Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

4 August 2008

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

Notice of Meeting

Dear Councillors

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, Lower Ground Floor, 48 Longueville Road, Lane Cove on Monday 4 August 2008 commencing at 7:00PM. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

Yours faithfully

Peter Brown

General Manager

Council Meeting Procedures

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Ian Longbottom. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website wwww.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm of the Thursday following the meeting.

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items of the agenda.

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under section 12(6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

Reference: Environmental Services Division Report No. 297

Subject: 12 Chisholm Street, Greenwich

Planning and Building Committee at its meeting on 21 July 2008 resolved that the matter be referred to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 04 August 2008.

Record No: DA07/302-01 - 24253/08

Author(s): Rajiv Shankar

Property: 12 Chisholm Street, Greenwich.

DA No: D302/07 - Section 96 modification.

Date Lodged: 3 June 2008

Cost of Work: $480 000

Owner : H Inkson

Author: Rajiv Shankar

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Demolition of existing first floor, swimming pool and front fence and alterations and addition to existing dwelling house including first floor addition, swimming pool, carport and front fence.
ZONE	Residential 2(a2)
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?	Yes
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?	No
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?	No
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?	No
BCA CLASSIFICATION	Class 1a & 10b
STOP THE CLOCK USED	No
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 13, 15, 17, 19 Vista St, 8, 10, 14, 16, 16A Chisholm St, 72 Greenwich Road. Ward Councillors Clr R D’Amico, Clr R Tudge, Clr T Lawson. Progress Association Greenwich Community Association.

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

The application is referred to the Planning and Building Committee Meeting because the original application was determined at the Planning and Building Committee Meeting of 21 April 2008.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

· Council’s Planning and Building Committee at its meeting of the 17^th March 2008 considered a development application for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

The Committee resolved as follows:

“That consideration of the item be deferred to permit the applicant to submit a plan with a redesign of the top attic room”.

· The applicant by letter dated 31 March declined to amend the proposal, and requested that the application be determined in its present form, which included the roof deck.

· Council’s Planning and Building Committee at its meeting of the 21^st April 2008 resolved to approve the application after deletion of the roof top terrace and the stair leading to the terrace.

· The applicant has now lodged an application to amend the proposal to delete the three conditions to enable construction of a roof top terrace and stair leading to the terrace.

· The proposal is not supported.

SITE:

The site is located on the eastern side of Chisholm Street. The site is rectangular in shape with front and rear boundaries of 14.515m & 13.73m respectively and the northern and southern side boundaries of 45.48m and 49.65m respectively. The site falls away from the street.

The site features a two storey brick and tile dwelling house with a detached outbuilding along the northern side boundary towards the rear. There is an existing swimming pool towards the rear. There is a street tree which is not proposed for removal. There is a tree along the rear boundary which is indicated for removal.

Neighbouring to the north is a two storey brick dwelling house and towards the south is a two storey dwelling house. Amended Site Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached AT1 and AT2.

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is for the deletion of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 to enable the construction of a roof top terrace. The three conditions are as below:

1. The portion of stair from the first floor leading up to the roof terrace is to be deleted. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

2. The proposed roof terrace is to be deleted. Amended plans shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

3. The roof of the dwelling house is to be amended to a continuation of the roof profile, excluding the roof terrace.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

D302/07- Demolition of existing first floor, swimming pool and front fence and alterations and addition to existing dwelling house including first floor addition, swimming pool, carport and front fence approved by Council at its meeting of 21 April 2008.

D278/92- Old Building application

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

Site Area (653.07m²)

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Ceiling Height (m) (max)	8.8M (stair roof)	7.0m	NO
No of Storeys	3 (stair roof)	2	NO
Deck/Balcony width (max) 1st Floor rear balcony Roof Terrace	2.5M 4.5m	3m (if elevated by >1m)	Yes NO

All other provisions of the code for dwelling houses remain unchanged.

S.96 (2) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

96(2) (a) The development to which the consent relates to is substantially the same development.

The proposed changes would enable construction of a roof top terrace which may be used for entertainment purposes. The proposal would also become three storeys in height. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not be substantially the same as to that which was approved by Council.

96(2) (b) Consultation with relevant Minister, public authority or approval body.

There is no requirement to consult with the Minister, public authority or approval body as a result of the proposed modifications.

96(2) (c) Any submissions made

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s policy of Community Consultation. No submissions were received.

79 (C) (1) (a) The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987

The subject site is zoned Low Density Residential 2 (a2) under the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987. The proposal is permitted with development consent of Council.

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007

There are no additional provisions that need to be considered with respect to the draft LEP.

Variations to Council’s Codes/Policies-Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses–September 2000

As indicated in the policy compliance table, the proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the Code:

· Maximum Ceiling Height,

As per clause 3.3 1(i) of the Code, the ceiling height should not be more than 7.0m. The proposed ceiling height is 8.8m (stair roof) which exceeds of the maximum permissible.

· Number of Storeys,

As per clause 3.3 (3) of the Code, no dwelling house will be permitted to exceed two storeys in height above natural ground level at any point. The portion of the stair leading up to the roof terrace forms a third storey and is not generate by a site condition that requires the variation, such as a sloping site where the third level is a resulting basement or a result of stepping the building.

· Width of the Roof Terrace.

As per clause 3.6 (3) of the Code, elevated decks more than 1.0m above the natural ground level are not to exceed a width of 3.0m of usable area. The proposed width of the deck is 4.5m which exceeds the maximum permissible.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (the SREP) and Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan for the SREP (the DCP)

The SREP aims to recognise, protect, enhance and maintain the catchment, foreshores and waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour and to achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment. Part 3 of the SREP addresses the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Within Part 3, Division 2 sets out Matters for consideration which Council is to consider in assessing new development. Of the clauses 20-27 listed for consideration, the location of the proposed works would not raise any significant issues.

Under the DCP the proposed works are Land Based Development and therefore subject to Section 5. For the same reasons as given for the SREP, the proposed works would not raise any significant issues in relation to the two relevant sub-sections, i.e. 5.3 (Siting of buildings and structures) and 5.4 (Built form).

79C (1) (b) - The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

The Section 96 modification seeks the deletion of conditions requiring the deletion of a roof terrace from the proposal. The terrace is accessible through a permanent staircase from the first floor. The size of the proposed roof terrace is 3.5m X 4.5.m. It is considered that the terrace can be used for entertainment purposes. The terrace also has a potential to overlook adjoining properties which would impact adversely upon their residential amenity in terms of visual and acoustic privacy. Therefore, the roof top terrace, along with the stair access, is not supported.

There is also a possibility for the proposal to set a precedent for roof top terraces which would adversely impact upon the privacy adjoining properties and which Council has consistently rejected.

Section 79C (1) (c) - The suitability of the site for the development.

The proposal maintains the residential use of the site. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable with respect to the proposed development.

Section 79C (1) (d) - Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or Regulations.

The proposal was notified, including to the previous objector in accordance with Council’s policy of Community Consultation. No further submissions were received.

Section 79C (1) (e) - The public interest.

