in a lower building with less impact on the tree lined ridge.

Building Bulk It is proposed that the DCP controls include: Buildings to be articulated vertically and horizontally and that materials and

building setback on the upper storeys be used to reduce the perceived bulk of buildings.

Precincts The original boundary to Precinct 3 (Commercial/industrial) was reduced due to representation from the community and the landholder Mr. Sarkis Nassif and endorsement by Council. The change included residential uses on Porter and Belmore Streets but did not include the adjacent property 2-4 Porter Street belonging to Mr. Hayes. His property is now the only portion of Precinct 3 on the Eastern side of Belmore Street. It is recommended that Mr. Hayes property, 2 –4 Porter Street, be assigned to Precinct 4 as it is difficult to develop this site for commercial/industrial uses due to its size and configuration. Redevelopment of this site should be 50% residential and 50% commercial/retail. This land use is mixed due to the Department’s concern to retain commercial activity in MEA.


ITEM 10 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT Faraday Park The original MEA Master Plan and LEP required a site specific master plan for Faraday Park, which was adopted by Council on 9 July 2002. However, when presented with a DA for the site, DIPNR and Council were concerned about potential over development, the bulk of some buildings and a need for better pedestrian and vehicular access through the site. Discussions have taken place with the property owner and his planners and with DIPNR in order to obtain a solution that meets the needs of the whole community. As a result, development principles will remain as set out in the main document but amendments in the form of strategies and associated drawings are proposed to clarify built form, land use etc and to ensure the principles are achieved on this site. These amendments are recommended for inclusion in the amended MEA Master Plan as an Appendix. To ensure that the Faraday Park Master Plan complies with MEA principles, the following strategies are proposed: • the creation of an extension to Angas Street to provide a street frontage and

address for all residences and to accommodate residential and visitor traffic, especially for the proposed theatre;

• creation of an improved cycle and pedestrian link along the western boundary of the site to the ferry wharf;

• sufficient building separation to reduce noise pollution and overshadowing • additional setbacks at the northern edge of the site to allow for improved access

including vehicular access, if warranted, and for separation from any future development to the north;

• units with at-grade access to be used to activate the streetscape on Railway Road extension;

• a children’s playground within the complex; • public art to interpret the site history; • penthouses, with appropriate setbacks, to take advantage of roof space; • additional parking on the Railway Road, especially at Headland Park, to

accommodate loss of ferry foreshore parking. Building heights as specified in the Appendix will supersede height controls in any other Master Plan for the site. Conclusion If adopted, the changes outlined above will address the concerns raised by various groups, including DIPNR, and will ensure that the planning principles specified in the original Master Plan are met.


ITEM 10 (continued) PREVIOUS REPORT However, to ensure the wider community is aware of the changes and to provide formal opportunity for submissions, the amendments to the Plan will be placed on public exhibition. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the Meadowbank Employment Area Master Plan and Development

Control Plan No. 38 – Meadowbank Employment Area be amended in accordance with the report of the Manager Strategic Planning dated 3 November 2003.

(b) That the amendments to the Meadowbank Employment Area Master Plan and

Development Control Plan No. 38 – Meadowbank Employment Area be placed on public exhibition.

Meryl Bishop Peta Lilburne Manger Senior Strategic Planner Strategic Planning


ITEM 10 (continued)


ITEM 11 WATER QUALITY MONITORING STEERING COMMITTEE - Terms Of Reference File No. S7971 The Manager – The Environment reports 10 May 2004: Report Summary To advise Council on the terms of reference for the proposed Water Quality Monitoring Steering Committee for the City of Ryde. Background Council at its meeting on 27 April 2004 considered Chief Executives Report No 4/04 on a proposal to implement a Biological/Chemical Water Quality Monitoring Strategy targeting Shrimpton’s, Archers, Porters, Buffalo and Terry Creek systems within the City of Ryde and resolved in Minute No 54: A. ‘That the Biological/Chemical Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for the City of Ryde

detailed in the report be implemented commencing in September 2004 and that it be funded from Stormwater Management Plan Budget to deliver the Strategy over 7 years for a cost of $160K.