The proposed roof terrace has a potential to overlook adjoining properties resulting in a loss of privacy and is therefore not considered to be in public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning Instruments and Council’s controls, as well as public interest and suitability of the site. It is considered that the roof top terrace has a potential to overlook the adjoining properties which would impact adversely upon their residential amenity in terms of visual and acoustic privacy. The matters under Section 96 & 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and the proposal is not considered satisfactory. Therefore the proposal is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council refuse the proposed section 96 modification sought to development consent 302/2007 granted on 29 April 2008 for demolition of existing first floor, swimming pool and front fence and alterations and addition to existing dwelling house including first floor addition, swimming pool, carport and front fence on 12 Chisholm Street, Greenwich for the following reasons:

1. To retain and where appropriate improve the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

2. The proposal does not comply with Councils Code for Dwelling Houses. As per Clause 3.3 1(i) of the Code, the ceiling height should not be more than 7.0m. The proposed ceiling height is 8.8M (stair roof) which exceeds of the maximum permissible.

3. The proposal does not comply with Councils Code for Dwelling Houses. As per Clause 3.3 (3) of the Code, no dwelling house will be permitted to exceed two storeys in height above natural ground level at any point. The portion of the stair leading up to the roof terrace forms a third storey.

4. The proposal does not comply with Councils Code for Dwelling Houses. As per Clause 3.6 (3) of the Code, elevated decks more than 1.0m above the natural ground level are not to exceed a width of 3.0m of usable area. The proposed width of the deck is 4.5m which is much in excess of the maximum permissible.

5. The proposed terrace has a potential to overlook the adjoining properties which would impact adversely upon their residential amenity in terms of visual and acoustic privacy.

6. The proposal would set a precedent for roof top terraces which would adversely impact upon the privacy adjoining properties.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Amended Site Location Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page

Reference: General Managers Report No. 26

Subject: Traffic Master Plan for Future Residential Development -Burns Bay Road

Record No: SU2589 - 27213/08

Author(s): Tony Fazio

Executive Summary

The Draft Local Environment Plan 2008 (DLEP 2008) has included a number of properties on the eastern side of Burns Bay Road, south of Cope Street for Residential R4 zone. This change in zoning has the potential to increase the traffic generation from existing levels. This report discusses the findings of the Traffic Master Plan Study (The Study) prepared by Traffic and Transport Associates which demonstrate that the traffic generation from future development can be accommodated on the road network. The report is recommended to be received and noted.

Background

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 15 October 2007, considered the General Manager’s Report No. 27 on the Major Projects Strategic Management Plan 2007-2016. Council resolved in part that the General Manager report back on the findings of a traffic study to include proposed changes in zoning being contemplated in the draft comprehensive LEP 2007(DLEP2007) in the vicinity of 314 Burns Bay Road.

The Study (attachment 1) was commissioned early in 2008 and the report provided to the Manager, Strategic Planning as available material in relation to DLEP 2008 exhibition period.

Discussion

The study precinct included all properties (existing and future) likely to use the signalised intersection into 300 Burns Bay Road. The Study included a sensitivity analysis based on different densities to ascertain the potential traffic implications for future Residential Development in Burns Bay Road. The potential redevelopment sites are identified as R4 High Density Residential.

The Study considered the existing traffic controls in the vicinity of the future redevelopment precinct, the existing traffic conditions on the road network system, the existing public transport services and future major changes in the road system serving the area including the “downgrade “of section of Epping Road. Traffic surveys were undertaken during the morning and afternoon peak periods at the Burns Bay Road/Access Road intersection. The results of the surveys are included in the report.

Based on a potential development outcome of approximately 553 additional apartments using a FSR of 2:1, the resultant traffic generation applying the RTA criteria is estimated at 177 vtph (vehicle trips per hour) which represents approximately a 10 % increase over the traffic generation for the existing development precinct. The Study further indicates that if the existing industrial properties were to be fully redeveloped under the existing zoning provisions of the current LEP 1987(as amended), the resultant traffic generation based on an FSR of 0.75:1 is estimated at 220 vtph, theoretically creating a greater traffic generation than from any future residential development.

The traffic assessment indicates that even under full redevelopment being contemplated in DLEP2008, the apartment yield /traffic generation characteristic outcomes, would not be any worse that that possible under the current LEP adverse traffic implications.

New Access Road

The Study examined the suitability of the proposed new access road across 304-314 Burns bay Road to link with the Tuta Laboratories site to the south. The Study considers that the new access road is most suitable and appropriate because:

1. it follows the contours levels, and provides minimal grade changes and minimal excavation;

2. it provides access connection to the relevant properties and the open space area;

3. the alignment is relatively straight and the location of the connection with the existing roadway; and

4. it is contained within Council owned land.

Proposed Amelioration Measures

The Study has proposed a number of amelioration measures which will need to be progressively introduced to manage the accumulated traffic impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment. These are briefly outlined below.

(i) Public Transport.

Because there will be a significant increase in the residential population, and given the excellent arrangement for northbound buses with an indented lane, a similar arrangement should be replicated on the western side for southbound buses;

(ii) Pedestrian, Cyclist and Mobility Impaired.

· a new pedestrian crossing on the northern side of the existing intersection;

· widening of the footpath along the southern side of the intersection and adjacent to 296 Burns Bay Road; and

· the provision for the storage of bicycles for residents and visitors in the new residential developments.

· a footway of minimum 2.5 metres wide with an appropriate level of street lighting is also recommended for inclusion in the new access road;

(iii) Intersection Capacity.

Proposed amelioration measures would include road works and traffic signals improvements estimated at $ 250,000. Although no specific staging /timing requirement is identified, the Study suggests that these amelioration measures be undertaken with the future redevelopment of 296 Burns Bay Road.

(iv) On Street Parking.

Adequate provision is required within on-site car parks of future developments and that public parking be provided for the users of the open space recreation area; and

(v) Access for Carisbrook House

Existing access provisions for Carisbrook House be maintained as the sight distances are reasonable and providing that access movements are restricted to left turn IN and OUT.

Conclusion

The Study has identified that with the proposed amelioration measures outlined above, the increased traffic generated from the future Residential Development in Burns Bay Road will be manageable and at full redevelopment potential under R4 proposed in DLEP 2008 would be less than generated traffic from any future redevelopment of the existing residential and industrial properties under the existing Industrial 4 (C) zoning provisions.

The proposed new access road west of any future development on Council owned land is considered most suitable and appropriate for reasons outlined in the report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report.

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Transport and Traffic Planning Associates Report

56 Pages

Reference: Corporate Services Division Report No. 50

Subject: Motions for 2008 Local Government Association Conference

Record No: SU203 - 27797/08

Author(s): Ian Naylor

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the motions submitted to the 2007 Local Government Association Annual Conference and propose motions for consideration at the 2008 Local Government Association Annual Conference.

Discussion

At the Council Meeting on 21 July 2008 Council considered a report on the 2008 Local Government Association Annual Conference and resolved “that a report be provided to the next meeting of Council to include an update on motions raised at the 2007 Conference”. Since the last Council Meeting, Council has made contact with the LGSA who have provided a summary of the responses to motions raised at last year’s Conference as below:-

13 – Executive (Lane Cove’s motion was taken on by the Executive)	Public Library Funding
That the LGA call on the NSW Government to: · Ensure no individual Councils are disadvantaged by any redistribution of public library funding. · Ensure no further public library funding cuts are undertaken. · Significantly increase the State’s share of the total funding to local public library services to ensure it matches international and national benchmarks and meets unmet community demand for services, by enhancing the budget item Grants and subsidies - Library services by Councils and other organisations by $5m per year for five years to reach a new recurrent target of $51m per year. That all member Councils actively support the LGSA public libraries funding campaign at the local level choosing activities that suit individual Councils from the ideas set out in the LGSA suggested strategies.
Response from the Hon Frank Sartor, MP, Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo and Minister for the Arts – 25 March 2008
In August last year I announced an independent review of public library funding in NSW to help ensure Government funding is distributed in the most effective way to assist libraries retain their important role in local communities. The review, conducted by Dr Tom Parry, has been completed and the review report is being finalised. The review included consultation with a range of stakeholders including, more importantly, the Associations. I would like to assure you that the Government recognises the important service provided by public libraries in our communities and will continue to work closely with councils across the state to ensure that our public library network continues to serve the public of NSW.

34 - Lane Cove

Timeframes for Applications for Special Rate Variations

That representations be made to the Minister for Local Government to review the basis on which special rate variations may be levied, so as to allow Councils greater flexibility in structuring special levies having regard to the reasons the levy is sought and the impact on the community.

Response from the Hon Paul Lynch, MP, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs – 6 March 2008

The Special Variation Application process is a way in which councils can exceed the rate peg where a good case can be made. The Government has shown its commitment to supporting such increases where a proper business case has been made. This approach ensures an appropriate balance between protecting the interests of ratepayers and giving councils the capacity to address issues such as infrastructure backlogs. In approving a Special Variation to rates, the Minister for Local Government approves a percentage increase in the amount a council can increase the revenue from rates. Each council has the discretion to determine its own rating structure in line with the Local Government Act 1993.

Granting a special variation in no way reduces the flexibility that councils have to levy rates, allowing them to be mindful of the impact on the ratepayers in their community. The Local Government Act has been amended in recent years to allow councils to apply for a special variation over a period of years. This gives councils a greater ability to plan ahead and still have the flexibility to determine a rate structure that takes into account the impact on the ratepayers and the purpose for which the additional income was raised.

62 - Lane Cove

Vegetation Screening

That the Local Government Association write to the State Government requesting that the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 be expanded to include vegetation screening that adversely impacts on adjoining property owners health and amenity by blocking sunlight in much the same way that a building structure would.

Response from the Attorney General, the Hon John Hatzistergos, LLM, Minister for Justice – 12 March 2008

The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 contains a provision requiring the Act to be reviewed as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the date of assent of the Act. Accordingly, a statutory review of the Act will commence on 5 December 2008. The Local Government Association’s resolution on vegetative screening will be considered as part of that review.

66 - Lane Cove

Low Impact Installations

That the Local Government Association call upon the Federal Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to review the Federal Telecommunications Act 1997 regarding the installation of low-impact facilities on adjoining properties, to remove the existing inequities that can occur in residential or mixed use zones, when a neighbour of an adjoining property consents to the erection of a tower on their property, without consent of the adjoining neighbours. An appropriate procedure should be put in place which provides for an equitable outcome for all parties involved, including a right of appeal against an unfair decision.

No response

103 - Lane Cove

Private Certifiers

That the Local Government Association call upon the Minister for Planning to review the role and obligations of private certifiers to ensure that they respond to and act on complaints raised by Councils

and people adversely affected as a result of or during building construction.

No Response

122 - Lane Cove

Aircraft Noise

That all the political parties commit to the following matters in relation to aircraft noise and Sydney Airport:

· no further increase in interstate and international aircraft movements;

· the aircraft noise sharing plan being rigorously enforced including the application of appropriate fines and penalties to strengthen compliance;

· the dissemination of information in a timely manner by the operator of Kingsford Smith Airport in relation to noise and traffic data and ongoing operational issues;

· the implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan;

· the implementation of strategies to encourage all aircraft operators to utilise newer quieter aircraft;

· no further increase in KSA aircraft noise; and

· the continuation of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

Response from the Hon Anthony Albanese, MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government. Leader of the House – 11 March 2008

My longstanding commitment to ensuring affected communities are properly consulted on the management of noise and other environmental impacts arising from operations at Sydney Airport is well known.

In order to facilitate open discussion between the community, the airport, the aviation and industry and aviation authorities on the best way to fairly share the noise burden generated by the airport, I have reconstituted the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF). The new membership of SACF includes representatives from the community, local councils, industry as well as State and Federal parliaments.

The first meeting of the reconstituted SCAF occurred on 15 February 2008, providing the opportunity for members to scrutinise Sydney Airport’s plans for the recently announced construction of a Runway End Safety Area and be briefed on a timetable for the airport’s upcoming Master Plan.

151O - Lane Cove

Pruning of Street Trees

That representations be made to the State Government to review the basis on which Energy Australia tenders the work of pruning of street trees to allow Councils to be eligible to tender for this work, due to the inappropriate pruning by Energy Australia’s contractors.

Response from Ian Macdonald MLC, Minister for Primary Industries, Energy, Mineral resources and State Development - 18 February 08

EnergyAustralia holds an open tender process for tree trimming contracts and local government councils are welcome to tender for this work. Trimming trees around live power lines is inherently dangerous and therefore safety is a paramount issue for contractors, the public and the network. Due to these potential dangers, EnergyAustralia’s tree trimming contracts contain important and specific requirements covering contractors qualifications, expertise and experience; the use of fully insulated and tested tools and elevated work platforms; and the maintenance of certified quality, safety and environmental management systems. If councils wish to tender for future tree trimming contracts then they are encouraged to maintain contact with Energy Australia to ensure they register for a copy of the tender documents.

In addition a motion was also submitted on the cost of Local Government Elections, the update on this motion is provided in Corporate Services Report No. 53.

Proposed Motion for 2008 Local Government Association Annual Conference

Planning Arbitrators

The recent planning reforms passed by NSW Parliament included the role of Planning Arbitrators but as yet the NSW Government have not issued any information on their role and responsibilities with respect to local government. It is proposed to submit the following motion:-

“That the LGSA call upon the Minister for Planning to clarify the roles and responsibilities of Planning Arbitrators in the recent planning reform passed by parliament and their impact on local government”.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the motion on Planning Arbitrators included in the body of the report and give consideration to any further motions to be submitted for debate at the 2008 Local Government Association Conference.

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

Reference: Corporate Services Division Report No. 52

Subject: Request for Financial Assistance - Special Olympics

Record No: SU2371 - 27809/08

Author(s): Cudilla Crystal

Executive Summary

This report outlines further information in relation a request for financial assistance received from Special Olympics Australia. In particular, to join an initiative called ‘SportsFan 1000 Club’. It is recommended that Council determine whether to contribute the amounts requested upon consideration of this report.

Background

At its meeting of 21 July 2008, Council considered Corporate Services Division Report No. 46 on requests for financial assistance from the Australian Paralympic Committee and Special Olympics Australia (SO Australia). Letters were forwarded to Council seeking Council’s support for the Australian teams’ participation in the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games and the 2011 Special Olympics World Summer Games held in Athens (Attachment AT-1).

Upon considering the report, Council resolved:-

1. Contribute to the Australian Paralympic team in the amount of $500.00 and

(a) Public notice be given in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

(b) Subject to no objections being received, the financial assistance be provided.

2. A further report be provided to Council with more detail on the Special Olympics.

Discussion

SO Australia is an international non-profit organisation which allows people with an intellectual disability to become physically fit, to show courage, to participate in sport as respected members of the community and to make lifelong friends.

SO Australia aims to have all funds raised through ‘SportsFan 1000 Club’ (the Club) to directly benefit athletes from every region, from every part of the country - supporting 4500 athletes in 46 regions across Australia. The Club will seek to increase the number of people with an intellectual disability participating in sport every week and build positive aspects into their lives.