B. That the Chief Executive facilitate the formation of a City Water Quality Monitoring

Steering Committee comprising a suitably qualified community representative and the City of Ryde staff from Environment, Stormwater Facilities Services, Environmental Enforcement and Urban Landscape Services to guide the Strategy development, implementation, review and reporting processes.

C. That an annual Water Quality Monitoring and State of the Creek Report be

incorporated into the annual Ryde State of the Environment Reports. D. That the Group Manager, Environmental Planning report to the next Committee of

the Whole on the terms of reference for the steering committee referred to in (B) above which are to include a management strategy for creeks with a view to improving their quality and cleanliness above the existing standards’

The report currently before Council deals specifically with Item D of above resolution and subject to Council’s endorsement of the recommendation, arrangements will be made to call for expressions of interest for a suitable community representative and then to form the Committee.


ITEM 11 (continued) Report The proposed Steering Committee will serve the crucial role of ensuring that the Water Quality Monitoring Strategy approved by Council is effectively developed, implemented, communicated and reported to provide a structured and effective ongoing monitoring system for the selected core monitoring sites. In addition, the Committee will also have a role in ensuring that the Strategy is appropriately linked to the Council’s Stormwater Management Plans and other related programs of work so that Creek management strategies have regard to the monitoring results to better target creek restoration and rehabilitation work. To enable the formation of the Steering Committee to proceed, the following terms of reference are proposed;

A. To oversee the work of any Water Quality Consultants that may, from time to time, be engaged to deliver the technical aspects of the strategy;

B. To consider relevant issues arising from the Strategy implementation and

interpretation of monitoring results;

C. To make recommendations to the City Executive Team for the development of appropriate water quality and creek health improvement strategies so that such can be considered in policy development and in Stormwater Management Plans and other related plans of the City. Such strategies are to be consistent with proper management, development, protection, restoration, enhancement and conservation of the environment and the promotion of the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

D. To provide advice and guidance to any school or community group that may,

from time to time, wish to adopt a satellite monitoring site on any of the target Creek systems;

E. To review the Strategy on an annual basis and to make recommendations to

the City Executive Team on any Strategy improvement measures;

F. To work closely with the Manager, The Environment to coordinate the preparation of the annual Water Quality Monitoring and State of the Creek Reports and to incorporate this into the annual Ryde State of Environment Reports; and

G. To meet quarterly, on weekdays and during daytime or early evening hours

with meeting dates to coincide with the first month of each sampling period and one month after each sampling period is completed. Given sampling periods are proposed for Autumn and Spring seasons, meetings in March, June, September and December are proposed with meeting dates to be advised.


ITEM 11 (continued) Funding Implications The Steering Committee can be funded through Council’s recurrent budget. RECOMMENDATION: That a Water Quality Monitoring Steering Committee be established as detailed in the report of the Manager, The Environment dated 10 May 2004 with the following terms of reference; (i) To oversee the work of any Water Quality Consultants that may, from time to

time, be engaged to deliver the technical aspects of the strategy; (ii) To consider relevant issues arising from the Strategy implementation and

interpretation of monitoring results; (iii) To make recommendations to the Executive Team for the development of

appropriate water quality and creek health improvement strategies so that such can be considered in policy development and in Stormwater Management Plans of the City. Such strategies are to be consistent with proper management, development, protection, restoration, enhancement and conservation of the environment and the promotion of the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

(iv) To provide advice and guidance to any school or community group that may, from time to time, wish to adopt a satellite monitoring site on any of the target creek systems;

(v) To review the Strategy on an annual basis and to make recommendations to the Executive Team on any Strategy improvement measures;

(vi) To work closely with the Manager, The Environment to coordinate the preparation of the annual Water Quality Monitoring and State of the Creek Report and to incorporate this in to the annual Ryde State of Environment Report; and

(vii) To meet quarterly, on weekdays and during daytime or early evening hours with meeting dates to coincide with the first month of each sampling period and one month after each sampling period is completed. Given sampling periods are proposed for Autumn and Spring seasons, meetings in March, June, September and December are proposed with meeting dates to be advised.