SO Australia is divided by state and then region, with the Lane Cove local government area falling under the Upper North Shore Region. The Upper North Shore Region supports approximately 110 athletes and currently has the following sporting programs in place:

· Cricket

· Bowling

· Tennis (x 3 groups)

· Dancing (x 3 groups)

· Swimming (x 2 groups)

· Learn to swim

· Gymnastics

· Soccer (x 2 groups)

· Basketball

· Softball

Council is invited to become a member of the Club by contributing either by way of:-

· $4,000.00 one-off payment or

· $1,000.00 donation per year (4 years) or

· $250.00 donation per quarter (4 years).

Alternatively, Council may wish to make a one-off donation to SO Australia similar to the resolution of 21 July 2008, to donate $500 to the Australian Paralympic Team.

Conclusion

Council has generally supported worthy causes such as SO Australia and it is recommended that Council determine whether to provide financial assistance as requested above or any other amount it deems appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1. Determine whether to contribute to the Australian Special Olympics team through the SportsFan 1000 Club and donate $4000 or to contribute a one-off amount as deemed appropriate.

2. If Council determines to proceed with financial assistance:-

(a) Public notice be given in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

(b) Subject to no objections being received, the financial assistance be provided.

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Special Olympics Australia re SportsFan 1000 Club membership

Reference: Corporate Services Division Report No. 53

Subject: Cost of Local Government Elections

Record No: SU2990 - 27816/08

Author(s): Ian Naylor

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise that Council has received correspondence from the LGSA concerning the increased cost of the Local Government Elections across NSW and further action the LGSA intends to take on councils behalf in determining if these costs are accurate.

Background

Council submitted the following motion at the 2007 Local Government Association Annual Conference:-

“That the NSW Government be called upon to review its decision to seek full cost recovery for the conduct of local government elections to provide a more cost-effective and affordable election system for NSW councils or alternatively allow councils to conduct their own elections”.

In the last 12 months the LGSA has been working with councils to put a case forward to the State Government that the costs issued to councils earlier this year by the NSW Electoral Commission are a significant increase from the cost of the 2004 Local Government Election and having some accountability in terms of how these costs have been determined..

Discussion

Council has received correspondence from the LGSA on 22 July 2008 (shown attached as AT 1) stating the actions proposed to seek a review of the costs for the 2008 Local Government Election. The LGSA has written to the NSW Electoral Commission asking for a complete breakdown of how the costs for each council have been worked out. In addition a letter has been sent to the Premier seeking as a matter of urgency an IPART review of these indicative costs. A copy of these letters are included in AT 1.

At this stage the LGSA is advising all NSW councils to write to the NSW Electoral Commission requesting that their election costs be paid over 2 years citing financial stress due to the impact these costs will have on council’s capacity to deliver services to the community. Previously, the NSW Electoral Commission has sent correspondence to all NSW councils stating that councils that are experiencing financial stress can apply to pay their election costs over 2 years.

If, an appropriate response is not received from the NSW Electoral Commission or the Premier on this matter the LGSA is proposing that information on how these costs were determined and calculated for each council be sought via Freedom of Information legislation.

In addition the Shires Association at their 2008 Annual Conference resolved to: “Advise the NSW Electoral Commission that councils will pay a maximum amount based on 2004 costs plus cumulative cpi”. This would be the last possible option and the LGSA is currently seeking advice as to whether this resolution is a course of action available to councils.

Conclusion

The indicative costs sent to councils from the NSW Electoral Commission for the Local Government Election have increased from 2008 dramatically in some cases in excess of 300%. This seems to be another case of cost-shifting onto Local Government. It is recommended that Council write to NSW Electoral Commission claiming financial stress due to the impact these costs will have on council’s capacity to deliver services to the community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council send a letter to the NSW Electoral Commisioner requesting that Lane Cove’s election costs be paid over 2 years due to the impact these costs will have on council’s capacity to deliver services to the community.

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Advise re Indicative costs for the 2008 Local Government Elections

5 Pages

Reference: Environmental Services Division Report No. 45

Subject: Draft Lane Cove Village Structure Plan

Record No: su3076 - 26932/08

Author(s): Brendan Metcalfe; Stephanie Bashford

Executive Summary

This report presents the Draft Lane Cove Village Structure Plan to Council attached at AT 1, and recommends adoption for public exhibition for six weeks from mid August 2008.

The Structure Plan initiated by Lane Cove ALIVE, seeks to provide a coherent framework for the village which Council will use to guide future development and assist the Village Centre to be an environmentally sustainable, commercially successful, active and social centre.

The plan was developed by a consultancy, City Plan Services, for Council, with guidance from a Steering Committee and input from Councillors and the community between November 2007 and June 2008. The Steering Committee included five Council Management staff members and two Lane Cove ALIVE representatives.

It should be noted that, whilst the Steering Committee has been involved throughout the process, it will reserve endorsement of the plan until after exhibition submissions have been considered. Examples of recommendations not formally endorsed include:-

· a design review panel, pros and cons of which would need consideration,

· pedestrian domain improvement, supported in principle, but strategies such as widening the footpath in Longueville Road and Epping Road gateway would be subject to the need to compensate for lost parking spaces, and

· encouraging mixed uses including retail which would depend on current retail needs and policies.

Background

The Process

City Plan Services (CPS) was engaged by Council in November 2007 to develop the Structure Plan. The key milestones in the project were:-

· the steering committee was formed on 5 November 2007, and subsequent meetings were held on 13 December 2007, 30 January and 4 April 2008,

· three Councillor information sessions / workshops were held on 19 November 2007, 9 February 2008 and 23 June 2008,

· a community workshop was held on 26 February 2008 with community leaders and residents. The workshop focused on presenting what a Structure Plan is, what it would do, a history of the Village Centre and gaining feedback on ideas that CPS had developed to that date.

CPS conducted a review of Council’s existing plans and policies and their relationship to current legislation and State plans. An urban design analysis of the Village Centre was also carried out. 3D models were developed to illustrate possible outcomes, which were featured in workshops and are contained in the draft plan. The relationship of urban form and social activity also formed an integral part of research.

Discussion

The Structure Plan Content

The role of the plan is to ensure that Council’s strategic aims are met at the local level, coordinate existing plans and policies, and provide urban design guidelines for the village centre.

To facilitate this the plan includes an Urban Design Vision in section 2. The background research discussed above forms section 3. Recommendations of the plan are contained in the Structure Plan Framework, section 4. Precinct Objectives and Guidelines give more detailed character statements on the 7 precincts identified by the plan in section 5, with tools for strategy implementation outlined in section 6. The draft Lane Cove Market Square Link is an appendix to the plan and is attached at AT 2.

The draft plan contains concepts and options that emerged during its development. The steering committee is aware that Council may or may not wish to pursue every element of the study, however, for purposes of exhibition it is recommended that the draft plan be endorsed in its current form for public comment.

Key Recommendations of the Plan

The key recommendations by City Plan Services are to:-

1. Expand pedestrian domain by:

a. creating a Village Square on part of the land between Rosenthal Avenue and Birdwood Lane;

b. footpath widening of Longueville Rd to allow more cafe/dining seating;

c. public space upgrades along Birdwood Lane and Little Lane;

d. reclaiming public space for pedestrians at the intersection of Longueville Rd with Epping Road - the main gateway / forecourt to the town centre.

e. activating the public space in front of the Library and the Community Centre on both sides of Longueville Rd / south of Central Avenue.

2. Reinforce fine grain mix of uses by:

f. providing incentives for shop top housing.

g. supporting mix of uses (retail, office, cultural and residential) on all large development sites, including the Gateway precinct, Rosenthal Avenue and Little Lane car park sites.