Sam Cappelli Sue Weatherley Manager Group Manager The Environment Environmental Planning Greg Hunt Tony Reed Manager Group Manager Stormwater Facilities & Services Public Works & Services


ITEM 12 UNDERGROUNDING OF POWER WITHIN INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PROPERTIES File No. S1570-07 The Manager Strategic Planning reports 3 May 2004: Report Summary The report is to consider the undergrounding of power within individual private properties to a pole at the front boundary as part of any development consent involving electrical work as well as the use of aerial bundled cables to reduce the need for extensive pruning of existing trees.” Background Following a notice of motion by Councillor Lunsford Council resolved on 9 March 2004: “That the Chief Executive prepare a report which identifies those actions available to Council to prepare Ryde for the undergrounding of power and telecommunication cables. Report Separate service providers deal with the undergrounding of telecommunication and power cables, which results in different requirements applying to telecommunications and power. In relation to undergrounding of power between the street network and any dwelling there are two options:

1. Aerial cables from the street network to a pole on the front boundary and then

underground cables to the house; and 2. Underground cables direct from the street network to the dwelling.

Option 1 is the most common method of undergrounding power and telecommunication cables to dwelling. It requires the provision of a galvanised steel pole on the front boundary of the property and underground conduits to the dwelling. There is a visual consideration in using this method, as the steel pole is considered to have and adverse impact on the streetscape as a pole may potentially be erected on every property. This could mean that in addition to the existing “telegraph” poles on the footpath there could be a 3-4 metre galvanised steel pole on the front boundary of each property. Council has received complaints from neighbours of new dwellings regarding the adverse effect on visual amenity of such poles. Option 2 would see power from the street network to the dwelling underground deleting the need for a pole on the front boundary.


ITEM 12 (continued) It should be noted that the State Government has made no decision in relation to undergrounding power and telecommunication cables or who (property owners or energy authority) would pay for the undergrounding of power and telecommunication cables between the property boundary and the street. Energy Australia supports any requirement to underground the connection to private dwellings from the street network, as it would assist the Authority if the State Government required power distribution companies to underground the street grid. It is unknown when or even if the infrastructure providers will be required to underground cables. The provision of underground power and telecommunication lines to dwellings may be required as a condition on any development consent where new dwellings are being constructed or where existing dwellings are subject to alterations or additions. This would require amendment of DCP 17A (Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings) and DCP 21A (Urban Housing) to insert guidelines in relation to the undergrounding of overhead cables - power and telecommunications. At this time Council could only require compliance with Option 1, which would lead to a proliferation of galvanised poles on the streetscape. Energy Australia has indicated that the cost of undergrounding the service line (front boundary to the dwelling – option 1) and installation of a steel pole on the front boundary is around $6,000. This figure would vary depending on the distance from property boundary to the dwelling and whether any unusual (driveways, footpaths, etc) obstructions require additional treatments. The undergrounding telecommunication lines at the same time would be an additional cost. Telstra has been unable to provide any costs. Aerial Bundled Cables Aerial Bundled Cables (ABC) is the conversion of exposed conductors to a single bundled and insulated cable. This process has numerous benefits that include:

reduces the number of native animal fatalities from electrocution; reduces the amount of tree pruning; reduced pruning results in improved health and vigour of the trees; reduced pruning means cost savings; improves the reliability of the power supply; and permits cables to be placed in alternate locations due to smaller safety

clearance distances.