3. Provide active street edges and improve design quality of the built form by:

h. more sophisticated design guidelines (DCP) for commercial development.

i. setting up a design review panel to provide advice on major development

j. mandating architecture competition for the key gateway sites at Longueville Rd/Epping Rd.

4. Improve access by:

k. encouraging efficient, healthy and cost effective transport modes such as walking and cycling by improving the pedestrian domain (see point 1)

l. encouraging public transport usage by relocating bus routes from Little Street to Longueville Road;

m. reduce pass-through car traffic by creating alternative routes such as Cox’s Lane and direct connection between Rosenthal Avenue and Epping Rd. (Council will report on preliminary investigations on such road matters following exhibition.)

n. prepare a Sustainable Transport Strategy.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to seek public comment on the draft plan. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with finalisation of the plan in its current form or with amendment to it.

Method

Draft Plan
Level of Participation	Inform	Involve
Form of Participation	Seeking comment	Seeking comment
Target Audience	General Public	Targeted
Proposed Medium	Advertising in local newspaper, public exhibition at the Civic Centre, Lane Cove ALIVE office, Lane Cove Library and online exhibition on Council’s website. Hard copies available for viewing and electronic documents available for download.	Web-based notification of community leaders and groups connected to the Village Centre through email notification and strategic bulletin. Hard copy notification letters to business owners connected to the Village.
Indicative Timing	6 week period over August and September	6 week period over August and September

Conclusion

The Lane Cove Village Structure Plan attached at AT 1 is recommended for adoption for purposes of exhibition. The plan is a result of an eight month project by a consultancy, City Plan Services, who were engaged by Council to provide a framework to guide development and create an environmentally sustainable, commercially successful, active and social village centre. There has been considerable consultation with key stakeholders during the plan’s preparation.

The draft plan’s recommendations have not been formally endorsed by the Steering Committee and will be reviewed in context of submissions received during a proposed six week exhibition, prior to consideration of the final draft by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. Council adopt the Draft Lane Cove Village Structure Plan for purposes of exhibition and exhibit it for a period of six weeks.

2. Property owners and businesses within the study area be notified in writing and the general public by advertisement, website and email, and invited to comment on the draft plan.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Draft Lane Cove Village Structure Plan	97 Pages
AT‑2 View	draft Market Square Link - Urban Design Strategy	32 Pages

Reference: Environmental Services Division Report No. 46

Subject: Little Lane Carpark - Draft Development Control Plan

Record No: SU3164 - 26968/08

Author(s): Stephanie Bashford

Executive Summary

In December 2007, Scape Scott Carver P/L reported on the development of planning controls for the Little Lane Carpark site. A draft DCP to guide development on the site has subsequently been prepared by Scape P/L, consultants, for Council’s consideration. This report recommends that Council adopt the draft Development Control Plan for exhibition.

Background

The General Manager’s Report No 32 to the Ordinary meeting of 17 December 2007 presented the Little Lane Carpark - Draft Development Control Plan prepared by Scape Scott Carver P/L.

At that time, rather than adopt the draft plan immediately, Council requested the General Manager to consider some remaining development controls identified by Scott Carver for addition to a draft site specific Development Control Plan, and report back to Council in February 2008 with the draft DCP ready to be placed on public exhibition and considered at the same time as the DLEP was considered by Council.

The draft DCP, attached at AT 1, has been independently prepared by Scape P/L, with input from Council’s plananing staff, taking into consideration their previous work and work undertaken by City Plan Services P/L for the Village Structure Plan.

Discussion

This is an important site within Council’s Major Projects Plan and merits a site-specific development control plan.

As set out in Attachment 1, the draft DCP aims to ensure that development of the site is consistent with Council’s desired future outcome of the area by establishing clear and consistent guidelines to achieve the following objectives:-

a) Create a well designed built form providing streetscapes and vistas that contribute positively to the diversity and viability of the Lane Cove Village Centre;

b) Maintain reasonable solar access to adjoining residential development;

c) Accommodate community facilities within the development;

d) Accommodate public car parking within the basement of the building;

e) Adopt a contemporary approach to design and improved sustainability while maintaining the site’s leafy outlook;

f) Promote a built form which relates well with existing buildings and streetscape, but will also suit the desired future character of the Lane Cove Village Centre and its surrounds;

g) Provide for the creation of attractive and functional residential and commercial spaces;

h) Prevent, as far as possible, any adverse impacts on existing residential and commercial uses;

i) Provide for an animated, safe and attractive public domain with suitable landscaping and contributes to the Centre’s pedestrian network; and

j) Optimise the use of passive technologies in building design, construction and operation to increase environmental, social and economic sustainability.

The Plan sets out the site context, public domain principles and development controls.

The Plan would operate in conjunction with other applicable DCPs, except that it would prevail over any inconsistencies with the Business and Residential Zones DCPs and the SEPP 65 Residential Flat Design Code.

In regard to carparking, the plan allows flexibility for up to 5% (10 carparking spaces) in the number of parking spaces if it can be demonstrated that full provision is not economically viable). The plan also allows for car parking requirements of commercial uses to be included as public car parking spaces up to a maximum of 50 in excess of 150 public carparking spaces provided. Given the amount of public carparking provided within the development, no additional carparking for community uses would be required.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to provide public awareness of the draft Little Lane DCP. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine any modifications that may be required before the Little Lane Carpark Development Control Plan becomes effective.

Method

Draft Little Lane Car Park – Development Control Plan (DCP)
Level of Participation	Inform	Involve
Form of Participation	Open	Seeking comment
Target Audience	The Community	Targetted
Proposed Medium	Public notification in local media, public exhibition at the Civic Centre, Lane Cove Library and online exhibition on website.	Notification letters. Surrounding Neighbours, Lane Cove North Residents Association, Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce and Lane Cove ALIVE. Written submissions to be received.
Indicative Timing	August/September 2008	August/September 2008

Conclusion

The draft Development Control Plan for the Little Lane Carpark, prepared by consultancy Scape P/L, in conjunction with other development controls which apply, provides for an adequate level of development control to guide a reasonable level of future development of the site for community benefit. It would permit flexibility for a range of design options, within a floor space ratio comparable with that existing in the Village centre.

It is recommended that Council adopt the draft DCP for exhibition for a period of six weeks.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1. Council endorse the draft Little Lane Carpark Development Control Plan prepared by Scape P/L dated August 2008;

2. Place the draft Little Lane Carpark Development Control Plan on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks; and

3. Note the consultation strategy proposed in the report.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft DCP Little Lane carpark site - Scape (Greg Dowling)

19 Pages

Reference: Environmental Services Division Report No. 47

Subject: Draft Amendment 66 - 83 & 85 Kenneth Street Covenants

Record No: SU3079 - 27263/08

Author(s): Brendan Metcalfe

Executive Summary

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 Amendment No. 66 – 83 & 85 Kenneth Street (DLEP 66), attached at AT1 has been exhibited and is now recommended for adoption by Council and submission to the Department of Planning for gazettal. A single submission was received during the recent public exhibition in support of the amendment.

The DLEP would suspend a restrictive covenant which permitted the construction of only one dwelling on Lot 17, DP 29396, 83 Kenneth Street. That property was subdivided in February 2004 to create Lots 1 and 2 in DP 1063151, known as 83 & 85 Kenneth Street. The suspension would allow the construction of one dwelling on each property.

Background

In December 2006 Draft Local Environmental Plan 1987 Amendment No.62 – 83 & 85 Kenneth Street (DLEP 62) was gazetted. Council had prepared the Draft Amendment for the purpose of suspending a covenant to permit the subdivision of land in accordance with Council’s minimum lot policy and development of two houses in accordance with existing development consents.