ITEM 12 (continued) However, there is some contention that aerial bundling of cables provides a greater visual impact than the current system of single strand cables. This is based on the numerous thin grey/green cables blending into the background rather than one larger insulated cable, which is more visible. It should also be noted that whilst the number of cables is reduced, the number of poles remains unchanged. Energy Australia has indicated that the cost of bundling cables is approximately $4,000 per span, which is in the order of 40 metres. Energy Australia will consider funding 50% of the cost of aerial bundling if it can be demonstrated that the driver is a comprehensive Council tree preservation program. Financial Implications Should Council wish to pursue aerial bundling of cables in the area a formal investigation should be carried out to ascertain the full financial implications. RECOMMENDATION: That the report of the Manager Strategic Planning dated 3 May 2004 regarding the undergrounding of power and telecommunication cables within private properties be received and noted. Stewart Seale Meryl Bishop Integrated Planning Co-ordinator Manager Strategic Planning


ITEM 13 MEADOWBANK PARK TENNIS COURTS – Occupancy licence File No. S754 - 03 The Manager – Property Services reports 29 April 2004: Report Summary To report on occupancy arrangements for the operation of the Tennis Court complex within Meadowbank Park at Constitution Road, Meadowbank and recommend that tenders be called for the operation of the complex. Background Since 1964, the North-Western Suburbs Tennis Association Inc., has held a series of licences to cover their occupancy of an eight court tennis complex within a 9,521 m2 portion of Meadowbank Park at Constitution Road, Meadowbank ATTACHED. The current 20 year licence expires on 18 July 2004, and it is now timely to determine the structure of any future occupancy. Presently, the Association, pays an annual rental of $13,100 and meets all outgoings and maintenance costs, associated with the operation of the tennis courts. Under the current licence, the Association is required to gain Council’s approval to the structure of the court hire fees charged. Since the initial establishment of these courts, the Association has repaid Council the initial capital cost of the court’s construction and progressively undertaken, at its expense, further capital improvements works such as the construction of clubrooms, steps, footpaths etc. The initial capital outlay was met through structured periodic repayments during the Association’s first 20 year licence, which expired in 1984. The complex’s overall condition is satisfactory. Report Having regard to the Association’s long term use of this area, it is suggested that market testing is warranted in any reassessment of the occupancy arrangements for this area of Meadowbank Park. The options available to Council are; a) negotiate with the current occupant for the renewal of the licence agreement, or b) call tenders for the complex’s operation by a community based tennis association

or a commercial operator Clearly, the consideration of a commercial operator would require a level of autonomy on the pricing structure to enable returns to be optimised. It would also require greater security of tenure, with a lease arrangement being required. A period of fifteen (15) years (three five year periods on a performance basis) is recommended.


ITEM 13 (continued) To facilitate a long term lease, a subdivision of Meadowbank Park for lease purposes would be required. As Meadowbank Park is classified as Community Land - General Community Use, pursuant to the Local Government Act, 1993, any form of occupancy of over 5 years would require Ministerial consent. Further, within any future occupancy agreement specific operational based performance criteria would continue to be included, to cover issues such as recurrent maintenance, capital outlays, hours of operation. Specific community based performance criteria can be developed by Council’s Property Services, Community Services and Urban Landscapes Facilities & Services units. The current operator has been advised of council’s intentions to tender for the complex’s operation and has no objections to the course of action proposed. Report Summary It is believed appropriate to market test the operations of the Tennis Complex within Meadowbank Park. It is suggested that a tender be called from community based associations and commercial operators. Following the result of the calling of tenders, the matter will be referred back to the appropriate Committee for determination. Financial Impact Adoption of the option outlined in this report will have no financial impact and the net income generated would be allocated to the maintenance and continued improvement of Meadowbank Park. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the report of the Manager – Property Services dated 29 April 2004, on

occupancy arrangements for the operation of the Tennis Court complex within Meadowbank Park at Constitution Road, Meadowbank, be received and noted.

(b) That tenders be called on the basis of a fifteen (15) year lease term (three terms

of five years on a performance basis) of the Tennis Court complex within Meadowbank Park at Constitution Road, Meadowbank, from community based tennis associations and commercial operators.

(c) That a report on the result of the calling for tenders be referred back to the

appropriate Committee for determination. Peter Byrne Roy Newsome Manager Group Manager Property Services Corporate Services


ITEM 13 (continued)

RYDE CITY COUNCIL · concerned are members), or (e) by a delegate of the council (which may, for...

Documents

Transcript of RYDE CITY COUNCIL · concerned are members), or (e) by a delegate of the council (which may, for...