In March 2007, a legal challenge was lodged with the Land & Environment Court raising concern as to the processing of the DLEP by the Department of Planning. In September 2007, the Court declared DLEP 62 invalid on the grounds of procedural error by the Minister.

A submission had been made in the court case that, in the course of amendments being made to DLEP 62 after its exhibition, the owner of 3 Amalfi Place had been denied an adequate opportunity to make a submission requesting the same right to have a covenant over their property suspended.

It has been confirmed in discussion with legal counsel and the Department of Planning that, in order to achieve the purpose intended in 2006, the required process for Council was to prepare a new LEP amendment for 83 and 85 Kenneth Street and then, subject to consideration of submissions, seek gazettal. DLEP 66 was prepared to that effect, adopted at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 October 2007 for purposes of exhibition and forwarded to the Department of Planning (s.54 stage seeking exhibition).

On 22 October 2007, Council received a request from the owner of 3 Amalfi Place, Longueville to amend the Local Environmental Plan 1987 to permit the suspension of a covenant affecting that property, so as to permit a two-storey dwelling. The basis given by the owner of 3 Amalfi Place for the present request is to allow comparable development opportunities for both properties to minimise loss of amenity and views, and address an imbalance stated by the Court to be created by the removal of only one covenant between neighbouring properties.

On 19 November 2007, Council adopted Draft LEP Amendment No. 67 - 3 Amalfi Place, which was then forwarded to the Department of Planning (s.54 stage). The Department’s consent to exhibit Draft LEPs 66 and 67 was on the condition that they both be amalgamated as Draft LEP 66.

The combined DLEP 66 for 83 & 85 Kenneth Street and 3 Amalfi Place was exhibited between 11 January and 22 February 2008. Fifteen submissions were received during that time with 6 in support and 9 objecting to DLEP 66.

To ensure that former submissions can be taken into account, the supporting submissions’ comments included that:-

· adoption of DLEP 66 would:-

o bring certainty to the owners of 83 & 85 Kenneth Street,

o address the procedural unfairness of DLEP 62, and

o set a welcome precedent for other properties in Amalfi Place.

· covenants were an outdated planning practice and that Council’s current planning controls should apply across the LGA.

Noted were also the facts that:-

· Council has been required by the Department of Planning to include a generic suspension of covenants clause in DLEP 2007 and

· that there are existing DA approvals for houses on 83 & 85 Kenneth Street.

Issues for objectors to DLEP 66 included:-

· A loss of property values for those enjoying the benefit of the covenants

· That the properties burdened by covenants would receive a financial windfall if covenants were suspended

· There will be a loss of the character intended by the original subdivision

· That DLEP 66 sets an unwelcome precent for Amalfi Place and for the municipality generally

· That the amenity issues of height, views and privacy, would suffer as a result of any development application submitted as a result of this DLEP or any suspension of covenant in the area

· That Council refer all requests for suspension of covenants to the Supreme Court for removal rather than use an amending LEP

· The question as to why 3 Amalfi Place was included in DLEP 66

· Heritage restrictions on 30 Mary Street limiting development should other covenants in the area be suspended.

17 March 2008 Council resolved inter alia, to support the suspension of the covenant applying to 83 & 85 Kenneth Street only and endorse staff actions to facilitate this. Council submitted this view to the Department of Planning.

By letter of 30 May 2008, the Department of Planning advised that a reasonable course of action would be to re-exhibit DLEP 66, and that the original s.65 certificate from the Department dated 10 January 2008 would permit exhibition.

DLEP 66 was amended to only include 83 & 85 Kenneth Street and publicly exhibited from 25 June to 23 July 2008. The Draft LEP was advertised, relevant property owners and parties who had previously made submissions to the DLEP were advised in writing and notice placed on Council’s website. A single submission circulated to Councillors with this report, was received and is discussed below.

Discussion

The single submission received in support of DLEP 66 gave the following reasons supporting proceeding to gazettal:-

· That 83 & 85 Kenneth Street have approved development applications, and construction has been delayed whilst the amendment was prepared

· That private covenants should not impede local and state planning controls

· That the proposed dwellings comply with DLEP 2008.

The covenant in this case relates to a restriction of one dwelling on one lot in a subdivision, formerly Lot 17 in DP29396. That lot has had development approvals for subdivision into two lots (Lot 1 & 2 in DP 1063151), being 83 and 85 Kenneth Street. Each lot has development approval for a dwelling house.

Amenity issues such as height, views and privacy were taken into account in granting approval of these development applications. Council has previously expressed support for the proposal in August 2006, September 2007 and more recently at the Meeting of 17 March 2008. It appears reasonable to proceed now to finalise this long-standing policy.

Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008

Clause 1.8A(1) of the Draft Comprehensive LEP (DLEP 2008) includes the following generic suspension of covenants clause, required by the Department of Planning:-

“For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a development consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose.”

This means that Council would, in due course gain the power to suspend covenants on this site and any other in the LGA in any case. However, in view of the lengthier timeframe expected for the LGA-wide plan to be finalized, the applicant has requested that Draft LEP amendment No. 66 be prepared and adopted independently of DLEP 2008.

Conclusion

After considering the submissions made to this and previous exhibitions of DLEP 66, it is recommended that Council adopt for gazettal DLEP 66, attached at AT 1, which would suspend a covenant applying over 83 & 85 Kenneth Street, permitting development applications approved some time ago to be finalised.

The comprehensive LEP would, in any case, provide a generic suspension of covenants clause subsequently, as required by the Department of Planning for properties generally. However, it is recommended that this specific amendment proceed independently to provide certainty for the owner at the earliest opportunity.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council-

1. Adopt the Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 Amendment No. 66 – 83 & 85 Kenneth Street and forward it to the Department of Planning for gazettal.

2. Send a letter to all those who made submissions to exhibitions held in 2007 and 2008 on this issue and advise them of Council’s Resolution.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft LEP Amendment No. 66 - 83 & 85 Kenneth Street

1 Page

Reference: Environmental Services Division Report No. 324

Subject: 28 George Street, Greenwich

Record No: DA07/304 - 27386/08

Author(s): Michael Mason

Property: 28 George Street, Greenwich

DA No: DA304/07

Date Lodged: 11 October 2007

Amended Plans: Yes

Cost of Work: $200,000

Owner : P & AM Bennett

Author: Rajiv Shankar

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and erection of a carport
ZONE	Residential 2(a2)
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?	Yes
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?	No
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?	Yes
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?	No
BCA CLASSIFICATION	Class 1a and 10a
STOP THE CLOCK USED	Yes
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 2,4,6 Mitchell Street, 26,27,29,31 George St, 7,9 Richard St Ward Councillors Clr R DÁmico, Clr R Tudge, Clr T Lawson Progress Association Greenwich Community Association

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

The original application was deferred for mediation of outstanding objections between stakeholders vide Council Resolution 128. The application is now referred to Council for final determination.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To enable Council to determine an application for alterations and additions at 28 George Street, Greenwich.

Background

Council will recall that the above application was originally referred to Council’s Planning and Building Committee on 21 April 2008 by Clr Lawson because of objections and issues relating to view sharing See Original Report attached (AT1).

The Planning and Building Committee referred the matter to an Inspection Committee dated 3 May which was subsequently referred to full Council meeting of 5 May. See Inspection Committee Report attached (AT2).

Council at its meeting of 5 May resolved (128), on the motion of Councillors Longbottom and D’Amico, that consideration of the matter be deferred for mediation between the applicant and [that] the matter be referred back to the next Council meeting.

Discussion

Given the number of stakeholders and issues involved, it was sometime before a mutually convenient mediation meeting was held. An initial mediation meeting of stakeholders and advisors was held at Council’s chambers on 15 May 2008.

As with all mediation exercises conducted the views and recommendations of the staff are put to one side and all interaction between participants are voluntary and without prejudice. That, in effect, means any party (applicant/objector) may withdraw from the process without prejudice or detail of discussion being used or referred to either in Council or Court.

I wish to advise, subsequent to the initial mediation meeting of 15 May, that one party has withdrawn from the process and, as such, I advise Council that mediation of outstanding objections for alterations and additions at 28 George Street has failed.

The original report to Council dated 21 April is reproduced at (AT1) and referred back to Council for final determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council determine the matter.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Original Report to Council of 21 April 2008	14 Pages
AT‑2 View	Report of Inspection Committee meeting 3 May 2008	2 Pages

Reference: Environmental Services Division Report No. 48

Subject: Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (DLEP 2008)

Record No: SU1454 - 27844/08

Author(s): Stephanie Bashford

Executive Summary

The Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (DLEP) is submitted to Council and recommended for adoption, subject to amendments made since the second exhibition. A copy of the DLEP is attached at AT1.

The Comprehensive LEP Review commenced in 2000 and has complied with the various stages of NSW Planning Reforms since 2001. It conforms with the Metropolitan Strategy and Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy’s residential (2,700 dwellings for 15 years) and employment (6,500 jobs for 25 years) targets as agreed upon with the Department of Planning.

The LEP is required to be reviewed within five years of gazettal. Additionally a review is required within twelve months of the Exempt and Complying provisions. Furthermore it is foreseeable that legislative and policy changes at state and/or local level will result in amendments being made within the short, medium and long term of a comprehensive plan, given the evolving nature of planning in a dynamic municipality. In view of this, and the importance of providing community certainty regarding private and public lands after eight years of the plan’s preparation, it is strongly recommended that the draft LEP now proceed to gazettal.

Background

Council Report No.42 for the Ordinary Meeting of 21 July 2008 provided Council with an overview of the process which had led up to the DLEP being placed on its second exhibition.

This exhibition was held from 27 June 2008 to 5pm 25 July 2008, being the statutory 28 day period.

As advised in that report, the Department of Planning had on 27 June issued the section 65 certificate (AT 2) requiring the plan to be issued in a format which, among other matters, would have produced a potential new dwellings yield of over 5,000, being double the target agreed in May this year of 2,700 for the Stage 1 (15-year) period to 2021, which would be 70% of the total 25 year target of 3,900.

Council wrote to the Department on 1 July 2008 expressing considerable concerns at this departure from the Metropolitan Strategy. A copy of that letter is at AT3.

The Department of Planning responded mid-exhibition by letter of 15 July 2008, a copy of which is attached at AT4. It confirmed that the Stage 1 target would now be permitted to remain at 70% (2,730 dwellings). Other details are discussed below.

Discussion

In total 190 submissions were received on the second exhibition (additional to those provided on the first exhibition). A copy of the submissions summary, which has been circulated to Councillors, will be available at Council, Lane Cove Library and on the website from Friday 1 August.

These submissions have been reviewed and the DLEP has also had regard to the section 65 certificate issued by the Department of Planning on 27 June, their letter of 15 July and Council’s resolutions of 21 July, which were as follows:-

1. “Council note the report.

2. Council note the Section 65 Certificate required a number of changes to the DLEP 2007 which are not supported by Council and do not reflect the community’s concerns.

3. The General Manager, noting comments made in relation to Gordon Crescent and the nearby Department of Housing, seek further meetings with the Departments of Planning and Housing to return Gordon Crescent as a lower density zone and a more appropriate FSR for the Department of Housing and precinct.”

DLEP 2008 now submitted to Council after the second exhibition is proposed to closely reproduce the draft plan as adopted by Council at its meetings of 10 and 16 June 2008 (rather than the Department’s requirements under the section 65 certificate), with the following key variations.

Residential

An overview of the proposals for residential rezonings and their scale to date is attached at AT5.

A schedule of the full set of residential growth areas and dwelling numbers proposed for finalisation in the DLEP is attached at AT6.

The key residential amendments are as follows:

Shell Site, 150 Epping Road

This site was recommended for residential rezoning by Council on 10 June, but the Department has advised that it is to remain industrial, as in the first exhibition (DLEP 2007). It is therefore not included in the dwelling figures. It is, however, recommended that Council request the Department to reverse this decision. If this were to occur, it is recommended that the residential component of the Mixed Use zone on Pacific Highway could be removed from the residential yield.

Stringybark Creek Area

It is emphasised that the exhibition of the entire area bounded by Stringybark Creek Reserve, Mowbray Road, Centennial Avenue and Willandra Street was not the initiative of Council but a requirement of the section 65 certificate. Whilst the Department has now agreed that this may be varied, it remains supportive of a partial rezoning of that area in response to submissions by the Department of Housing, which owns substantial numbers of properties in the western portion. In preliminary discussions with the Department of Housing since their latest submission, they have advised that their priorities are:-

* family accommodation at a smaller scale and higher density than traditional detached

housing

* clusters of diverse forms of housing from townhouses to 3-6 storey blocks, to better fit in

with the character of each area, rather than dominating it with large housing blocks.

The Department of Housing in discussions acknowledged the topographical constraints of the Kullah Parade precinct (south of Mindarie St) in particular. In the Mindarie precinct (south of Mowbray Road, around Merinda St/ Pinaroo Place), however, they own a substantial number of properties and wish to increase their housing opportunities. The following was supported, subject to the Department of Housing’s formal confirmation which is expected by the meeting of 4 August:-

It is recommended that high density not proceed in Mowbray road above Gordon crescent in view of the additional dwellings near that area for the Department of Housing, adding to the concern of the residents in the vicinity.

High Density R4 – FSR 1.5:1 – Height 18 Metres

(i) The block bounded by Mowbray Rd, Hatfield St, Willandra St and Stringybark Creek Reserve

(ii) The small block which includes their existing 4-5 storey flats: Nos.562-592

(iii) Mowbray Rd, 2-6 Mindarie St

Medium Density R3 – FSR 0.7:1 – Height 9.5 Metres

(i) The block bounded by Mowbray Rd, Hatfield St and Kullah Parade (this has

(ii) been zoned for townhouses since 1999)

Low Density R2 – FSR 0.5:1 – Height 9.5 Metres

(i) The block bounded by Kullah Parade, Hatfield St and Girraween Av, other than

that described above.

Council’s Open Space Manager and Assets Manager have advised that this rezoning is acceptable, on the grounds that residential flats have a relatively low impact on bushland, and the area’s redevelopment would provide an opportunity to upgrade stormwater and sewerage services currently affecting some parts of the reserve. Council’s strategic planning section would prepare detailed Development Control Plan provisions to screen development from visual impact viewed from properties on the opposite side of Stringybark Creek. The area proposed is within walking distance of Mowbray Road and Epping Road bus transport, and also some daily convenience shops.

Little Lane Carpark Site

This site’s FSR has been slightly increased to 2.7:1 from 2.5:1 on the basis of an independent feasibility study (the subject of other reporting to Council). This is supported on the grounds that it is comparable with the existing floor space ratio of 2.5:1 applying to the Lane Cove Village, whilst permitting flexible development options for consideration by Council and the community at the appropriate stage.

Pacific Highway Between Longueville Road and Gatacre Avenue

This area, containing an ageing commercial strip, is now proposed for Mixed Use B4 zoning with an FSR of 2:1 and height of 18 metres (5-6 storeys). This follows consideration of shadow models which indicate that separate tower buildings, linked by low-scale sections to retain the current noise buffer, may offer the most appropriate flexible options to meet the dual aims of variably revitalising this area while maintaining the amenity of residences in Mafeking and Gatacre Avenues.

Whether a residential yield is appropriate here may depend on whether or not the Shell site is rezoned for residential. The potential dwelling numbers have been counted only at a conservative rate in any case, on the grounds that the site may be fully redeveloped for commercial use. If, however, residential units are developed, this could be taken into account in considering the Stage 2 growth areas.

15-47 Longueville Rd & 2-4 Burley St (RTA Site)

This area is to have a FSR of 2:1 and Height of 18 metres, rather than FSR 4:1 and Height 12 metres.

Nield Avenue

This site was exhibited at FSR 1.5 and height 15 metres to allow comment on this proposal made by the owner for Waterbrook II. It is now recommended, however, that the scale of the first exhibition be retained, that is, FSR 1.2:1 and height 12 metres. This is on the grounds that the site is in a transitional location between flats on the highway (1.5:1), flats to east and west (0.85:1) and detached houses (0.5:1), as well as the fact that SEPP 1 would permit increased scale subject to merit issues (such as shadowing, privacy and views).

3D shadow models prepared by Council and the owner were considered, and added mid-exhibition to the display, however, this issue requires careful consideration with any future development application as the area’s substantial vegetation impedes full shadow assessment at this stage.

Notwithstanding the strategic planners view above, Council is requested to consider diagram with the Waterbrook II submission and resolve whether they think the scale of FSR 1.5:1 and Height 15m may still be more appropriate.

St. Leonards Commercial Area/ Marshall Avenue

It is recommended that the increased FSRs and heights for the revitalisation of this area are proposed to remain as exhibited, subject to one amendment. The Naturecare College at Nos.46-50 Nicholson Street and 59-65 Christie Street requested an increase to FSR 9:1 and height to 50 metres. In view of the significance of this tertiary-accredited college within St. Leonards’ educational precinct, as supported by the St. Leonards Strategy, and the fact that the shadow from the proposal would fall generally within that from the higher Pacific Highway sites, this amendment is recommended as it would enable an integrated redevelopment modernising the currently dispensed campus.

North Sydney Council has indicated its support in discussions in recent weeks for the increases in scale in St Leonards.

Industrial Area

The Lane Cove West Business Park has been required by the Department of Planning to remain at FSR of 1:1 with a height of 18 metres, rather than Council’s recommended FSR of 1.5:1 and height of 21 metres.

Bushland

(i) Environmental Conservation Zone

As advised on 21 July, the Department has agreed to the use of the Environmental Conservation E2 Zone over the area protected for the past twenty years by LEP 1987’s Bushland 6(b) zone.

(ii) Environmental Protection

This overlay was applied in the DLEP 2007 to the private properties in Northwood Road formerly covered by a Regional Open Space Reservation 9(c) zone, but no longer intended for acquisition by the Department of Planning. On 10 June Council agreed to the Environmental Protection overlay’s removal on the submission of a group of property owners.

The Open Space and Bushland Managers have recommended that the overlay should be reinstated on Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Northwood Road, but could appropriately be removed from the other properties. The grounds for this recommendation are attached at AT7 and are supported. This would ensure that almost all of the foreshore surrounding Woodford Bay would remain substantially landscaped as viewed from the waterway and surrounding localities.

(iii) Other Protection

The DLEP proposes text amendments to clarify the broad objectives for bushland and riparian conservation. This would supplement the Council approach on 16 June of strengthening the LEP’s objectives overall.

Reclassification of Council Lands

A Public Hearing was conducted by Mr. Ian Ellis-Jones, Solicitor, into the reclassification of two sites to operational land from community land: (i) 314 Burns Bay Road and (ii) 10 Chaplin Drive. His report concludes that the reclassification of both sites is appropriate, and is attached at AT8.

It is recommended on this basis that the study on 314 Burns Bay Road by Scott Carver, which was displayed for two months with DLEP 2007, now be endorsed by Council. This endorsement would not commit Council to any of the specific forms of development discussed in the report, but would indicate to the community the broad approach which would be feasible following reclassification of the land. Councillors were provided with a copy of the draft report prior to its display earlier this year.

Covenants

The section 65 certificate required that the generic supervision of covenants Clause 1.8A be retained as in DLEP 2007, rather than being restricted to non-residential properties as agreed by Council on 10 June.

Council has, however, resolved some time ago to prepare a protocol for consideration of DAs for covenant sites during the forthcoming DCP review.

Exempt and Complying Development

The Department requires that a review of these provisions be undertaken within twelve months of the LEP’s gazettal. This will take into account the Exempt & Complying amendments to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act articulated in legislation in the interim which Council would be required to reflect in its planning documents.

Heritage

An independent consultant’s study on Heritage will be the subject of a future report to Council. It will be recommended that any substantive changes proposed to the LEP’s Heritage Register in response to recent public submissions be amended within the same twelve month period as or the Exempt and Complying provisions.

Reservations

Areas required by the RTA to remain mapped as reservation may possibly be able to be rezoned to the prevailing zone before gazettal subject to surface works finalisation from the tunnel project.

Conclusion

The Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (DLEP 2008) conforms with the Metropolitan Strategy and the NSW Standard LEP format. Following consultation with the community, the Department of Planning and other key stakeholders, it has been amended in response to issues raised in a substantial range of submissions.

It is now recommended that the DLEP 2008 be adopted as final by Council, subject to the amendments made since the second exhibition, and forwarded to Department of Planning seeking its gazettal.

The Public Hearing Report’s recommendations on 314 Burns Bay Road and 10 Chaplin Drive are recommended for endorsement for the reclassification of those sites to operational land.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan, as amended at this meeting, be adopted for submission to the Department of Planning seeking gazettal.

2. The Department of Planning be requested to permit the Shell site at 150 Epping Road to be rezoned to High Density Residential R4 from Light Industrial IN2, and in the event of this being granted, the residential component in the Pacific Highway Mixed Use Zone between Longueville Rd and Gatacre Av be deferred or counted in the Stage 2 yield.

3. The lands being Part-314 Burns Bay Road and 10 Chaplin Drive be reclassified to operational from community, in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Hearing Report by I. Ellis-Jones, dated July 2008.

4. The report on 314 Burns Bay Road by Scott Carver P/l, displayed from 29 December 2007 to 29 February 2008, be accepted by Council.

5. Advice of Council’s resolutions in writing be sent to those who made submissions on DLEP 2007 and/or DLEP 2008.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	DLEP 2008 for 4 August 2008	92 Pages
AT‑2 View	Section 65 Certificate	9 Pages
AT‑3 View	Council's letter to Dept of Planning 1 7 08	3 Pages
AT‑4 View	Department's response of 15 7 08	2 Pages
AT‑5 View	DLEP 2008 Residential changes 31 7 08	1 Page
AT‑6 View	DLEP 2008 Growth Options 31 7 08	1 Page
AT‑7 View	Environmental Protection Northwood -- Open Space comments 25 7 08	1 Page
AT‑8 View	Public Hearing Report 314 Burns Bay Rd & 10 Chaplin Drive IEJ July 2008	19 Pages